13.4 C
New York
Tuesday, July 23, 2024
HomeUncategorizedPseudoscience of Philosophies - Part 2

Everything is a “mental illness”. Increasingly, alibis gather around the social spectrum, from the movie making capital to the U.S. capital, mitigating and capitalizing on theoretical conjectures allegedly supported by substantial scientific credibility. So many excuses for maladaptive behavior have appeared over the years, which anyone can hardly be held accountable for anything. Politicians and pundits, as well as “reality” TV, news shows, movies and soup operas, perpetrate a debasing discourse of magical thinking. Claiming a scientific basis, the pseudosciences fall short on evidence.

In such fields, for instance criminology, psychology and sociology, many adherents, as well as upcoming proselytes, assume such philosophical perspectives are real sciences. By contrast, outspoken claimants become very sensitive when confronted by the reality they are not the same as astronomy, nuclear physics, chemistry or biology. The arguments one way or the other will likely accomplish little. Realistically, it is too late to make radical changes in contemporary mainstream thinking. As the human species enters the high probability of eventual extinction, little progress will be made.

Pseudoscience is simply a point view, belief system, practice or philosophies that are presented to be scientific, but do not undergo the rigors of scientific methodology are required in physics for example. Further as to that point, the “scientific community” must generally agree the credible and authentic science behind the claim. In American jurisprudence, that is a requirement. Absent the evidentiary criteria as required in a court of law, to prove and issues beyond a reasonable doubt, a mere opinion is exactly that, an opinion. A court might consider such a view as “expert opinion”.

Yes, many “experts” claim many things. However, since the U.S. operates under an adversarial legal system, both sides, and other associated parties get to challenge and otherwise disagree with those opinions. As such, a question arises. If a particular school of thought has an opinion as to “why” a person committed a horrific tragedy, then how is the other side of the controversy allowed rebuttal evidence? Answer, because it is opinion, not science. Science must rise to a higher standard. This means the one offering the defense of one philosophical perspective can be debunked and challenged as to the efficacy of their conjecture. And, there are many “schools of thought” or opinions.

As such, the debates rage on, many are unhappy, fearful and contentious, as their cherished notions come down to wishful thinking. For the public, politicians and pundits of infotainment and mass consumption marketing, the sound bites are crucial to sales and ratings. The more simplistic, people feel good, feel safe and feel assured the human species is still in control of planetary forces. That of course is deceptive. Instead, humankind continues to plunder the environment, dumb itself down and cascade into an avalanche of stupidity racing toward eventual extinction. The pseudosciences are notorious for the perpetrations of misleading conjecture disguised as “science”.

The debauchery continues, as criminality surges in more diverse ways and means. At the same time, the fraudulent promotion of “mental illness”, perpetrated by pseudoscience, supported by nebulous “diagnoses”, foster the gluttonous self-indulgence of a devolving society. The myriad swindles are cleverly cloaked in the “addictions” of everything. Even though a few credible researchers and serious scientists shun such use of the word “addiction”, mainstream quackery continues to promulgate the salesmanship. Corporate and political collusions of one sort or another, along with a vast pharmaceutical industry, rely on the promotion of non-science sleight of hand.

Of the culprits, the offenders can be found in the not so hallowed halls of academia. If you are a “social philosopher”, as in the fields of criminology, sociology and psychology, and primarily a theorist, as opposed to real world practitioners, questionable conjecture is easy to conjure. For instance, people who have never left academia have written most college textbooks in these fields. Then again, scrutiny of claimed “real world” experience must be carefully analyzed. Where did that alleged expertise come from?

What are the scientific basis, credible evidence and authentic proof for validation of any claim? What mechanical, chemical and electrical proofs are there? Such as, is there a blood test, an x-ray, or an EKG, for “mental illness”, or any subsequent “diagnosis” of anything non-organic? Does it show beyond any doubt such a thing exists in the DNA structure? The complicity for such speciousness extends to corporate boardroom and the cloakrooms of politicians. Business interests pursue the avarice of moneymaking opportunities in the suffering of others, while politicians see perpetuity of office holding. Vast numbers of people, fearful of their own self-evolutional and psychic liberation, acquiesce easily to their own enslavement to a debasing consumer culture.

Given the range of foolish behaviors unfolding, across a diverse international spectrum of people, there are alarming numbers of “anti-thinking” perpetrations every day. Purposely naïve and intentionally gullible it is easier to consume that which is simplistic, trouble-free and a convenient superficial excuse. Along with that, is one study that has suggested a decline in I.Q. scores over the past two or three generations. Meanwhile, another body exploration offers discouraging ramifications as to a rise in superstitious beliefs and a moving away from serious scientific inquiry. As extreme ideological perspectives gain greater influence, intellectual capacities suffer.

In other studies, according to findings in a major online journal, there is mounting concern over the perceived “dumbing down” of American society. As suggested, some researchers and futurists present convincing speculation that the public is growing increasingly inclined toward “anti-intellectualism”, as opposed to scientific evidence. Along with that, a number of claimants from the scientific community lament an increased reliance on unsubstantiated conjecture, as opposed to data driven critical analysis. Typically, people prefer quick and easy answers to complex issues.

As to belief systems, especially those steeped heavily in magical, legendary and mythical thinking, the criticality of social progress and human advancement devolve to primordial levels. The continuing rise of superstitions, the paranormal and the occult, interplanetary conspiracies and religious dogmatism, to name a few, presents dangerously regressive prospects for a more enlightened and advanced species. Disturbing implications for a “culture of ignorance”, simply stated as stupidity, threatens political and social instability on a broad scale. An unsteady grasp of basic intellectual capabilities portends a dark future, in which entire social systems collapse.

With regard to a “conflict model” of social interaction, one journalist has referred to the current situation as “idiot America”, whereby virtue has been replaced by stupidity. As a result of intentional idiocy, the assertion is made that commercially and politically, the advantage goes to those more powerful. As such, there is profit for the profiteers and power for the politicians to have a stupid consumer populace. Purposeful ignorance is the easy way out of having to be self-reliant and shrewdly intuitive. It is hard work to thinking independently, conduct original research and insist upon evidentiary criteria. In particular, the pseudosciences help perpetuate the devolutionary process.

What joy there must be for the folly of theory leaping to the hasty generalizations of pretentions factuality merely based on someone’s opinion? Yet, it happens every day throughout an allegedly “education” American culture. When theory becomes actuality, absent solid scientific evidence, or substantial proof in reality of the real world, there are devastating social consequences. Nonetheless, commercial interests have been constructed upon such pretentious claims, assertions, and illusions to science. Unproven hypothetical conjecture has fueled wild speculations in crime stories, television dramas, documentaries, as though such are accepted evidentiary standards.

Entire academic careers have fostered an array of non-practitioner “experts”, who offer the “expertise of opinions” on network news shows. Of marketing schemes and masked themes, the social nexus is rife with all manner of ideology screaming for viability without earning evidentiary universality. In the commonplace public meetings, the hopeful town hall sessions, and the social network satiations, unwise, unproved and unearned notions gain illicit respectability. As a result, the ravages of social stupidity win in the contest of dumbing down, and the refutation of scientific validity.

According to some futurists, most of whom are real scientists, as in physics, biology, anatomy and genetics, likewise assert a dismal outlook for the human species. Nonetheless, that does not prevent the increasing number of proponents in philosophical realms of the pseudosciences to reinvent nonscientific notions. Take any textbook for example over in the spheres of alleged “social sciences” and assess the background of the authorship. Start with criminology for instance. What might one discover?

More often than not, authors tend to be non-practitioners in terms of the topics they write about. Yet, given their anecdotal shortcoming, they spurt and spew unscientific rhetoric in documentaries and news casts. They re-report, re-state and re-write with regard about what others have already said long ago, and typically only challenge those aspects that do not line up with their particular school of thought.

Likewise, pundits of every description tend to be from younger less real world experienced and savvy by matured perspective. Older ones, who ought to know better, have selfish agendas that perpetuate devolving thought processes. As each is at his or her own state of immaturity, regressing to primal condescension, the probabilities for insightful enlightenment fades to black and white defenses of status quo.

Worst of all, with a few notable exceptions, as in the real sciences, engineering and techno-innovative possibilities, academia stumbles in the primordial regurgitation of selfish perpetrations. Not to forget of course, the tradecrafts of brick, mortar and repair technical specialties of hands on learning dedications. Or, for that matter, the protective and security specialties that serve as sentinels against premeditated malevolence. Again, a few labor to ensure the safe mediocrity and devolving regression of the many.

For a minority of questioning travelers, some discover, as some students do, the arrogance of pretentious politicians, infotainment pundits, and pompous preachers, authoring, editing and theorizing psychobabble demonstrates little or no real problem-solving substance. As a result, academic text materials tend to be little more than regurgitations of past resuscitations, with limited applications in the reality of serious socio-economic issues. In one criminology text for instance, the phrase “scientific method” is constructed in such a way to suggest the field is “serious science”.

In the chapters that follow, not unlike many others, the dangerous fallacy of inference races headlong into an exceptional number of theoretical constructs. Of which, the alleged science, or lack thereof, is accepted at “fact”. Theories, often spiced with mythical implications, are offered to show the diversity of opinions regarding human behavior theory. Yet, such historical assertions fail to claim the factual authentication in the reality of the natural world. Proof in the evidence, beyond any level of doubt, or at least a reasonable doubt, is often suppressed for the satiation of opinion. To object, and demand to see the evidentiary substantiation invites oppressive retaliation.

Nonetheless, the assertions claimed, relative to criminology, are anecdotal at best, and worse, pretentiousness to the very idea of being “scientific”. Instead, what is more profound, yet below the surface, is how year after year, decade after decade, not much has changed in terms of earlier historical propositions regarding criminality. Each year textbook offerings are mostly the same redundancy of previous editions published. Typically, controversial issues, such as whether or not theories such as alleged “mental illness”, or a “psychological diagnosis”, can be proved by science, are not discussed. Likewise, supernatural beliefs, cult behaviors, extremist ideologies, extraterrestrial visitations, which claim the believability of 85% of the population, seldom receive mention. Educational materials are tamed downward to appease special interests.

Meanwhile, over in the hallowed halls of pretentious “scientific research”, the revered and iconic temple of “peer review” has been seriously called into question. For instance, to propose the ideation of doubtful acceptance, one skeptical researcher as said, it is all a matter of opinion, learned or not, based on anecdotal assessment and influenced by “peer consensus” of collective conformity. As bias influences conclusions, based on limited observations, which affect that which was observed, the final design of a matter devolved to subjective validation. Hope springs eternal in the simplicity of conjecture. Given personal perspective the claims is quickly tainted from start to finish.

Unfortunately, nothing will be resolved. As opposing perspectives, based on the views of fragile humans, anxious in self-doubt, tainted by supernatural beliefs, given to dubious interpretations, cannot reconcile a singular theory of absolute certainty. As correlation does not equal causation, the more society slips into a less intellectual state of affairs, viewpoint with be cursed by the degradations of self-righteous superstitions. It is one thing for the pseudosciences to boast about alleged “peer review”, and quite another in the real sciences to claim a similar process of scientific validity. Meanwhile, serious questions are being raised about the validity of previously held assumptions.

So called “peer review”, outside the lawful applications in the rules of evidence, and substantiation of scientific validity, speculative claims remain mere opinion, as exceptions always apply. Nearly without question, in the annals of American academia, the invocation of the almighty “peer review” is readily tossed about as sacred ideology. Yet, it is more academically political, opinion based, turf protectionism, and tenure assurance, rather than about sufficiency of “scientific authenticity”. Yet, what validity can be given to historic regurgitation in one reference source after another?

Certainly hard science can be tested in the crime lab for instance. However, “getting inside the criminal mind”, of which the “mind” does not exist, is an entirely different matter. As matter of fact, the grey matter is quite a complex matter. In alleged research data relative to the pseudosciences, College textbooks have many citations, sometimes called “anecdotal evidence”, which is an appeal to the “authority”, or opinion, of that being cited based on what someone else asserts. Nonetheless, some will claim philosophical assertions, thought to be real science, is always testable to prove the claim of ideological viewpoint. Such is the bias that claims the conclusion.

Source by Randy Gonzalez


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

- Advertisment -spot_img
[td_block_1 custom_title="Must Read" limit="4" f_header_font_transform="uppercase" ajax_pagination="next_prev" block_template_id="td_block_template_2" m4f_title_font_family="394" m4f_title_font_weight="700" m6f_title_font_family="394" m6f_title_font_weight="700" sort="modified_date" offset="4" m4f_title_font_size="eyJhbGwiOiIyMCIsImxhbmRzY2FwZSI6IjE4IiwicG9ydHJhaXQiOiIxNiJ9" m4f_title_font_line_height="1.3" category_id="121"]