#21: Who are ya gonna believe? Me, or yer lyin' eyes?

In the recent movie Chicago, a woman finds her husband at home in bed with two other women. Just prior to being shot dead by his wife, the husband asks her, ungrammatically and perhaps imprudently,

“Who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?”

This is the question that has been asked of the common man in recent years by the intellectuals of the Left, and fortunately the common man has been more tolerant than the fictional wife. It is the same as the question first raised by Hume with respect to Pyrrhonian skepticism. His answer was that it cannot be defeated by reason, but, have no fear, no one will believe it. Perhaps this was true of skepticism, but neither of these claims is true of current Leftist counter-intuitive “theory.” I think the Left can be defeated by reason and, as is all too sadly plain, it can all too often be believed.

Since the time that Eddington illustrated the counter-intuitive side of modern physics with his discussion of his “two tables,” one solid and one not, the model of science’s superiority over the ordinary view has been increasingly used by the social sciences. But, truth be told, the “social sciences” are, at best, only wannabe sciences, using the authority and cache of the physical sciences to push their various progressive agendas. Does anyone not ideologically brain-damaged really believe that “Political Science” is in any sense at all a “science”? Social “Science” tells us that big government leads to a better life for everyone. Apparently, life in the USSR, in the rice paddies of Viet Nam and China, in North Korea, and in Cuba is really better than it is in the U.S.. I guess that’s why so many Americans are trying desperately to be smuggled into those countries. Social “Science” tells us that there is no measurable difference in behavior or performance between racial groups? Hmmm. Apparently it only seems that way. Social “Science” tells us that Arab terrorists are really “freedom fighters.” Hmmm. You could have fooled me. Social “Science” tells us over and over again that “the vast majority” of Muslims “only want to live in peace.” Gee, that’s odd. How come we don’t hear from them? Social "science" tells us that torture "doesn't work." They should have told Khalid Sheik Mohammed. I bet it would make your average Social Scientist confess his sins pronto. And on and on and on.

Here is an example of the counter-intuitive been sold in a more subtle way to the unsuspecting masses.

For quite long time now, the Left has been able to set the terms of the social debate, not only by deciding what should be discussed (or what is discussable, e.g. biological racial differences were NOT discussable in the works of Jensen, Herrnstein, Rushton and others), but also in terms of the very words in which these debates were to be couched.

One such example is that of the word "phobic," which has been combined with other words or parts of words in various ways. A very recent example is "commitment-phobic," while an older one is "homophobic," and still another is “xenophobic.” What is interesting is that these coinages make an assumption not everyone so labeled might be willing to accept, but it is a socio-politically interesting assumption. These are what used to be called “loaded” words, meaning that they carried emotional or political baggage that wise people would eschew. Nowadays, they don’t eschew them, they invent them precisely for their baggage.

The baggage in these words is that there is no such thing as an authentic aversion that is not reducible to a fear. Closely tied to this tacit doctrine is the even more buried assumption that the fear itself is irrational, indefensible, and unjustifiable. This means that the very use of the new technical word dismisses the seriousness of the person's expressed preference. This is an instance of a general argument form in which it is not the argument that is addressed, but rather the attributed state of mind of the person making the argument. Perhaps, Argumentum ad neuroticum (AaN) should be added to the list of fallacies.

The choice “phobia,” the word for fear, is not coincidental, it is intended to be an attack within a word, an attack designed to place the other on the defensive, it is intended as a pre-emptive strike that leaves the opponent vulnerable.

A similar story lies behind the word "commitment-phobic"; that is, it prejudges the person who opts to avoid commitments, and assigns his decision to fear, not personal preference. The implication is that there simply could not exist a simple preference against gays or against marital commitment or, for that matter, foreigners.

The case of "phobic" is more subtle than that of an explicit case of AaN because it is concealed within the choice of a word particle. When I call someone a "homophobe," I am not saying that he dislikes homosexuals, I am saying that he fears homosexuals (and, perhaps, dislikes them only because he fears them). The choice of this word arbitrarily excludes the possibility that anyone should simply dislike homosexuals. For these people, disliking any group whatsoever simply for the group’s characteristics is considered logically impossible (thus, their apparent dislike must actually be something quite different of which they’re unaware). The implication is that the dislike of a group is an illness, not a preference. But that’s a political/psychological biographical fact about progressives, not the actual possibility of such dislike. Wishing it were so doesn’t mechanically make it so.

It is worthwhile noting that words coined before our psychologically enlightened times did allow for group dislike or hatred. In those benighted days, it was possible, for example, to dislike women; the word for that was "misogyny." We now also have the word “gynophobia.” At least we have a choice. It was also possible to dislike or hate man in general; a person with this attitude was called a "misanthrope."

It remains to be proven, I think, that non-fear group preferences are simply impossible. I think the intuitive and common-sense view of these things is that groups are really capable of being likable or dislikable. I, for example, do not like paedophiles. I don't detect any particular fear of them within myself. I also think I probably would not like either a necrophile (who likes getting it on with dead bodies, presumably human ones) or a coprophile (whose sexual enjoying is associated with human waste). I would be uncomfortable if one moved in next to us or if a club-house for them were introduced to our neighborhood. That one cannot like or dislike a group for reasons other than fear is the counter-intuitive thesis of a psychological theory produced and promoted by academics with a political/moral agenda.

I don’t argue that the “Social Sciences” are worth nothing, just much less than advertised. If Sociology stuck to doing statistical demographics, it might be reasonably defensibly. If Political “Science” stuck to describing political structures, it might also be ok. If Geography stuck to cartography, that would be nice. Academic departments suffer from exactly the same defects as governmental institutions: they create fictional work for themselves in order to justify their own growth.

I end by mentioning that this societal disease, namely this cancerous growth of institutions beyond their actual utility, has already spread beyond the Social “Sciences.” What used to be departments producing weather girls have now become departments of Meteorology, often subsumed under faculties of “Earth Science.” We can thank these entities for the catastrophic ponzi scheme of “Global Warming” invented by Algor (right after he invented the internet). Please notice the defining characteristic of a Lefty Scam: ordinary people just don’t seem to see it, only the High Priests of the Arcane New Science have the superior intelligence and training to do so.

We are sooooo fortunate to have them looking out for us.