Well, yeah. Science shows that racism is bogus (humans are just one race), sexism is bogus (human chromosomes have more than two arrangements), and many religious beliefs are bogus (stories of the Bronze Age are mythic, lacking historical evidence). It's understandable that they're uneasy about this stuff; as Colbert famously noted, reality has a liberal bias.
I understand what you're saying, but I can't find a way to save the opinions of the Bronze Age religions. They're so backwards compared to modern knowledge about medicine and other practical fields of science that a complete reinterpretation is usually required, and reinterpretation can assign any meaning whatsoever.
For example, I'm currently watching a lecture about the Higgs boson. The Higgs field was not predicted by any Bronze Age religions (indeed not predicted by any religion I've studied) and its purpose is wholly mathematical and not easily deducible from daily life. I have no idea how religion could possibly climb to study the Higgs field without shedding most of its superstitions in the style of the current scientific tradition.
It wouldn't be a problem for folks to carry these ancient beliefs, as a first-order situation, but belief begets belief. Restrictions on diet are not much of a problem, but restrictions on sexuality are completely at odds with modern sexology and sex education, and we're not even talking about the millions of lives laid down in the name of God.
Edit to avoid posting too fast: Yes, I am saying that our knowledge of science irrevocably changed mid-century due to particle physics. This is Kuhn's incommensurability [0] and it is an essential part of understanding science: Sometimes we make leaps of understanding which are so radically large that they undo prior understanding and render it meaningless.
The Higgs field was not predicted by any science before the mid 20th century. Does that mean that according to your argument all science before the mid 20th century was bogus?
There is no contradiction in both believing that humans only form one single race, and also that some humans oppress other humans based on erroneous beliefs about skin color and heritage. The important part is to simultaneously understand that this oppression is occurring while also understanding the the oppression is scientifically incoherent.
Similarly, there is no contradiction in both believing that humans should have universal healthcare without restrictions based on genitals or pre-existing conditions, and also that sex chromosomes are used as a societal excuse for genital mutilation, sexual assault, harrassment and discrimination, etc. Again, the oppression both happens and makes no scientific sense, and there is nothing logically wrong with this stance.
I'm blind to race and sex -- I don't inherently weigh the value of people by their skin color or genitals. I'm not blind to race and sex -- I know that racists and sexists exist, and I antagonize them in order to reduce their effects in society. The conclusion is that the idea of being blind to social constructions is a bit of a rhetorical gimmick!
It used to be a joke. It used to be that conservatives and progressives had legitimate disagreements. Liberals tended to be scientist and academics, and that provided a certain kind of evidence that reality backed up their opinions, but a lot of the discussion concerned values and world-views rather than outright denial of reality.
It feels like conservatives leaned into it. "Well, if they're gonna rely on 'facts', let's just take that out of the equation". They started with evolution, where a majority of their base was already just-plain-wrong on the facts, and honed a toolkit where people look to each other and distrust anybody who tells them otherwise. Once they believe that the "mainstream media" is lying to them on one topic, they'll reject anything it says on any topic. At the same time they receive reinforcement that they've outsmarted the people trying to fool them.
That leaves us here, where the joke that reality has a liberal bias has become reality. Liberals are still often wrong on a lot of topics, but there's really nobody to argue with. They won't learn anything from arguing with conservatives, and when liberals argue among themselves, the division leads them to lose elections.
8 comments
[ 3.3 ms ] story [ 30.3 ms ] threadFor example, I'm currently watching a lecture about the Higgs boson. The Higgs field was not predicted by any Bronze Age religions (indeed not predicted by any religion I've studied) and its purpose is wholly mathematical and not easily deducible from daily life. I have no idea how religion could possibly climb to study the Higgs field without shedding most of its superstitions in the style of the current scientific tradition.
It wouldn't be a problem for folks to carry these ancient beliefs, as a first-order situation, but belief begets belief. Restrictions on diet are not much of a problem, but restrictions on sexuality are completely at odds with modern sexology and sex education, and we're not even talking about the millions of lives laid down in the name of God.
Edit to avoid posting too fast: Yes, I am saying that our knowledge of science irrevocably changed mid-century due to particle physics. This is Kuhn's incommensurability [0] and it is an essential part of understanding science: Sometimes we make leaps of understanding which are so radically large that they undo prior understanding and render it meaningless.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commensurability_(philosophy_o...
Similarly, there is no contradiction in both believing that humans should have universal healthcare without restrictions based on genitals or pre-existing conditions, and also that sex chromosomes are used as a societal excuse for genital mutilation, sexual assault, harrassment and discrimination, etc. Again, the oppression both happens and makes no scientific sense, and there is nothing logically wrong with this stance.
I'm blind to race and sex -- I don't inherently weigh the value of people by their skin color or genitals. I'm not blind to race and sex -- I know that racists and sexists exist, and I antagonize them in order to reduce their effects in society. The conclusion is that the idea of being blind to social constructions is a bit of a rhetorical gimmick!
It feels like conservatives leaned into it. "Well, if they're gonna rely on 'facts', let's just take that out of the equation". They started with evolution, where a majority of their base was already just-plain-wrong on the facts, and honed a toolkit where people look to each other and distrust anybody who tells them otherwise. Once they believe that the "mainstream media" is lying to them on one topic, they'll reject anything it says on any topic. At the same time they receive reinforcement that they've outsmarted the people trying to fool them.
That leaves us here, where the joke that reality has a liberal bias has become reality. Liberals are still often wrong on a lot of topics, but there's really nobody to argue with. They won't learn anything from arguing with conservatives, and when liberals argue among themselves, the division leads them to lose elections.