On the scientific method and the corruption of the American scientific enterprise.
I’ve written before on how the late Dr. Harpending defined science in this video; focus in on around the 8:00-9:15 time marks. Harpending – who was absolutely correct there – was of course talking about the Popperian (*) epistemology – the “scientific method” many of us leaned in school and which many scientists pay superficial lip service to. That is, come up with a hypothesis, and then try to DISPROVE it, and whatever idea can withstand repeated attempts at falsification is – for the time being, and for the time being only – believed to the extent of “this is the best available hypothesis we have now, but we are prepared to dispose of it if the data say otherwise, at which point a new hypothesis needs to be devised and tested.” The Kuhnian (**) epistemology, in contrast, considers the scientific enterprise as being subjective, affected by the worldviews and underlying biases of scientists themselves. In this approach to science, paradigms exist, and scientists attempt to make the data fit into the paradigm, into their already existing preconception. They attempt to PROVE, rather than disprove, their hypotheses. Over time, a sort of cognitive dissonance develops, in that trying to fit square pegs into round holes, real data into faulty hypotheses, becomes untenable; then the old paradigm collapses and a new one emerges – the so-called paradigm shift.
Observing how science is actually performed supports Kuhn’s observations and criticisms; in reality, Harpending is being too generous, or naive, in his implication that most scientists are objectively skeptical. He mentions “true believers” and also “global warming” – isn’t it true that the vast majority of scientists support the idea of anthropomorphic global warming and become hysterical over any criticism about it (***)?
In a sense, we can say that Popper was being prescriptive rather than descriptive; Kuhn the opposite. Popper was telling us how things should be done; Kuhn how they are actually done. Although both Popper and Kuhn were Jewish, one could view the more objective Popperian approach as more Western, and thus be tempted to blame the current emphasis on Kunhianism on the influence of Jews and Asians in science. Truth be told though, White Gentiles are often Kuhnian of their own initiative, and there have always been scientific Kuhnians among Whites even before the Jew-Asian influx. It is human nature to become enamored by, and defensive of, one’s own hypotheses and theories, to promote one’s ideas, and it is good for career advancement to do so as well.
A perfect example of Kuhnian science veering into pseudoscience is HBD; have you ever seen an HBDer critically examine, and attempt to falsify, their pet theories? Or do they hysterically defend failed hypotheses and attempt to shoehorn data where it simply doesn’t fit? The Lynn-Rushton school is the “poster-boy” for this: the paradigm of IQ-GDP-racial/ethnic differences in intelligence,“estimating” IQ from nationally reported knowledge tests, brain size vs. penis size, r vs. k selection applied to everything from bad weather to the price of milk (a useful concept over-interpreted), etc. – when have any of these guys ever admitted even the remotest possibility of being wrong about anything?
So, I cannot honestly blame Jews and Asians for the Kuhnian approach to science that is extant everywhere, although they certainly enthusiastically practice it themselves.
Where Jews and Asians have corrupted (American) science is through three major mechanisms. First, we have ethnic nepotism, which is actually more of an issue with Asians, particularly Chinese and Indians, than with Jews (who do practice it, but whose career-mongering often conflicts with a degree of collectivist ethnocentrism less pronounced than Asians, so Jews in science sometimes engage in bitter and hateful feuds against each other). With respect to hiring, grant reviewing, and paper reviewing, Asians in particular favor their own (and will, when necessary, equally disfavor outgroup competitors). Whites of course reject and eschew ethnic nepotism for themselves; in fact, quite the opposite – I observe that many Whites in science favor Asians over their fellow Whites. The net result of this is the dispossession of White Americans from the American scientific enterprise, a situation amplified by the fact that the alien influx depresses wages, lowers prestige, and creates hostile environments foreign to the native White ethny. The ethnic nepotism, corrosive as it is to merit-based advancement, also makes fraud and mediocrity more prevalent, and thus inhibits genuine scientific and technical advancement.
The second mechanism of corruption is the Jew-Asian promotion of rampant “careerism” in science – the idea that shameless self-promotion, rent-seeking behavior, and shallow career metrics should trump genuine scientific and technical advancement. To be fair, careerism has always been present, giant egos among tops scientists have always been present, the desire for advancement, fame, and money has always been present. But Jews and Asians – led by the Jews but amplified by Asian ethnic nepotism and anti-Faustian Asian greedy materialism – have made an entire entrenched culture out of this. It’s all about grant money, getting papers published in “big journals,” prestige and status – and the actual science, the actual integrity of the science, and the actual contribution to human progress, be damned. It’s all shallow and incremental “gains” (taking intellectual risks is frowned upon; why take genuine scientific risks when the entire purpose of careerism is to ensure a safe and steady stream of money and promotion, with prestige built upon an edifice of quantity over quality, shameless self-promotion of incremental progress, and ethnic horn-blowing to trumpet mediocrity as the equivalent of fundamental discoveries?). In careerism, grants and papers are not means to an end (funding important science and them disseminating the knowledge thus created) but ends in themselves, or, perhaps, means to selfish ends. “Grantsmanship” is a euphemism for Semitic-Asiatic flim-flam, “suggesting reviewers” for papers is a euphemism for ethnic nepotism, and no one really cares for the scientific enterprise as a vehicle for the Faustian urge to overcome, as a means to ascend, as a path to human progress. You can’t make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear, and the ethnoracial types swarming into American science today come from backgrounds foreign to the entire Faustian impulse.
The third mechanism? That’s the one that the “movement” talks most about, and which is primarily the responsibility of Jews: the politicalization of science to distort fact, confuse interpretation, and obfuscate reality, in order to promote a leftist (and usually anti-White) agenda. The “work” of Gould and Lewontin are typical examples of this genre. Much has been written on this particular subject, so I need not dwell on it further here.
Well, I could actually extend this and cite a fourth mechanism as well, which is related to the second mechanism discussed above. Jewish/Asian science is inherently anti-Faustian, not surprising coming from ethnies outside of the Western High Culture. Thus, the Jewish/Asian-influenced American scientific enterprise stresses small, incremental, and “safe” projects, and essentially scorns “high risk/high reward” projects that could, if successful, lead to real conceptual breakthroughs. Also, American science has become overly descriptive and insufficiently “interventionist” (prescriptive). For example, a typical successfully funded grant in, say, the field of biomedicine would feature an incremental and narrow project, drilling into (already studied) minute (and almost irrelevant) details on the mechanisms of some disease – description, as opposed to, say, a novel gene therapy approach to actively address the disease by targeting the mechanisms – intervention/prescription. Further, and a perfect example of anti-Faustianism, there is a knee-jerk reaction of calling extremely revolutionary ideas “impossible” – this would be prevalent, for example, in the realm of physics, energy research, space travel/propulsion, cosmology, etc. There’s always an inward, navel-gazing, small-minded, “can’t do” attitude with Jewish/Asian-influenced science. Finally, “who/whom” is emphasized, and not only for ethnic nepotism. A mediocre idea by a “rock star” scientist is given precedence over a cutting edge idea by a relative unknown. “Appeal to authority” wins every time.
Thus, the corruption of science.
*Popper was a despicable Jew, whose “paradox of intolerance” writings were the archetype of disgusting self-contradictory Orwellian Semitic flim-flam, and his overall political philosophy was anti-“Aryan.” Nevertheless, his views on science were fundamentally sound, although one can always quibble about details, for example, his defense of the Jew Einstein against the European Bohr, re: quantum mechanics (by Popper’s own scientific method, Bohr’s views on the subject have been repeatedly validated, and Einstein’s views refuted).
**Kuhn being another Jew. It’s disturbing that we had two racial/cultural aliens defining and debating the structure of Western science; is this perhaps another focal point of corruption?
***I’m not expressing an opinion here, one way or the other, about “man-made global warming,” but rather casting doubt about mainstream scientific objectivity on the subject. However, one must say at this point that there are some facts that have been so reliably and reproducibly verified, and have so strongly resisted falsification, that we can more or less accept their veracity (while always, in theory, being willing to change with new data). It would be silly to label as a “true believer” someone who accepts that the Earth is (more or less) spherical and not flat. The reality of biological differences between ethnies, including genetic differences, is of a similar nature. Being skeptical is one thing, ignoring nature is another.