Science vs “Soyence” – the Epistemology of Modern Society

Below is an essay by an anon on 4chan on the different ways people think and form beliefs.  Despite the technical terms used, it’s pretty easy to digest and sheds a lot of light on some of the strange behavior observed in modern society.

Human action is guided primarily by philosophy – particularly epistemology. How a person goes about the process of piecing together observations into a coherent conceptual framework will ultimately dictate how that person behaves and the kinds of ideas (like in morality and politics) they will entertain. Further, if whole societies of people entertain particular kinds of thinking methods, it will shape their culture and the course of their entire history.

There are three basic approaches to “integration,” which is the epistemic process of piecing together information. You can do it properly; you can do it improperly; and you can oppose doing it. The terminology for these, respectively, is: integration, misintegration, and disintegration.

Integration reflects a rational and logical method of thinking; the scientific method, properly applied, is an example of integration. Philosophers who represent this kind of approach include Aristotle, Aquinas, and Locke.

Science, aka integration, vs “Soyence”, aka misintegration

Misintegration reflects a mystical method of thinking; an example of this is starting with a conclusion that you believe without evidence and shaping the “supporting facts” around that conclusion while ignoring all evidence to the contrary. Philosophers in this vein include Plato, Descartes, and Hegel.

Disintegration reflects a subjectivist method of thinking; an example is denying that any concept that you form can ever be actually true because reality is “different for everyone”. Philosophers in this vein include Heraclitus, Kant, and the likes of Keynes, Dewey, and Rawles.

Most of Western history has been dominated by the “M” (misintegration) mode; this results in dictatorial political systems and relatively little innovation and advancement. Think of Europe after the fall of Rome or the Middle East after al-Ghazali and the Islamic rejection of reason.

The “I” (integration) dominated periods reflect a culture’s “golden age,” and though historically short-lived, when this mode is prevalent rapid advancements occur. Think of Hellenistic Greece, Europe after the Renaissance, and the founding of the United States.

The “D” (disintegration) mode is relatively rare in terms of dominating a culture, and when it does, it is VERY short-lived because it is inherently self-destructive. Think of the Weimar Republic before it collapsed and the United States from the 1900s on. (“D” is very commonly what people will point to when they are talking about Jewish degeneracy. The D’s are like the vanguard of post-modernist nutjobs to wreck a society, and the M’s move in behind them to take control.) To use another description of this same mentality, think of the “True Believer” as described by Hoffer, or the “Destabilizers” as described by Bezmenov.

Knowing how these modes operate in history, one can attempt to make a prediction about where a culture might be headed. The United States was founded very solidly in “I”, but this mode is very much on the back-burner in the culture with only a very few bits of evidence that it might re-emerge. “M” is much more strongly represented in the culture. But “D” absolutely dominates all of the institutions, from media to politics to education. And because “D” is inherently destructive, that mode will necessarily collapse in a trigger event that leads to either one of the other modes taking control.

We are in the middle of a transition period now away from “D.” It is difficult to predict the outcome of pure chaos and which mode will dominate after the collapse of the status quo, but the likely outcome will be dictatorship.

“The science is settled, do not question the science!”

I’ve been puzzled by the rabid atheist/SJW types that emerged in the recent years in society, and the above essay helped me understand them a lot better.  When someone uses the phrase “the science is settled!” or throws “science denier” around as an insult, it’s really because they’re coming from an “M” mode of thinking where they consider their existing beliefs to be something that can never be challenged.

To go off on a tangent, the sort of government policy that demands companies to have a certain percentage of their employees be female, or for universities to have a percentage of students who are X race, are also based on an “M” mode of thinking – everyone is theorized to be equally good at everything, and if evidence disagrees, ignore the evidence and enforce a quota to make the theory appear correct.

True “science” is not a religion that can be “denied.” It is an ongoing process that by its very nature involves continual reassessment of new information as it is received – it’s very much the result of an “I” mode of thinking.

Original screen cap:

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s