What Comes After Science?

Karl Marx’s greatest trick was gussying up his bargain-bin, Hegel-lite, junk philosophy as “science.”  With the stroke of a pen, grave character defects were transformed into high virtues — envy and hatred were now just a dispassionate analysis of the dialectical materialist Forces of History, and ever since, Leftists have claimed that their every opinion is a scientific fact.  They’re not just spouting whatever bullshit will let them get their momentary virtue fix; they’re telling it like it is.

The problem is, of course, science doesn’t work like that… and not even liberals can deny it anymore.  So what comes next?  They’re not going to give up self-congratulation — that smugly superior smirk is the only thing holding their faces together.  They’ll have to find some new way to be comprehensively Better Than Us.

It’s not as easy as it sounds.  They can’t, for example, turn back the clock to the 18th century and go all Romantic on us.  That whole Sorrows of Young Werther bit might seem to fit the bill, but remember: The Left have used the cover of science to impose their preferences on us. Liberal jurisprudence — just to take one of the more important examples — depends entirely on the notion that Lefty’s whims du jour are objectively true.  The landmark Brown v. Board of Education decision, for instance, overturned the “separate but equal” doctrine, not on Constitutional grounds — Plessy v. Ferguson was pretty tightly argued — but because segregation hurt Black kids’ self-esteeeeeeeem.  I wish I were kidding.  (Brown v. Board was decided in 1954, lest you think this “self-esteem” junk is new).

So what’s next?  We’ve been instructed by all the institutions that matter — courts, media, academia — for over a century that science demands this, the evidence demands that, you’re a bitter troglodyte science-hating fundie if you don’t support the other thing.  Pretty soon — the over/under is July 2019 — we’re going to be told by all the institutions that matter that science itself is irreparably rayciss, sexiss, etc. (this is already happening, of course; it just hasn’t hit critical mass yet).  What’s going to be the new thing we’re supposed to bow down to?

Loading Likes...

8 thoughts on “What Comes After Science?

  1. Contaminated NEET

    Science! is too powerful a meme to give up because of a few inconvenient findings. No, there’s nothing “after” Science!. All you have to do is declare that any findings you don’t like are pseudo-science, just as we’ve seen done for decades. If you control the press, the universities, the grant-givers, the courts, and the civil service, there’s no reason at all to bow down to mere truth. Sure, for the moment, heretical pseudo-science is leaking through to a small minority of bitter basement-dwelling incel weirdos, but our nuturant parents in Washington are working hard to close that off, and they will succeed.

    Reply
    1. Severian Post author

      I can see why you’d say that, but what about all those girls in STEM? Girls are going into STEM now, aren’t they? (Aren’t girls supposed to be going into STEM?). Will they learn “girl science,” and how will that be different from “boy science”?

      Or are they just going to outlaw biology? What will happen to medicine then?

      (I know, I know, I talk like a fag and my shit’s all ‘tarded).

      Reply
  2. Joe

    They’re already setting up “inclusivity” and “feeling safe” as the top virutes in their system. It’ll be fun to watch the progressive stack war it out over who is the most victimized, and therefore the most virtuous. The end result of intersectional feminism is a blind black transvestite, sitting alone in a room, and deciding how everyone should live their lives.

    Reply
  3. ErisGuy

    Science is what scientists do. And the huge number of progressive,communist, leftist scientists found Marx to be a fellow scientist. Must I list a few? By refusing to actively repudiate Leftism, scientists have shown their own science and all science to be same fraud as Marx’s science.

    Reply
    1. Severian

      This is an example of the genetic fallacy. Just as 2 + 2 is still 4 even if Hitler says so (and isn’t 5, even if Mother Teresa swears to it), scientists’ lunatic political opinions don’t invalidate their scientific work. And while I know quite a few scientists who are Leftists, I don’t know any scientists who considered Marx a “scientist” in the “works in a lab” sense. In the Medieval sense, sure — he’s a “scientist” in the way Thomas Aquinas was a “doctor.”

      Reply
  4. Jay Carter

    My doctor informed me that he was a scientist.
    (Oh yes he did !)
    He also has a tip jar on his desk.

    Reply
    1. Severian Post author

      What’s wrong with me, doc? I think you’re crazy! I want a second opinion! You’re also lazy….

      I love legitimate theater.

      Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *