For anyone not yet convinced of the dangers to civil society posed by divisive “isms” and ideologies, including religious dogma and the murderous results of forsaking the sovereignty of the individual, this book is a must read.
James Keena calls into question the notion that our society simply swings indefinitely like a pendulum between the political right and political left. He makes the case that allegiance to either faction will eventually lead to tyranny, oppression and death.
And that the solution always returns to individual sovereignty; not Darwinian rugged individualism. It starts with a true understanding that entropy is always fought at the individual level. No one can escape that responsibility; to do otherwise unfairly burdens others with your obligation.
Karma is not a boomerang, but a seed that either bears good fruit or poisons the tree. And the bonds made between individuals, families and friends which are based on love & respect & benevolence cannot be scaled to apply between millions of strangers.
The only way to ensure the reproducibility of peaceful collaboration on a large scale is for society to be based on the bedrock principle that the only just law is one that protects individual sanctity and does not tolerate coercion. We should not coerce or allow ourselves or others to be coerced.
I think you might like this book – “2084: American Apocalypse (The Pathless Land Series Book 1)” by James Keena.
Start reading it for free: https://a.co/6mBr6gE
You might be Scientismist if…
…you source-cite frantically to substantiate your views, even if you haven’t analyzed the data or the methods used or considered the limitations of the findings?
…you automatically believe certain sources and dismiss others without reading the original citations.
…you get your science from Facebook ads
…you believe the use of the phrase “scientific study” imparts devine validation to the conclusions.
…assume peer review is a real thing.
…don’t know the difference between a RCT, case-controlled study, cross-sectional study, cohort study, retrospective or prospective study…and don’t want to because it might call into question validity of your narrative!
…assume strong correlation is same as causation…AND don’t care if you’re wrong as long as it helps make your point!
And the #1 clue that you may be a Scientismist… When your favorite saying is, “the NIH says it, I believe and that settles it!”
Publishing a “study” does not bestow validation and data is mishandled as often as not; which is why much of the medical literature is wrong.
Hyperrational arrogance leads to scientism, which is not the same as good science.
Don’t be a scientismist!
“…In its main features the Declaration of Independence is a great spiritual document. It is a declaration not of material but of spiritual conceptions. Equality, liberty, popular sovereignty, the rights of man — these are not elements which we can see and touch. They are ideals. …It was in the contemplation of these truths that the fathers made their declaration and adopted their Constitution. It was to establish a free government, which must not be permitted to degenerate into the unrestrained authority of a mere majority or the unbridled weight of a mere influential few. …These are our guaranties of liberty. As a result of these methods enterprise has been duly protected from confiscation, the people have been free from oppression.“
“The disconnect between the intention and what emerges”
A conversation with Dr. Thomas Sowell about the folly of political initiatives to solve disparate impact. With predictable irony, these same interventions often exacerbate the same problems the were commissioned to fix.
“Just as health insurance is not health care, so too health insurance reform is not health care reform. Yet, because the ACA got so much press, and many previously uninsured individuals did secure insurance (giving us all the warm and fuzzies), the result was a nationwide misconception that affordable insurance equates with affordable health care. For many, ObamaCare is therefore viewed as a success because millions of uninsured Americans are now insured.
Professor Tom W. Bell
President Barack Obama, on the other hand, recognizes that most of the activities reported in the stolen pages are legal. As such, he wants to do something that might be even more radical than what France has done. He proposes making it illegal to legally reduce one’s tax burden. Falling back on some generic and zero-sum concept of tax fairness, he told reporters that we “shouldn’t make it legal to engage in transactions just to avoid taxes” and that he wants to enforce “the basic principle of making sure everyone pays their fair share.”
No matter what paper you read or what program you listen to, this story is couched only in terms of a groundbreaking discovery that exposes how everyone and every company linked to an offshore account has run afoul of the legal system. Not true.