cRITICAL tHINKING

("I think, therefore I am").

- Rene Descartes, 1637

pOSTMODERNISM

"Those among us who are unwilling to expose their ideas to the hazard of refutation do not take part in the game of science."

— Karl Popper, The Logic of Scientific Discovery (2002 [1935])

This statement seems so reasonable that it is almost incontrovertible. Its almost fact! Almost. However, just last year Two-Tier Kier Starmer said

"womanhood".. "is completely biological for 99% of women".

How can we reconcile these 2 positions? How have we gotten to a society that can entertain theories of human anatomy that are patently nonsensical? Ie. they can clearly be refuted - to use Popper's words.

Well, to answer that question lets start by looking at the theory of Postmodernism - the belief that our presumptions cannot be relied upon. Essentially any given starting point for any line of scientific inquiry is, in essence, invalid. Or rather, an alternative is equally valid.

This nebulous concept has taken root in our society and touched many different areas of our lives. Education, Art, Science, Politics, and Business. Its irrefutability has allowed it to multiply like a virus.

iNTERSECTIONALITY

In 1989, Kimberly Crenshaw posited the notion that minority groups receive outcomes below that of the statistical average due to a compounding effect solely due to the nature of the groups to which they belong.

Her thesis boils down to the idea that discrimination compounds. Ethnic, female, immigrant, disabled. The more groups you overlay the more discrimination will be observed.

Ok, its a theory. There's just one problem - people are more complex than groups. Individual differences mean any inductive reasoning from the data is floored. Quite simply, the data doesn't support the conclusions shes arrived at. People are just more complicated than that. Her reasoning was floored.

But its a popular idea. Its informed much of our political class and its affects are far reaching. For the political left it has been adopted with almost religious fervour. Discriminated groups need assistance and privileged groups need to provide that assistance. This is their route to a socialist, egalitarian utopia.

This bindweed-like theory is difficult to dispel though, as it has its roots in postmodernism. Different cultures (or Crenshaw's groups) have a moral equivalence. Whose to say these different groups are less worthy? Nothing is certain under the nostrums of Postmodernism.

Intersectionality, however, hasnt really caught on as a term though. Doesnt exactly roll off the tongue does it? Most people know it by its common name...

Woke

Sir Michael Faraday delivering his lecture on Electro-Magnetic induction (1846)

tHE sCIENTIFIC mETHOD

Faraday wasn't due to give this lecture. The original speaker chickened out and he had to speak extemporaneously (without notes). But Sir Mikey was keen to do so. He was excited to speak to the scientific cognoscenti, the gathered intelligensia, on an idea that had occurred to him. Sir Michael Faraday had a theory.

Screech! Breaks on! Minor detour, guys. Whats the Scientific Method? Why do we care? We've all got theories, so what!

Briefly, its a methodology for acquiring knowledge about the nature of the universe.

You can think of it as a recipe. Or an algorithm, if you will. You follow the steps and become wiser. Noice.

1. Observe a phenomenon

2. Theorize as to its cause

3. Arrive at a hypothesis (a testable statement)

4. Test the hypothesis (by experiment or statistical analysis)

5. Reject or Confirm the hypothesis

Notice step 5. does not say prove. Were not doing maths here, we're limited to reality - the observable universe - not inscrutable abstractions. We can only ever gather evidence to support our theory, never prove it. Remember Popper? Our theory must be conceivably wrong, or it ain't a theory, Its just conjecture.

And Michael Faraday's theory? Oh it was just that light is a form of electro-magnetic radiation. I doubt it amounted to much. : S

eNLIGHTENmENt

The Scientific Method didnt just appear out of nothing in the 17th Century - like a newbie daygamer pouncing on a chinese tourist in Covent Garden. No, my free-thinking friends. It arose out of a climate of philosophical enquiry. The culture at the time was not openly hostile to new ideas. On the contrary, there was a hunger, curiosity, almost obsessive pursuit of Truth. Institutions like London's Royal Institution convened as a forum to discuss these new ideas.

Mainly in Europe, a group of white men (facts) made a number of scientific and philosophical breakthroughs, in short order, that have came to be known as the Enlightenment. So being, because these breakthroughs gave a great deal of insight into the nature of the Universe. John Locke, Kepler, Francis Bacon (Mr Scientific Method himself - no relation to Mystery), Galileo, Descartes and Liebnitz, to name but a few, were at the vanguard of this Scientific Revolution. Kind of the intellectual equivalent of Daygame circe 2014. It was a golden era.

For my money what kicked off this golden era of reason was the publication of Principia Mathematica by Sir Isaac Newton in 1687. This tome described the Laws of Motion that govern 99% of our lived experience. The 3 laws of motion - kinematics (to clarify NOT kinethenics - he did NOT invent daygame. We would have heard) were introduced, discussed and given a detailed mathematical treatment. The effect of this work cannot be overstated. We have cars, aeroplanes, space ships and everything inbetween as a consequence of understanding the forces that govern motion.

So next time you stop a cute girl on Oxford street with yer best Yad stop, just remember to thank Sir Isaac. For it was his 1st Law of Kinematics that will calculate her stopping distance. (So he did invent daygame, kinda)

The Return of Reason

Newton had really started something. The ideas came thick and fast. By the end of the 18th Century a number of deeply influential ideas had taken hold. Out of this free-thinking milieu some core tenets appeared -

1. Individual Liberty

2. Constitution Government (So Government underpinned by a legal framework essentially - principle and precedent)

3. Freedom under the rule of Law

4. Tolerance

5. A separation of Church and State

6. Empiricism (only believing it if you have observed it through one of your 5 senses. So PUAs overstating their lay counts springs to mind.)

We should also mention some of the Greek chaps too. They played a key role here. Science is built on logic (from the greek - logos, or reason). Without the work of Aristotle we'd still be on the Savannah. Without getting too sidetracked it is worth considering 2 important concepts that will form part of our statistical toolbox or, intellectual inner game, if you like

* Inductive Inference. From a sample we can infer a behaviour on a population based on a principle. It is probabalistic

* Deductive Inference. From a sample we can declare that a certain population has a behaviour with certainty. It is axiomatic. It is proved. So this is a big thing in Maths.

So going full circle, how does this relate to Postmodernism - the spirit of our times? Because Postmodernism lends itself to emotional reasoning. There are no bounds on what can or cant deduce as the preconditions are never certain. Chaos abounds.

What would Popper say about Postmodernism? Well I imagine he would say this...

"Postmodernism states that your assumptions can never be verified, right?"

"yes"

"So how is it falsifiable?"

"erm, it cant be"

"THEN ITS BULLSHIT! ITS NOT A THING, ITS WRONNNNGGG!!!"

The era of Woke is over.

Lets all raise a glass to The Return of Reason