The natural order vs presumptive arrogance

The natural order vs presumptive arrogance

English: North Block Delhi

English: North Block Delhi (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Have you ever noticed that some people may speak as if their own lack of familiarity with a subject is somehow evidence that the subject is invalid, incomprehensible, or worthless? Some people are generally open and curious about unfamiliar things while others are cynical and may even be threatened or paranoid by certain unfamiliar information.

For instance, a person may use the term “scurvy” and refer to scurvy as incurable. They may say “incurable scurvy is a demon that possessed one of my patients. I personally do not understand physiology very well, so when the patient displays certain symptoms, I just say that they have a certain disease or that the disease has possessed them (the disease has them). Further, if I do not know how to improve the health of the patient, then I just say that the demonic disease which has possessed them is incurable. No one can cure it now. Further, no one will ever be able to cure it. It is incurable. It is not merely unfamiliar or unexamined. Again, it is fundamentally incurable!”

That is not a very scientific use of language. That could even be called superstitious.

It is clearly presumptive, right? It is an imprecise use of language. “The incurable scurvy” is an interpretative construction of words made by a particular author or authority.

English: the so called incurable cases

English: the so called incurable cases (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

So, some authors not only take the risk of presenting interpretations, but also criticize contrary interpretations, even condemning or attacking contrary interpretations. Some interpretations may even be criminalized and systematically suppressed in inquisitions or other crusades of military coercion.

Does the condemning of an interpretation reflect confidence or worry? There are several ways that we could relate to a particular interpretation, such as with enthusiasm and openness or with fear and rage.

When someone dismisses something as uninteresting to them, that dismissal is about them and their priorities, not the topic itself. Further, when someone takes the time and energy to ridicule some idea (or some person or group referencing the idea), could that be because they are personally uncomfortable with the very idea itself? Because they perceive an idea to be a threat to a familiar idealism that they cling to in terror, they may ridicule something as “nonsense” or as “just a conspiracy theory.”

For instance, consider the idea that a particular government is powerful, stable, and sympathetic to my best interests. Might someone disagree with that? How would I respond if they did? Would I passionately defend the government of India in 1709 as “a good one” because all of the policies that I believe that government implemented were what I would call “good?”

Consider the idea that a particular government is primarily an instrument of private special interests distinct from that government (which could even have the power to destabilize a particular government). What about the idea that all governments systematically take actions that benefit particular groups of people at the expense of particular other groups of people?

Government House

Government House (Photo credit: Ted & Dani)

What is the origin of governments? Are they more powerful than geology or biology or physics? Or, are the only powerful because of factors such as physics and biology and geology?

If governments are formed by specific people to promote particular outcomes, then what about after the formation of the government? Once a government has been formed, can new influences promote new outcomes through that same government? 
What if a particular outside support (for a particular program of a government) declines or stops? Could that withdrawal of support effect the stability of that program? Could the extent of concentration on producing a particular target outcome decrease over time? Could any government program ever be totally discontinued? Could an entire government ever be conquered or simply disintegrate and collapse? Has it ever happened? Could it ever happen in the future?

English: A pie chart of the funding sources of...

English: A pie chart of the funding sources of the Canadian municipal governments in 2005. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Many people look to governments for security and guidance. Some are pleased with the results. Some are disappointed or even infuriated.

At various times, I may value the services or products that may be available from a particular individual or company or government. Maybe I wish to sue someone, so I hire a government court officer (a judge) to help me collect on a claim against the other party. To help me, I may hire a lawyer (who is an officer of the court/ government) as well as a licensed “process server” and even licensed mercenary thugs (deputy soldiers) to perform a property seizure or an eviction or a foreclosure auction.

In my experience, I have found that there are certain services for which it is best to go to a particular government. In other cases, governments (and their licensed government agents) either do not offer a particular thing that I value at all or there is some other provider that I prefer over that particular government/ licensed officer.

For instance, if I go to a government agent who tells me that scurvy is incurable, I may dismiss them as incompetent. I may even report them to an oversight agency. If the supervising bureaucrats do not “correct” what I perceive to be the incompetence of a particular licensed agent, I could reduce whatever confidence I had in that oversight agency. Any personal support of mine for that government program might decline.

Government House, Baku

Government House, Baku (Photo credit: indigoprime)

Governments universally promote public confidence in that government. They value the support that sustains their operations. They seek to influence public perception so that the government is perceived to be stable, reliable, trustworthy, and generally worthy of support.

However, governments do not value everyone’s support equally. They value the economic support of the wealthy and powerful more than the support of children or inmates or enemy soldiers, whose support they may or may not consider relevant. If an invading government seeks to attract loyalty from the people of the newly colonized military target, they may create radio propaganda programs or distribute leaflets that condemn a certain opposing loyalty and promote compliance with the interests of the imperialists in the name of “national security.”

A government may dictate that all of the children in their colony must be familiar with a certain curriculum of propaganda called “history.” Education of children may be made legally mandatory (subject to fines or imprisonment). Further, education may be regulated by governments (whether mandatory or not). Governments can even fund education programs (through tax revenues) or even directly operate them (staffed entirely by government personnel who are trained and paid by the military government’s Ministry of Indoctrines).

Government House

Government House (Photo credit: slazgrc)

Could certain interests wish to publicize the idea of demonic possession? Could those ideas include possession by the demons of incurable scurvy, incurable cancer, or incurable hypochondria? These ideas could be promoted through commercial advertising media or through public indoctrination camps. Could educationalists be trained to not only exclusively present the demonic possession model, but also to ridicule any contrary interpretations?

Remember, governments may be paranoid about public perceptions of credibility and loyalty. Institutions may systematically attack perceived threats to the sacred principles of that particular government or religion.

Some officers of a particular church or state may say “we are nothing like that other institution. That is blasphemy to even say! We TOLD you all that there is a total separation of mythology and science. Our science is not presumptive and thus it will never advance any further than it had as of 1967 when I personally received my doctorate degree in Infallible Scientific Models That Never Change Because They Obviously Do Not Need Refining. Therefore, I am clearly not a religious idealist. I am just loyally following the orders of my bishop, my archbishop, and of course, the daughter of God, her royal majesty, my Magistrate Court magi, the dictating dictator at the Supreme Imperial Temple of the Holy Government Tower of Secular Religion.”

The Seat of Government

The Seat of Government (Photo credit: Ewan-M)

Can any institution save humanity from science? Institutions can program humanity to be confused about science or to be loyal to certain presumptions. However, science is not institutional. When institutions such as the US military get involved in funding scientific research, they are doing so in order to classify the most useful findings as “top secret” and hide them from the general public.

The doctrines with which children are indoctrinated in institutions may promote a developing of the natural curiosity of the children in particular ways. They may get very interested in math or sports or music or brain chemistry or social dynamics.

Some people may study social dynamics and the possibility of an emotional dependence (psyhological, neurochemical) on the social approval of a perceived authority figure. Because of an interest in social approval, once a child is trained to expect social approval by demonstrations of skill or expertise in a particular field (such as hockey, auto mechanics, or finger-painting), then the child may protest the absence of the expected social approval.

English: SBI hq in Mumbai

English: SBI hq in Mumbai (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

“Why isn’t everyone congratulating me for being quiet and on time? I used to get certificates for attendance! Now, these people called managers seem to be actually expecting me to answer the phones when it rings. What is wrong with these people? They must be idealists! I can see right through them. They are just conformists who are trying to manipulate me by offering me money in exchange for my labor.”

For anyone who thinks of government bureaucracies as the authority on matters of scientific credibility, I can relate to that presumption. I was also tamed with social influences that led me to question my own observations and my own logical deductions. I rejected logic in deference to conforming to whatever “answers” would get me credit on a test. I also expected ongoing social support of my conformity to “the official version.”

As time went on, some people with whom I interacted did not value my repetition of the official versions (of science, for instance). I had faithfully memorized those versions in school (without true comprehension). Perhaps I argued with these skeptics and threw tantrums to test their low evaluation of my official repetitions. Perhaps they would cave in if I just yelled a little louder.
However, some people continued to suggest that my favorite models (those familiar to me) did not conform well with actual observed patterns. So, they were evaluating my favorite models as less than sacred.

That was not the end of their crimes. To extend their heresy further, they then suggested other models of interpretation which happened to conform precisely with actual observed patterns, but were not already familiar to me. So, I rejected these idealists and charlatans as obvious quacks and criminals. I initiated programs to protect the public from their interpretations (which openly threatened the perceived credibility of my favorite models of reality).

Then, these horrible villains suggested that I was arrogant in my dismissal of contrary models which threaten the sacred ideals of established scientific doctrine. They said I was afraid that my presumptions might be presumptive.

They condemned me by not agreeing with me enthusiastically. They then said that I invented their condemnation when in fact they argued that they had simply evaluated my favorite sacred models as “imprecise” and even “obsolete.”

Don’t these people have any respect for established scientific models of infallibility? Are they even licensed by the local Board of Mediocre Models (models that are generally consistent with some of reality most of the time)?

blason du governorats

blason du governorats (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

I am quite insulted by these disrespectful children who keep asking why over and over again. “Why do you say that scurvy is incurable if it has been cured thousands of times?”

These children clearly have mental disorders along the lines of lack of conformity to popular models of idealism. Their idealism is the wrong idealism. It should be more like mine.

How their mothers allowed them out of the womb without properly indoctrinating them in the holy idealism of our culture, I do not want to even speculate. They probably were not even properly cut out. They probably were delivered through the so-called birth canal.

That is NOT a canal. I know what a canal is, by the way, and that is absolutely not a canal. If you continue to offend me by your lack of sufficient enthusiasm for my tantrums, then I will show you some peer-reviewed journals in which a bunch of group-think worshipers all reference the so-called birth canal with an entirely different word.

I know science when I see it. Those words are NOT scientific. Those people should be ashamed, ridiculed, incarcerated, and medicated with mind-numbing drugs. Then they should be crucified, impaled, stoned, and resurrected. It is only right.

The Logo of Sindh Local Government

The Logo of Sindh Local Government (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Rituals of human sacrifice are not related to capital punishment. Those two phrases are entirely unrelated. Stop arguing with me. In fact, please just stop reading this!

Why did you even learn the English language if all you were going to do with it was be arrogant and sarcastic and out of conformity with my sacred presumptions of how you would be, should be, and must be? Plus, how many times do I have to tell you to stop reading this? You are so stubborn. You are so rebellious. You are so weird.

I said that you do not conform to my presumptions. So, in punishment, I do not condone your drama. You do not even seem to be paranoid about whether or not I approve of you. Why not? What is your problem? STOP!

Science is the STUDY of the natural order. Science is not the activity of arrogantly condemning contrary interpretations and criminalizing them. However, part of the order of modern human civilization is the condemning and criminalizing of perceived threats.


Tags: ,

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 )

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: