Core 'beliefs'/method

I asked myself the question today. Can I explain all my important beliefs/ideas in 5 minutes? I'll try. My ideas can be summarized as I'm a 'child of the Western Enlightenment', the 'Age of Reason', meaning my ideas are founded on principles:

1. The scientific method
2. Empiricist skepticism
3. Enlightenment ethics
4. Rationality

1. I said 'the scientific method'. I did not say 'science'.

   With science it's absolutely imperative one understands what science is and what it's not. Science is not reading Steven Hawkings, nor reading Richard Dawkins. If you want to know who to read then begin with Richard Feynman. Science is not atheism. Science is understanding the scientific method and being able to apply that for oneself. It's the ability to read a science report and to figure out for oneself whether that report is real, speculation or a lie. We can only know that by understanding how faithful the scientific reporting is to the scientific method. So, what is this method? In a nutshell it's: scientific laws and testable hypotheses AKA falsifiable hypotheses.

   "First you guess. Don't laugh, this is the most important step. Then you compute the consequences. Compare the consequences to experience. If it disagrees with experience, the guess is wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It doesn't matter how beautiful your guess is or how smart you are or what your name is. If it disagrees with experience, it's wrong. That's all there is to it."
   - Richard P. Feynman

   The scientific method began, in earnest at the start of the 17th century with Galileo when he applied empiricism and began to question received wisdom. The method is formalized today as:

   1. Belief in a set of scientific laws. These are relationships, or principles which describe simple relations in nature. They are formalized empirical findings.

   2. Belief in more complex ideas called scientific theories. A scientific theory is a scientific hypothesis which passes all its tests - a validated, 'testable hypothesis'. A testable hypothesis is an idea, obeying all scientific laws, which makes predictions. These predictions can be tested by comparing the results of a 'controlled experiment', or careful observation, with the hypothesis' prediction(s). We call the results of these tests 'validations' or falsifications. There are 3 kinds of hypothesis in science, or levels of credibility:

      1. A validated hypothesis = passing all tests = 'scientific theory'.
      2. A hypothesis failing even one test is falsified.
      3. A hypothesis which cannot be empirically tested is called speculation or conjecture. These are outside the scientific method. They are 'not even wrong'.

         "Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig; es ist nicht einmal falsch!"
         - Wolfgang Pauli

      The 3rd kind of 'hypothesis' should not be called a hypothesis - it is properly called speculation. This is important because, otherwise we admit to science an infinite number of mutually contradicting ideas. For example, it's estimated there may be 10⁴⁹⁹ distinct variations of 'string theory' (itself not a scientific theory). We have no way to test any of these. Nor the alternative grand unification 'theories' (none of which are scientific theories - dispite all being authored by armchair 'scientists' - who strictly speaking are not behaving as scientists because they're not following the scientific method.). In contrast, there are about 10⁷⁸ to 10⁸² protons in the known universe. So Wolfgang Pauli had good cause not to waste his time on an idea that is not only not right; it is not even wrong. We can easily waste our lifetime giving serious consideration to untestable ideas, and there are infinite numbers of such ideas to ponder. There 420 orders of magnitude more untestable hypotheses than there are protons in the universe. Don't waste your time speculationg; follow the scientific method instead.

   3. Universalism is a core axiom in science. The scientific ideas we all agree on (Laws and validated Theories) apply irrespective of time, place or direction. Irrespective of which direction we face in space, what time we live in, and where we are in the Universe.
   4. Occam's razor: given competing hypotheses about the same prediction, one should select the solution with the fewest assumptions.

      "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler."
      - Albert Einstein.

2. The Royal Society was founded in 1660, in London, England to promote science. It's founding motto is 'Nullius in verba', meaning 'on the word of no man'. Which means accept no authority, accept only evidence. This is the core of empiricist skepticism, which is Skepticism constrained by Empiricism, or evidence. It was the core method employed by all thinkers of the 'European Enlightenment', or 'Age of Reason'. Sometimes it's just called 'skepticism'. But it differs from Ancient Greek Skepticism in that one has to believe in something. On believes in good evidence and the scientific method.

"I would rather have questions that cannot be answered than answers that cannot be questioned."
- Richard P. Feynman

3. Ethically/politically, Enlightenment thinkers believed in:
   1. 'The Golden Rule' = do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
   2. Universalism = our common humanity unites us all. True ideas will be true for all of us. Truth is universal. [This was later partly lost with Immanuel Kant - but I reject Kant's interpretation so bully for me! Later still, trashed by postmodernism - which took Kant's initial error to its logical conclusion ]
   3. Cosmopolitanism = our shared humanity unites us across borders.
   4. Respect for and belief in: Liberty, Freedom, Equality, Free-speech, and classical human rights (AKA: political rights). Liberty means we're masters of our own fate. We're not obliged to a Lord, or state, religion, nor dogma. Freedom goes further - we are free to do as we like provided we harm no other people. Equality means equality of opportunity, opposition to discrimination and trusting people on the basis of their competence. Free speech was important to Enlightenment thinkers because their ideas were frequently censored by the states they lived in. It's connected to free and open debate which is a core requirement, a pre-condition, for a rational society = a society respecting reason. (see below) Human rights imply Universalism. The same treatment for everyone, equality before the Law, rights to a fair trial, freedom from state coercion, the right to vote. They are political rights. There is no right to work for example, it is not a political right. Demands for charity, state benefits and stuff are not 'rights'. Clasical, Age-of-Reason, human rights are characterised as universal, and non-exclusionary, which promote minimal freedoms with-respect-to state authority. My right does not impinge on your right. This is why modern, social rights, are not human rights. Modern so-called rights often depend on the state as encorcer. They are often claims made against other people; such as 'trans rights'. Modern social rights are fundamentally in opposition to classical human rights.
   5. Humanism. Even when they explicity followed a religion and/or believed in God Enlightenment thinkers were always explicitly humanist. We focus on humanity. On the goals of humanity: prosperity for all humans. Not on 'the environment', nor 'the state', nor 'the people', nor even 'the community'.
   6. Politically, Enlightenment writers generally favoured Democracy and Republicanism. Democracy means selecting those in control by voting, with democratic participation in society (selecting local councillors democratically). Republicanism constrains those in authority. Rulers are constrained by the 'rule of Law', constitutions, separation of powers and their institutional limits.
   7. Self-determination and Nationalism. These were often Enlightenment concerns. At the end of the Napoleanic Wars, 1815, many European nations lived under the yoke of empire. The Austrian, Russian, and Ottoman (Turkish) Empires. Globally empires were on he march and expanding. The British, French, Spanish, Dutch, Belgium, and German empires. As soon as Italy unified, it too, went on the empire march. Self-determination was a demand for freedom from empire and the right of a people to rule themselves. The Spanish Empire collapsed and was nearly over during the Napoleanic Wars. But the other empires were globally expanding. Nationalism was tied in to self-determination. Self-determination was an Enlightenment goal. Nationalism was the means to achieve it.

4. Reason/Rationality isn't so much about what great ideas we have. It's about our ability to discuss and debate with other people. But also to think outside the box, and especially to question recieved dogma. For me: there is no firm individual rationality, because we can always fool ourselves. We are only fully rational when tested in the court of debate. So the most important way to be rational is to avoid errors, fallacies and dogmas. Open debate tests, not only our ability to explain our ideas but our openess to new ideas. Rejecting logical fallacies is the core basic skill of reason. Debate isn't about being right, nor about winning. Reason and good debate is about being open to best arguments and evidence. One must learn logical fallacies so as to avoid them in one's reasoning.

   "When the Facts Change, I Change My Mind. What Do You Do, Sir?"
   - attributed to John Maynard Keynes

   It seems I just argued that robust reason in debate is a mutual enterprise. Yet, at the same time, each of us, alone, is reponsible for developing our own reasoning. Most people don't get very far with it because we're afraid to think for ourselves. Even those of us who study philosophy or critical thinking can fail to think for ourselves - think outside our current groupthink.

   "Sapere aude"! (Dare to be wise!)
   – Immanuel Kant

   Those who oppose free speech have total contempt for another's ability to become enlightened. They literally think we either cannot, or should not be allowed to think for ourselves. Opposition to free speech is the reverse of Kant's dictum: "Dare to be wise!" ≠ Be forever dumb. So support for, versus opposition to, free-speech it the litmus test of support for Enlightenment reasoning.

5. Notice all the things I left out: God, Socialism, Capitalism, Feminism, anti-Racism, Atheism, Environmentalism. I don't belive in any of these things. They are ideologies to enslave and blind us.

   "backout with your isms schisms"
   - a reggae toaster (possibly I-Roy or U-Roy)

   I seem a bit extreme. How can I reject feminism, anti-racism, atheism? Isn't that just crazy and medieval of me? Well I don't reject them. I just don't worship them. Nearly all these modern isms: Socialism, Capitalism, Feminism, anti-Racism, Atheism are founded on the values of the 'Age of Reason'. They are derived from and often implicit within Enlightenment reasoning. Yet some of the isms reject Enlightenment values. Communism rejects democracy. Intersectionality and Critical Race Theory, CRT reject equality. For example CRT explicitly rejects equality in favour of something it calls equity. Utilitarianism is often corrupted by ends justify the means arguments. Postmodernism rejects the very idea of truth.

   Environmentalism is different - it's founded upon a rejection of Enlightenment values. Environmentalists are often clearly anti-Humanist. I may call myself a nature conservationist; never an environmentalist. Of course there is also a long tradition of anti-humanism in conservationism; but it's not so explicit. With environmentalism even the most progressive of them, self-styled eco-moderns, are signed-up eco-doomsters, alarmists and neo-Malthusians.

Enlightenment Backlash

Nazi's weren't really a backlash. They were more pre-modern than modern.

Liberalism and socialism lead that attack against the Enlightenment today: They conconcted a set of ideologies so critical of civilization that the ideas do more harm than good. In particular Frankfurt School critical theory, (mainly) French post-modernism, and American critical race theory, and intersectional feminism, and the wishy-washy liberalism which accomodates ideas currently destroying it.

Readings

1. 'The Enlightenment: And Why it Still Matters', by Anthony Pagden
2. The Character Of Physical Law, by Richard P. Feynman
3. The Trouble With Physics: The Rise of String Theory, The Fall of a Science, and What Comes Next, by Lee Smolin
4. Conservatives Love Science. Liberals Worship Scientism. < How a Christian uses science