Why is mankind so capable in his technology and so inept in his culture? Why is it the human can build a space shuttle but can't raise a child in the ghetto?
Man has used his intelligence to gain provable knowledge and thereby to create a physical world in which to live. Unfortunately, while engineer and artisan toiled objectively and produced wondrous things, their social counterparts (educators, psychologists, sociologists, bureaucrats, etc.) created great imaginative and subjective systems of destructive cultural dogma all based on archaic and false concepts of man, dooming him to certain extinction if not corrected.
In designing useful things, the engineer requires the rejection of any "knowledge" which is not provable and measurable. If something can't be proven to be true, it is not implemented until it can be proven.
We have no requirements for any form of basis in our studies on social man. Our cultural standards and decisions, the very basis for human life, are based on opinion, conjecture, imagination and hearsay. In fact, we encourage the bizarre in our cultural studies (diversity and multiculturalism).
Four and a half million years of history show that both man and woman are by nature (instinct) tribal, self-disciplined, driven by instinct, competitive, tenacious, vigorous, adventurous, courageous and goal oriented. Modern history of the past 5,000 years shows that mankind is capable of withstanding great physical hardship and any stress provided by life. This is a creature that needs guidance and direction, not coddling and sympathy.
We now seek in our schools (our method of culture maintenance) to destroy those hard-earned human attributes. We no longer believe in the virtue of excellence (competition). A vigorous person is now called a workaholic. A tenacious person is stubborn and mean. Courage is considered to be a myth. A goal is a means of seeking superiority and dominance. Self-discipline is considered biblical dogma, therefore not fit for public schooling. Tribalism is encouraged through the teaching of multiculturalism. We seek through our education system to educate instincts, an impossibility, while ignoring the developing human's intellectual need for real knowledge. We deliberately teach our children baseless dogma, ideology, fantasy and fiction, while boundless real provable knowledge, which they desperately need in a world suddenly demanding of knowledge, is ignored.
The result is a destructive conflict between the human and its culture, resulting in escape (drugs, promiscuous sex, alcohol, thrill seeking), rebellion (gangs, crime, drive-by-shootings, teenage pregnancy), racial hate and a work force that has been taught that productive work is degrading and class enslavement.
Our entire liberal arts education system, from which comes the standards for our culture and the education of our young in that culture, is now mired in an archaic and erroneous thought pattern: that knowledge can come from the mind of man based on premises that need no proof and that such knowledge needs no measured verification. The source of this error lies in the following of philosophers who through the ages, though gifted, did not have the real and provable knowledge available that we have today. They taught that truth comes from pure thought and that all humans are capable of pure thought if properly educated. We have since learned that the human is not inherently wise and is in fact quite prone to error, and that he is intelligent only when he follows a rigid set of thought requirements and procedures. Since the education system is intellectually incestuous (it has no external evaluation and it trains its own replacement) it has developed its own elitist culture which it now insists must be the ideological doctrine of each student.
And now, this elitist ideology is deeply effecting our science. Biologists, geneticists, evolutionists, linguists, and psychologists all come from this same intellectual environment. Scientific investigation, especially in the social sciences, has lost all semblance of objectivity. In many cases the data is taken merely to corroborate a previously determined ideological conclusion. Conflicting data is ignored or discredited. Often the data is force-fitted to a desired politically correct result. The consequence is complete 'scientific' support for an erroneous ideology.
Unfortunately, man has become divided into three self-defeating camps of cultural thought. The religious right is defensively reactionary and will tolerate no reason. The liberal/socialist has become a reactionary and, even while touting himself as being a champion of 'modern' thought, is militantly defensive of an outmoded and archaic ideology. While preaching against bigotry and intolerance, he has become guilty of both. The modern 'moderate' blissfully floats along, content with adding the two extremes and dividing by two, resulting in error at least as great as either of the others. As a result, man is now bogged down in a cultural quagmire.
Somewhere, somehow, we must bring our culture determining thought processes away from intuition, conjecture, imagination and hearsay and start requiring the use of the more demanding, and more successful, engineering practice of provable premises and logical progression with frequent measured verification.
Man has the mental skills to develop world wide aviation, space flight, plastics, lasers, digital computers, television, and the modern automobile. These modern wonders prove that man has the imagination and vision to see his mechanical needs and the ability to build mechanisms that meet those requirements and bring them into use. Yet, what about his cultural needs?
Crime is rampant. Children are having children. A huge segment of the population is unable to earn its own way. People that graduate from our schools cannot read. We abort millions of innocent unborn each year, while fighting to save the lives of demons on death row. We deliberately insist on segmenting (psychologically segregating) our population on sexual, racial, and class boundaries, then wonder why they cannot get along. We have wars and terrorism all over the world. Socialism, and its twin, communism, have been shown to be catastrophic failures since ancient Greece, yet we insist on driving ourselves headlong down that path. Pop singers and professional athletes receive the greatest rewards. Our teachers are on the low end of the scale, but they spend so much more time on indoctrinating the students in elitist ideology than in teaching fact that they deserve even less. Our politicians are inept, corrupt and without honor. A popular socially degenerate statement of today, echoing the beliefs of about half of our citizenry about electing a president, is that "Character does not count." Our justice system is archaic, inbred and impotent. We allow medicine to be monopolized by an elite few by greatly restricting admissions to our medical schools then have massive complaints about the cost of medicine. We teach promiscuous sex in our schools with imperfect disease and birth controls then wring our hands about single parent families and the spread of HIV.
Why does humankind have so many successes in highly technical fields and so many failures in his cultural? The answer is so simple that if this whole charade was not so pitiful, it would be hysterically funny
Ancient philosopher/scientists described a world constructed from earth, water, air and fire and decreed that pure knowledge came only from pure reason. As man's knowledge grew, the thinkers diverged into two camps: those who studied things (the scientists) and those who searched for the deeper meanings of life (the philosophers).
As the scientists progressed in their field, they quickly outgrew the earth-water-air-fire restriction, and as quickly discarded the notion that any real knowledge could come from thought alone. They continued to recognize the value of intelligence, imagination, reason and logic, but they had experienced many failures of beautiful thought when it was put to the test. They began to develop an increasingly skeptical attitude toward all unsubstantiated thought. That trend continues to this day. Any scientist-engineer of today who voices an idea that can't be traced with impeccable logic to measurable fact will barely bring a raised eyebrow among his colleagues, no matter how wonderful it sounds. Today's scientists are still looking for the essence of our material world, and they have progressed down through the atomic into the subatomic realm in their search. Meanwhile, they have made good use of each knowledge platform developed during that search
The modern philosophers and social scientists (along with scientists who include ideology as a determining element in their analyses), are still mired in the pure knowledge comes from pure thought absurdity. Without knowing the source of human thought and its reason for being, they nevertheless place credence in its product to the exclusion of measurable fact. They still believe that if a thought sounds good, it is good. They still refuse to base their thought on physical reality and to constantly test that thought with physical measurement. The biggest error they make is in attributing abilities to the human brain for which it was never designed. Pure thought cannot come from a brain tainted with passion and experience. It certainly cannot come from a brain that ceased developing soon after developing fire and the stone-axe
The human brain is a primitive machine, developed in and as an integral part of a complex and interacting set of instincts, some of which are now archaic and obsolete (even harmful in some cases). It is a useful tool under closely controlled operating conditions. It is a real problem the rest of the time and often downright dangerous.
How can one philosophize about man's ethics, if one does not consider the facts about his condition? How can his condition be discussed, if he has not been previously defined in terms referenced to measurable fact? Then comes the biggest question of all: What is man?
Many philosophers, from Socrates to Hegel have tried to answer that question (from the resources of their mind). The many philosophers in our history have effected our way of thinking, typically much more than they should. We have misunderstood their relationship with us, and we have been taught that misunderstanding in our schools. We need to put them in perspective.
Many artists pour their intellect into paint and canvas. Some produce breathtaking masterpieces that thrill us all. Other artists, called sculptors, do the same with chisel and stone. Others work with the flute and harp. We seek inspiration from all and get joy from associating with their art. Nevertheless, we do not seek knowledge from them. By their nature, and deliberately so, their work is separate from reality. We must seek the knowledge by which we live from more humdrum, but more accurate sources.
Philosophers, another breed of artist, pour the inner beauty of their minds into words and thoughts. We get the same joy from savoring their thoughts and ideas as we do from the statue, the painting and the melody. Yet we make the mistake of believing their words to be truth. Unless substantiated by fact, they are a picture of the philosopher's soul, perhaps even a beautiful picture of a beautiful soul, but no more. We must seek intellectual joy and inspiration from them. We must not seek knowledge from them. When we listen to their words, we must also constantly compare those words with reality.
If we can't learn from the philosopher, then how do we answer the question: What is man? We must return to the basics in our provable knowledge and start from there. We cannot define man until we define life in a measurable fashion. Once past that hurdle, we can follow life's development down through the ages, proving each step with logic and measurement, until we reach man. Then, and only then, knowing what he is and what his shortcomings are, can we start learning his responsibilities and needs.
Mankind develops mechanical things with a straight forward clear-cut set of thinking rules, one that does not depend on, indeed is highly critical of, the product of mans thought. We allow no such set of rules, indeed we allow no rules at all, when applying man's ability to think to social concerns. In the cultural world, if it sounds (feels) good, we swallow the whole idea, hook, line and sinker, especially if the idea is our own.
What is this wonderful and profitable thought scheme used by the mathematicians, physicists, engineers, artisans and chemists and shunned by the cultural engineers? The pompous ones in the scientific group will say 'scientific method'. The term 'absolute skepticism' is much more descriptive of the process. If an engineer/scientist cannot prove an idea all the way back to demonstrable and provable truth, and stand ready to do so, he will not find a supporter anywhere.
All scientists recognize that most of the creative ideas from even the best of their breed, are found worthless. Only a very few ideas reach practice. Something may sound marvelous, may look marvelous, may even create marvelous conditions if true, and still be disastrous in effect. Edison, for example, had many hundreds of good ideas on the light bulb before he found one that worked. Occasionally a greedy scientist will trumpet a new idea based on false evidence. He is quickly found out and drummed out of the business. The secret of the scientific method is total skepticism by everyone toward any new idea. Nothing is believed until proven with sound logic based on measurable fact. Even then, constant vigilance is required for anything that might disprove it. One of the important early geneticists, Thomas Hunt Morgan, declared, in the early 1900's after a particularly fruitless siege of inquiry: The investigator must cultivate also a skeptical state of mind toward all hypotheses-especially his own-and be ready to abandon them the moment the evidence points the other way
The most valuable service done by any scientist/engineer is not his genius in developing new ideas but in his perseverance in debunking the harebrained ideas of other scientists, and being especially skeptical of his own.
No counterpart of this service exists in modern philosophical-cultural thinking. Contrast this thinking process with the modern hypothesis by the social engineers that juvenile misbehavior is caused by lack of self-esteem. This idea is based entirely on current psychological dogma, which in turn not only has no basis in fact, but was derived through opinion and conjecture (the most dangerous of all thought procedures) from other dogmas that were also without basis in fact. The truth is, the juvenile who lacks a high order of self-esteem is quite rare. High self-esteem often leads to arrogance, especially among the young. Teaching them more self-esteem (as opposed to teaching them how to earn self-esteem through self-discipline and accomplishment) brings more arrogance toward others. Unearned and unjustified high self-esteem does not do well in adjusting impetuous and self-centered action. So we see juvenile crime and parenthood climb ever more rapidly as we step up the teaching of ever more self-esteem. Teaching them a little humbleness would be better, until they earn their stripes.
It would be unthinkable in the mechanical world to re-skin a Boeing 747 with a new plastic material, load it with 600 passengers and wing it off from San Francisco to Hong Kong without running exhaustive tests and analyses beforehand. Yet the social engineers instituted a federal government subsidy for illegitimate babies with only 'it feels good' and 'it's the right thing to do' as basis. This experiment was tried out on the entire national population, and it failed miserably. The frequency of illegitimate babies skyrocketed. The relief from misery for the individual was dwarfed by the cultural misery (and damage) that the program generated. This is only one of thousands of such innovations and new ideas instituted without prior measurement, and based on opinion rather than fact, that are now being evaluated in human misery. Indeed, the more bizarre and irrational the scheme, especially if it can jerk a tear, the quicker it is tried out.
If we are to succeed in our cultural life as well as we have in our mechanical, we must use the same thought process. Contrast scientific thinking with that by Marx, the father of all modern liberal/socialist thinking. He had no basis in provable fact for any of his assertions. Not even one. He was a malcontent bent on destroying his own culture, and his writings are entirely his opinion. He started with his own beliefs, developed his own thoughts, and came to his own conclusions. Then there is Freud, the definer of man, whose work (under one name or another) is a basis for most modern social work. His teachings were figments of his own imagination and if true, are so by coincidence. To the teachings of Freud and Marx we add a hundred years of naive conjecture by academics and social workers and now teach it all as fact. It is not. It is baseless dogma and should not be taught as fact. As long as this mental garbage is taught and believed we will never be able to develop a true understanding of culture and its needs. Garbage in, garbage out. That explains our cultural failure.
Where do we start in cleaning this mess up? The mechanical people always start with a provable factual measurable base, then prove their ideas step by step. So where are the basics in the academic world concerning culture? If we eliminate all dogma, hearsay, conjecture, and personal opinion, nothing is left. Not even one word. If we could dig our way out from under that pile of refuse, maybe, just maybe, we could find our way to truth. The way to start would be to label (at least mentally) every book in every library that does not have a scientific basis as FICTION in big letters across the front, back and spine. Much truth is probably buried in that dogma. Collective man is usually wise. We should not discard the good along with the bad, but the problem is that without factual tools, how can the truth be isolated from the garbage?
The mechanical people are still looking for the lowest common denominator of matter. The philosopher/social engineers' world is lucky, in a sense. The lowest common denominator of life can be readily defined:
This is the dividing line between the inanimate and the living. This is the essence that divides the rock from the tree. By defining this boundary in fact, we can establish a provable path to follow in discovering what life is and how it works. This path will diverge and lead to all living things and their relationship. Along the way we can discover what man is and how he fits in the scheme of life. Only then can we know his obligations, deficiencies and needs.
We need a factual, provable, and measurable base for our cultural studies. First we must state that which is basic to culture:
The first step, then, is to establish that basic concept in fact. We offer a series of texts as a means of discovery. We struggle to avoid all dogma. Within current scientific knowledge, we will state provable and measurable fact. We search for the parameters that will define a new worldwide culture, one based on provable knowledge.
It is common 'knowledge' that science can never determine morality (the most desirable cultural behavioral norms). Such things are notions from the spiritual or philosophical world, matters of imagination and conjecture from the very wise. Among the religious they are determined from the words of God, perceived as those written in their accepted texts. Among the academic elite they are determined from a multitude of self-proclaimed philosophers, their views (opinions) based primarily on texts by Marx (which they vehemently deny). Both of these camps are reactionary and militantly intolerant of each other. Both place their faith in dogma. Neither will listen to reason or fact.
On closer look, however, that first sentence in the above paragraph, is an oxymoron. It says, in effect, that logic and reason based on provable premises (science) must be discarded in the quest for a livable culture for man in favor of the lore and chants of the shaman, whether he be religious or socialist. Since there are many of these, all with divergent opinions about man and his proper behavior, across the breadth of the human species, it is no wonder that the worldwide human culture is collectively a disaster. If there is need for the application of intellect and knowledge anywhere in the human experience, it is needed here, for it is here that we determine the future of mankind.
It can be shown that the human is a definable biological survival mechanism, developed to fit an environment that can also be measured and defined. Its proper individual behavior (moral action) may be determined from a study of that dynamic interactive system.
It will be a long and difficult task, made even more so by the entrenched dogmas existing within the culture(s). To not do so, however, places the human species, perhaps even all of life itself, at great risk.