Pseudoscience

I would qualify to call many a list of things "pseudoscience" only if their proponents called them science. If their proponents only called such things "arguments from acquired taste" (based on how they were conditioned or came to condition themselves), then I would call such things "arguments" -- not science, nor pseudo science.


As to tastes in politics, literature, and music, we can hardly avoid them. To me, the best beginning point from which to test or rationalize an acquired taste is to ask: does this threaten or further an interesting republic for decently civilized free thinkers? While I believe that a thing that furthers decent civilization is good, I would not claim its determination to be a matter of either science or pseudo science. Not all of good reasoning needs to depend exclusively on its amenability to precise empirical replication, i.e., science.

****

I hope the point is not that Conservatives should argue with Progressives about which side is most “scientifically objective.” I think that is a mistake. It is greedy to expect that materialistic-based science should provide objective answers to all aspects of human inquiry, even to moral, economic, and political concerns. While we may find consistent answers for a moral approach, I suspect that will be only in a general way. I doubt there will be found a “theory of everything” that can prescribe every detail for that which we should (must?) do -- although I suspect Progressives hope a ruling class of elites will suffice as a substitute.

To suppose there is but one best answer to every question would be inconsistent with a moral philosophy based on an appreciation of free will. So, I quite doubt that there is an objective (or normal) path to a pre-determined, materially evolving, teleology based in pure objective physics or science.

At crux is this: We have not resolved, and may not have capacity to resolve, how to delineate in fine between those concerns that are properly confined to the sphere of empiricism versus those concerns that are properly confined to the sphere of moral or meta intuition or Will. Rather, there is constant skirmishing at the front line between Empiricists and Moralists, with each side periodically arguing that the other is not sufficiently “scientific” or “intuitive.”

Usually, it has seemed that “progressive,” materialistic empiricists were the ones arguing that all concerns should be reduced as much as possible to the realm of objective (normal) “science.” If nothing else, it is refreshing occasionally to find Conservatives noticing, as Progressives overreach and adulterate their “science.”