Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Becky’s Lesson, a Viginette

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Friday, May 12, 2017
Hermann Göring High School
Brooklyn, New York

Wilhelm Johnson was at the top of his game.  He held a master’s degree in history from NYU and had spent over 35 years working hard to become a master teacher.  In all his decades in the classroom he had never stopped honing his skills.  Even now, at a time in his career when many of his colleagues had begun to coast toward retirement, Johnson worked into the evening every day, personally grading essays and polishing his lesson plans for the next day.  He loved his job and considered it a great honor and privilege that the Reich had bestowed on him the responsibility of molding young minds in the largest and most important city in the Bundesland of New York.

Johnson turned to the whiteboard at the front of his senior modern history class, wrote in large block letters “WATERSHED MOMENT,” and asked the class, “Who can tell me what a watershed moment is?”  As usual, Patricia Garland’s hand popped up as if it had a will of its own.  Garland was the highly-resented, curve-busting class gunner, but Johnson had to give her her due; she knew her stuff, and since hers was the only raised hand he said, “Miss Garland.”

“A watershed moment is a crucial dividing point in history where all subsequent events go one way or the other, a turning point.  It derives its name from a geographical watershed in which the water that falls on a particular side of a ridge drains to one river, and the water on the other side drains to a different river.”

“That is exactly correct, Miss Garland.  I see you have been reading ahead.”  Garland beamed; several of her classmates were unable to resist rolling their eyes.  Turning back to the whiteboard and tapping the phrase, Johnson said, “Today we are going to talk about the decision to replace Abraham Esau with Werner Heisenberg as the head of the German nuclear weapons program in 1940.  With the rather obvious exception of the Great Führer’s 1921 decision to assume his role in history by stepping up to lead the Party, the Heisenberg appointment was perhaps the most crucial moment of the 20th Century.”

From the back of the class, Brad Anderson piped up without raising his hand, “Surely Field Marshal Keitel’s decision to nuke London and Moscow in late 1943, causing England and the Soviet Union to surrender within days of one another, was more important to history than an obscure administrative shift in the German Army Ordnance Office.”

“Any fool can pull a trigger, Mr. Anderson.  Who is more crucial, the first user of a revolutionary new weapon, or the genius who invented it in the first place?  And in this case, timing was everything.  Under Esau, the German nuclear weapons program was at a standstill.  After the war we learned there was a competing program right here in the former United States called the ‘Manhattan Project.’  German scientists estimate the American research program was not that far behind and might have had an operational weapon as early as 1945.  That is why Heisenberg’s appointment was so crucial.  His combination of charisma, intelligence and hard work was just what the German program needed to get on track to beat the Americans.  He replaced Esau in February 1940 and began pushing for the Reich to throw its industrial might behind the project.  As a direct result of his efforts, Germany had an operational weapon by August 1943, and the rest, as they say, is history.  The weapon was literally unstoppable.  Within six months every one of Germany’s enemies had either surrendered outright or sued for peace, marking the beginning of Germany’s program for the unification of the world’s governments under Berlin’s leadership.  That obscure administrative shift, Mr. Anderson, was the very essence of a watershed moment.”

The bell rang; books began slamming shut a microsecond later, and students started shuffling toward the door.  Johnson called out to their retreating backs, “Don’t forget!  Quiz on Monday on the Great Führer’s 1947 decision to conquer Japan, his former ally.”

The next hour was Johnson’s planning period, and as the students made their way out of the room he walked over to his desk at the front of the room.  Before he sat down he heard someone clear their throat behind him.  He turned around to see Becky Schumann, perhaps his brightest student after Patty Garland, waiting to speak to him.

“Yes, Miss Schumann, how can I help you today?”

Becky looked up shyly and in a hesitant voice said, “Mr. Johnson, I have learned so much from you, and I wanted to take just a moment before the end of the year to thank you and tell you how much I have loved being in your class.”

“Why, thank you Becky.  That is a very nice thing to say and it warms the cockles of an old teacher’s heart to know he is appreciated.”

“Uh, you’re welcome.  I also hoped you could help me with a couple of questions I have been turning over in my mind as we studied the events of the last several decades this year.”

“I am happy to help if I can.  What’s on your mind?”

“Well,” Becky said so softly her voice was almost inaudible, “it’s about The Final Solution.”

“What about it?”

“Umm.  This year we learned that from its very beginning the Party opposed the Jewish-materialistic spirit, and when the Great Führer came to power in the 1930’s, one of the first things he did was start rooting the Jews out of positions of influence.  Then, early in the Great Unification War that began in September 1939, Reichsführer Himmler implemented The Final Solution to completely eliminate the world’s population of about 15 million Jews.  The Final Solution was deemed complete in July 1951 when the last known pockets of Jews were finally tracked down and eliminated.”

“Very impressive Becky.  With your grades I am not surprised, but it looks like you really have been absorbing history this year.”

“Thank you, Mr. Johnson.”

“So, what’s your question?”

“Well, um, I guess it is not so much a question as it is a doubt.”

“What are you doubting?”

Becky paused before answering.  She was obviously nervous, and Johnson was beginning to suspect why.  She took a deep breath and said, “Can I tell you something in confidence?”

“Of course, you can.”

“Well, um, you see,” Becky stammered in nervous agitation, “I know the Party requires Christians to adhere to Party-approved Positive Christianity.  But my parents adhere to Evangelical Christianity, and the other day we were talking about The Final Solution, because it was part of my lesson.  And . . . are you sure this is confidential?  I wouldn’t want my dad to get in trouble.”

“It’s OK Becky.  You can trust me.  This conversation is protected by student-teacher confidentiality.  Besides, you are one of my brightest students and I like you very much.  I would never do anything to hurt you or your family.”

“Oh, I’m so glad to hear that, because I really do need to talk this through with someone.”

“What is it you need to talk through, Becky?”

“Well, um, my dad, in this conversation, he said he thought The Final Solution was evil.”

There it was.  There was nothing for it now.  The cat was out of the bag.  Becky had implicated her father in sedition.  Johnson did not know the man, but he genuinely cared for his students, and he hoped he could take Becky by the metaphorical hand and lead her back to the true path.

“And what do you think Becky?”

“Well, I don’t know.  My dad and I talked about it a long time, and his arguments really has my head spinning.”

“Let’s talk about those arguments.  What does he say; why does he think The Final Solution was evil?”

“His argument is pretty simple really.  He says that killing a person for no other reason than that he has a different ethnic background than you is self-evidently evil.  It follows that killing 15 million innocent men, women and children for no other reason than that they were Jews is genocide, which is perhaps the greatest evil there is.”

Johnson was silent as he contemplated the radical extent of the anti-Party sedition that had just been revealed to him.  Becky’s father had as much as accused the Great Führer of committing “the greatest evil there is.”  It was breathtaking; he was momentarily stunned into silence.

“Did you remind him that no one at any level of government has raised the slightest question about The Final Solution for over 65 years, and I see no sign at all that is about to change?”

“Of course.  He said it doesn’t matter.”

“It doesn’t matter?  How in the world could that not matter?”

“He says that morality is not determined by headcount.  He says a moral choice either conforms to a transcendent objective moral standard or it does not.  And if it does not, even if every other person on the planet disagreed with him about whether The Final Solution was evil, he would be right, and they would be wrong.”

“Well, I hope you can see that it is pretty darned arrogant for him to set his own moral standard up as the only correct one.”

“He says it is not his standard, but God’s standard.  God commands us not to murder, and he says that every one of the 15 million Jews killed in the implementation of The Final Solution was murdered.”

Johnson’s head began to swim at the implications of what he was hearing, but with an effort of will he pushed that aside and said, “Murdered?  Really?  Murder is a legal conclusion.  Surely you know that The Final Solution was perfectly legal.  It was sanctioned by the duly-instituted governmental authorities everywhere it was implemented.  How could it have been immoral if it was perfectly legal?”

“That’s what I said, but dad said an action, even a legal action by a government official, that transgresses God’s law is still evil.”

“Well there you go; we finally get to the bottom of it.  If this God your dad talks about does not exist, then his law does not exist, right?”

“Sure, that seems obvious.”

“Beginning with Darwin in 1859 and continuing up to the present day, science has been advancing and religion has been retreating.  We have reached the point where science has displaced religion in every area of inquiry.  Science has finally proved that God does not exist.”

“Oh, I didn’t think about that.  But if God does not exist, where did the universe some from?  Why is there something instead of nothing?  I don’t see how the universe can account for its own existence.  Something creating itself from nothing does not make sense to me.”

“That’s a valid objection, but fortunately there is an answer.  Our greatest scientists tell us that because the laws of nature – like the law of gravity – exist, the universe can indeed create itself from nothing.”

“The laws of nature are something, not nothing.  Where did they came from?”

“Another good question.  And just this year one of our most famous physicists wrote a book answering it.  In a nutshell, he said the laws of physics are a brute fact that we simply must accept as a given.”

“OK.  So what you’re telling me is that science has proven God does not exist.”

“Right.”

“And a transcendent objective moral standard like the one my dad talks about can exist only if God created it.

“Right.”

“And since God does not exist, a transcendent objective moral standard does not exist.”

“Excellent.  You’ve got it.”

“But morality sure feels like a real thing.”

“Of course, morality is a real thing.  I never suggested otherwise.”

“Oh, I’m sorry.  I misunderstood.  If morality is real, where did it come from?”

“Here again, science has the answer.  Science has proved there is no God.  It follows there is nothing in the universe but particles in motion.  And from this it follows there is no objective morality.  Another of our greatest scientists says, the universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.”

“But, Mr. Johnson, that sounds like morality can’t exist.”

“You’re right if by ‘morality’ you mean the sort of ‘objective transcendent morality’ your dad talks about.  But that is not the only kind of morality there is.  You see, humans sit at the top of a grand evolutionary pyramid that has been built over billions of years.  And over the eons our ancestors developed by trial and error certain behaviors that helped them to survive.  Today, we call those survival-beneficial behaviors “morality.”

“And The Final Solution was one of those survival beneficial behaviors?”

“Well, it’s not quite that simple.  Science tells us that there are many kinds of good and evil, all determined by the norms in the society in which one happens to live.  In the case of The Final Solution, in a competition of war, German society prevailed over all other societies and therefore the moral prescriptions of German society are followed all over the world.  In other words – and listen very carefully to what I am about to say Becky – there is no place anyone can stand from which to judge the moral ideals of German society, because we are all in German society, and German society is where, by definition, all moral ideals come from.  In other words, The Final Solution was deemed good by German society, and it was therefore, by definition, good.”

“So it all turns on the fact that God does not exist.  Even if my dad feels very strongly that killing 15 million men, women and children for no reason other than that they were Jews is evil, he is wrong, because The Final Solution was good by definition, because it was accepted by society and there is no place outside of society to judge what it accepts as good.”

“Exactly.  I am glad you are getting it.”

“Thank you, Mr. Johnson.  It is such a relief to know that science has proved that the Party’s actions are always, by definition, moral, since the Party controls society.”

“Any time Becky.”

“And again, Mr. Johnson, I would hate for my dad to get in trouble.  This whole conversation is just between us, right?”

“Of course; set your mind at ease on that score.”

“Thank you again.  I will see you Monday.”  Becky smiled a little smile and seemed to heave a small sigh of relief as she turned and walked to the door.  Johnson watched her leave, and as the door closed behind her, he reached for his phone to call the Brooklyn division of the Gestapo.  “‘Greatest evil there is,’” Johnson murmured as he dialed.  “We’ll see what you think about that when your door is kicked down tonight.”

Comments
John
Is RodW willing to say that if Nazis had won genocide would be morally justifiable?
No I think genocide is immoral. But I think its immoral even when God commands it.RodW
March 5, 2018
March
03
Mar
5
05
2018
10:18 AM
10
10
18
AM
PDT
If the Nazis had won Christianity would have probably incorporated the idea that the Jews were punished because after 2000 years they still hadn’t accepted Jesus Christ.
Let’s focus on the premise, “If the Nazis had won.” That is basically saying the winners make the rules. Not only the so-called legal rules but also the moral rules. That's where the logic of moral relativism leads us. Is RodW willing to say that if Nazis had won genocide would be morally justifiable?john_a_designer
March 5, 2018
March
03
Mar
5
05
2018
09:32 AM
9
09
32
AM
PDT
#8 LM, yep, Child Sacrifice to false gods gets the Creator upset. Several reasons God commanded the Israelites to take back the land. First, it was theirs to begin with. He gave the land to the tribes of Jacob prior to them going into Egypt. The land of Abraham was their inheritance. Second, as you state LM, the tribes God commanded Joshua to kill were sacrificing their babies, burning them alive live in fires to their false idols, for fertility rituals, etc. God did not command Israel to attack territories other than their own, or to attack other kingdoms or tribe outside that area unless they attacked Israel. re: Hitler... Besides Hitler's wars on other nations and the Holocaust of 6 million Jewish people, women and children. Hitler also used abortion to kill off ethnic groups not of the "super race" Margaret Sanger targeted ethnic minorities as well in America, going to the KKK women to speak at one time as well. Over 50 million American babies murdered as a result. God only knows how many in Europe, Russia, and China. Chinese targeted baby girls for death because of their sex. Millions gone. This does not include the 100 millon dead under Stalin and Mao, starved to death or murdered. Not because the people of Russia or China were murdering innocent babies by throwing them into the fire like the tribes of Canaan. But because Mao and Stalin murdered anyone who would not succumb to their communist doctrine. God's command was to kill cold-blooded murderers who sacrifice live babies to being burned to death.
“Let no one be found among you who sacrifices his son or daughter in the fire, who practices divination or sorcery, interprets omens, engages in witchcraft, or casts spells, or who is a medium or spiritist or who consults the dead” (Deut 18:10-11).
These tribes were not innocent victims. Finally, the tribal wars during that time period demanded retribution by any tribe attacked. Any survivors were to take retribution against their enemy. Wars fought during this period were often like that. Wiping out entire tribes so retribution would not take place. Blood Retribution was part of ancient tribal culture. And survivors were bound by these tribal laws to seek retribution against the other. They were not practicing the laws of God, but their own. The wars between Israel and these tribes would've gone on for hundreds of years. Or thousands, like the Islamic wars upon Christians, or Soviet Union invading Crimea again. Wars usually do not stop unless there is an overwhelming victor. Put this in modern times with WWII and Japan. Japan refused to surrender. Truman had before him tens of thousands of more American deaths, or unleash an atomic bomb. He chose the latter to save American lives. The Emperor still refused to surrender after the first bomb was dropped. Was Truman evil for saving American lives using the bomb? War is not played by releasing your enemy to come back and kill you the next day. You either kill or be killed. We released multiple Al Qaeda and terrorist operatives only to see them become terrorist leaders and kill many more people, including attacks on our troops. You take out the enemy, or you live with years of pain and suffering, and death of your own people. The reason the final solution was evil is because it was against innocent people based upon ethnicity. The Jewish people in Germany, long having gone through thousands of years of atrocities against them from nation to nation were once against targeted. But this was not because they were sacrificing babies into a fire. But simply because they were Jews.DATCG
March 5, 2018
March
03
Mar
5
05
2018
08:49 AM
8
08
49
AM
PDT
Rod @ 16. Your request demonstrates that one of two things is true: 1. You are a hopeless idiot and cannot understand the point of the story. 2. You do understand the point of the story and are continuing your distraction antics. Either way, responding to you would be counterproductive. If you decide you have something to add to the discussion, please feel free to jump back in. Otherwise, move along while the grownups talk.Barry Arrington
March 5, 2018
March
03
Mar
5
05
2018
08:44 AM
8
08
44
AM
PDT
Barry Please summarize the main point of the story. I'm at work now and cant' take too much time but I'll try to keep the conversation goingRodW
March 5, 2018
March
03
Mar
5
05
2018
08:41 AM
8
08
41
AM
PDT
Orloog, anything of substance? So far we've had four A-Mats respond. None of them have even addressed, far less attempted to refute, the substance of the points made. Are there any A-Mats willing to address substance? Bueller? Bueller? Are you all Simpering Cowards?Barry Arrington
March 5, 2018
March
03
Mar
5
05
2018
08:39 AM
8
08
39
AM
PDT
Rod at 11
Barry. So is the main point that atheists can’t be moral?
Another attempt to change the subject. Rod, do you have anything to say about the point made in the story? Or is throwing rhetorical dust up in the air all you've got?Barry Arrington
March 5, 2018
March
03
Mar
5
05
2018
08:37 AM
8
08
37
AM
PDT
Bundesland? Didn't know that the nazis were into federalism....Orloog
March 5, 2018
March
03
Mar
5
05
2018
08:08 AM
8
08
08
AM
PDT
LM @ 7 to rvb8: "...and more than a little snobbish." I find that to be the case with most a/mats. There is no shortage of arrogance and snobbery among those who embrace the a/mat faith.Truth Will Set You Free
March 5, 2018
March
03
Mar
5
05
2018
07:59 AM
7
07
59
AM
PDT
Barry. So is the main point that atheists can't be moral? I know that the debate here on that topic has advanced a bit from that point but I'd have to hear a summary. Of course even BundesReich Propaganda Minister Wilhelm Lane Craig admits that atheists can be moral!RodW
March 5, 2018
March
03
Mar
5
05
2018
07:40 AM
7
07
40
AM
PDT
Local @ #8: The reason for the elimination of the Canaanites was that God had promised the land to the Jews and the Canaanites were living there. They were squatters. If the Nazis had won Christianity would have probably incorporated the idea that the Jews were punished because after 2000 years they still hadn't accepted Jesus Christ. Why let generation after generation of Jews be born into the world only to be doomed to hell? Killing them all would have clearly been the more humane, and the more Christian thing to do.RodW
March 5, 2018
March
03
Mar
5
05
2018
07:37 AM
7
07
37
AM
PDT
RodW @ 6 gives us the inevitable "I know you are but what am I" response we have come to expect every time from materialists. When confronted with the incoherence of their moral views, they are always desperate to change the subject. Rod, I assume that when it comes to refuting the main point of the story, you've got nothing. I understand. The thrust of the argument is pretty much irrefutable. Thanks for affirming that by trying to change the subject.Barry Arrington
March 5, 2018
March
03
Mar
5
05
2018
07:35 AM
7
07
35
AM
PDT
RodW @ 6: The reason given was because of idolatry. A fuller context was probably available at the time. These were also people who had been lead through a parted sea and by a pillar of cloud by day and a pillar of fire by night. And even that wasn't sufficient to keep them from making an idol of their own when Moses left them for a time. The Almighty freshly out of your presence and you start worshiping a statue. Sounds about like people. I think that makes a pretty good point about the need to remove the practice. Especially when it could include child sacrifice. As Christians, we have not been commanded to do such things, or anything that we'd need God to establish His presence to justify. The Nazis were clearly operating outside of Jesus' commission.LocalMinimum
March 5, 2018
March
03
Mar
5
05
2018
07:18 AM
7
07
18
AM
PDT
rvb8 @ 2: While I greatly appreciate and am recording the literature references, your criticism of the work at hand is more heat than light, and more than a little snobbish.LocalMinimum
March 5, 2018
March
03
Mar
5
05
2018
06:52 AM
6
06
52
AM
PDT
Johnson thought for a moment about he could persuade Becky she was wrong. He didnt want to her die in the bowels of the Flatbush detention center along with her father. "Becky, have you read your Old Testament?" "Yes Mr. Johnson" "Do you know what God commanded the Jews to do in Samuel and Number?" "No, Mr Johnson" "He commanded them to kill every last Canaanite man woman and child. They obeyed him of course because to do so was righteous." "Why would he command that Mr Johnson?" asked Becky. The thought that God would command the murder babies and children clearly upset her. "It doesnt matter why he commanded this. We dont need to know. When your leader commands you to do something you do it without question. The important point is that God has nothing against genocide when he commands it. God had a plan for the Jews and so the Canaanites had to be eliminated. But the Jews displeased God and after 2000 years he settled on their fate just as he did with the Canaanites. Why does this upset you?" "But how do we know he wanted the Jews eliminated?" "C'mon Becky. You're smarted than that. Do you really think one little country in the corner of Europe would have been able to conquer the world if God didnt want it? And consider that our glorious Fuhrer survived 27 separate assassination attempts. Do you really think he could have survived without Divine help? von Stauffenbergs attempt was the most famous. A large bomb detonated 2 feet from the Fuhrer. A man who was farther away was blown to pieces but the Fuhrer didnt suffer a scratch. You dont see the hand of God in this?" "You're right Mr Johnson. I dont know what I could have been thinking" As Becky walked home she could see clearly that God was behind the Fuhrer, and she had the unmistakable feeling that God was guiding her to do the right thing at that moment. She turned a corner on 9th ave, which she had never done before. She was going to stop by the Gestapo substation in Park Slope and let them know about the unGodly man in her own home.RodW
March 5, 2018
March
03
Mar
5
05
2018
06:31 AM
6
06
31
AM
PDT
rvb8 @ 2:
Short, trite, self-serving, ideological
Ouch. I might cry. Oh, by the way, I assume you have nothing of substance to say about the points made. It's OK; you need not feel ashamed. Not everyone has the intellectual heft necessary to comment lucidly on matters of substance. CR @ 3: Throw us a bone here CR. Can you give us a Cliff's Notes version of the logorrhea in your comment.Barry Arrington
March 5, 2018
March
03
Mar
5
05
2018
06:21 AM
6
06
21
AM
PDT
Querius at 1: Read ‘I Thought It Was a Home Invasion’ if you think that can't happen in a Western country. It depends on the toxicity of the deep state. Which said, I tend to agree with you that in many places, people wouldn't have their door kicked down. They would suddenly find themselves failing courses, dropped from medical clinic rolls, getting doxed about basically stupid by-law stuff ($5000 fine for illegally feeding squirrels...?) In many places, that stuff would start before the muscle moves in because the victim may have a hard time proving that it is motivated. By the time the muscle does move in, the victim is exhausted and drained of resources - and bystanders conclude that some offense must have been committed, if this is even happening...News
March 5, 2018
March
03
Mar
5
05
2018
06:00 AM
6
06
00
AM
PDT
This illustrates rather nicely the argument between two justificationists over which "final solution" is authoritative. From this essay...
The last two or three centuries have been widely regarded as the age of Science and Reason. This has been viewed with satisfaction or despair according to taste. The twentieth century has certainly been the age of Science par excellence but superstitions of many kinds have persisted, while new ones have flourished. These include the mysticism of the 'mind of God' variety springing from popular interpretations of quantum physics, the myth of racial superiority and the smorgasbord of cults and sects on the fringe of organized religion. This coexistence of superstition with science and reason suggests that there is something wrong with science and reason, as they have been generally understood. Karl Popper explored this possibility and identified some major structural problems in the dominant schools of Western thought. William W. Bartley followed Popper to show that we tend to be hostages to a dogmatic framework of thought in which knowledge and rationality depend on “true belief”. This is essentially a religious framework but it is still being promulgated in the mainstream of academic philosophy and it tends to persist even when people turn away from conscious adherence to religious beliefs. The true belief framework, not surprisingly, generates true believers who do not accept the challenge of creative self-criticism that is required to eliminate error and generate fresh problems and insights. Many problems are illuminated by the discovery of the dogmatic framework of thought. * The dogmatic framework can be seen at work in all fanatics. * It partly accounts for the suspicion or even hatred of novelty which creates so many problems for innovators and those who explore new worlds of thought. (The situation has been reversed in some fields of art and literature where shocks and novelties are pursued for their own sake). * Philosophers have largely rejected Popper's ideas because his theory of tentative (conjectural) objective knowledge rejects both the quest for foundations and the concept of “knowledge as belief” which is generally assumed in philosophical circles. * Self-improvement methods from Dale Carnegie to the modern 'consciousness-raising' movement have not helped people as much as they might because their positive elements are undermined by rigid adherence to the bad habits of a lifetime (I know that's silly but that's just me.) The Dogmatic Structure Popper identified an authoritarian strand at the heart of Western epistemology in a paper delivered to the Royal Society in 1960 and reprinted as the Introduction to Conjectures and Refutations. In this paper he set out to resolve some aspects of the dispute between the British and the Continental schools of philosophy. The British school insisted that the source of all genuine knowledge was observation; in contrast the Continental school promoted intellectual intuition, the perception of clear and distinct ideas, as the basis of true beliefs. Popper pressed two claims: 1.Both sides were wrong. 2.Each had more in common than they realised. As to each side being wrong, he argued that observation and reason each have roles to play in the growth of knowledge, but neither can be described as authoritative sources of knowledge. As to their common features, they share a certain religious tone in their authoritarian attitude to the alleged sources of knowledge. They also share the naively optimistic view that the truth is clearly visible to all those who are willing to see it, meaning those who employ the right method and the right source of knowledge. Popper showed how overly optimistic theories of knowledge, combined with a strong element of moralism about being right, produce a very nasty downside - the conspiracy theory of ignorance. George Orwell described this as applied by Catholics and Communists: "Each of them tacitly claims that 'the truth' has already been revealed, and that the heretic if he is not simply a fool, is secretly aware of 'the truth' and merely resists it out of selfish motives". Popper explained that the traditional theories of knowledge are essentially concerned with authoritative sources of belief. Consequently no amount of debate between rival schools does anything to challenge the authoritarian framework assumptions that they all share. In contrast, he argues that no ideal sources exist and all "sources" are capable of leading us in the wrong direction. He proposed to replace the question of sources by very different questions: "How can we generate better ideas to promote the growth of knowledge?" and "How can we hope to detect and eliminate error?"' For new ideas we have to make use of our imagination. For error-elimination we have to use all forms of criticism to the best of our ability (see the four forms of criticism described in my previous article on Popper). The question of the sources of our knowledge, like so many authoritarian questions, is a genetic one. It asks for the origin of our knowledge, in the belief that knowledge may legitimate itself by its pedigree...if possible from God. His own approach derives from the view that pure and certain sources do not exist, and that questions of origin or of purity should not be confounded with questions of validity, or of truth. This insight into the authoritarian tradition inspired Bartley to pursue a fundamental critique of the quest for positively justified beliefs, an error, which he labeled "justificationism". The target of Bartley's critique is the dogmatic or 'true belief' theory of rationality which demands positive justification as the criterion of rationality. This demand is summed up in the formula: Beliefs must be justified by an appeal to an authority of some kind, generally the source of the belief in question, and this justification makes the belief either rational, or if not rational at least valid for the person who holds it.
critical rationalist
March 5, 2018
March
03
Mar
5
05
2018
05:10 AM
5
05
10
AM
PDT
If Barry is going to make forays into historical fiction, and before he so plainly muddles up, and bites of significantly more than he can chew, he should read the excellent books of fiction already written in this field. Len Deighton's, "SS-GB", is a great start. Robert Harris's, "Fatherland", is better. Historical fiction is a tough nut to crack and should only really be made by those that know their history. When Hillary Mantel wrote the incomparable, "Wolf Hall", she knew every significant participant in the English Reformation, and guessed convincingly at motivations. Short, trite, self-serving, ideological, essays such as Barry's, only reflect poorly upon the writer, and the cause he is trying to justify.rvb8
March 4, 2018
March
03
Mar
4
04
2018
09:14 PM
9
09
14
PM
PDT
Heh. An interesting story if somewhat terrifying. The ending should not require kicking down anyone's door nowadays, but a genuine concern for the re-education of anti-social elements with the greatest compassion. Certain drugs can facilitate the re-socialization process of those who've found themselves alienated for some reason, likely of no fault of their own. Skilled social workers should be able to discover the source of the deviant memes. A key element in the Nazi racism is that the rationale that eliminating an ethnicity or "race" deemed less evolved is not only justified, but ethically mandated by the ability of society to direct the evolution of humanity. -QQuerius
March 4, 2018
March
03
Mar
4
04
2018
08:07 PM
8
08
07
PM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply