So this article was shared in my feed: https://dailycaller.com/2020/07/15/smithsonian-museum-whiteness-objective-thinking/
One of the most odd movements I’ve seen in the US is that to rally against critical thinking and claim logic, objectivity and the scientific method is sexist and racist. One of the arguments I heard during school for example was that the scientific method didn’t allow for “womens perspective” and shouldn’t be enforced for female researchers or “minorities.” This bloody woman in the name of “equality” literally gave a speech saying there should be a double standard in the scientific community based on sex and she shouldn’t have to apply the scientific method for scientific research…
You can google “[objectivity, logic, scientific method] is sexist” for several examples of this.
Usually what you see is that they either don’t understand logic or the scientific method in the first place and they never explain what the problem with a coherent premise and conclusion is, but it’s nothing but a non sequitur after another, strawmen and ad hominems. In the likes of “the people using logic aren’t logical because they believe in X, and they’re sexist and racist…”
“Manspleaining” is another term used to discredit logic, which in itself is a logical fallacy (ad hominem). It’s not analyzing an argument being made, but if a man points out an incoherence in a point being made by a woman, a feminist won’t attack the argument but the speaker as morally flawed for challenging the incoherent argument being pushed by the woman.
I had one man tell me to my face while in a discussion at a coffee shop that it didn’t matter if his argument wasn’t logical since logic didn’t matter and was something you only did in high school debate class… so on and so on. This particular man was also Caucasian, so this phenomena of attacking critical thinking finds itself with white males despite the more public attacks of logic being racist and sexist.
If I’m allowed to see a pattern recognition here: Not a single one of these people understands what logic and the scientific method is in the first place. Some might claim they do, but can’t even grasp basic terms. For example:
They don’t even understand that logic is making a coherent premise and conclusion. They either believe it’s simply being non emotional while making a statement, or it’s whatever fluffy bunny feeling they have in their tummy telling them that X is true and thus X is logical. And that’s not even getting into deductive, inductive and abductive logic.
I’ve had several people use “correlation doesn’t equal causation” to claim no correlation that goes against their point is valid. The term doesn’t mean that finding a correlation means that you’ve found something that isn’t a causation. A causation by definition will be a correlation for Gods sake. If we find a correlation that A students like vanilla ice cream and D and F students like chocolate, you’re not going to make the D and F students A students by giving them vanilla ice cream. Finding a correlation doesn’t mean that the correlation is by default the causation. But if you find the correlation of A students and the time they spend studying outside class, that correlation is a causation.
Another one for example is an Ad Hominem. They read the definition of it and believe it’s simply an insult and insulting someone during a debate disqualifies the argument they’re making (except when it’s them using “mansplaining” and accusing everyone they don’t agree with being racist and sexist…) You can point out a .edu explaining that an Ad Hominem is not, and going over how it’s only an ad hominem if it’s a non sequitur, and they can’t grasp it. A simple example:
Someone says you’re stupid, therefore you’re wrong, is an Ad Hominem because it’s a non sequitur.
The definition of stupid is being unable to understand. You’re unable to understand an argument/term being used. Therefore you’re called stupid. This isn’t an Ad Hominem since it has a coherent premise and conclusion. And of course it would depend on if the person making the insult is being coherent or not, which is contextual.
Say someone is pro or against global warming and the opponent says they’re wrong because they’re short and fat, this is a non sequitur. But if a person claims to currently be an NBA player, and they’re short and fat, and they’re told this mus be false because they’re short and fat, this isn’t an ad hominem because it’s not a non sequitur.
The insult is irrelevant to being an ad hominem, it requires to be a non sequitur…
But the point being here is that those rallying against logic can’t grasp it, and even those who claim to grasp it and be logical are literally too stupid to understand it. You can explain it to them, share a paper breaking it down step by step and yet their low reading comprehension and lack of critical thinking won’t allow them to grasp it. So the problem for them arises that when they read or hear people properly using the rules of logic they can’t understand it. Since they can’t make sense of it they claim it’s nonsense, but it’s not necessarily nonsense if you can’t make sense of it. So they want to eliminate it since it gives them “power” in the sense that their arguments are no longer bound by a set of rules they’re too stupid to grasp.
That at least is my interpretation of what’s going on, which I don’t believe the people themselves understand this and act purely out of instinct when they do it. If you try to imagine what it’s like to be them: They have a fluffy bunny feeling in their tummy saying their right, but here comes someone or a group telling them they’re wrong and are using a set of rules (logic) that makes no sense to them. They’re literally too stupid to grasp these rules. They “know” they’re right because their fluffy bunny feelings tell them so, so the rules being used to claim they’re wrong must be false. And if the rules are false, they’re just a lie used to make their opinion irrelevant. Therefore attacking these rules has a moral connotation and it’s all a conspiracy by racists and sexists to be used against them, or the rules are some nonsense from high school debate class.
And of course these half-wits can’t rise above their own mediocrity, but which to pretend they’re some intellectual for having their fluffy bunny feelings and therefore understanding the “truth” which finds itself in they’re endless incoherence gibberish. So they work together to attempt to destroy that which they can’t understand and thus a threat to their social status and self-identity of some intellectual and drag the world down to their level.
Now, seems like the average intelligence is struggling with the rules of logic based on my experience. Possibly the slightly above average since a lot of these people failing at it are supposed professionals with a collage degree, and these are on average slightly above in IQ points depending on the major. And what they’re trying to do is make an “us vs them” dynamic and claim to speak for everyone in their group, and make it seem like critical thinking is an attack against their group to their group. How big an impact does this have? Hard to tell since hardly anyone understands the rules of logic as I’ve said, but individuals of all walks of life tend to want to “make sense” of things despite not understanding said rules.
And while it seems like it might be an issue with education not teaching these, the fact that people can’t grasp some of the terms used AFTER posting an explanation to them makes me think it’s manly a limit on average intelligence not being able to grasp the rules than being thought the rules. And average intelligence will be the majority. Thus this majority will continue to rally against the supposed racist, sexist or irrelevant high school debate team terms they can’t grasp. Mind you, these are the same professionals claiming IQ is irrelevant and it’s their emotional intelligence they just happen to have more of than high IQ individuals that makes them valuable as professionals…