Thursday, May 17, 2007

Quack science - and how to spot it

If there is one thing I dislike more than progressive liberalism - it is social science. Social science has nothing to do with science - it is just a way of propagating socialism. It is the engine of cultural Marxism through which our educational institutions have indoctrinated vast numbers of kids into being progressive liberal clones. Progressive liberalism and social science walk hand in hand.

Social scientists would like you to think that their "science" is like real science - based on analysis, observation and evidence. It isn't. In real science, the purpose is to prove or disprove a theory. In social science, the purpose is to prove a theory. In other words, the starting position of a social scientist is always that the hypothesis is correct - now how do we prove it to everyone.

A good example of this is sex education. Before the breakdown of moral codes and values, young people generally refrained from having sex until they were married. There were a number of reasons for this. First of all, the moral codes and values of the time frowned upon unmarried mothers. Secondly, it was extremely expensive and difficult to bring up a child if you were unmarried as there was little help beyond immediate family and thirdly, sex wasn't a big deal for young people like it is today - mainly because sex was not something that was interwoven into virtually every conceivable aspect of life as it is today.

Perhaps the biggest reason, though, was that most young girls aspirations were linked to the feminist nightmare - to marry, have children, raise the family and keep home. In fact this was the biggest barrier to progressive liberalism that existed - and the one thing above all others that had to be demolished to advance the cause of progressive liberalism - but that's a subject for another post in the future.

In the sixties this all changed. The poet Philip Larkin once said that sexual intercourse started in 1963 - which is rubbish, of course, but it is a very apt observation on how attitudes changed towards sex.

The "Little Kinsey" report was recently held up as an example to demonstrate that pre-sixties men and women were as promiscuous as present day men and women, but little thought was given to the times that this report comes from.

For example, Little Kinsey revealed that one in four men had admitted having sex with a prostitute. This, when the report was recently released, was considered as something astonishing. But think about when this report was carried out - in 1949. Four years earlier the country had been at war - a long, bitter war lasting six years. Many of the men that would have been interviewed for Kinsey would have seen active service in France, Italy, North Africa, the Far East, Germany. They would have been regularly facing danger and death. When young men are living a life where any moment could be last then of course they are going to use prostitutes. The big surprise was that it was only 25%!

Another finding of "Little Kinsey" was that one in five women admitted having an extra-marital affair. Again, considering the times this is not that surprising, but you need to consider not only that they had just come through a war, but that the term "affair" had an entirely different meaning back then. In the classic film "Brief Encounter", Trevor Howard and Celia Johnson conduct an "extra-marital affair" - most of which takes place in a railway station tea house. Even today, getting down and dirty with your lover in a café is likely to get you thrown out, but back then the best they could hope for was a furtive bit of hand holding and a shared spoon.

Anyway, back to the point. Once these barriers had been broken down, once sex started to be openly discussed and encouraged it was no real surprise that young people started having sex and biology says if you have sex there is a good chance that pregnancy will be the result.

It’s at this point the social scientists come into play. The obvious cause of the rise in teenage promiscuity was the removal of the moral barriers that had previously prevented them from indulging and the increasingly open attitude towards sex as a recreational activity rather than an act between a married couple. Sex was portrayed as “fun” and kids just wanna have fun.

Everyone knew what the cause of teenage promiscuity was, but progressive liberalism had, by then, taken a grip and there was no going back. So the solution had to be something else. They come up with the idea of sex education. The theory was that if you teach children about sex then they will be less inclined to indulge in it – or if they do, then they will do so more safely.

Yeah, right!

Of course, they ignored all the evidence that plainly refuted this assertion – for example, that the rise in teenage promiscuity had been matched by a rise in adult promiscuity leading to more, proper, extra-marital affairs, more pre-marital sex, more adult pregnancies, more (by now) abortions and more divorce. It’s easy to argue that a 13 year old doesn’t know anything about sex, but it’s not so easy to convince yourself that a 34 year old father of four is still unclear on the biological principles. So ignore them.

To prove their point, the social scientists cast their eyes around the world and saw that some countries which had sex education as standard had lower levels of teenage pregnancies. Again, they ignored the other evidence – that many of these countries still had the moral values and codes that frowned upon under age sexual activity and single motherhood. The Netherlands is a perfect example where, despite their reputation as a progressive country and their widespread sex education programme the fact remains that if you are under 18 and get pregnant there is little help from the state for you. It is up to your family to provide – or you’re on your own, sister. So guess what – kids don’t screw around so much.

Anyway, the social scientists – working in tandem with the liberal progressives – implemented sex education as a policy. And guess what? It solved nothing. Of course, they could not admit they were wrong – the point of social science is to prove the theory, never to disprove – so the answer was more sex education, then more sex education at an earlier age. We’re now close to the point where we’re about to start teaching five year olds how to do blow jobs and that anal sex is a great way to avoid getting pregnant at a time when most five year olds are still getting used to the fact that little boys and little girls don’t have the same equipment.

This is social science at work. You can take any number of liberal progressive theories and find the same thing going on – comprehensive education, feminism, immigration, multiculturalism, terrorism – you’ll find social science at the heart of it doing it’s best to deny the obvious and prove the ridiculous.

No comments: