Exodus Mentality said ...
It's one of cnu's unfalsifiable things. I have the evidence of history, but can I go back in time and psychoanalyze the progenitors of this mindset? My position is a composite of a number of congruent analysis on this subject. I can't quote chapter and verse.
3 comments:
I understand this completely. In conversation and debate,(weaker) folks tends to rely on this (an inability to cite something chapter and verse) as evidence that they hold the "right" opinion or position. Not always true. Not always true at all.
Falsifiability is not a question of chapter or verse presentation of evidence. The GSWS makes a set of categorical inductive claims about the GLOBAL white political economy - as if there were such a thing;
statements that categorize all instances of something, such as "all swans are white". Logicians call these statements universal. They are usually parsed in the form: For all x, if x is a swan, then x is white. Scientific laws are commonly supposed to be of this type. One difficult question in the methodology of science is: How does one move from observations to laws? How can one validly infer a universal statement from any number of existential statements?
Inductivist methodology supposed that one can somehow move from a series of singular existential statements to a universal statement. That is, that one can move from 'this is a white swan', 'that is a white swan', and so on, to a universal statement such as 'all swans are white'. This method is clearly deductively invalid, since it is always possible that there may be a non-white swan that has somehow avoided observation. Yet some philosophers of science claim that science is based on such an inductive method.
No matter how many instances of white racist behaviour one can cite, a scientific hypothesis about the universality of white racist behaviour cannot be supported by these instances. What we observe in the constant circular nonsense comprising the presentation of GSWS here, is the categorical refusal to provide instances and then prove that one or more of these show the universal.
Rather, on the basis of anecdotes, an a priori claim of GSWS universality is staked and then never logically defended.
Science evolves by the successive rejection of falsified theories.
Falsified theories are to be replaced by theories that can account for the phenomena that falsified the prior theory, that is, with greater explanatory power.
My approach has been to delineate specific observed behaviors and account for these via sundry measurable, verifiable mechanisms, or cohesive and testable theories that seek to explain the mechanism.
The overarching premise of dopamine hegemony is very simple. It begins with the concept of dopamine neuroeconomics;
The dopamine aspect relates to an addictions hypothesis - which is very much subject to falsification and is as universal as dopamine production and utilization in the human nervous system. There's a corollary aspect to dopaminergy that's so obvious that it's on a par with the statement that water is wet. Bottomline, catering to human desire manifested as habits of dopamine maximization is a simple and pavlovian mechanism for entrainment and control of human behaviour.
So that leaves us to consider the question of governance, entrainment and control - or hegemony;
hegemony describes the existence of dominance of one social group over another, such that the ruling group—referred to as a hegemon — acquires some degree of consent from the subordinate, as opposed to dominance purely by force. It refers specifically to cultural and non-military dominance.
If we understand that governance is exercised via pavlovian style conditioning of desires, then it remains to identify a mechanism by which this is accomplished on a large scale. Such mechanisms have been available en masse since the early 20th century.
Post a Comment