RSS
Science should be the most fascinating of subjects at school. Yet the way it is taught it is often very boring, and doesn’t answer stimulating and important questions about human beings, whom I believe are an advanced form of ape. Why are the most racially diverse cities in the United States are also the most racially segregated? [Surely, Liberals Should Support White Nationalism, by Noah Carl, Aporia Magazine, November 19, 2023]. Why are scientific geniuses and other major innovators overwhelmingly men, as I explored in my book The Genius Famine? Why, when you were at school, did you notice that boys preferred science and rough games based around competition? Biology is the ultimate explanation for everything we do and can answer all those questions.
In my new book The Naked Classroom: The Evolutionary Psychology of Your Time at School, I show that science answers the kinds of questions you didn’t dare ask at school. Why are the black kids so talented at sprinting, but not so much when it comes to mathematics? Why do the “special” children look physically unusual? Why is the young woman teacher—who teaches a humanities subject such as history—having sex with that “jock” rather than the boys who enjoy her subject? In The Naked Classroom (a nod to zoologist Desmond Morris’ book The Naked Ape), I provide the scientific answers to these questions and many more.
I have written many articles for VDARE.com on “based science,” meaning empirically accurate scientific research that is suppressed by our ideologically woke universities because it questions their dogmas in relation to such “controversial” issues as race, gender and sexuality. On a number of stories, such as my piece about Roman genetics, editors asked me to explain terms such as “correlation” and “statistical significance” because most readers are people like me. They are “humanities people.” Most journalists and politicians fall into this category, tending to study subjects such as law and philosophy at university. Only one prime minister who led my country, England, had a science degree: Margaret Thatcher studied chemistry. Only one American president, Jimmy Carter, had a science degree.
As I explain in the book, when I was at school, I quickly concluded that I did not like science. I was a humanities person. Growing up in England, with its castles and so many ancient buildings, fascinating history was all around me. Religion studies were manifestly relevant because we prayed and sang hymns at school. I enjoyed reading, so English was important. I could even cope with geography, especially human geography and questions about why people migrate. By contrast, the details of how flowers reproduce, why magnesium reacts with oxygen, or the relationship between time, speed, and distance simply didn’t capture my youthful imagination.
They might have if the relevance of science to the subjects that interested me, or even more important, to understanding life, was made clear. There is a hierarchy of subjects. Biologist E.O. Wilson called it “consilience.” Assertions in history must make sense in terms of human psychology, and these must be reducible to biology, and these must be reducible to chemistry. But, unfortunately, these subjects have broken up and separated into specialties that have little to do with each other and this is especially true of the divide between science and the humanities. I often found material in the humanities very unsatisfying and question-begging. Why did people suddenly lose confidence resulting in the Wall Street Crash? Why, if being religious is linked to the environment, do some people subject to the same environment end up not being religious?
I knew I had to do well in science at school even to study a humanities subject at university. I did well, but to my subsequent regret, I dropped science as soon as I could at 16, and focused on the humanities, eventually pursuing degrees in theology. Under this regime, all explanations for everything were purely environmental and there was no engagement with the scientific study of religion at all. I only realized the importance of biology to making sense of religion—why some people are religious and others aren’t—when I had already finished my doctorate in Religious Studies in my mid-20s and found Wilson’s work.
More recently, if only they had taught science in a way that was directly relevant to my life and to the humanities, which I actually liked, then my life could have been so different. In The Naked Classroom, I try to demonstrate why biology and evolution are, or were, relevant to one’s time at school.
In a brief summary like this, I can perhaps give some of the personal examples I explore in the book. At my primary (elementary) school, a number of the “special” children were unusual looking. They were not only mildly retarded but also had unusual, distinctive facial features. Why? Answer: When fetal development goes awry, mental capability and physical appearance are affected, meaning what one’s brain is like is linked to what one looks like. Many of these children likely had fetal alcohol syndrome.
At my secondary (high) school, two women teachers—both in the humanities, predictably—left at the end of a school year because they had sex with 16-year-old pupils. How could this happen? Well, it’s an evolutionary mismatch for women in their mid-20s to spend vast amounts of unsupervised time together with 16-year-old boys. It was most uncommon in our culture until quite recently and the result is predictable.
Why are so many male teachers homosexuals? Why is serious bullying such an intractable problem at schools—especially at girls’ schools? Why are teachers so left wing? Why has anorexia been displaced by Sudden Onset Gender Dysphoria among teenage schoolgirls? I hope to have answered these questions, and many more, and in so doing persuaded you “humanities types,” like me, that science need not be dull. Science, if taught in a “based” way—based in everyday life—can make sense of almost everything, from race differences in sporting ability to even how corporal punishment was traditionally administered at schools.
Edward Dutton (email him | Tweet him) is Professor of Evolutionary Psychology at Asbiro University, Łódź, Poland. You can see him on his Jolly Heretic video channels on YouTube and Bitchute. His books are available on his home page here.
English
Arabic
Chinese (Simplified)
Dutch
French
German
Hebrew
Hindi
Italian
Japanese
Korean
Persian
Polish
Portuguese
Russian
Spanish
Swedish
Turkish
Vietnamese
part of science education should be the limits of science and how it differs from religion. So many promote “science” as another form of religion to believe in. Have faith in scientists, as if they’re another kind of priest. The core of science is doubt and objective experiment, not faith in an idea. The limit of science is testable theory and objective material evidence.
‘Science’ is just a word utilized by those in power to advance their sociobiological agenda (i.e. carbon based climate change), whether its true or not is immaterial.
That is the idea of science that they offer you to make it irrelevant and be able to impose religious dogmas and myths as the only all-powerful truths.
The true science that enriches the most favored has no popular dissemination and is never mentioned.
So the average idiot believes that science only creates restrictions and bad things, without knowing that they are being intentionally manipulated because science is in everything we see or touch in the world today.
And the most important thing is that with the help of science you can stop being an idiot.
Utter bullshit, science is real.
It is true TPTB are blatantly misusing the word but that is another matter.
Agreed, science is at the very heart of a rational view of reality.
If a “special” kid is late for class, is it ok for the teacher to call him tardy?
Herbert Hoover might have been lousy student at Sanford, but he did graduate with a science degree and likely learned a lot running mines in Australia and China. Carter’s “nuclear physics” is real enough, but Hoover’s hands-on experience was far more impressive and makes him more of a scientist.
Whether scientific training makes for a good public service is not clear. Take Thatcher, Carter and add Hoover if you like… you can’t say any of the three were political geniuses.
The 20th century only produced one national leader who was original and brilliant, Benito Mussolini. The problems he grappled with are still current. His solutions, however incomplete, are still valid. He made political science a real science.
Science is a leading factor of the Holocene extinction, and it didn’t keep Einstein’s head clear of obvious idiocy. If Abrahamists succeed in instigating a great holocaust by nuclear weapons (or other hideous technical means), it will be science and scientists which deserve a huge share of blame. Science isn’t making humanity wise, but it does make humanity so outrageously destructive that it’s difficult not to condemn science as evil per se. The world needs a religious movement to contain the menace and its fanatics.
KJM
Benito Mussolini was indeed an interesting fellow but his decision to side with Germany in World War II was a geopolitical catastrophe. The Germans weren’t even asking him to do it and his own military leaders told him Italy would not be ready for war before 1943. Franco in Spain and Salazar in Portugal may not have had Mussolini’s intellect but their decision to remain neutral was a geopolitical good call.
“The 20th century only produced one national leader who was original and brilliant, Benito Mussolini.”
Adolph Hitler wasn’t original and brilliant, Kemil Attaturk wasn’t original and brilliant? Dumb leaders don’t rebuild devastated nations. Mediocre leaders (Hoover, Carter, Thatcher) maintain what is there already, stupid leaders (Bush 1 & 2, Clinton, Obama, Trump) take what was once great and run it into the ground.
Religion morphed into government. The 2 biggest scams humans use to subjugate each other. What’s needed is a wholy different approach to social organization.
http://www.theanarchistalternative.info/index.html
When I use the word science I am talking about the scientific method and the natural sciences, about figuring out what things are, what they are made of and how things work. I am talking about understanding the reality that we live in.
I am not so sure what you mean by the word science, probably you are mostly alluding to what I would call technology. True, science has enabled the advancement of technology considerably and not always in a good way but that is the way of things. Advances in metallurgy (say) have led to improvements in ploughshares but also in swords and axes but that is the way of it. Once the genie is out of the bottle there really isn’t much we can do about it.
So what is your solution? eliminate all the scientists and technologists, burn all the books and revert to a state of superstitious ignorance? Admittedly that would remove the threat of nuclear and biological warfare (at least for a while) but it wouldn’t stop warfare would it? people would just revert to using axes, arrows, swords, spears and maces.
The only solution that I can think of is for the human race to grow out of our destructive habits, fat chance of that happening you might say (I agree) but its the only chance we have got. A Pol Pot style orgy of book burning (a reversion to childhood as it were) would only be a temporary solution. Sooner or later our inquisitive nature would re-emerge, science and technology would be reinvented and we would have to go through the entire process, over and over again. I don’t believe there is a way back, there is only a way forward.
Short answer: they didn’t. Most likely someone lost their krysha. It was all inside baseball, and Wall Street lost that inning.
A bunch of folk got swept up and carried along for the ride. They didn’t realize they were playing baseball and thus had no business being anywhere near that business. As a result of internalizing some tiny inkling that they were mere pawns in someone else’s game, they lost confidence.
Standard journalism: wet streets cause rain.
Unless they are prostitutes.
Most female teachers take the job because they are prostitutes.
What do you call a large building filled with women who collectively take care of children they aren’t particularly related to and without the knowledge or presence of the father? A brothel. Particularly before the invention of convenient contraception.
What kind of man takes a prostitution-like job?
Primarily religious tests of office. 39 articles of post-anglicanism.
However, even if that were relaxed, prostitutes are left-wing.
Science can straightforwardly be used to circumvent or even grow out of these destructive habits.
It’s not used for this. One of the “destructive” habits is the distaste for war. Swords and axes did literally nothing wrong – the ploughshare is more illegitimate.
Warfare is absolutely necessary to exterminate parasites. It’s actively a good thing, with the only exception being parasite-on-parasite warfare, which can hardly be blamed on warfare.
Humanity likes parasitism. Humanity won’t tolerate science if it is used to bolster parasitism’s enemies.
Indeed the solutions to parasitism can be fully defined solely by referring to old books, if you know which particular old books to refer to. Parasites write books too, after all.
Don’t need science. The solution predates science. It simply wasn’t and isn’t used.
The world is perfectly just.
That’s why mortals hate it so much.
Namely, that it doesn’t differ in the slightest.
Check: religions keep making claims about scientific facts. A safe conclusion: self-proclaimed religions know whether they are religions.
Scientists check their results, after all. Replication &c.
See also: being specific and showing examples, instead of confining themselves to fluffy abstract ivory-tower angel-vs-pin stuff.
I never fail to be taken in by the “thunderstick = gnon = science” chain of logic.
Nuclear Holocaust appears to be a certainly.
If a so-called “scientist” doesn’t personally witness an event or discovery of a species, it just doesn’t exist, no matter how many non-scientists have witnessed or discovered as such.
A good example of this is the claims that mariners and seafarers have made over the centuries over a “triple wave” phenomenon which has capsized sailing vessels over the centuries. Recently, such waves have been witnessed from space by satellites. Why would scientists not take the word of those who personally witnessed such phenomenon?
There are many reports of giant “sea creatures” that have been witnessed by mariners and seafarers over the centuries which scientists always discounted as being “sea tales”. It turns out that such giant sea creatures DO exist.
Another example of scientific arrogance and the unwillingness to take the word of “non-scientists” is that in the cases of weather phenomenon such as tornadoes. Non-scientists who have witnessed tornadoes are quite often dismissed as having “vivid imaginations” and as such, scientists have defined non-scientist witnessed tornadoes as “straight line winds” or given other nonsensical definitions.
The current COVID-19 “plandemic” has taken science to new heights of scientific malpractice and outright criminality by prohibiting the use of two well-documented and investigated old-line drugs for COVID relief. Hydroxychloroquine and Ivermectin have both been proven to lessen the severity of the flu but have been prohibited for use as such by the current government medical establishment, being replaced by poisonous injections that are not effective at all and do nothing but assure future problems from extreme side-effects unrelated to the flu.
Today’s science has not been about the quest for discovery but is run by arrogant, small-minded people with their own agendas.
Follow the money.
There is no such thing as “Science.”
“Science” is a meaningless abstraction.
There are only people. Doing things. And then making up conclusions based on those things.
The first thing you need to learn is the difference between fantasy and reality.
Thank you for clarifying things for the local dumbbells who think they are smart because they champion STEM without knowing a thing about it.
I thought that that monstrous covid hoax would have cured people of their pea-brained science worship. But the only thing you can count on people doing is forgetting.
And so it’s back to “rahrahrah, STEM is for real men. Everything else is bunk. “Science” (whatever that is) is always right. Scientists are never, uh, liars”. Or more properly denominated–employees.