The Abolition of Reason

It is one thing to accuse others of being unreasonable. It is altogether a different matter to bring that charge against a brilliant philosopher.

---

There is sense of division in American society. Many people believe it results from a turbulent political climate. That is true to an extent. But most people I meet are apolitical. I must conclude, then, that our disagreements result more from personal and tribal indoctrination than mere political preference and unrest. Societal initiatives, once revered and praised, have taken on a contagion of scorn and disrespect: distortion of language, redefining words, the corruption of biological sex, distain for religion, and a detested dilution of the Christian message. All have become weaponized in overt efforts to bring down the traditional moral order and social structure.

---

My good, friend, Holly (of Substack fame) has composed a piece explaining why the late Sir Karl Popper’s  Paradox of Tolerance has fallen into disrepute.  For those to whom the concept is new, a paradox is a statement that, on the face of it, seems self-contradictory, even absurd, but in reality, conveys possible truth.  Holly is correct, which intensifies my sadness all the more.  Sir Popper (knighted in 1965) is perhaps the most prodigious philosopher of science in modern times.  He resolved (at least to my mind) the “Problem of Induction”- something which has plagued the scientific world for years. A fundamental problem was that any proof, or justification, for inductive reason would require proof by induction. This is a bit like the error made by my Christian Brothers and Sisters, who contend that proof for the Bible as the Word of God is secured by the fact that the Bible says it is.  There are far more profitable ways to defend Biblical truth than this.

As for the scientific issue, however, Sir Popper resolved it by the logical concept of falsification.  The hypothesis that “all swans are white” can, by the traditional scientific method, only be confirmed by an empirical conclusion derived from observing every swan on earth.  Good luck.  Sir Popper, quite reasonably, posited that non-confirmation (that is, proof to the contrary) was simplified by finding at least one non-white swan: which would falsify the hypothesis “all swans are white.”  Indeed, this in fact came to fruition when some chap happened onto a pair of black swans.  The rest, as they say, is history.

It is rather abhorrent that Sir Popper has been stripped of a portion of his legacy.  Not in the least because some fierce genius proved that the Paradox of Tolerance was not, after all, a genuine paradox.  Never happened.  As Holly explains,

“Popper’s Paradox of Tolerance no longer works in the US….  because it requires reasonable, [emphasis mine] broadly-agreed-upon, common definitions of certain words: tolerant, intolerant, hate, and violence.  These common definitions in turn serve to create common understanding.  And the US no longer has common definitions or broadly agreed-upon understandings of these words.”

Before society became a causality of Wokeism and fell to the dream-like, mental madness from gender ideology, we could always rely on reason to counter extraneous definitions which seemed hellbent on abruptly halting sensible communication.

Sir Popper’s paradox is no longer applicable because it is no longer reasonable to the status quo.  The definitions of hate and intolerance are regulated by Holly’s berated moderators, who direct their vitriol only to things they hate and can’t tolerate.   Since the moderators are writing this play called “Living in America,” it is unfortunate, but not surprising, that they said good-bye to Sir Popper.  Society’s viable objective now is to reconfigure the simple thesis that there really is something called reason.  Something vitally useful to homo sapiens by the involuntary action of the brain.  After all, if you can be convinced to doubt your own sex, you have the propensity to doubt almost everything.

What do I mean by being reasonable?  Well, clearly, I mean the act of thinking rationally – in way that is agreeable to Reason and supported logically.  Which is why it is futile to “reason” with a drunk.  It also means exercising our inherent gift of discerning things that are self-evident; and utilizing the obvious to construct propositions so we can make a case for our beliefs.   As it regards common-day integration, the latter is frequently more lucrative for achieving analytical success.  If you have undergone at least University minor studies in mathematics and philosophy, I wish to persuade you of the futility in consulting them here, as they will provide no advantage for what I am about to present – it is nothing more than obvious Reason and arithmetic.

For example, the ‘sky is either blue or it’s not’ is always true, and, of course, seems reasonable enough.  Protracted college lectures would offer nothing by way of enlightened analysis.  Failure to see this would suggest one is likely challenged by a host of things beyond just the color of the sky.  Or again, it is self-evident – what we call axiomatic - that two separate things equal to a third are all equal to one another.  Thus: A=C and B=C means A=B=C.   It is true by default, self-evident, and not amenable to proof because it is something upon which proofs are constructed (you just “see” that it is true).  Any intellectual failure to simply “see” this, would not indicate one is a poor mathematician but an imbecile.   In other words, it is something that any reasonable person should comprehend.

Better, yet, it is one of many things that ALL reasonable persons ought to comprehend.  The problem is, they don’t.  Holly gave exemplar evidence of this simple truth:

The “reasonable person” (previously, “reasonable man”) test is a legal doctrine that has been around for well over a hundred years.  It’s invoked to help adjudicate what a reasonable person can or should do in particular circumstances, and to hold individuals accountable for their failure to meet that standard.”

 Later, she follows with:

“Using this ‘reasonable person’ idea to decide on matters of hate, intolerance, and whose ideas go too far in that direction and thus warrant deplatforming is tempting, but no longer tenable [emphasis mine].”

The “reasonable person” argument applies to things other than hate and intolerance.  It applies to the diagnostic clinical sciences (hematology, microbiology, and chemistry) and, of course, nursing.  I am now retired from both disciplines.  But I can assure you, after 47 years of dedicated healthcare, the censorious concept of malpractice was a possibility always looming.  Nursing malpractice, for example, is established through judicial arbitration that one has failed to meet the obligation warranting patient safety.  The nurse was negligent.  There was no evidence that the nurse provided the degree of standard care a similarly trained medical professional would have reasonably exercised under the same circumstances.   As well it should be.  But even in this context, the concept of reasonable has been challenged.

I have heard only one verbal anecdote of a nurse beating a charge of malpractice by the strategy of casting doubt on the universally accepted meaning of reasonable.  In our present-day confusion, a “Standard of Care” is not synonymous with “Reasonable action.”  As the whole affair was passed down to me, (as I have no other verification) the word reasonable was twisted into an insignificant stereotypical term.  The tactic was to enhance our modern disdain for stereotypes; because, you understand, the definition of reasonable is not the same for all people.  One may argue (however weak) that what is reasonable to one person never need be reasonable to another.  After all, the argument may go, “we do have autonomy.” The only conclusion that can be drawn is that there is a persuasive defense which reduces the meaning of reasonable to mean whatever you chose it to mean.

I have no reluctance whatever in blaming transgender folks for the wrecking of respectful, useful stereotypes – for no other impetus other than they happen to dislike stereotypes.  This is about as sensible as a Hatfield family member loathing a McCoy because the name is McCoy.  Young boys without a father (specifically if Black) are unequivocally at a much greater risk for incarceration, at best, or death, at worse.  This is a stereotype.  It is a standardized characterization held in common by every social worker; completely void of discrimination, racism, and bigotry.  The benefit of stereotyping (as is often the case) allows these professionals to statistically identify, judge, and then address the unique circumstances and needs of these young boys.  They are rightly looking out for the wellbeing of children.  The glory of stereotypes, if formed reasonably, is permitting us to quickly classify a ubiquitous definition of which almost all reasonable people would agree to be appropriate, acceptable, proper, and, most of all, true.  Even the splendor of a good mother (A Treatise on Sex Stereotypes) rests precisely in her beliefs, behavior, and faith as stereotypical facts which are appropriate, acceptable, proper, and true.

The idea of a stereotypical reasonable person is on the side of Sir Popper: we must encourage the expectations and rolls of reasonable individuals within a tolerant society which is, rightly, intolerant of intolerance if we hope to remain tolerant.  Opponents will insist that I am suggesting too much: not all reasonable people, they may say, are the same.  That is true.  But it is damn near impossible not to insist that all reasonable people ought to be the same as regards the one quality called reasonable.

Though rather young, I vividly remember the Civil Rights Act of 1964: legislation aimed at abolishing racism, discrimination, and disenfranchisement.  The stereotypical non-racist individual, during this part of history, was one sincerely blind to the color of another’s skin (i.e., colorblind).   The absence of racism was evidenced by advocating the theology of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.: his dream that people will be judged by the content of their character rather than the superficial color of their skin.  This was colorblind non-racism; today, it has become colorblind racism.  Through the modern vein attesting to abolish racism, the only thing successfully abolished was reason itself.  For those who question this, I ask you, in the face of relentless discord and division which pounds us to death daily, to offer even one better explanation for the historical apex of racism which consumes us today.  I know you can’t, as sure as I know the moon can’t fall from the heavens tomorrow.  You cannot resolve racism by racism; anymore than you can attain equality through equity.

In an earlier essay, I argued that the doctrine of transgenderism is one endless contradiction.  Perhaps no other group of people have created so massive a divide of society: staking the claim as victims of intolerance and hate, they excel in dispersion of intolerance and hate; amidst endless complaints of language which denies their identity, they have single-handedly reconstructed the traditional dictionary. They have won their own pronouns and gender identities and destroyed the very accurate descriptors for the rest of us by means of a rather deceiving strategy (cisgender replacing normal: yes, I said normal). Clamoring to be victims, they seek safe spaces not for protection from assault or other danger, but as a social construct where no one disagrees with their creed, and where everyone must accept who they are by virtue of that creed.  They have recently been granted a compliment to their unique identities.   One that quite openly and visibly demonstrates an unreasonable proclivity to enhance the risk for their real physical safety; despite their contentious wailing for needed protection.

Our northern neighbor, “Woke” Canada, has deemed it fit that “menstrual products” (tampons and pads) must be in “all toilet rooms, regardless of their marked genders,” for federally regulated employees.  The availability of these items, the policy states, “better protects menstruating employees and makes sure that they feel safe to use the toilet room that best reflects their gender.”  Moreover, according to one health educator, “Not only women or those who identify as women menstruate.  Trans-men, gender-non-conforming and two-spirit folks menstruate as well, and everyone who menstruates deserves to menstruate with dignity [emphasis mine].” As Joe Biden would say, this is “no joke.”

The new policies prove to be as contradictory as they are unreasonable.  I find it rather bewildering as to why a spirit, of any origin, should be physically equipped to undergo the mortal act of menstruating.  Because you are transgender, there is no rectitude in the proposition that you have lost all sense of reason.   Middle school female, students are aware they experience menstuation and equally aware that their transgender girl cohorts do not.    This fundamental, biological fact is something no reasonable person is inclined to argue to the contrary: it simply is true (despite rare, aberrant exceptions) and cannot be otherwise, chronic denial notwithstanding.

However, Megan White asserts, “We can’t ask people to self-identify.”  Now, this is surly an odd thing to say.  Transgender men (biological females) who enter a “men” washroom to apply a tampon or pad, have, so it would appear, openly self-identify by their own volition.  It’s not a matter of necessarily saying, “Hey, men, I’m a woman who identifies as a man, so give me my space.”  The pro tempore disclosure of self-identity was simply the mere gesture of latching on to the tampon.  And, I don’t think we have yet reached a level of depravity leaving us in the dark to the fact that only real females menstruate.  Yes, I said real: as in normal.   So, this passive gesture is a pretty reliable marker of one’s true identity.

I am only saying even if you think you are a man, when it comes down to doing something that only a female can do, you might what to use some reasonable degression.  If you are a menstruating female disguised as a man, revealing the need for a free tampon lifts the veil, the gig is up; and one may want to rethink the idea of a truly safe space.  To be safe, according to the semantic confusion wrought by transgenderism, means to share your same outlook, your same sense of being, your same needs.   And menstruation, something biological men do not share, is unlikely to bond male and females into a sense of ensuring that everyone remains safe, regardless of how they identify.

Holly writes, “Popper’s Paradox of Tolerance worked for a more mature, sane time in the body politic. That time is now past.”

I am perhaps unreasonably optimistic.  It is possible that a return to adopting a few useful, inoffensive, universal characterizations may find some value.   Now I do not intend that this suggests you ought to agree with me.  But it does suggest that you might be less reluctant to disagree with me.  Stereotypes certainly fail to characterize all people, but not all stereotypes are destitute of merit.  If I had to define a woman, I would fall back on the common-sense definition as a person who can give birth and sports XX chromosomes.  You can rarely find a truer stereotype. 

A little religion would not be a bad thing either; working under the supposition that a congregation should be exposed to theological expositions of worship as opposed to the infatuation with “preaching” humanism.  Or worse, a strictly “prosperity Gospel,” as a blasphemous consecration of the metaphor of “planting a seed” inciting a 10-fold return on donation, as if God is the stock market. 

If ever there is a place of solace unsuited for the civil monotonous, and politically motivated refrain, “diversity, equity and inclusion,” a church is it.  And let us make no mistake: the refrain is a thorn in the side of society regardless of skin color.   The battle against racism has been won or lost, depending on one’s race rather than for benefit of all races.  What we once understood to be racism, has now transformed to the opposite end of the spectrum.  Racial divide carries on, but this time the most radical racists are the marginalized.  This amply explains why school board sessions and organized entertainment, corporate conventions, Hollywood gatherings, and even government sessions, are now for “blacks only.” And for some vague reason we are supposed to accept this gleefully; convinced this represents non-racist inclusion. 

“Can we get ourselves to a point where it would once again represent a heuristic of wisdom appropriate for use in a society with widely diverse viewpoints?” Holly asks.

I am not thoroughly convinced that the answer can be found in diversity.  Empirical proof that “all swans are white” demands almost an endless number of observations.  To prove that “all swans are not white” requires only one- a black swan will do. Similarly, diverse viewpoints merely for the sake of diversity provides no guarantee that any will be reasonable, nor attain concurrence.  In other words, there are practically boundless ways to be wrong; there is only one way to be right because there is only one truth.   It may be that our best hope lies in the talent of contemporary thinkers like Holly.  Young people, who have never physically lived out a past which their minds, nevertheless, comprehend.  I thank God for people like Holly.  They carry the wisdom of living “behind their time” and offer an optimistic paradigm of hope for stifling the abolition of reason.  

---

About me:

I am a retired Clinical Laboratory Scientist, a Registered Nurse, and a life-long student of philosophy.

Heuristic Critiques is a collection of essays directed at restoring sanity to a number of leading, corrupted ideologies: politics, education and epistemology, religion and Faith, morality, language, reason and logic, transgenderism and gender identity, Wokeism, and Critical Race Theory.  Topics examined are undergirded by my conviction that we exist within an objective, natural reality which is practically and logically independent of human minds, social interaction, and social constructs.