4 ms·

it's odd that they characterise ur-fascism with irrationalism given the level of scientific innovation present in Nazi Germany (even though that innovation was

it's odd that they characterise ur-fascism with irrationalism given the level of scientific innovation present in Nazi Germany (even though that innovation was entirely directed at more efficiently killing people). I'd more characterise it as anti-intellectual, as from reading this article the scorn seemed to be more directed at academics, bourgeois artists and armchair thinker types than science or rationality in general.

nwah1 8y ago
Irrational is accurate. The "syncretism" that is mentioned can only be achieved through ignoring contradictions. Science can be employed by irrational people, and scientists themselves can be irrational. There's been lots of people who note that engineers are disproportionately represented among terrorist groups. You have Nobel prize winners like Kary Mullis who take copious amounts of psychedelics and deny that HIV causes AIDS.
- coldtea 8y ago
  There's nothing irrational per se in taking "copious amounts of psychedelics". It's no more rational that not taking them. Reason (ratio) itself, has no inherent values (as in "sober is better") -- it's all about deductive chains and what works. Denying that HIV causes AIDS can also be perfectly rational as long as he justifies it with certain arguments that are not crazy themselves. Merely straying off the established scientific view is not irrational -- else all kind of now established scientists should also be labelled as irrational, for that's what they did when they proposed and insisted on their theories before they ever got accepted (and some took decades or more to be accepted). In which case tons of now established theories would never have come to pass.
  - nwah1 8y ago
    I like the guy, but he does seem fairly irrational. He thinks astrology doesn't get a fair shake. And in any event, a scientist while under the influence of neuroactive substances could be said to be an example of a person who is both a scientist and irrational.
    - murftown 8y ago
      > a scientist while under the influence of neuroactive substances could be said to be ... irrational. Just for thoroughness, what's your rational, logical deduction that someone under the influence of neuroactive substances is more irrational than someone who isn't? The whole brain is filled with neuroactive substances regardless of whether you ingest more.
- jonhendry18 8y ago
  "There's been lots of people who note that engineers are disproportionately represented among terrorist groups." It's also been noted that engineers are common among creationists. (The "Salem Hypothesis")
  - nwah1 8y ago
    Pretty much every religious terrorist who murders others does so while believing they are representing a religion of peace. While it seems our resident psychonauts objected to my label of irrational for Kary Mullis, at least nobody thought to object to that description for terrorists. But under an expansive enough definition of "rational," surely terrorists and currently-tripping psychonauts both could be considered rational.
neaden 8y ago
The amount of scientific innovation in Nazi Germany is incredibly overhyped. In reality outside of rockets they made very few major advances. And even in Rocketry there were major scientific breakthroughs, just improved engineering. The medical experiments inflicted on prisoners were useless scientifically, just pure sadism. The "experiments" to test hypothermia for instance often did not record the patience weight, the temperature and volume of the water, and other factors. Not to mention that the experiments were being conducted on people who were often on the verge of starvation and in terrible health. They provide no useful data. Not to mention their rejection of "Jewish Physics", science in Nazi Germany was incredibly politicized and if your research didn't conform to the dogma you had to change it or risk your life.
- mrkstu 8y ago
  Yep, Nazi Germany was coasting off the pre-eminent position in the sciences it had prior to the rise of Nazism. If it had somehow survived WWII it would have had a rapid and persistent decline in leading edge research.
- beaconstudios 8y ago
  hm, I did not know that. I'd picked up a perception that the Nazis were innovative in quite a few scientific disciplines, at least partially due to their complete disdain for ethics, but it sounds like that belief is unfounded.
  - neaden 8y ago
    It's the whole mad science angle that we have in our culture I think. But that ignores that ethics are tied to things like oversight, methodology, and being objective which are all important for research.
    - evgen 8y ago
      It is also worth noting that a lot of those mad-science projects that we look back at and consider potentially visionary were often stabs in the dark by scientists who saw a ministry picking up their project as a way to avoid conscription into the army. They were seldom backed up by any real science and frequently had little chance of success, but they somewhat resemble something that was developed later so we assume the project leads knew what they were doing...

nwah1 8y ago

Irrational is accurate. The "syncretism" that is mentioned can only be achieved through ignoring contradictions. Science can be employed by irrational people, and scientists themselves can be irrational. There's been lots of people who note that engineers are disproportionately represented among terrorist groups. You have Nobel prize winners like Kary Mullis who take copious amounts of psychedelics and deny that HIV causes AIDS.

coldtea 8y ago
There's nothing irrational per se in taking "copious amounts of psychedelics". It's no more rational that not taking them. Reason (ratio) itself, has no inherent values (as in "sober is better") -- it's all about deductive chains and what works. Denying that HIV causes AIDS can also be perfectly rational as long as he justifies it with certain arguments that are not crazy themselves. Merely straying off the established scientific view is not irrational -- else all kind of now established scientists should also be labelled as irrational, for that's what they did when they proposed and insisted on their theories before they ever got accepted (and some took decades or more to be accepted). In which case tons of now established theories would never have come to pass.
- nwah1 8y ago
  I like the guy, but he does seem fairly irrational. He thinks astrology doesn't get a fair shake. And in any event, a scientist while under the influence of neuroactive substances could be said to be an example of a person who is both a scientist and irrational.
  - murftown 8y ago
    > a scientist while under the influence of neuroactive substances could be said to be ... irrational. Just for thoroughness, what's your rational, logical deduction that someone under the influence of neuroactive substances is more irrational than someone who isn't? The whole brain is filled with neuroactive substances regardless of whether you ingest more.
jonhendry18 8y ago
"There's been lots of people who note that engineers are disproportionately represented among terrorist groups." It's also been noted that engineers are common among creationists. (The "Salem Hypothesis")
- nwah1 8y ago
  Pretty much every religious terrorist who murders others does so while believing they are representing a religion of peace. While it seems our resident psychonauts objected to my label of irrational for Kary Mullis, at least nobody thought to object to that description for terrorists. But under an expansive enough definition of "rational," surely terrorists and currently-tripping psychonauts both could be considered rational.

neaden 8y ago

The amount of scientific innovation in Nazi Germany is incredibly overhyped. In reality outside of rockets they made very few major advances. And even in Rocketry there were major scientific breakthroughs, just improved engineering. The medical experiments inflicted on prisoners were useless scientifically, just pure sadism. The "experiments" to test hypothermia for instance often did not record the patience weight, the temperature and volume of the water, and other factors. Not to mention that the experiments were being conducted on people who were often on the verge of starvation and in terrible health. They provide no useful data. Not to mention their rejection of "Jewish Physics", science in Nazi Germany was incredibly politicized and if your research didn't conform to the dogma you had to change it or risk your life.

mrkstu 8y ago
Yep, Nazi Germany was coasting off the pre-eminent position in the sciences it had prior to the rise of Nazism. If it had somehow survived WWII it would have had a rapid and persistent decline in leading edge research.
beaconstudios 8y ago
hm, I did not know that. I'd picked up a perception that the Nazis were innovative in quite a few scientific disciplines, at least partially due to their complete disdain for ethics, but it sounds like that belief is unfounded.
- neaden 8y ago
  It's the whole mad science angle that we have in our culture I think. But that ignores that ethics are tied to things like oversight, methodology, and being objective which are all important for research.
  - evgen 8y ago
    It is also worth noting that a lot of those mad-science projects that we look back at and consider potentially visionary were often stabs in the dark by scientists who saw a ministry picking up their project as a way to avoid conscription into the army. They were seldom backed up by any real science and frequently had little chance of success, but they somewhat resemble something that was developed later so we assume the project leads knew what they were doing...