# How Much does the "Underclass" (USA) Reduce the GNP? \[Edited title\] **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 1, 2009, 4:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-much-does-the-underclass-usa-reduce-the-gnp-edited-title/515950 "2009-11-01T16:38:15Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Showing post:** 51
**Author:** ![ambushed](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3bc359/32.png) [@ambushed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ambushed)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2009, 1:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-much-does-the-underclass-usa-reduce-the-gnp-edited-title/515950/51 "2009-11-06T13:06:06Z")
> [@not\_alice](#): > > > [@ambushed](#): > > > > The scientifically validated fact that a genetic predisposition for literal _fear_ of the unusual or non-traditional and the often-misunderstood emotional discomfort this fear or even moral panic this brings out in conservatives I, for one, found to be quite surprising. > > I aint no conservative, but I have a problem with that. > > Are you sure you are not getting ahead of yourself? > > The scientific method (which is all science really is) is not there to “validate facts”. It is there to offer explanations and predictions based on empirical evidence. The so-called “scientific method” is very nearly entirely mythical. To paraphrase the title of Jerry Fodor’s book refuting evolutionary psychologists’ “massive modularity” thesis (such as that held by Pinker and Tooby, et al.): **“Science doesn’t work that way”**. The “scientific method” is something we learn about in elementary and high school that presents a fabricated facade of a formal “method” of hypotheses and experimentation and so on that has no meaningful equivalent in the real world of science. It’s mere rote, liturgical nonsense. There’s a popular writer (at least on the Web) who has made something of a career of debunking the bullshit we are taught in science and other primary and secondary school classes, and if I could remember his name or web site (it’s not Ben Goldacre’s excellent site “Bad Science”), I’d steer you there. The closest I can come up with – and fortunately it’s fairly good – is: [Alistair B. Fraser’s _Bad Science_](http://www.ems.psu.edu/~fraser/BadScience.html). As for my choice of “validated” / “validation” as synonyms for a key product of empirical scientific research, it’s perfectly suitable terminology. Think of it in light of the semantic opposite of “falsified”. Note, please, that I did _not_ use the term **“prove”!** If I had, you would have had a point, but I have been quite careful not to use it since high school to refer to anything in the real, empirical world. “Proof” is a concept the validity of which is strictly confined to purely formal abstract systems such as mathematics and logic. Let me assure you that none of the points you raise regarding science and its tentative nature are at all news to me; I have been well aware of these issues for roughly 35 years. And science could never _“offer explanations and predictions based on empirical evidence”_ without “validating” hypotheses (another synonym for validate is “confirm”). Come now! > [@not\_alice](#): > > If new evidence comes in, it is quick to toss the prior explanation and predictions. Well, yes, but more often, no. First, to demonstrate that none of this is news to me, allow me to point you to a fragment of one of several posts of mine in the recent Pit thread: [_If you are a male who thinks rape is about sex, not power_](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=535310) > [@If you are a male who thinks rape is about sex, not power](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-you-are-a-male-who-thinks-rape-is-about-sex-not-power/513212/380): > > … **and the essential tentativeness of all good science must never be denied.** On the other hand, scientific theories and facts which have been repeatedly validated using multiple lines of evidence have _earned_ and thus _deserve_ a good bit of scientific “inertia” against their upstart competitors. Otherwise, perhaps we might have seen Darwinist evolution by natural selection being pushed out of the way – even in the West – to make room for Lysenkoism temporarily until that was falsified, or, more recently, pushed out of the way to make room for Intelligent Design until _that_ was debunked (unlike Lysenkoism, ID can’t really be falsified, which is one of the strongest arguments against it). So turning over “prior explanation and predictions” _quickly_ is justifiably rare in real science, something which is very often quite wise and appropriate. (One major exception being the still _ludicrously_ popular (among the naive, among non-scientists, and among anti-science postmodernists, anyway) Kuhnian “paradigm shift” crap laid out in Kuhn’s SSR thesis circa the 60’s, which should have died an ignoble death long ago. I first encountered one of my favorite thinkers, Jerry Fodor, when he shoved one of the biggest and sharpest intellectual knives into its belly many years ago, so at least I managed to take away _something_ of value from that fiasco…) > [@not\_alice](#): > > So can you explain further, with cites, this “facts” of which you speak? Well, it’s a lot of work because I have to scan in so much and OmniPage’s and ABBYY’s OCR results are mixed when scanning books, _but_ you’ve made a highly reasonable request given the surprising nature of this research, so I will definitely comply. I ask only that you give me some time to scan in what I need to provide you. > [@not\_alice](#): > > Moreover, can you explain how the research covers alternative approaches to the same areas, such as Dawkins’ and Blackmore’s and other’s memetics? There’s a considerable difference between those two scientists’ definitions of the term “meme”. Dawkins coined the term in _by far_ his most important and compelling (in my view, anyway) book, _The Selfish Gene_, to refer to a strictly _conceptual_ analog to the transmission of information via genes, but within the human social domain. As such, memes had no literal existence in the real world. “Meme” was just a word, a shorthand way of referring to information spread in the social sphere. Whereas Blackmore – for whom I have enormous respect and admiration in other areas – insisted long after Dawkins crafted his neologism that memes are something literally _real_ in some obscure sense; an interpretation that is quite opaque to Dawkins (and myself, among a great many others). I strongly side with Dawkins on this, so since I contend along with him that the terms “meme” and “memetics” refer to ordinary kinds of societal information transfer, I hold that the word “meme” is but a Dawkins-type “meme” for those processes. Finally, I don’t think that Hetherington and Weiler ever even used the word “meme” in their book! That was _my_ word choice, not theirs. > [@not\_alice](#): > > > [@ambushed](#): > > > > Everyone knew that conservatism was centered on maintaining the status quo… > > I don’t know that and trust me, I have been locked in nearly hand to hand combat, one on one, with conservatives for the last year or so. It never occurred to me that their approach is to maintain the status quo, because it isn’t. I think we’re miscommunicating, and consequently this element is a mere verbal dispute. Note my use of the phrase “centered on”, which implies there are other aspects and other dynamics involved. My teachers instructed me that conservatism is indeed properly defined as being “centered on” maintaining the status quo, but added that conservatives differ on what they specifically _meant_ by “the status quo”. Consider: Some of my uncles have considered themselves clear and strong conservatives only since they returned after fighting World War II. They saw conservatism as the socio-political drive to maintain the status quo of the 1950’s, the only time during which they considered America to be properly structured, with women and minorities out of competition with them in the workforce and in society at large. They held that patriotism was what _I_ would today call Hannitiean jingoism, and they simply _adored_ Joe McCarthy and his sub-literate contempt for “card-carrying Communists in the State Department” and for “faggots” and “niggers”. In other words, just because those uncles of mine _failed_ to stop the clock and actually _maintain_ the status quo of the 1950’s in reality, it doesn’t mean that their conservatism isn’t still centered on the goal of maintaining the status quo. It’s just that, to _them_, the status quo they want to maintain is the status quo of more than half a century ago. Similarly, the status quo that religious conservatives wish to maintain never actually existed, but that doesn’t stop them from wanting to restore and _then_ maintain that imaginary status quo. > [@not\_alice](#): > > It is to apply a set of principles they feel strongly (and usually wrongly 🙂 ) about as best they can. Same as anyone else. Again, I do not agree with your terminology. They are called, and they call _themselves_, **conservatives** , precisely because they wish to _ **conserve** _ something, whether an individual conservative is able to elucidate what that is or not. Consider this formal, number 1 definition of the term: [**conservatism**](http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/conservatism): > [@The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language](#): > > **con·ser·va·tism** (kən-sûr’və-tĭz’əm) n. > > 1. The inclination, especially in politics, to **maintain** the existing or traditional order. In closing, let me say this: My goal is to provide the information you’ve requested by approximately this time tomorrow. I may well choose to create a new GD thread for this branch of the discussion, and if I do, I will post a link here in this thread pointing to it. **However** , I will find it quite difficult to maintain an interest in debating you on such topics if I’m going to have to fight to defend every inch of my word choices! I grow weary of engaging in very many mere verbal disputes. And, with respect, I honestly feel that I have a stronger and deeper knowledge and familiarity with science and with language, so can we agree to focus considerably _more_ on the topic and considerably _less_ on the manner in which I express myself, please? I would appreciate your forbearance in this regard. - - --- _[View the full topic](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-much-does-the-underclass-usa-reduce-the-gnp-edited-title/515950)._