Phillip D. Collins - The Scientific Dictatorship
Red Ice Creations (November 12, 2006)
We have Phillip D. Collins with us this Sunday. He is the co-author to The Ascendancy of the Scientific Dictatorship. We begin to talk about “the Scientific Dictatorship“, and Phillip gives us an excellent and thorough presentation on the philosophical aspects of this concept. We also talk about the connection to Darwin(ism) and the theory of evolution. This is a very informative interview that you don’t want to miss!
Listen/download here [mp3].
PERFECTIBILISTS: The 18th Century Bavarian Order of the Illuminati
The Ascendancy of the Scientific Dictatorship
Memoirs Illustrating the History of Jacobinism
Fire in the Minds of Men: Origins of the Revolutionary Faith
America's Secret Establishment: An Introduction to the Order of Skull & Bones
December 10th, 2008 at 11:47 pm
Phillip,
Great interview. Your experience was much the same as mine, being inundated with hardcore materialist-Darwinist presuppositions in my philosophy classes-particularly philosophy of science. The professor was a hardened materialist who wanted there to be some ontological basis for consciousness and logical entities. He also taught liguistic philosophy, so we dealt with semiotics, meaning and the scientific methods as a whole. His views were not, however, able to stand under a rigorous epistemological and metaphysical critique (because of the reign of radical empiricism as a whole in his thought–and modernity!). You have hit the nail on the head here, connecting the conspiratorial aspects to all this.
December 11th, 2008 at 2:49 pm
Jay,
Thank you so much! You know, a lot of folks don’t recognize the epistemological basis for all modern forms of scientific totalitarianism. When you read “Fire in the Minds of Men” by James H. Billington (an awesome book), you discover that the basis for the physiological or organic interpretation of the state was developed through Henri Saint-Simon’s extension of radical empiricism to the whole social body. The physiological/organic interpretation of the state presaged Marx’s class theories and provided the epistemological basis for the political doctrine of collectivism. (Interestingly enough, Randian Objectivists decry the physiological/organic interpretation of the state, but are still staunch empiricists).
It is interesting to note that radical empiricism has been an epistemological invariant of all proponents of a “machine state.” In his outstanding book “Perfectibilist: The 18th Century Order of the Illuminati,” Terry Melanson reveals that Fra Paolo Sarpi was recommended reading for many Illuminists. Sarpi was a radical empiricist and a precursor of David Hume. Of course, Adam Weishaupt advanced the idea of the Maschinenmenschen (machine man). At any rate, here is another case of radical empiricism acting as the epistemological basis for scientific totalitarianism.
Moreover, radical empiricism is really derivative of older occult schools of thought. It stems from the Gnostic derision for cognitio fidei (the cognition of faith). And, as David Hume demonstrated, radical empiricism leads to a rejection of causality. Ironically, modern science, which is premised on radical empiricism, is supposed to affirm cause and effect relationships. In the absence of causality, All of a scientist’s findings must be taken on faith (although they call it “probability,” not faith). So, radical empiricism is no less mystical in character. Ironically, the doctrine of sense certainty leads to no certainty at all.
There are many theoreticians that address these issues far better than I could, namely Rene Guenon (”The Reign of Quantity and the Signs of the Times”), Rama Coomaraswamy, Thomas Kuhn, and Charles Fort. I don’t agree with all the ideas promoted by these thinkers, but they are some of the best analysts when it comes to the sociology of scientific thought.
Sorry, I am rambling. Thanks again, Jay!
Phil
December 11th, 2008 at 8:03 pm
Yes. Stated much better than I could. This is why I appreciate early Husserl in that he was able to show that ontology is a necessary science and can be done. As you noted above, all claims presuppose both epistemic and metaphysical categories, and even necessitate (I believe) moral claims as well. Thus, Husserl was vehemently opposed to the radical empiricist enterprise and thought that it had given rise to the machine-man view you mention, which resulted in the justification of certain Nazi practices.
I haave read Kuhn and Coomaraswamy, and totally accept the paradigm view you elucidate as well. I have a friend who keeps trying to get me to read Guenon. I am presently reading Yockey and Agrippa (which I need to finish) first…
Thanks for the recommendations, however.
Jay
December 12th, 2008 at 2:12 pm
Jay,
My only problem with Guenon is his extremely verbose prose. He can be painful to read. Like Faulkner, some of his extended discourses are somewhat confusing at first. But, the points he makes are salient. I cite him a few times in our book and in a few articles. I just worry about the extent to which readers will continue to follow his discourses. Some might grow weary with his confusing prose and disengage before he makes his point.
I am going to have to check out Husserl. Any recommendations concerning his work?
Phil