There’s plenty of political opinions around these days, which both claim to take “arguments” from “science”. Long story short, people are divided down to the point whether science is, should or even can be political; as people are equally divided between bright and moronic people. This is why “science” is in quotation marks: I’m gonna characterize any “scientific” thing as “useful” and the moronic political rambling as – well, moronic, but I need to argue that, as I’ll argue, so let me argue my point:
Science, essentially is the quest for knowledge, i.e. trying to gather insights into something. This, in my (and actually every reasonable person’s) humble opinion is a good thing.
Of course, if you’re a well-versed in
leftist moronic methodology, you might call me out on making a moral statement here as an antecedent to what’s gonna follow, but I can very easily defend my position why gathering knowledge is a good thing: if you disagree, we could just chop your head off. Your argument why I shouldn’t do that would either be based on the knowledge that you’d die – making me win the argument – or your feelings, which would leave the plane of rational discourse – and make you lose, as that’s the playing field.
On this playing field of rationality – which, amusingly, was established by a bunch of priests thinking about an invisible, supernatural being beyond human understanding that created everything – there’s a general rule: You can’t just make up shit.
Now, ontologically (that’s the philosophic science about how things come to be), this is very complicated, and epistemology (how you can understand things) is another philosophical field that’s gonna open up a huge deep-mining operation, which quite a few people more intelligent than me have written books about – some of which must have been wrong, because they’re contradictory.
But we don’t have to open this huge bucket of poisonous snakes if we agree on methodology – that’s essentially how you can gather knowledge (to then, deduct methologically and, then, ontologically, the existence of god – or laws of gravity or whatever).
Now, there are, essentially, only two methodolocically rivalling positions, named critical rationalism and critical theory, both of which are quite adeptly named: It’s reason against theory. The proponents if the “theory rulez” side argue that, – in social sciences, please note – you can’t really “prove” things – says quite everyone. This is not a “moral argument” as in “you can’t put 100.000 people in a concentration camp” – history has shown that we, as humanity, of course can do that, and countries like North Korea still do that – as do the Chinese with some Uighurs or whatever.
This should illustrate why any “moral” argument is always moronic – it can be disproven by just doing it. Please note that the scientific argument here is: An argument can only be valid if it can be disproven.
Please note we’re talking theory here – practice is yet another hurdle to scientific knowledge. Let’s take an easy example:
“But you can’t kill one billion people”.
See? That’s a moral argument, not a rational one. Today. A thousand years ago, it would be a rational argument – which can be really, really easily founded by [more or less] common knowledge such as “there aren’t even a billion people on the planet”. Today… well, there’s tens of thousands of nukes around, and I’m quite sure they’d kill far more than a billion people.
Never fall for the “moral” side of an argument; it’s just unfounded babbling or, better yet, wishful thinking. I’m pretty sure there were about six million Jews in 1939 Germany (plus eastern countries) that told themselves “they can hardly kill all of us” – which, of course, was true – but that didn’t help any of those six million dead, did it?
This is what you get when you mix science and politics: Egoism. In it’s extreme, solipsism – that’s thinking about yourself above and beyond anything else. If you’re male: That’s what women usually do; that’s just human nature. If you’re female: Ignore the first part of the last sentence.
That’s, unfortunately, not gonna – rationally, as in “the reality” – stop you from getting gassed in a concentration camp, gang-raped by ISIS, stoned to death, beaten to death in a Maoist struggle session, deported to the Australias or other colonies, butchered for fun because you were born in the wrong neighbourhood of Ruanda or whatever.
No, dear wannabe rational discussion partner: You need to make a rational argument. Two, actually: Why should I not just kill you, and why should I trust you not to kill me? “Human Decency”? Wa-ha-ha-ha-ha.