Nietzsche's perspectivism is neither a naive nor a radical form of relativism.
His attempt to counter modern positivism by insisting there are no facts, only interpretations and that truth is a convenient metaphorical fiction that reflects our own anthropic conceit rather than referring to a mind-independent reality, isn't very helpful, however, when bombarded daily by fake news, post-truth politics, religious literalism, alternative therapies and pseudo-scientific woo that combine to make this an age not only of delusion, but what is now commonly termed denialism.
That is to say, an age in which something originally identified by Freudians as an unconscious coping mechanism temporarily deployed by individuals when faced with disturbing truths that they find impossible to deal with, has mutated into a conscious and often ideologically-driven rejection of evidence or an empirically verifiable reality by those with an interest in believing the things they do as an article of faith, or according to the strength of their feeling.
Denialists will often employ sophisticated rhetorical tactics to create the illusion that they are interested in serious debate, or freedom of speech, when, actually, they are interested only in promoting their own views, no matter how crackpot: the earth is flat, for example, evolution just a theory, 9/11 an inside job ...
If such nonsense harmed no one, then, I suppose, we could afford to turn a blind eye or simply laugh it away. But, unfortunately, it can often have fatal consequences; as in South Africa, for example, under Thabo Mbeki, who embraced AIDS denialism, deciding that it was linked to poverty and bad nutrition and had nothing to do with infection by the human immunodeficiency virus.
It has been estimated that over 330,000 premature deaths could have been prevented during his ten year presidency if proper treatment had been made available and that tens of thousands of HIV positive mothers unnecessarily transmitted the disease to their children because, rather than being prescribed anti-retrovirals, they were encouraged instead by Mbeki's health minister to eat plenty of garlic, beetroot and African potato.
Thus, clearly, denialism must be challenged.
Unfortunately, this isn't always easy. For one is dealing with people driven by a range of motivations, but who are all equally unreasonable; people more than happy to abandon or openly disregard the conventions and ground rules of rational discourse. It's a futile and deeply depressing exercise trying to debate a creationist, or a believer in homeopathy.
All one can do is attempt to expose the (sometimes cynical, sometimes crazy, but always illegitimate and underhand) tactics they employ to spread their lies, fallacies, and conspiracy theories.
Further reading for those interested in this topic:
Chris and Mark Hoofnagle's Denialism Blog: click here.
Pascal Diethelm and Martin McKee, 'Denialism: what is it and how should scientists respond?', European Journal of Public Health, (Oxford Academic, 20 Jan 2009): click here.
That is to say, an age in which something originally identified by Freudians as an unconscious coping mechanism temporarily deployed by individuals when faced with disturbing truths that they find impossible to deal with, has mutated into a conscious and often ideologically-driven rejection of evidence or an empirically verifiable reality by those with an interest in believing the things they do as an article of faith, or according to the strength of their feeling.
Denialists will often employ sophisticated rhetorical tactics to create the illusion that they are interested in serious debate, or freedom of speech, when, actually, they are interested only in promoting their own views, no matter how crackpot: the earth is flat, for example, evolution just a theory, 9/11 an inside job ...
If such nonsense harmed no one, then, I suppose, we could afford to turn a blind eye or simply laugh it away. But, unfortunately, it can often have fatal consequences; as in South Africa, for example, under Thabo Mbeki, who embraced AIDS denialism, deciding that it was linked to poverty and bad nutrition and had nothing to do with infection by the human immunodeficiency virus.
It has been estimated that over 330,000 premature deaths could have been prevented during his ten year presidency if proper treatment had been made available and that tens of thousands of HIV positive mothers unnecessarily transmitted the disease to their children because, rather than being prescribed anti-retrovirals, they were encouraged instead by Mbeki's health minister to eat plenty of garlic, beetroot and African potato.
Thus, clearly, denialism must be challenged.
Unfortunately, this isn't always easy. For one is dealing with people driven by a range of motivations, but who are all equally unreasonable; people more than happy to abandon or openly disregard the conventions and ground rules of rational discourse. It's a futile and deeply depressing exercise trying to debate a creationist, or a believer in homeopathy.
All one can do is attempt to expose the (sometimes cynical, sometimes crazy, but always illegitimate and underhand) tactics they employ to spread their lies, fallacies, and conspiracy theories.
Further reading for those interested in this topic:
Chris and Mark Hoofnagle's Denialism Blog: click here.
Pascal Diethelm and Martin McKee, 'Denialism: what is it and how should scientists respond?', European Journal of Public Health, (Oxford Academic, 20 Jan 2009): click here.
To lump the life-saving Gerson Therapy in with all other "alternative therapies", and then to lump alternative therapies in with "fake news" and "religious literalism", succeeds only in discrediting the rest of this philosophical assault on so-called "denialism". (Just another facile and fatuous label!)
ReplyDeleteHas anyone ever heard that humorous bunch who make up the flat earth society or else cranky creationists really "employ sophisticated rhetorical tactics to create the illusion that they are interested in serious debate"? Of course not!
Once again, Stephen, you are in bloody-minded denial of the merits of Gerson as a brilliant cure for degenerative diseases. You groaned when I sent to a recent link to animal rights legend, Keith Mann, who has proved for all to see that this therapy is no "pseudo-scientific woo". That makes you as much part of this Age of Denialism as anyone, in my book, buddy!
Without wishing to engage in the ancient blood sport of badger-baiting, let me just point out that I didn't refer to the quackery of Gerson therapy anywhere in this post (although I have examined it elsewhere on this blog).
ReplyDeleteFurther, if denialism is just "another facile and fatuous label", then one wonders why you feel compelled to use it yourself ...?
Obviously, in a blog called Torpedo the Ark, there are things that I also wish to deny; but the difference is that my work contributes towards an active negation of the negative and not a rejection of the scientific method, of objective reality, and of rational discourse.
It's a good thing to be sceptical; it's a bad thing to wilfully reject evidence. And, as I say at the beginning of this post, Nietzsche's perspectivism is not a relativism - he doesn't regard all interpretations as having equal validity, he ranks them accordingly.
Why "wonder", when there is an irresistible desire to toss that daft dehumanising term, "denialism", around for ironic fun!
ReplyDeleteBut it's not really funny of you to display your denialist ignorance by unjustly denouncing as "quackery" the medical genius of eminent German physician, Dr Max Gerson, who developed his "startlingly effective method for treating chronic degenerative diseases" (see A Time to Heal, The Triumph Over Cancer: The Therapy of the Future, by Beata Bishop).
It is "a bad thing" indeed "to wilfully reject" the "evidence" of countless personal testimonies regarding the effectiveness of the Gerson Therapy - "based on optimum nutrition and thorough dexofication", restoring "the body's damaged immune system to the stage where it" can "destroy the malignancy".
Who doesn't want to revel in unabashed good health by following "the dietary principles of Dr Gerson"?