SCIENCE AND SANITY - online book

An Introduction To Non-aristotelian Systems And General Semantics.

Home | About | Philosphy | Contact | Search

302                V. MATHEMATICS A A LANGUAGE
matics can we avoid the vicious influencing of lower centres through the feeling of false analogies which distort and disorganize the process. It is important to notice that the main and only lasting advances in 'philosophy' have been made by mathematicians; and, as a rule, whenever a trained mathematician attempts to work at any other profession not requiring mathematics, he shortly becomes an outstanding worker in the new field. It must be obvious that the returning nerve currents, when they produce the 'feel' (language of the lower centres) of physics, or chemistry, or biology, or other sciences with a definite content, must have a most pronounced semantic effect. Because of this physical content, identification and other semantic disturbances are usually present, instead of the highly beneficial visualization.
Empirically, this is quite obviously true. Let us survey the character of this process in physicists and chemists. Their problems, the content of their abstractions, are obviously not so closely related to human lives as the problems of biology. History shows that the attitude (affective) of those scientists toward human affairs is often shallow, but very seldom vicious or harmful. But let us take the attitudes of biologists, whose subject is seemingly much closer, or, at least, more affectively related to our problems, and we see, from Aristotle on, the brutalizing and unscientific (1933) effect of the false biological analogies. Practically all the vicious, unjustified, and unscientific generalizations which have made the white race the most animalistic, selfish, cruel, hypocritical, and un-sane race on earth are mainly due to the biological, A, distorted reasonings and s.r produced by false analogy.
In all this 'philosophy', they always reasoned from pigs, cats, and dogs to man. Since they were 'scientific', we blindly assumed that they must know what they were talking about. Even today, the majority of the older biologists refuse to investigate the structure of their language. They do not seem to be able to realize that most biological 'philosophies' are structurally fallacious and unscientific in 1933. They still unconsciously follow Aristotle. They refuse to understand that life is made up of absolute and unique individuals, and that 'man' or 'animal' is not an object, but labels verbal fictions.
In actual life, the differences between individuals are absolute, and father and son are different. These are the empirical facts of their sciences, the rest being verbal fictions. The notorious Tennessee trial demonstrated that in a large country like the United States of America. with a few good universities, there was no biologist to voice these points about 'evolution'. It is true that, through the work of neurologists and some others, biologists, of late, are beginning to see that they cannot