【文章】James Lindsay - How to Kill a Science: The Process of Dialectical Inversion

連結

• 文章 - newdiscourses.com/20...

原文及個人翻譯

One of the “key goals” of the Woke Marxist movement is to “decenter the natural sciences” (e.g., Carey et al. 2016). How on Earth is someone supposed to “decenter” the natural sciences—and from what, and why?

The second of these questions is extremely easy to answer. The natural sciences have to be decentered from credibility and authority. “Other ways of knowing,” especially (Marxist) political activism, have to be brought from margin to center in terms of what is considered credible and authoritative in terms of “scientific” knowledge production—in other words, Marxist scientism has to usurp the authority and credibility of the sciences. Why? Because knowledge is power, obviously. If the mass lines of action in your activist agenda are believed to carry the credibility and authority of science, everyone just has to go along with them. “Believe science,” remember? Did Covid-19 teach us nothing?

A little more specifically, being a “holistic” way of thinking derived from Georg Hegel, that which is at the “center” of a system has power. That which is on the margins has less or none. From the center, the whole and its many particulars can be perceived and influenced; from the margins, none of this is possible. If you want to center marginalized “knowledges,” like scientism, political activism, superstition, or whatever else you find useful to your activist project at any given moment, you have to decenter the legitimate methods of establishing knowledge first and then center alternatives, or “other ways of knowing” and “other knowledges.” That way, they command influence and can shape the ideas, material conditions, cultural conditions, or whatever other aspects of societal and human production for which the activists want to seize the means of production. Simple.

「覺醒」馬克思主義運動的「關鍵目標」之一是「去中心化自然科學」（例如，Carey et al. 2016）。 究竟如何「去中心化」自然科學——以及從什麼方面，為什麼？

第二個問題很容易回答。 自然科學必須從可信度和權威性方面被去中心化。「其他知識方式」（Other ways of knowing），尤其是（馬克思主義）政治行動，必須在「科學」知識生產中被認為是可信和權威的，從邊緣走向中心——換句話說，馬克思主義的科學主義必須取代科學的權威性和可信度。 為什麼？ 因為知識就是力量，顯而易見。 如果你行動主義議程中的大眾行動被認為具有科學的可信度和權威性，那麼每個人都不得不接受它們。「記住，要相信科學？」 新冠疫情沒有讓我們學到任何東西嗎？

更具體地說，作為源自格奧爾格·黑格爾（Georg Hegel）的「整體」思維方式，系統中處於「中心」的事物擁有力量。 邊緣事物則擁有較少或幾乎沒有力量。 從中心，可以感知和影響整個系統及其許多細節；從邊緣，這是不可能的。 如果你想將邊緣化的「知識」，如科學主義、政治行動、迷信或其他任何對你的行動主義專案在特定時刻有用的東西置於中心，你首先必須「去中心化」建立知識的合法方法，然後「中心化」替代方案或「其他知識方式」和「其他知識」。 這樣一來，它們就能發揮影響力，並能夠塑造思想、物質條件、文化條件或其他任何社會和人類生產方面，這些方面是行動主義者想要控制其生產手段的。 很簡單。

So, fine, what Woke Marxist activists want to accomplish by “decentering science” and why they want to do it is obvious enough. How, though, can they do it? The sciences earned their reputation, and they have a lot of power to prevent this kind of corruption, as the activists themselves have lamented for decades. The answer is through a dialectical inversion.

Here’s how it works in two steps. First, scientific knowledge and “diverse knowledges” from “other ways of knowing” are “sublated” onto “equal” footing through a dialectical reinterpretation of “knowledge.” Once the epistemological superiority of scientific knowledge is thereby obscured, it is relentlessly attacked for all the “harms” it causes and has caused (benefits aren’t useful to denounce, so they’re not mentioned) and all the negative “systems” and “structures” it’s associated with. This process inverts the worth of the different “knowledges” on moral grounds. So, the first step, the dialectical sublation, removes the question of epistemological worth, and the second step, the moral inversion, puts the activism on top.

To understand this little trick, we have to understand the dialectic. In the simplest way of putting it, the dialectic proceeds by a process Marxists have called “sublation,” which translates the peculiar German word aufheben, which means simultaneously to abolish or cancel, to keep or maintain, and to lift up. In short, sublation means understanding how two things that are apparently opposites to one another in some way are really part of some singular whole when understood from a higher level. So, you abolish the particulars, keep the essence, and do it by lifting up your understanding to a higher plane, which is obviously (in their eyes) better.

所以，好吧， 「覺醒」馬克思主義行動主義者想要通過「去中心化科學」來實現的目標以及他們想要這樣做的原因已經很明顯了。 但是，他們該如何做到呢？ 科學通過自身的努力獲得了聲譽，並且擁有很大的力量來防止這種腐敗，正如這些行動主義者在過去幾十年里所抱怨的那樣。答案是通過一種「辯證顛倒」（dialectical inversion）。

其運作方式分為兩個步驟。 首先，通過對「知識」的辯證重新解釋，科學知識和來自「其他知識方式」的「多樣化知識」被置於「平等」的地位。 一旦科學知識的認識論優越性因此被掩蓋，它就會不斷受到攻擊，因為所有它造成的和已經造成的「危害」（好處對譴責沒有用，所以不提），以及與所有負面的「系統」和「結構」相關聯的事物。 這種過程在「道德層面」顛倒了不同「知識」的價值。 因此，第一步，辯證揚棄，消除了認識論價值的問題，第二步，道德顛倒，將行動主義置於頂端。

要理解這個小技巧，我們必須理解辯證法。 最簡單的說法是，辯證法通過馬克思主義者稱為「揚棄」的過程進行，該過程翻譯了古怪的德語單詞 aufheben，意思是同時廢除或取消、保留或維持以及提升。 簡而言之，揚棄意味著理解以某種方式看似相互對立的兩件事是如何真正成為一個單一整體的一部分，當從更高的層面理解時。 因此，你廢除細節，保留本質，並通過提升你的理解到更高的層次來實現，這顯然（在他們看來）更好。

Here’s a non-controversial example adapted from Hegel himself. If I have a red apple and a yellow apple (or any two apples), they’re obviously different. In that sense, they’re opposed to one another, but we call them both “apples.” That’s a contradiction, dialectical thinking insists, because different things can’t be the same thing, but here we are with two different apples both being apples. If we abolish the particulars of red and yellow but keep the generality of it being the fruit of the species Malus domestica as what confers their essential “appleness,” we can lift up to a higher level of understanding about the particular fruit by seeing them as classified as “apples.” We abolished particulars, kept the essence, and understood it from a higher (in this case, more general) level.

So, what the dialectic does is takes two apparent opposites, sees them from some “higher perspective” whereupon some contradiction reveals itself, and then adopts the higher-perspective view to see the opposites as two aspects of a single phenomenon. (When done responsibly, this process is actually called generalization and isn’t idiotic.) Capitalism and socialism might, for example, both be seen as organizational systems for the modes of production, and thus they’re not opposed to one another but potentially miscible socioeconomic systems that obtain some “better” result than either alone, in this case “sustainable capitalism.” At this point, it’s worth pointing out that the dialectical opposites is called their “synthesis,” and so rather than calling the result “better,” we should call it “synthetic.” It tells us more about how likely it is to work out. Objective and subjective synthesize into “creative.” Being and Nothing synthesize into Becoming. Noble savages and noblemen synthesize into “savages made to live in cities.” Individuals and collective society synthesize into “individuals made to live in society,” i.e., socialists—or so insisted Karl Marx at the bottom of his analysis.

這裡有一個改編自黑格爾自己的非爭議性例子。 如果我有一個紅蘋果和一個黃蘋果（或任何兩個蘋果），它們顯然是不同的。 從這個意義上說，它們相互對立，但我們都稱之為「蘋果」。 辯證思維堅持認為這是一個矛盾，因為不同的事物不能是同一件事，但我們這裡有兩個不同的蘋果都是蘋果。 如果我們廢除紅色和黃色這些細節，但保留其作為 Malus domestica 物種的果實這一普遍性，而這種普遍性賦予了它們的本質「蘋果」屬性，那麼我們可以通過將它們歸類為「蘋果」來提升對特定水果的更高層次的理解。 我們廢除細節，保留本質，並從更高的（在這種情況下，更一般的）層面進行理解。

因此，辯證法所做的是，它會抓住兩個看似相反的事物，從某種「更高的視角」來看待它們，然後發現一些矛盾，然後採用這種高層視角的觀點，將這些對立面視為單一現象的兩個方面。（當負責任地使用時，這個過程實際上被稱為概括，而不是愚蠢。） 例如，資本主義和社會主義都可以被視為生產模式的組織系統，因此它們並不相互對立，而是潛在的可混合社會經濟體系，可以實現比兩者單獨更好的結果，在這種情況下是「可持續資本主義」。 在這一點上，值得指出的是，辯證法的對立面被稱為它們的「綜合」，因此，與其稱結果為「更好」，不如稱其為「綜合的」。 這告訴我們它成功的可能性有多大。 客觀和主觀綜合為「創造性」。 存在（being）和虛無（nothing）綜合為「變動」（becoming）。 高貴的野蠻人和高貴的紳士綜合為「被強制生活在城市中的野蠻人」。 個體和社會集體綜合為「被強制生活在社會中的個體」，即社會主義——或者，正如卡爾·馬克思在他的分析的最後堅持的那樣。

Marxism doesn’t proceed merely through dialectical synthesis, however. It operates through dialectical transformation, which requires an inversion. If you wanted to usurp scientific authority to your crackpot ideology, for example, it wouldn’t be enough to just do what Marx and Hegel did and call your crackpot ideology a “system of science” (System der Wissenschaft, Hegel; Wissenschaftlicher Sozialismus, Marx). No scientist this side of the end of the 19th century is going to fall for that. You have to kill the existing science too. The hard part is that you don’t have the necessary tools to do it on the “master’s” playing field. “The master’s tools will never dismantle the master’s house,” we’ve heard it said (by Audre Lorde).

In order to do a dialectical transformation of a science into another tool in your revolutionary toolkit, you have to kill it first, then gut it, and wear its skin as a suit. That requires you to commit a sciencecide, the murder of a science. That’s done through a process I’m calling dialectical inversion. It’s a two-step: first a dialectical sublation and second a moral inversion that “critiques” the existing science into submission.

然而，馬克思主義並非僅僅通過辯證綜合來發展。 它通過辯證的「轉化」來進行，這需要一種顛覆。 例如，如果您想篡奪科學權威以支援您的荒謬意識形態，那麼僅僅像馬克思和黑格爾那樣做，並將您的荒謬意識形態稱為「科學體系」（System der Wissenschaft，黑格爾；Wissenschaftlicher Sozialismus，馬克思）是不夠的。 19世紀末之後，任何科學家都不會相信這一點。 您必須首先消滅現有的科學。 最困難的部分是，您沒有必要的工具在「主人」的領域中做到這一點。「主人的工具永遠無法拆毀主人的房子」，正如奧德·洛德所說的那樣。

爲了對一種科學進行辯證轉化，將其變成您革命工具箱中的另一種工具，您首先必須消滅它，然後掏空它，並穿上它的外皮作為一件衣服。 這需要您犯下「科學謀殺」，即對科學的謀殺。 這是通過一個我稱之為「辯證顛覆」的過程來實現的。 它分為兩個步驟：第一是辯證的揚棄，第二是「批判」現有科學使其屈服的「道德」顛覆。

The first step in this process—though usually not performed temporally first—is a dialectical sublation of the knowledge generated by the science. Your knowledge is no different than my knowledge. Scientific knowledge and activist gnowledge (gnosis) are still both knowledge, and how dare you exclude mine? Yours is a culturally produced product; mine is a culturally produced product; and no one has the privileged standpoint to say yours is better than mine. They’re just different. They’re two forms of knowing that are apparently opposed unless you understand “knowledge” on a higher level that includes both scientific knowledge and other kinds of knowledges. “Knowledge” has to be construed broadly, and then scientific, activist, indigenous, superstitious, magical, made-up, and downright crazy are all really apparent variations on a single theme. What they have in common is that different people who come from different “traditions” claim to “know” them. They’re all “knowledge.” In some sense, even if they’re not all “science,” they’re all scientia, which just means “knowledge” or “knowing.”

Scientists, as scientists, aren’t apt to fall for this word game, and thus the natural sciences have withstood the dialectical assault for longer than almost any other discipline of thought. People, as people, are, though, and, as it turns out, all the people we consider scientists are people. People like—in fact, need—to be liked, or at least held in esteem, especially to function in institutional settings.

這個過程的第一步——雖然通常不是在時間上首先進行——是對該科學所產生的「知識」進行辯證的揚棄。 您的知識與我的知識沒有區別。 科學知識和行動主義者的知識（靈知（gnosis））仍然都是「知識」，您怎麼敢排除我的呢？ 您的是一種文化產物；我的也是一種文化產物；沒有人有特權地位可以宣稱您的比我的更好。 它們只是不同。 它們是兩種看似對立的認知形式，除非您在更高的層次上理解「知識」，該層次包括科學知識和其他型別的知識。 「知識」必須被廣泛地理解，然後科學、行動主義、本土、迷信、魔法、虛構和徹頭徹尾的瘋狂都是一種單一主題的「表面」變體。 它們的共同點是，來自不同「傳統」的不同人聲稱「知道」它們。 它們都是「知識」。 在某種意義上，即使它們並非全部是「科學」，但它們都是「scientia」，這僅僅意味著「知識」或「認知」。

科學家作為科學家，不太容易被這種文字遊戲所迷惑，因此自然科學比幾乎任何其他思想領域都更能抵禦辯證的攻擊。 然而，人們作為人，卻很容易受到影響，而且正如我們所知，所有我們認為的科學家都是人。 人們喜歡——實際上需要——被人喜歡，或者至少受到尊重，尤其是在機構環境中才能發揮作用。

“Critical” thought, as in the Critical Theory driving Critical Marxism, isn’t one-dimensional; it’s two, or so Herbert Marcuse, one of its greatest expositors, explained in One-dimensional Man, one of the most influential works in Leftism in the last hundred years. It doesn’t just understand; it has a moral dimension of understanding too (and a transgressive, artistic one). Refusing to recognize other knowledges and ways of knowing is exclusionary, which is a word that means “chauvinist” and carries all its pejorative stink, on steroids. You’re closed minded. You’re bigoted. You’re sexist, racist, homophobic, transphobic, capitalist, imperialist, colonialist, fascist, and all the other things you’re desperate not to be considered by friends or foes—or, especially, yourself. Thus, speaking temporally, the relentless accusations of bigotry in or around your science, its conferences, its departments, its organizations, its community, etc., etc., precedes the sublation. Otherwise, it won’t take.

This step is often accomplished through erosion, that is, simply wearing people down with relentless accusations that sometimes work. There’s some intersectional trickery going on here too, though, that works a bit like hiding a bitter pill inside a bit of cheese to get a dog to swallow it. Rather than presenting the activist “knowledges,” like feminist or antiracist “knowledges,” as the alternatives, it’s presented as one of many other forms of “diverse knowledges” (often explicitly invoked in this supremely vague way) that it’s morally pretty crappy to ignore, like indigenous knowledges, which are mostly practically experiential and/or superstitious. “Diverse knowledges” like indigenous knowledges are the bit of cheese the activist is using to get the poisoned pill of Soviet (construed broadly) knowledge on the table. You can’t include one without including them all, and what kind of a Western-centric bigot would add epistemic oppression and violence to indigenous people after all they’ve done with colonialism, imperialism, racism, exploitation, marginalization, and so on. Of course, the activists are using indigeneity as a tool to accomplish their agenda, but they phrase it like they’re helping. They (look like they) care.

In practice, “diverse knowledges” have to be “included,” and once they are, people will find out really quickly that they overwhelmingly mean activism. You might protest that they’re lying, but of course they are. They’re Communists.

「批判性」思維，如推動批判馬克思主義的批判理論，並非一維的；正如赫伯特·馬庫塞（Herbert Marcuse），他是一位最偉大的闡釋者之一，在過去一百年中最具影響力的著作之一《一維人》（One-dimensional Man）中解釋的那樣，它具有兩個維度。 它不僅「理解」，而且還具有一種道德層面的理解（以及一種叛逆的、藝術性的層面）。 拒絕承認其他知識和認知方式是排斥行為，而「排斥」是一個帶有貶義色彩的詞語，意思是「狹隘」。 您是「思想僵化」的。 您是「偏執」的。 您是「性別歧視」、 「種族主義」、「恐同」、「恐跨性戀」、「資本主義」、「帝國主義」、「殖民主義」、「法西斯主義」，以及所有您不希望朋友或敵人——或者，尤其是自己——認為的其他事物。 因此，從時間上講，在您的科學、會議、部門、組織、社區等各個方面，對偏執的無休止的指責通常發生在揚棄之前。 否則，它不會奏效。

這個步驟通常通過削弱來完成，也就是說，僅僅通過不斷地指責來壓垮人們，有時會起作用。 這裡還存在一些交叉性技巧，這有點像把苦藥藏在奶酪里，讓狗吞下去。 與直接將行動主義「知識」，如女權主義或反種族主義「知識」作為替代方案呈現不同，而是將其呈現為許多其他形式的「多元知識」之一（通常以這種極其模糊的方式明確提及），忽略這些知識在道德上是非常糟糕的，例如本土知識，這些知識大多是實踐經驗和/或迷信。「多元知識」，如本土知識，是行動主義者用來讓蘇聯（廣義上理解）知識這顆毒藥出現在餐桌上的奶酪。 您不能包含一種而不用包含所有，而且什麼樣的以西方為中心的偏執者會在殖民主義、帝國主義、種族主義、剝削、邊緣化等等之後，對土著人民施加認知壓迫和暴力呢？ 當然，行動主義者正在利用本土文化作為實現其議程的工具，但他們用一種好像他們在幫助別人的方式來表達。 他們（看起來）關心。

實際上，「多元知識」必須被「包含」，一旦它們被包含，人們會很快發現它們主要指的是行動主義。 您可能會抗議說他們是在撒謊，當然他們是。 他們是共產主義者。

Once you allow the sublation, you’ll be compelled to see all these different types of “diverse knowledges” as particulars of a similar phenomenon, “knowing.” You might not see them as equal yet (you bigot), but, don’t worry, for all their bluster, the activists don’t either. Their goal isn’t the equality they wear like a cloak but Gnostic supremacy, and the relentless association of your science with the abuses of systemic power structures has just begun.

The way the inversion is actually done, once the dialectical sublation has been achieved, is slightly more subtle than the blunt instrument of just calling a science racist, sexist, and transphobic all the time, though that never really stops being insisted. It’s a matter of consciousness. The activists, as Gnostics, position themselves as more aware than you. You aren’t even aware of all the ways your science is complicit in systemic harms. They are. You don’t even know your science proceeds on tons of implicit political assumptions, including about the definition of knowledge. They do.

The manipulation that achieves the sleight of hand isn’t really the relentless moral bullying, though that makes it possible. It’s the claim to consciousness. The case is made that every “knowledge system” proceeds from a concept of the world and man. They realize this, but you don’t. It’s always happening, but only they are aware of it. Yours causes all these harms. It’s complicit in all these evils. They point it out relentlessly. Theirs is, thanks to the sublation, epistemologically roughly the same, but it distinguishes itself by being conscious of all the harms yours causes and evils yours is complicit in, which, in being conscious of those, it denounces. Theirs is actually better than yours. Your science is evil, and so the dialectical inversion progresses. Your science, in the end, has to be handed over to more and more of their control until it’s not your science at all anymore. It’s a Lysenkoist zombie of your science; it’s a Sovietized counterfeit. (At this point, they can, and might, drop the pretense to caring about indigenous stuff, depending on how hegemonic their grip on the science has become.)

一旦您允許揚棄，您將被迫將所有這些不同型別的「多元知識」視為一種類似現象的特例，即「認知」。 您可能還沒有認為它們是平等的（你這個偏執者），但不用擔心，儘管他們口頭上聲勢浩大，但行動主義者自己也並不這麼認為。 他們的目標不是他們像披風一樣佩戴的平等，而是「靈知派的至上」，而您所在的科學與系統權力結構的濫用之間的聯繫正在不斷加強。

實際上，一旦辯證揚棄實現，這種「顛倒」是通過一種比僅僅不斷地稱科學為種族主義、性別歧視和恐跨性戀更微妙的方式來完成的，儘管這種堅持從未真正停止。 這是一個關於「意識」的問題。 作為靈知派者，行動主義者將自己定位為「比您更有意識」。 您甚至沒有意識到您的科學以哪些方式與系統性的危害有關。 他們知道。 您甚至不知道您的科學建立在大量的隱含「政治」假設之上，包括對知識的定義。 他們知道。

實現這種技巧的操縱並非真正的是那種無情的道德恐嚇，儘管它使這種情況成為可能。 而是聲稱擁有意識。 論點是，每個「知識體系」都源於對世界和人類的概念。 他們意識到這一點，但您沒有意識到。 這始終發生，但只有他們才意識到這一點。 您的會導致所有這些危害。 它與所有這些邪惡有關。 他們會不斷地指出這一點。 由於揚棄，他們的在認識論上大致相同，但它通過意識到您的科學所造成的各種危害以及您的科學所參與的各種邪惡來區分自己，並且，由於意識到了這些，他們譴責了這些。 他們的實際上比您的更好。 您的科學是邪惡的，因此辯證顛倒正在進行。 最終，您的科學必須越來越多地被他們控制，直到它不再是您的科學。 這是您科學的一個「李森科主義」殭屍（Lysenkoist zombie）；這是一個蘇聯化的贗品。（在這個時候，他們可以，也可能會放棄對土著事務的假裝關心，這取決於他們對該科學的控制程度。）

You might have noticed they didn’t have to make a positive case for their approach here, which they couldn’t do anyway (their way cannot work, so it doesn’t work). It’s not their obligation to offer a positive case for their approach. They have used a dialectical sublation of “knowing” to render any epistemological differences irrelevant at best or chauvanistic on your part at worst and demonstrated your approach is morally deficient in a way they abhor, thus inverting the relative validity of the two approaches. They don’t have to tell you why theirs is good; they only have to say why it’s better than yours, which provides nothing particularly unique and is framed out as all kinds of bad.

You might think this is a con, and that’s because it is. Scientists and government and university bureaucrats all over the world are tripping all over themselves to fall for it over and over again, though, almost like a contest to see who can signal their virtue loudest by falling for it hardest, fastest, and the most times in any given fiscal year. You might think you couldn’t possibly fall for it or that your science couldn’t possibly succumb to it because it has its methods, but that’s exactly why you will and so will it. All it takes is the right incident—and may George Floyd rest in power for-ever—and in your desperation not to be a Very Bad Person, if you’re like most people, or like your boss probably is, or like his boss (who is eventually a politician who lives and dies by public relations) probably is, you’ll “diversify” and wind up losing.

您可能已經注意到，他們不需要在這裡為他們的方法提出任何積極的論據，因為他們無論如何都無法做到（他們的「方法」根本行不通，所以它不起作用）。 他們沒有義務為他們的「方法」提供積極的論證。 他們使用對「認知」的一種辯證揚棄，在最好的情況下使所有認識論上的差異變得無關緊要，而在最壞的情況下則認為這是您的一種種族主義行為，並且證明了您的「方法」在他們所厭惡的方式上存在道德缺陷，從而顛倒了這兩種「方法」的相對有效性。 他們不必告訴您他們的「方法」有多好；他們只需要說它比您的「方法」更好，而這並沒有提供任何特別獨特的東西，並且被描述為各種各樣的壞事。

您可能認為這是一個騙局，這就是因為它是騙局。 世界各地，科學家、政府和大學官僚都在爭先恐後地上當受騙，幾乎就像一場比賽，看看誰能通過最用力、最快以及在任何給定的財政年度中多次上當受騙來發出最響亮的「美德」訊號。 您可能認為您絕對不會上當受騙，或者您的科學絕對不會屈服於它，因為它的方法是可靠的，但這就是為什麼您會並且您的科學也會如此。 只需要發生正確的事件——愿George Floyd永遠安息——如果您像大多數人一樣，或者像您的老闆可能一樣，或者像他的老闆（最終是一個活在公共關係中並因此而生死的政客）一樣，您就會「實現多元化」，最終會失敗。

It’s not impossible to stop a dialectical inversion. It’s not even all that hard, honestly. You’ll get run through a public relations storm from hell, though, because we’ve already let this thing get way too far out of hand already. (Years ago, I was warning people that this would only get harder to stand up to later, not easier; welcome to later.) What you have to do is stand up for your science’s epistemological superiority, which it really does have, and thus prevent the sublation of “knowledges.” You have to reject their appeals to consciousness as crankery and crackpottery and then flip it over on them, pointing out the myriad harms and outright catstrophes that reliably follow from either their specific activist program or every historical attempt to intentionally subvert science to ideology. They’re not conscious; they’re crackpots. They don’t know something others don’t; they assert it. Not all sets of underlying assumptions are equal, and those seeking social transformation are always both unscientific and unmitigated disasters.

Don’t let it in. You know how it works now. Learn to spot it. Expose it for what it is when it happens, show your colleagues, and kick it out with extreme prejudice. Don’t be afraid.

阻止辯證顛倒並非不可能，而且說實話，這並不難。 然而，您將面臨一場來自地獄的公共關係風暴，因為我們已經讓這種情況變得過於失控。（幾年前，我曾警告人們，情況只會越來越難以抵制，而不是更容易；歡迎來到現在。） 您必須為您的科學的認識論優勢挺身而出，因為它確實具有這種優勢，從而防止「知識」被揚棄。 您必須將他們對「意識」的呼籲視為無稽之談和瘋言瘋語，然後反過來指責他們，指出無論是他們的具體行動主義計劃還是歷史上所有試圖故意顛覆科學以服務於意識形態的嘗試，都會可靠地導致無數危害和直接災難。 他們不是「有意識」的；他們是瘋子。 他們並不「知道」別人不知道的事情；他們只是聲稱如此。 並非所有潛在假設都是平等的，而且那些尋求社會變革的人總是既不科學又是一場無法挽回的災難。

不要讓它滲透進來。 現在您已經瞭解了它的運作方式。 學會識別它。 當它發生時，揭露它的真面目，向您的同事展示，並以極端的偏見將其驅逐出去。 不要害怕。