I am interested in this topic only from the question – what is making American medicine suck, and why is it acceleration in its noxious force? I blame these Four Horrors, which have a broad scope, but a particularly malignant effect upon Medicine.
Each in their own way, these four ideologies – Marxism, Technocracy, Bureaucracy and Objectivism – go about making a critical mistake in every part of their being that produces a fatal flaw in their attempts to organize and control the world.
There are, of course, plenty of other bad ideologies which contain this very flaw. I’ve only chosen these four to exemplify their bad thinking.
I jumped into this thought after reading an article in the (Manchester) Guardian, a left-wing English paper and blogsite. The article is entitled “The dark history of Donald Trump’s right-wing revolt ” Unlike almost everything I’ve read Stateside about 2016 politics, it is not utter crap and nonsense.
The article exploeres the thought of a disillusioned Marxist, James Burnham, and his protege, Francis. I note but have not read the commentary by Orwell on Burnham. I note that Orwell ‘s epitaph for the USSR, written decades before its fall, presages the possible fate of our own country.
The huge, invincible, everlasting slave empire of which Burnham appears to dream will not be established, or if established, will not endure.
The mistake of all of them is a form of arrogance, or in fancy terms, epistemological hubris. When one is thinking about a particular subject, one has a dilemma. How does one understand what is being studied?
In the scientific approach, evidence is the connection to reality. If a scientist has no language or terms to model reality, then the language – not the evidence – must bend in order to be more clear.
Paul AM Dirac’s essay to the Royal Society in 1931 was perhaps one of the last text-based essays on particle physics, before it leaped into mathematics. Dirac said only this – that a language must be used that conforms to the reality of the situation, a mathematical language – even if the language itself did not describe the thing being studied, but only its effects. If the language allowed for presumptions which predict effects seen experimentally, then the presumptions must be held to be true, and the language is seen as valid.
For instance, if the question is, “What is a neutrino?” the mathematical language of physics does not help very much. It can discuss neutrino behavior in certain situations, but not much about its essence, its being.
I will continue later – work awaits. But briefly, I find that the founders of these awful disciplines are no more to blame than Christ for Christianity. Marxism came from Marx, who appears to be well-intentioned; technocracy from Frederick Taylor, a more vicious sort of fellow. The story of bureaucracy is naturally a headless one – there is no one proponent, but many who analyze it, of whom Weber may be the best; and finally, Objectivism, which is particularly noxious but completely at sea from the principles of its founder, Ayn Rand.
(to be continued)