A few days ago, my introduction to you happened via your Epochtimes interview. I liked what I heard and picked up The Parasitic Mind ("TPM"). Much of what you say resonates with me. I especially appreciate your ideals of freedom and truth.

A disconnect I'm having is with your presentation of "truth." After perusing TPM, I used Kindle's search function on "truth," "science," a few other words, etc., to dig out your stated ideal. This is what I’m seeing:

General
p11 the truth ideal
defense of truth
uncover the truth
p12 quest for truth
p13 true knowledge
pursuing and defending truth
p18 objective truths
fundamental truths
search for truth

positive context
p1 reason, science and logic
p12 This is precisely why science is so liberating. It offers a framework for auto-correction because scientific knowledge is always provisional. An accepted scientific fact today might be refuted tomorrow. As such, the scientific method engenders epistemic humility.
p13 scientific truth
p19 truth and science
evidentiary rules of science and logic
p20 commitment to reason and the scientific method
commitment to reason, science and the values of the Enlightenment
p23 the truth as he (scientist) sees it
only one thing matters and that is the facts
p24 scientific testing
p29 facts and not feelings
p30 evidentiary threshold for uncovering scientific truth
truth or falsehood of one's position
p38 scientific facts
p56 scientific truths and natural laws
p60 only one truth and we find it through the scientific method
p63 truth and adherence to reality
p66 theory of evolution - a scientific truth that is as incontrovertible as the existence of gravity
p71 self-evident truths
p72 objective universal truth
p143 empirical truth
p145 pantheon of core knowledge
p153 universally true

negative context
p14 anti-science lunacy
p16 science denialism
p19 pet ideology
one's dogma
p21 shackles of the thought police
anti-intellectualism, anti-reason, anti-science and anti-liberal sentiment
p23 deeply held beliefs
p28 forbidden knowledge
p29 political correctness
p57 no revealed truths in science
p66 political or religious beliefs
p69 knowledge is relative (no objective truth)
p71 my truth
p82 banal scientific truths
p142 truth of his beliefs
p20 cultural and moral relativism

iffy
p169 Tribe of Truth

negators
p12 This is precisely why science is so liberating. It offers a framework for auto-correction because scientific knowledge is always provisional. An accepted scientific fact today might be refuted tomorrow. As such, the scientific method engenders epistemic humility.

p66 One’s political or religious beliefs cannot supersede accepted scientific knowledge (though we must remember that such knowledge remains provisional and open to falsification)

It seems to me that you are championing "truth" - specifically of the "objective" sort. You reject "relativism" culturally and morally. Your main argument seems to be that objective truth is only "scientific" in nature. Yet, by stating unequivocally that such knowledge is always provisional, aren't you then saying that scientific knowledge is likewise "relativistic" ultimately? If not, how then is "scientific" truth objective?

p76 Since postmodernism purports that reality is subjective, one person’s parody is another’s gold mine of meaning. With this epistemological sleight of hand, postmodernists are able to extract meaning from the most meaningless of texts.

p129 Before I delve into some of these supposed causes, it is worth noting that the obfuscation starts with the use of fantastical euphemisms and misdirection in referring to the terror attacks.

There was a time, not very long ago, when “absolute truth” was culturally, morally and scientifically acceptable. Concomitantly, the primary way the West thought about “truth” was as antithesis, allowing for “absolute truth.” In the late 18th, early 19th centuries, European intellectuals embraced a new methodology, sometimes referred to as Hegelian dialectic, a system wherein truth is no longer based on antithesis but on synthesis. This came out of the emerging humanist enlightenment – which placed man as the ultimate authority, supplanting the Church (God and absolute truth), i.e., no God, no revelation.

Chapter 2, opens with the Geivett/Shermer debate on the existence of God. Geivett’s view of truth is clearly antithesis. Shermer, not so obviously – dialectic/synthesis. Whether there is a God or not was not settled by Shermer’s levity. But, Shermer apparently succeeded with his sleight of hand / misdirection and obfuscated the question of methodology.

Jesus’ words from John’s gospel “the truth will set you free” are given in a context. “My teachings” v31, “speak just what the Father has taught me” v28, “and what I have heard from him I tell the world” v26. Jesus’ “truth” that sets free are not the facts of a scientific methodology. Jesus says they are “revealed truths”passed on from God through him. These are “truth claims” – not “the folklore and mythology of indigenous people.” However, if tribalism (Tribe of Truth) becomes acceptable consider that your kinsman, Paul, said “What advantage, then, is there in being a Jew, or what value is there in circumcision? Much in every way! First of all, the Jews have been entrusted with the very words of God.” (Romans 3:1)

As you pointed out, “because scientific knowledge is always provisional. An accepted scientific fact today might be refuted tomorrow” ultimately means that if ”science” is your only source, your journey will never arrive at your ideal.

Looking for a stronger and better you!

Brand	N/A
Rating	4.7 (5132 ratings)
Price	$15.29
Category	Medical Books

Parasitic Mind: How Infectious Ideas Are Killing Common Sense