janw@inmet.UUCP (05/10/86)
[ -Barry Shein, Boston University] >Re: Would logic have prevented the rise of Nazism? >Although I must admit I am not acting at a terribly high intellectual >level, somehow I find this claim astounding and completely denying >how, in many ways, I heretofore have considered Nazism. >I thought a common thesis was that Hitler utilized modern science (or >an appearance of the same) to a technologically entranced German >people to justify his social engineering. >[examples of Nazi pseudo-science ] Well, isn't this just the point: people who believe all kinds of mumbo-jumbo because it sounds scientific, or because experts say so, are not using their reasoning capabilities (including logic). Science-worship and expert-worship are just as unreasonable as any cult. Logical people are likely to notice that experts con- tradict each other and their pronouncements change with time. An inescapable conclusion is that experts are apt to be wrong. In some fields, experts are *usually* wrong. A common-sense (i.e. logical) peasant often understands this better than a brainwashed educated parrot. >I THOUGHT THE POINT WAS HITLER'S NAZI GERMANY WAS PRECISELY SCIENCE > GONE MAD. Quite. Along with other things gone mad. In particular, gone illogical. In every Nazi pseudo-scientfic myth, a lay logical person could easily punch holes the size of Nuremberg. Those that did not punch them, failed to use their logic because they wanted to believe. >You know, those cold, logical germans, ... ... and they are another myth ... > ... killing off the impure blood, >doing their secret weapons and other war research etc. Whereas it was crystal clear that there is no such thing as pure German (or Jewish) blood, that the secret weapons were mostly Goebbels's lies, that the war was unwinnable, that there was no truth in the newspapers, and that even the leaders were lied to. The logical Germans saw through the lies and fled or lay low. The illogical ones were whipped into frenzy by the songs, the marches, the rallies, the slogans; by the warm feeling of togeth- erness and belonging - till they were ready to kill and die. >Now, I suppose one could argue that the point is that logic is abused >throughout and the problem was that people were fooled by simple >logical prestidigitation, but somehow I feel if that is the argument >it is a poorly put argument, there is something more important going >on (like that people will believe what they want to believe, mass >hysteria etc.) Sure: mass hysteria and wishful thinking. These things don't mix with logic. Therefore, with more logic in German population, there would have been less mass hysteria and wishful thinking, ergo less possibility for Nazism, QED. Of course the same could be said of many other factors: e.g., higher employment would have helped or a traditional respect for democracy. >No, I don't think it's logic that would save humanity, it's humanity >recognizing humanity, unless that also is logic. It could be if it were less vague. How does humanity "recognize humanity" ? Jan Wasilewsky