A Conflict of World Views

I'm currently reading Thomas Sowell's The Vision of the Anointed, and it packs a punch. Last weekend I mentioned my attraction to contrarians, not for the sake of being contrary, but for the very reasons highlighted in this book. In chapter one Sowell lays out his case:

Different visions, of course, have different assumptions, so it is not uncommon for people who follow different visions to find themselves in opposition to one another across a vast spectrum of unrelated issues, in such disparate fields as law, foreign policy, the environment, racial policy, military defense, education, and many others. To a remarkable extent, however, empirical evidence is neither sought beforehand nor consulted after a policy has been instituted. Facts may be marshalled for a position already taken, but that is very different from systematically testing opposing theories by evidence. Momentous questions are dealt with essentially as conflicts of visions.

The focus here will be on one particular vision—the vision prevailing among the intellectual and political elite of our time. What is important about that vision are not only its particular assumptions and their corollaries, but also the fact that it is a prevailing vision--which means that its assumptions are so much taken for granted by so many people, including so-called "thinking people," that neither those assumptions nor their corollaries are generally confronted with demands for empirical evidence. Indeed, empirical evidence itself may be viewed as suspect, insofar as it is inconsistent with that vision.

For those unfamiliar with Thomas Sowell, he was born in 1930 and raised in Harlem. He served in the U.S. Marine Corps during the Korean War and later earned degrees from Harvard, Columbia, and the University of Chicago, where he studied under Milton Friedman. An American economist, political thinker, and author, his work spans economics, history, education, race, and social policy. He became a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University and wrote more than 40 books, including Basic Economics, A Conflict of Visions, and The Vision of the Anointed. His work emphasizes trade-offs, incentives, and empirical analysis in public policy.

Bottom Line: Reality and Truth are more important than intentions and pipe dreams.

* * *

A little further on Sowell cites examples of various issues in the public square where conflicting visions compete with regard to government policies. 

What all these highly disparate crusades have in common is their moral exaltation of the anointed above others, who are to have their very different views nullified and superseded by the views of the anointed, imposed via the power of government. Despite the great variety of issues in a series of crusading movements among the intelligentsia during the twentieth century, several key elements have been common to most of them:

1. Assertions of a great danger to the whole society, a danger to which the masses of people are oblivious.

2. An urgent need for action to avert impending catastrophe.

3. A need for government to drastically curtail the dangerous behavior of the many, in response to the prescient conclusions of the few.

4. A disdainful dismissal of arguments to the contrary as either uninformed, irresponsible, or motivated by unworthy purposes.

How many times have we seen this show through the years. Same script, different issues, same game.  As Dylan put it "When you gonna wake up?"

Sowell’s warning is simple but bracing. When visions replace evidence, intentions replace results, and elites exempt their assumptions from scrutiny, society drifts from reality. Policies must be judged by outcomes, not moral fervor. Truth is not decided by consensus, urgency, or status—but by facts.

Curiosity: Another BIG Word

My most recent Marketing Matters column for Business North highlighted four big words, noteworthy for their depth and broad application. The idea was extracted from weekly meetings with the late Dan Hansen as we plotted and developed what we'd hoped would be an epic Wild West novel. 

It wasn't a long list yet, but it was strong. While reading the history of math in James D. Nickel's Mathematics: Is God Silent? it became apparent that curiosity was a major feature of nearly all advances in math, science and human understanding. Why does an apple fall and not go up? Why does the sun rise in the east and set in the west? Why does the Fibonacci sequence keep repeating itself throughout nature?

Curiosity is one of the great engines of civilization. Long before formal science or organized philosophy, human beings were asking questions: What lies beyond the horizon? Why do the seasons change? What causes illness? How do the stars move across the sky? That restless impulse to know more—to look past the obvious and probe the unknown—has propelled nearly every significant advance in human history.

The earliest explorers were driven not merely by necessity, but by wonder. Seafaring cultures pushed into open water without certainty of what awaited them. Their curiosity expanded maps, connected continents, and reshaped economies. The same impulse animated the thinkers of ancient Greece, who refused to explain the world solely through myth and instead sought rational patterns behind natural phenomena. From those inquiries came philosophy, mathematics, and the foundations of democratic thought.

Curiosity also transformed medicine. Questions about the causes of disease gradually replaced superstition with observation and experiment. The scientific revolution emerged from individuals willing to doubt inherited assumptions and test them against evidence. Curiosity drove men to create telescopes and microscopes to explore the skies above and the incredibly tiny phenomenon invisible to the naked eye. Telescopes, microscopes and later the laboratory were tools born of the desire to see more clearly and understand more deeply.

Technological innovation followed the same pattern. The steam engine, electricity, flight, and digital computing all began with someone asking, “What if?” 

Civilizations stagnate when curiosity is suppressed; they flourish when inquiry is encouraged. Businesses and people likewise.

[EdNote: In light of these things, it's a curious thing that we warn people against being too curious by repeating the maxim, "Curiosity killed the cat." Where are the admonitions to be curious?]

Importantly, curiosity is not mere idle speculation. It requires humility—the recognition that we do not yet know—and courage—the willingness to challenge established ideas. It invites risk, but it also opens possibility.

Dan Hansen's fundamental motivational driver was this insatiable curiosity. If you're feeling a measure of deadness inside, it may be because you've become trapped in your routines. Routine dulls the senses; curiosity sharpens them. It pulls us out of autopilot and into engagement.

Curiosity makes us feel more alive because it awakens us to possibility. When we ask questions, explore new ideas, or notice something unfamiliar, the world expands.  To be curious is to lean forward into life rather than drift through it.

Think about it.

If Plato Existed, Why Not Jesus?

"Ecce Homo" ~ Behold, the Man
Antonio Ciseri

Ideas outlive empires.

Athens has long since fallen, the Roman Empire a ruin. Yet the ideas forged in those civilizations still shape our laws, politics and moral vocabulary. Plato continues to influence philosophy classrooms. Aristotle still frames logic and ethics. No one seriously questions whether they existed.

And yet, from time to time, one still hears the claim: Jesus never existed. That's always struck me as odd.

Consider Plato. He died around 347 BC. Yet the earliest complete manuscripts of his works date to roughly the ninth century AD — about 1,200 years after his death. We possess fragments from earlier centuries, but the substantial copies that survived are medieval. And no one loses sleep over this.

But let's pursue this further.

On a number of occasions over the years I've heard people defend the existence of Jesus by citing the historians Josephus (c. 37-100) and Tacitus (c. 56-120). Both of these scholars lived within a generation or two of those historical first century events, each one making references to Jesus. Josephus wrote of "Jesus who was called Christ" and Tacitus referred to him a "Christus," who was executed under Pontius Pilate. These historic references are widely accepted as genuine by an overwhelming majority of classical scholars.

As for authenticity, the pattern for these ancient historians is identical to the Greek philosophers. Tacitus, the Roman historian who wrote in the early second century, survives in manuscripts dating roughly 800–900 years after he wrote. Josephus, the Jewish historian of the first century, is preserved in copies from roughly 900 years later.

Modern historians accept their existence and their writings without hesitation.

Now compare that with the New Testament. The New Testament documents were written in the first century — roughly between 50 and 100 AD. The earliest fragment of the Gospel of John dates to around 125–150 AD — within decades of composition. Large portions of the Gospels and Paul’s letters survive from the second and third centuries. By the fourth century, we have nearly complete codices of the entire New Testament.

In other words, the manuscript gap for the New Testament is measured in decades and centuries — not nearly a millennium.

From a purely textual standpoint, the New Testament is one of the best-attested bodies of literature in the ancient world. Thousands of Greek manuscripts survive, along with thousands more in Latin, Syriac, and other languages.

None of this proves theology. Nor does it prove miracles. Or the resurrection. But it does make one narrow point very difficult to avoid: Jesus of Nazareth was a real historical person. 

If we accept the existence of Plato based on manuscript transmission, and Tacitus based on later copies, and Josephus based on medieval preservation, then it is inconsistent to deny Jesus’ existence on documentary grounds.

One may reject Christianity, dispute doctrine or argue about interpretation, but to claim that Jesus never lived requires applying a radically different historical standard to him than we apply to every other figure of antiquity. 

Which begs the question, why are people so adamant about denying his existence? 

Empires fall. Manuscripts decay. But ideas endure — and so do the records of the men who first carried them into the world. Denying that Jesus did the same is not bold scholarship. It's simply unreasonable.

The Standardization of Error

In my readings this past week I was recently introduced to the name Vilhjalmur Stefansson (1879-1962), an Arctic explorer and ethnologist from Manitoba, Canada. He was also a writer of many books about the Arctic, the peoples of the arctic and even one on Greenland which made me wonder what he'd think about the attention it is getting from our current administration. The title which caught my eye, however, was this one from 1927, The Standardization of Error.  

In The Standardization of Error, Vilhjalmur Stefansson examines how mistaken ideas and practices can become widely accepted and perpetuated through tradition and authority. Drawing on his experiences as an explorer and anthropologist, Stefansson illustrates how errors can persist in science, diet, and cultural understanding when people prioritize established conventions over evidence or logic.

Stefansson critiques the reluctance of societies and experts to challenge outdated beliefs, emphasizing that such resistance can hinder progress and innovation. He uses examples from exploration, human health, and survival techniques, particularly in extreme environments, to show how "standardized errors" can lead to misconceptions with significant consequences.

The book is a reflection on the human tendency to cling to familiar but flawed ideas. The author urges readers to adopt a more critical and open-minded approach to knowledge and problem-solving. Stefansson’s insights remain relevant as they challenge readers to question accepted truths and seek out facts that align with reality, even when they contradict established norms.

Vilhjalmur Stefansson’s idea of the “standardization of error” is both simple and unsettling: a mistake, repeated often enough by respected voices, becomes accepted truth. Once institutionalized—through textbooks, professional training, and cultural habit—the error gains authority. Questioning it begins to feel like heresy. 

What makes standardized error so durable? Institutions reward conformity. Experts build careers on prevailing models. Textbooks lag behind new evidence. Social pressure discourages dissent. Over time, the error becomes invisible because it is woven into normal practice.

This is what is most disturbing about today's polarized culture war. We've lost the notion that truth is meant to be discovered, not created. Once you decide Truth is anything you want it to be, then it becomes shaped by the one who wields the most power.

For centuries it was believed that the earth was the center of the universe. Confidence in modern engineering lead the Titanic's owners to believe the great ship was unsinkable. For a while eggs were bad for us, till they weren't. Same with peanuts, and other foods that have gone in and out of favor. For my entire adult life we've been told we'll be out of oil in ten years. Seems to me we have more oil than ever. More disconcerting is when the media spins stories by omitting facts, or deliberately burying uncomfortable truths, or facts that don't fit a preconceived narrative. Or when politicians pander for votes by....

Maybe we're veering a tad here. Maybe not. What do you think?

Related 
Against the Idols of the Age: A Contrarian's Critique of the Twentieth Century

Against the Idols of the Age: A Contrarian's Critique of the Twentieth Century

There is something appealing about contrarians. People who see things from a different perspective may often be on to something. Hence my attraction to David Stove's Against the Idols of the Age, a provocative collection of essays that challenges dominant intellectual trends of the 20th century. 

The book gathers Stove’s critiques of scientific irrationalism, modern philosophy, and cultural orthodoxies, arguing that many influential ideas—especially in the philosophy of science and evolutionary theory—rest on faulty reasoning and misplaced reverence for fashion-able thinkers. Stove targets figures like Popper, Kuhn, and Darwinist interpretations of human behavior, while defending common sense, empirical realism, and logical clarity.

I've read a few books over the years by authors dissecting and debunking contemporary "experts" by pointing out the king had no close on. One of these examined papers in physics that were called brilliant when, in fact, they were primarily gobbledygook. When Camille Paglia tears into Michel Foucaut, and Norman Finkelstein slaughters contemporary golden calves (e.g. I'll Burn That Bridge When I Get To It), I applaud.

You don't have to agree with everything, but there's a lot of meat on them bones. Our capacity to think more deeply may be challenged. So be it. Exercise that brain muscle. Make it sweat. It feels good.

Here's the table of contents for Stove's book:

Against the Idols of the Age

Introduction: Who Was David Stove?

Acknowledgments and a Note on the Text

The Cult of Irrationalism in Science

Cole Porter and Karl Popper:

The Jazz Age in the Philosophy of Science

Sabotaging Logical Expressions

Paralytic Epistemology, or The Soundless Scream

Idols Contemporary and Perennial

D'Holbach's Dream:

The Central Claim of the Enlightenment

"Always apologize, always explain":

Robert Nozick's War Wounds

The Intellectual Capacity Of Women Racial and Other Antagonisms

Idealism: A Victorian Horror-story (Part Two)

Darwinian Fairytales

Darwinism's Dilemma

Where Darwin First Went Wrong about Man
Genetic Calvinism, or Demons and Dawkins

"He Ain't Heavy, He's my Brother," or Altruism and Shared Genes

For an introduction to this author, read Roger Kimball's Who was David Stove? in The New Criterion. It may give you just the courage you need to swim upstream against the current in your own battles.

His beef with Darwin is elaborated on in his 1995 book Darwinian Fairytales, which critiques sociobiology and evolutionary psychology. He argues that Darwinism fails to explain human behaviors like altruism, which he sees as contradictory to the "selfish gene" theory. Though a non-creationist, Stove argues that while natural selection is a successful biological theory, its application to human behavior is overblown and often relies on "fairytales" to explain away inconsistencies, such as why humans engage in self-sacrificing or non-reproductive behaviors. 

Stove is best known for scathing attacks on a variety of concepts, especially Popperian falsificationism, Marxism, feminism, and postmodernism. 

David Stove's comments on Cole Porter are classic. Evidently Stove repeatedly quoted Cole Porter’s lyric “Anything goes” (from the 1934 musical of the same name) as a shorthand critique of modern intellectual culture. For Stove, Porter unintentionally captured the spirit of relativism: the idea that there are no firm standards of truth, reason, or evidence.

Here are a few reviews of this book, pilfered from Amazon:

"Stove was undoubtedly the most stylish and witty writer of all philosphers of the last one hundred years, if not of all time. When it comes to attacking the absurdities of twentieth century intellectual movements no one else came close, and certainly no one else was as funny." --The Review of Metaphysics

"What separates Stove from your average angry-eyed reactionary is the startling brilliant way that he argues, combining plain horse sense with the most nimble and skillful philosophical reasoning this side of Hume, along with a breathtaking wit."
--The Parisian Review

"As most reviewers before have acknowledged, it seems impossible to be able to agree with everything Stove says. But that only adds to the enjoyment. The book may be controversial but it certainly is FUN. What's more, even when making the most preposterous claims, Stove will usually do two other things: 1) lay out his argument in an innovative, surprising and clear way, 2) make several brilliant and true observations on the side, which otherwise would probably never have crossed your mind." --MrOzik

And one more from Amazon:
Critically, Against the Idols of the Age offers sharp, lucid, and often entertaining arguments, marked by wit and rigor. Reviewers praise Stove’s analytic precision and polemical force, though not all will agree with his conclusions; his style is combative and opinionated, which makes the book both stimulating and controversial. It serves as an engaging introduction to Stove’s thought and a trigger for readers to question prevailing assumptions in science and culture.

The Red Scorpion Version 2.0

Aztec Calendar (click to enlarge)

My first novel, The Red Scorpion, weaves ancient Aztec legend into a modern cautionary tale about pride, curiosity, and unintended consequences. The story went like this:

In the late 1930s, University of Minnesota anthropologist Dr. Harold Comstock encounters a disaffected youth from a secretive indigenous clan while conducting research in the hills near Tepoztlán, Mexico. The youth reveals a guarded secret connected to Quetzalcoatl and the red scorpions believed to protect the legendary man-god’s final resting place.

Comstock brings one of the scorpions back to Minnesota, confident he has secured a rare scientific treasure. Instead, his arrogance sets in motion a quiet but deadly chain of events. Years later, the abandoned Eagle’s Nest bed-and-breakfast—its dark history reduced to rumor—draws the attention of a curious teenager. Dusty Greene soon learns that some myths endure for a reason, and that not all relics are meant to be disturbed.

So begins the tale of The Red Scorpion, rooted in Aztec legend, transported into a modern world where the conflict between good and evil is but a coffee table discussion with no serious aim other than to entertain.

Boys will be boys and when Dusty discovers the abandoned house, now labeled a haunted house in the Internet age, he's thrilled by the idea of exploring it. Dusty Greene hasn’t learned yet that there are some things we really should be afraid of.

When I was young, I myself was fascinated by the notion that abandoned houses might be haunted houses. My aim in writing the YA (Young Adult) novel was to create a story that would be interesting for teenage boys because it seemed that more girls were readers than the boys, and to covey a message that there really is evil in the world.

A few of the details in my story came from personal experience. One feature of the "haunted house" was that the house was built over a sprig with running water. The idea for this came from my own personal history. I'm a descendent of Daniel Boone, whose father Squire Boone built a home over a spring in Pennsylvania, southwest of what is now Allentown. Visiting that site where the house still stands gave me a concept for the final battle between my hero, Dusty, and the Red Scorpion.

Several years after self-publishing this first book I was contacted by a Hollywood producer regarding another project. When I pitched The Red Scorpion as a film concept, he made a couple suggestions, which led to the development and writing of a treatment for a much larger film concept which we called Beyond the Smoking Mirror. You can check it out Here.

Printed copies of The Red Scorpion are no longer available. A digital version of this book is available here at Amazon.com.

Beyond the Smoking Mirror
https://ennyman3.substack.com/p/beyond-the-smoking-mirror-dfb

Almost Wordless Wednesday: Take Me Out to the Ball Game

 Thanks for the memories!

Six years ago yesterday I wrote this blog post about the 

Negro Leagues, Satchel Paige and the Indians.

Here's a link to a Humor page that includes 

"wisdom" from Satchel Paige and Yogi Berra.

 Robert Lookup's Unusual List of
Important Dates In Major League Baseball

For Major League Baseball Fans Who Love Statistics

Retrosheet