Hang this man:

As someone who joined the United States Marine Corps right out of high school, and who has over the years become a true believer in its precepts and traditions, I take especial exception to this plea bargain. There are three things that should be mandatory capital offenses in military law: engaging in forcible rape, treason, and betraying your brother Marines. Judges are not bound by plea bargain agreements. The sentence should be death, preferably by hanging with a parachute cord.

Still More Advice to the Democrats:

This one is called Mogadishu Democrats and includes what is a fine assessment of the war's progress in Iraq:

As for "bring it on...", one wonders if DfNS are aware that U.S. troops used exactly this tactic during the war, via loudspeakers on Humvees, to great effect? That's why we heard about pickup trucks attacking M1A1 tanks - the fedayeen just couldn't stand to have ther manhood challenged in stereo. I believe one U.S. soldier's quote was "we shoot them down like the morons they are." One expects an organization called "Democrats for National Security" to know this, and perhaps to apply it.

In a guerilla war, you WANT people to come after your soldiers. That's the ideal tactical scenario, and with the shallowness of the Ba'ath infrastructure and limited recruiting capability they cannot sustain an attrition-based campaign for long. That might change if they adopted a longer-term strategy, and Bush has now challenged them not to. Smart move - the fedayeen loudspeaker tactic writ large. The faster and harder al-Awda attack, the sooner they're taken out, the faster the reconstruction is done, and the more U.S. troops come home.

Yeah, that's true, although there may be wider recruitment than just what's in Iraq. That too is a benefit, as we've heard from the Flypaper theorists. Either way, though, we need a gunfighting corps of soldiers out there challenging the guerrillas to come and get it. The US has an excellent record with guerrilla warfare, excepting Vietnam--which is to be excepted, since this time there are no secure bases for the enemy, nothing off limits, and no superpowers backing them.

Leaving all that aside, the advice to the party is right on: we need a candidate, and a platform, that is built around warfighting. We are at war, after all.

DPRK Watch:

If we go to war with the DPRK, it will probably not be over their development of nuclear weapons. The administration seems resigned to accepting that--which is a terrible mistake, for reasons outlined on ParaPundit's blog. No, what will require war will be if the DPRK can't be persuaded or required not to export its nuclear technology. Of course, the DPRK is doing just that.

NORTH Korea and Iran were in talks over a plan to export Pyongyang's Taepodong-2 long-range ballistic missiles to Tehran and to jointly develop nuclear warheads, a Japanese daily said today.
The two countries have been negotiating the deal for about a year and were likely to reach an agreement in mid-October, the conservative Sankei newspaper said, quoting defence sources familiar with North Korean affairs.

I've said I expect war with the DPRK before next summer ends. It may be sooner.

Books in the Corner:

I am amused by this post in the Corner:

MY BOOK IS VIRTUAL [Susan Konig]
I want to thank all the Corner readers who consistently query me about my book, Why Animals Sleep So Close to the Road (and other lies I tell my children). I'm flattered and didn't mean to plug it at the end of each column as if it were already published. I was sort of advertising the fact that it was indeed written and ready for the bidding wars to begin!

I didn't mean to plug it at the end of each column? Well, ok: I have a book called The Ship Knife which is ready for the bidding wars, too. It's about the expedition to Sicily led by King Harald Hardrada, Viking warlord, at the head of the Byzantine fleet. Bidders welcome.

'A Ticket to Nowhere':

Joe Lieberman's advice to the Democratic Party made quite a stir today. Turns out he's a boxing fan, too. Boxers make great politicians, if they are good enough to keep from getting their brains rattled. Lieberman sounds like he mostly watched boxing, but maybe he learned some of the right lessons:

[A] lot is at stake:� nothing less than the heart and soul of the Democratic party, and the security and prosperity of the United States of America. . . .

Some Democrats still prefer old, big government solutions to our problems.� But with record deficits, a stalled economy and Social Security in danger, we can't afford that.� It won't work.� That old way is wrong for America, and wrong for the Democratic Party.

Some Democrats respond to the health insurance crisis with a break-the-bank $2 trillion program -- leaving no money to create new jobs, invest in our schools, support our firefighters and cops, or shore up Social Security. That would be wrong for America, and wrong for the Democratic Party.

Some would raise the walls of protectionism again.� But we've got a record trade deficit and our manufacturers are hemorrhaging jobs. We need more markets, not fewer.� Bridges, not barriers.� That is right for America, and right for the Democratic Party.

Some have said no to any tax cuts, and would even raise taxes on the middle class.� But middle-class families have borne the brunt of George Bush's failed economic leadership, so we must help them, not burden them even more.� That's right for America, and right for the Democratic Party. . . .

Some are silent about the marketing of violent or sexual entertainment to our children.� But we should be allies with parents in the struggle to protect their kids.��

Some said "no" to eliminating Saddam Hussein, or were ambivalent about it, before and after the war.� But we must not shrink from the use of force when our security and our values are at stake.� That is right for America, and right for the Democratic Party.

Doing what's right for America and for our party are truly one and the same.

There's a lot of good stuff here, Joe. I understand you're still in the market for a VP--you might see my advice to our party from earlier in the week if you want a suggestion on one that will win it with you. Get Sen. Miller on your ticket, and I'll vote for you.

Damn that Instapundit!

Doesn't the Sage of Knoxville have anything better to do? Talk Like A Pirate Day indeed. It even has one of those damnable personality tests.

You are The Cap'n!

Some men are born great, some achieve greatness and some slit the throats of any man that stands between them and the mantle of power. You never met a man you couldn't eviscerate. Not that mindless violence is the only avenue open to you - but why take an avenue when you have complete freeway access? You are the definitive Man of Action. You are James Bond in a blousy shirt and drawstring-fly pants. Your swash was buckled long ago and you have never been so sure of anything in your life as in your ability to bend everyone to your will. You will call anyone out and cut off their head if they show any sign of taking you on or backing down. You cannot be saddled with tedious underlings, but if one of your lieutenants shows an overly developed sense of ambition he may find more suitable accommodations in Davy Jones' locker. That is, of course, IF you notice him. You tend to be self absorbed - a weakness that may keep you from seeing enemies where they are and imagining them where they are not.

Eerily accurate, these things. I took a D&D one once only to be told that I was a Chaotic Human Barbarian. Everyone I mentioned it to nodded knowingly. Where's that broadsword?

Good news from the Middle East:

Honestly. This report looks at Bahrain, whose king has appointed a bicameral legislature and given full rights to women. Nor does the king, whose reign so far enjoys prosperity on the order of six-percent annual growth, harbor feelings of anti-Americanism:

�Time seems to be very slow in Iraq. But it is only three months since Britain and America went in. And three months is not enough time in a big country like Iraq with so many different groups and beliefs: but the dramatic change is for the good of Iraq and for the people of Iraq.�
But what about the evidence that the Alliance�s leaders were less than honest about their reasons for going to war? �Nothing is 100 per cent, nothing is perfect. But we think they�ve been honest enough to be followed by the entire world. And whether they�ve missed one or two things, well, things happen in wars. But in general everybody is with America and with Britain in what they have done so far. We just have to wait a little longer, and we will see the good things that are happening in Iraq. But often, you know, no news is good news.�

Now why can't certain candidates for the Democratic nomination to the presidency speak as boldly in favor of their country and its work?

Theology in the Asia Times:

Out of Hong Kong, a fascinating series by Spengler on the clash between the West and Radical Islam, one that posits that Islam will win. The critique of Western culture has the mark of scholarly theology, and is plainly a long time coming.

Socrates (like Strauss) was wrong. It is not the unexamined life that is not worth living, but the life defined by mere animal existence. Unlike lower species, humans require a sense of the eternal. The brute instinct for self-preservation is a myth.

Because radical Islam provides this, and most Western faiths no longer do, Spengler judges that Islam has the weight advantage in a punching match.

In the second part of the series, he answers the hope many people expressed in reply that Islam may soon undergo a reformation. Spengler asserts that there are good reasons to suspect that they will not:

What precisely goes into making a Reformation? In the case of Christianity, textual criticism became the starting point. What was the original Revelation, and how could Christians return to it? . . . .

Hebrew and Christian scripture claim to be the report of human encounters with God. After the Torah is read each Saturday in synagogues, the congregation intones that the text stems from "the mouth of God by the hand of Moses", a leader whose flaws kept him from entering the Promised Land. The Jewish rabbis, moreover, postulated the existence of an unwritten Revelation whose interpretation permits considerable flexibility with the text. Christianity's Gospels, by the same token, are the reports of human evangelists.

The Archangel Gabriel, by contrast, dictated the Koran to Mohammed, according to Islamic doctrine. That sets a dauntingly high threshold for textual critics.

Spengler feels that the West's hope is that Protestant missionaries--the true believing Christian Right--will interact with Muslims, who may absorb the Protestant methodology of examining the texts as a path to God. There may be something to this analysis. Certainly Protestant Fundamentalists have more in common with Muslim radicals than others in the West. Osama bin Laden's letter to America contains a number of objections to American culture echoed perfectly in Christian Right publications, especially as concerns the prevelance of sexual images and outright pornography.

Still, to me it sounds like adding a second tiger to a hill. It may be the organic solution, but a great deal of blood and time would be necessary to bring about sustained interaction between them. I suspect a second probability, which is this: the clash with Islam will embolden the West, and renew its faith. A second 9/11, particularly if it happened in Europe, would do more to fill men's hearts with divine fire than anything else. Nothing makes people suspect the truth of an ultimate Good than to witness ultimate Evil. It is comfort, not despair, that has brought the West away from faith as a mode of life.

Radical Islam should beware. Refilling the hearts of Western men would remove the only advantage the Islamists have. Because the West is tolerant of all faiths, Muslims who wished to live moderate lives would find a home among invigorated Westerners before they could among the Talibani. The punching weight of true belief evened, humane tolerance and high technology would be the deciding factors--both Western strengths.

For my Father:

I think they mean you, Dad. No better man could lead them.

More On the National Parties:

Caerdroia's Jeff Medcalf explains his own thoughts on equal protection, which is never equally protected by either party. Then there is this blog, Shining Full Plate and a Good Broadsword, which explains its author's thoughts on the proper position for either Republican or Democrat, though it sounds more Democratic to me:

Let me be clear: I'm for gay marriage, welfare, national health care, and protecting endangered species.

And I am proud when we pump bullets in another terrorist on a daily basis.

In fact, I am so proud that I would readily join a secret force to ritualistically kill terrorists on a daily and nightly basis for the sheer enjoyment of it.

Liberia:

Today's Washington Post has the first potentially convincing argument I've heard for US intervention in Liberia:

washingtonpost.com: Douglas, thank you for joining us this morning. Can you talk a bit about the circumstances under which you left Africa?

Douglas Farah: I left after writing the original story about Taylor's ties to al Qaeda. Both U.S. and European intel picked up Taylor directly threatening to kill me. The Post ordered me and my family to leave as soon as possible. We got out by having U.S. Embassy security escort us through the airport, onto the flight, to make sure nothing went amiss.

Mr. Farah is writing on terrorist ties in West Africa. Bringing freedom and democracy to troubled areas is part of the solution to terrorism, and if it can in fact be demonstrated that al Qaeda is running free in Liberia, there may be a real reason to send in the Marines.

More Proof of Communist Trechery:

Having just last night enjoyed AMC's showing of "The Quiet Man," imagine my particular horror to encounter this story from the Guardian today.

Can We End the DNC?

Long term readers know that I am, by political affiliation, a Southern Democrat. This is one of the least comfortable positions in modern American politics, as you really do not have a home in either major party. There are tremendous difficulties in cooperating with either the national Democratic party or the Republican party, both of which stand firmly for things to which we are firmly opposed.

Nevertheless, hope springs eternal. I carry on believing that sooner or later the DNC's total lack of substance on foreign policy, combined with its latent anti-Americanism, will cause it to implode and be relegated to the fringes. The Southern Democrats are the only Democrats who can actually hope to defeat President Bush in 2004, both because we are the only Democrats who are stronger on foreign policy than he is, and because stripping Southern states away from Republican support is the surest strategy to Democratic victory. Without the support of the "solid South," Bush can't win.

That won't happen, though, as long as the national Democratic party continues to view 2004 as a revel deserving nothing but frivolity. Consider, for example, the DNC Party Platform, entitled "Prosperity, Progress, and Peace":

Today, America finds itself in the midst of prosperity, progress, and peace. We have arrived at this moment because of the hard work of the American people. This election will be about the big choices we have to make to secure prosperity that is broadly shared and progress that reaches all families in this new American century. In the year 2000, the Democratic Party stands ready to meet that challenge and to build on our achievements.

When Thomas Jefferson was elected as our Party's first president in 1800, America was a young country trying to find its place in the world. Two hundred years later, Democrats gather at a moment of vast possibility to nominate Al Gore as America's next president. A new economy founded on the force of new technologies and traditional values of work is giving rise to new industries and transforming old ones. Biological breakthroughs give us the chance to unlock the mysteries of humanity's deadliest plagues. While the globe is still beset with tragedies and difficulties, more people live under governments of freedom, liberty, and democracy than ever before in history. America enjoys unparalleled affluence at home and influence abroad.

Now I realize that this is the 2000 platform. I also realize that a new platform isn't traditionally due until the next Presidential election year. May I humbly suggest, however, that is a major reason for the debacle in the last elections?

An emergency session of the DNC should have been called sometime between 2001 and now to assemble a platform of suggested action in response to the end of prosperity, the threat to progress, and the destruction of peace. In 2002, the lack of such a platform meant that the party had nothing to offer in a time of war but, "We think Bush is rushing to war. Although we're still going to vote for his Iraq War Resolution. But he's wrong. Except we know war is popular, so he's not wrong. Maybe a little wrong. Vote Democrat!" Horseshit.

This year we still have no platform. The nine presidential candidates--none of whom is presidential--are each fumbling around trying to figure out what they want to say. So far they seem to be finding unity around a message of: "Bush is a liar. Taxes aren't high enough. Iraq is a mess, though we don't have any actual solutions, just complaints. Maybe we should apologize to the French."

That is a disaster waiting to happen in 2004. The solid South will vote for no candidate whose campaign is established around those principles. The wild-eyed radical base may be fired up, but they can't win the election by themselves--and, furthermore, they are a bunch of nutcases with whom we should be ashamed to be making common cause. (It is the role of the Southern Democrat to point that out now and again, and be ignored.) Mainstream Democrats will not be energized to vote for a candidate on those grounds, and swing voters--of whom there are more in this election than ever in recent politics--will trend to Bush. This is true even if Iraq is still a mess in a year, which is frankly not all that likely: our successes there have been underreported, and there is no reason to believe that a year from now we won't see a relatively stable Iraq, a dead Saddam, firm documentary evidence of WMD programs that will quell all but the aforementioned wild-eyed radicals, an Iraqi government enjoying wide legitimacy, and oil revenues already beginning to obviate the need for foreign investment. Meanwhile, the US government has decided to triple aid to Afghanistan, making progress there likely as well.

The Democratic Party should be happy about that! By Thunder, if the national party organizes itself so that any of the above is bad news for it, it deserves to be razed by the electorate and scattered by the wind. The Democratic Party should be the party of the people, and the people love America and take pride and pleasure in her success. Well they should! She is the hope of the world.

An emergency session to plan a 2004 platform should be called immediately. The platform, if victory in 2004 is to be achieved, needs to include these items:

1) A strong statement on Democratic goals for the present war. This needs to include not the usual diplomatic vaugery, but specific statements on how to deal with each of: Eradicating Terrorist Networks, Hunting and Killing existing Terrorists, Preventing Terrorism In the United States and Europe, the Problem of North Korea, Preventing or Restraining Nuclear Proliferation, Destroying (through War or Other Means) State Sponsors of Terrorism, and Establishing Flourshing Democracy in Troubled Parts of the World.
2) One of the most important issues for the forseeable future is the overstretched US military. The strains felt by them have brought a number of military voters--conservative by nature, but dissatisfied by the current administration--into the swing voter camp. They need to know that the Democratic Party will defend their interests, which are: Expanding the Military, Constricting Deployments to areas where there is a Clear National Interest, Increasing Pay Rates, Ensuring Continued Technological Superiority, and Bettering Intelligence Sharing between the CIA and the Military.
3) The wild-eyed base needs to be quelled. The Democratic Party, if it is to be taken seriously as a national party, needs to make certain it is not associated with anti-Americanism in any form. Victory requires that we lose every Communist, Anarchist, Socialist, and any voter who would self-identify their political leanings with the preface of "radical." They are welcome to vote for us or against us, but our party platform should contain nothing for them. The Party of the American People ought to love America with all depth and purity of emotion--the American People do.

A continued failure to address these issues is running the DNC onto the rocks in 2004. If the DNC decides to stop running against Bush, and to start running on their actual merits, the Southern Democrats include several persons who could be of service in drafting a platform that could carry the party to victory. It wouldn't hurt, for the serious candidate, to try to draft Zell Miller as your Vice President.

Arts & Letters Daily:

Arts & Letters Daily has linked to Mr. Robinson's piece in the Spectator. They have also today a very interesting piece on the CIA's hunt for Osama bin Laden.

Scooping InstaPundit:

It's not often that one beats InstaPundit, Sage of Knoxville, to the punch. I thought based on yesterday's firestorm against the DARPA idea that I was out on a limb alone in supporting them, but this morning that turns out not to be true. Good to know that those who understand the business feel as I do. I thought I'd been a little rash, letting my temper get the better of me, when I called certain Senators "bloviating idiots," but I see that at least the "idiots" part has some support as well.

Alas for DARPA:

It appears that DARPA's plan to create a futures market for speculation on terrorism has died an undeserved death. This is due to a total lack of comprehension on the part of the US Senate, which simply isn't smart enough to understand why this was a remarkable and brilliant idea.

The business of predicting terror attacks is very much like the futures business, as it is like the actuarial business (the people who determine the rates for insurance companies are called Actuaries). A question the government has been considering for some time is this: given that the US has the finest actuaries and futures speculators in the world, how can we tap that knowledge for use in the terror war? The central problem is that the knowledge is out there, but that the government can't really compete with the market for the services of the very best of these guys. The top speculators make millions a year.

DARPA thought of a way to tap them: make a new market, one that rewards them in much the same way as the existing market. The potential value to the terror war was immeasurable. For example, when a terror threat comes in that is against NYC, the country really has no mechanism except to raise the terror alert for the entire country. That means that Cumming, Georgia goes on High (Orange) alert just like Los Angeles and NYC. The US government's resources are likewise spread across many threat-areas. Top actuaries would be able to predict much more accurately what areas are really threatened, allowing a better distribution of resources and a more accurate prediction of terror acts. Futures speculators would likewise bring a new perspective to predictive analysis, and would be better than military men at seeing nontraditional targets that terrorists could hit.

All that for a projected cost to DARPA of five million dollars. For five million bucks, you couldn't hire a handful of the top actuaries and speculators, but DARPA would have tapped potentially all of them. Gentlemen, I salute you--just because the Senate is full of bloviating idiots does not mean that your work is totally unappreciated. Better luck next time.

Wisdom from an old CIA hand:

James Woolsey writes:

I would add that, just as we eventually won the Cold War - and when I say 'we' here, I always mean Britain, the United States, the democracies, our allies - it was in no small measure because, while containing the Soviet Union and its allies militarily and with nuclear deterrence, we undermined their ideology.

We undermined it over a long period by convincing the Lech Walesas, the Vaclav Havels, the Andrei Sakharovs, the Solidarities, that this was not a clash of civilisations, not even a clash of countries, but a war of freedom against tyranny, and that we were on their side.

To exactly the same degree, we will surely be successful in this long war if we convince the hundreds of millions of reasonable and decent Muslims around the world who do not want to be terrorists, who do not want to live in dictatorships, that we are on their side and they on ours.

The surest way to demonstrate this is the unmaking of tyranny. Rhetoric, psyops, public relations--these are only good as long as they are tools to the actual, the physical destruction of tyrants. Freeing men is our business, and the only right purpose of our war. So it says in the Battle Hymn of the Republic, which was written in the days when Christian symbolism did not excite dissenters:

As He died to make men holy,
Let us die to make them free.

Arts & Sciences: Outrages

Jonah Goldberg takes on a survey from the "science" of psychology that purports to demonstrate that conservatism is a kind of mental deformity. The continued acceptance of psychology as a science is one of the worst problems with American society, and one to which people are almost entirely blind. Given that, I will test my readers' patience by reprinting below my full remarks on the subject:

Arts & Sciences:

From the beginning of a piece on failed civilizations:

In particular many of the so-called hard scientists such as physicists or biologists, don't consider history to be a science. The situation is even more extreme because, he points out, even historians themselves don't consider history to be a science. Historians don't get training in the scientific methods; they don't get training in statistics; they don't get training in the experimental method or problems of doing experiments on historical subjects; and they'll often say that history is not a science, history is closer to an art.

Historians often say that history is not a science because history is not a science. One of the central problems with modern society is its increasing inability to tell the difference between what is a science, and what isn't. This is directly related to the prestige that has come to be associated with the label of "science" during the 20th century.

In part because of the tremendous material advances brought us by science, the concept of science enjoys considerable standing. The best way to make sure that your ideas are put into practice is to convince others that they are scientific: to say that something is scientific is commonly thought to be the same as saying that it is true beyond the possibility of counterargument. Psychology (from the Greek, psyche-, or "spirit/soul," and -ology, or "study of"), which claims to be the science of the mind, has so convinced the majority of Westerners that it is scientific that a psychologist's testimony alone can strip a man of his freedom, serve as reason not to hire him, or to fire him from a job he already has. A man can be subjected to forced injections of drugs and imprisonment based on nothing more than a psychologist's assessment.

This all rests upon a misunderstanding of just what science is. Science is one kind of inquiry, a particular kind that rests upon two general principles: the method of making no assertions that cannot be tested and falsified; and the complete transparency and open debate of all assertions being made, none of which are ever to be taken as invunerable. Science is indeed a great thing; it is indeed powerful.

It isn't -everything-, though, and it isn't all powerful. There are some endeavors that are not, and can not be, science. History is one of them. So, as it happens, is "psychology," which would be more honestly called philopsyche, after the fashion of philosophy. Anything which involves the working of the human mind isn't and cannot be a science. This is simply because the human mind isn't observable, and therefore, it is not testable. Regardless of how cautiously you design your tests, the fact is that you are simply guessing about the why of a given decision. You can't really observe the process of decision making.

Stripping these so-called "social sciences" of the notion that they are sciences is one of the greatest services we could do for our culture. There is nothing more noble than art, exactly because there is nothing more human than art. We ought to be proud to be performing the arts, practicing the arts. There are too many, though, who are unwilling to compete in a fair and open atmosphere. They wish to hide behind the authority of science, even if they must do so illegitimately.

And they must: science was never about stifiling debate, but always about enforcing it systematically. Psychology, sociology, and the rest do not--as history does--recognize honestly the fact that their methods simply cannot be scientifically tested, cannot be falsified, cannot be proven nor disproven. As such, all of their assertions deserve a healthy scepticism. That scepticism should be the healthier for the fact that these so-called disciplines will not admit the truth about their methods. They are a blight upon our way of thinking, and of conceiving the world.

Arts & Sciences:

In response to my contention that psychology is not a science (see Monday's log), I've been asked to read Our Inner Conflicts by Karen Horney, M.D. Dr. Horney was one of the founders of psychoanalysis, both a friend and competitor to Freud, and compiled the basis of psychology's theories of neuroses. One of psychology's defenders asked me to consider her work at length before I made up my mind that psychology was not a science. I have now completed my study of the work, and am ready to report.
Dr. Horney's work has several things to be said in its favor. In particular the vision of sanity she presents is appealing, and in fact almost perfectly echoes G. K. Chesterton's vision of sanity from Orthodoxy. Chesterton, of course, was not a psychologist, but a Catholic: his thoughts on why men departed from sanity did not hinge upon theories of psychological conflict, but sin. Yet the two visions of sanity are almost perfect copies: each is a vision of wholeheartedness, coupled with responsibility and an ability to respond to things genuinely and without pretense. Both visions are powerful, appealing, and deeply human. Either, or indeed both, could be correct.

Both are empirical. Neither is scientific. Understanding why psychology is not science requires a short examination of what science is. The religious view is not in any danger of being taken for science, as it has no pretenses in that direction. The religious view takes its authority from faith, which is ultimately not testable beyond the confines of one man's heart. But psychology partakes of studies, not prayer; it holds conferences, publishes journals, engages in peer review and debate: how can I hold that it is a thing more like religion than like physics?

Science requires that all principles be not only testable, but falsifiable. Newtonian physics felt, at the turn of the 20th century, that it had basically solved all but a few straggling problems, and was remarkably close to a complete explanation of how the universe worked. It still viewed atoms as unsplittable, and had no knowledge of quarks or quantums. When the "new physics" came along, it undermined the entirety of the discipline as it existed. Everything had to be cast out or reexamined: a resolution is still out of reach.

Psychology's bedrock claims are not similarly falsifiable. Behavioral psychology claims that the mind is an illusion of the brain: its evidence is that it can explain behavior by reference only to chemical properties of the brain, and therefore a mind is unnecessary. That kind of argument is a logical fallacy known as argumentum ad ignorantiam, that is, the argument from ignorance. The fact is that behavioral psychology cannot show that there is no mind, any more than it can show that there is. At the last, it is engaged in an act of faith, upon which principle no scientific inquiry is possible.

Behavioral psychology is not alone: all psychology ultimately is based upon unscientific principles which must be accepted, or not, on faith. Freud's Oedipal complex, for example, was meant to exist in all men; if analysis showed something consistent with it, the psychologist said, "Aha! The Oedipal complex at work!" If analysis failed to show anything consistent with it, the psychologist replied, "Aha! You are repressing your Oedipal complex." The fact that the complex might not exist was not possible, therefore it could not be the case. Jungian psychology similarly posits a "collective unconscious," and it is ultimately your acceptance of the existence of that collective unconscious which qualifies you to practice Jungian analysis. You can't be a Jungian and not accept the collective unconscious. Cognitive dissonance theory posits that the human mind (or brain) can't accept two mutually exclusive propositions without feeling agitation to resolve them. I have occasionally debated this point with cognitive therapists, and found that evidence against this central proposition is finally dismissed. It has to be, as the central principle can't be proven, nor can it be disproven: it must be accepted on faith.

Yet psychology retains the respect due only to real sciences, and with it the force to legally deprive a man of his freedom, his job, or certain rights which are available only to those held to be "mentally competent" to exercise them. Psychology's ability to maintain this illusion is due to its empiricism--that is, to the fact that it bases its conclusions on real-world examples, which gives it the flavor of science. Empiricism, practiced by Aristotle, was indeed the precursor of science. I said that Dr. Horney was empirical, and she is. She really has done a lot of research, and a lot of analysis, and a lot of thinking about the examples she has met. Empiricism is not science, however. That is another way of addressing the line of questions which takes the form, "But if (e.g.) behaviorists can in fact explain all human behavior without reference to a mind--if they can really do it--does that not show that they are right?" The answer lies with the Greeks.

Ancient Greek navigators developed a complex mechanical device for navigation, called the Antikythera mechanism. It aided navigation by predicting where certain stars should be in the sky at given times of the night, at given points of the year. The Greeks thought that the earth was the center of the universe, however, which should pose a problem for correct prediction of astral movements. When they encountered those problems, though, they just thought around them:

The Greeks believed in an earth-centric universe and accounted for celestial bodies' motions using elaborate models based on epicycles, in which each body describes a circle (the epicycle) around a point that itself moves in a circle around the earth. Mr Wright found evidence that the Antikythera mechanism would have been able to reproduce the motions of the sun and moon accurately, using an epicyclic model devised by Hipparchus, and of the planets Mercury and Venus, using an epicyclic model derived by Apollonius of Perga. (These models, which predate the mechanism, were subsequently incorporated into the work of Claudius Ptolemy in the second century AD.)

Epicycles were able to correctly account for the movement of astral bodies without discarding the core--and inaccurate--principle of the earth's centrality. The development of epicycles is an astonishing, indeed a magnificient, human accomplishment. It is a beautiful piece of human artifice. Its only flaw is that it fails to be correct.

Psychology is in just this position. Insofar as it simply wishes to guide a given ship to a given port (say, an unhappy person to that vision of sanity) it may serve as a perfectly useful model. So long as it is applied to that, and only that, it may be functional. The problem arises when you start making wider judgements based upon its core principles--for example, what sort of people ought to enjoy freedoms, or ought to hold jobs. If the core principle is wrong, you could end up making very bad, hurtful judgements.

Ultimately epicycles were set aside because they partook of the realm of physics, and better methods of observation allowed us to see plainly that the earth was not the center of the universe. Psychology is a different animal because its core principles are finally untestable, unfalsifiable, and unscientific. There is no evidence that can be brought to bear, either today or conceptually in the future, that could really put an end to the question of whether or not we have minds separate from our brains; or whether "inner conflicts" yield "disorders" from some kind of normality, rather than simply informing the development of a unique person who wasn't meant to be anything other than what they are. These things at last can't be tested.

I have nothing against people making decisions in their personal life on the basis of psychology, if they feel inclined. I don't mind them choosing this thing over that thing on the basis of Tarot card readings, for that matter. I have said that arts are the noblest of human endeavors precisely because they are the most human. Psychology is an art. It should be proud of it. It must also, however, discard the false authority that it has laid claim to under the guise of being a science. People can--should!--choose to build their lives around the mastery of some art that is particularly appealing to them. No government or corporate entity, though, should make decisions involving fundamental liberties on the basis of signs and portents, the readings of seers, or the analysis of a psychologist.

Horn'd helmets all around:

Hagar the Horrible, the Movie. More likely: Hagar, the Horrible Movie.

Bless Harold Bloom:

The Atlantic Unbound has an interview with Harold Bloom. It is worth reading in full, but of course I won't quote it at that kind of length. I will only include a couple of the most excellent parts:

There's a line in the first chapter of your book Hamlet: Poem Unlimited that seems to encapsulate your approach toward literature: "I think it wise to confront both the play and the prince with awe and wonder, because they know more than we do." As a literary critic, how are you able to analyze a text with this kind of humility instead of assuming a dry, superior tone as some other critics do?

Harold Bloom:

Superior? To William Shakespeare?

...

This attitude of reverence is what sets you apart from many of your colleagues. You don't seem to belong to any particular school of literary criticism.

Harold Bloom:

Well, it's such a complex thing. I left the English department twenty-six years ago. I just divorced them and became, as I like to put it, Professor of Absolutely Nothing. To a rather considerable extent, literary studies have been replaced by that incredible absurdity called cultural studies which, as far as I can tell, are neither cultural nor are they studies. But there has always been an arrogance, I think, of the semi-learned.
You know, the term "philology" originally meant indeed a love of learning�a love of the word, a love of literature. I think the more profoundly people love and understand literature, the less likely they are to be supercilious, to feel that somehow they know more than the poems, stories, novels, and epics actually know.
And, of course, we have this nonsense called Theory with a capital T, mostly imported from the French and now having evilly taken root in the English-speaking world. And that, I suppose, also has encouraged absurd attitudes toward what we used to call imaginative literature.

My Jewish readers (as well as the several of you who express an interest in comparative religion) will want to continue on through the interview to the parts on Kabbalah.