Queerphobia, Science and the Problem with Realism

Here's a guest post by Davida, following up our post on the causes of transphobia. Using the approach of  philosopher and computer scientist Bernardo Kastrup Davida maps the logical and rhetorical tricks used by homophobes (and by implication transphobes) in their desire to defend their own beliefs. This way of arguing is also found in science.

By Davida

In his book, Meaning in Absurdity, the Dutch philosopher Bernardo Kastrup makes an argument against a metaphysical position known as realism. Kastrup’s opening words, “This book is an experiment: an attempt to use logic to expose the absurd foundations of logic.” 

In his argument, he employs research from quantum physics to support his critique. An alternative presentation is offered here, which hopefully will illustrate his points in a less technical manner. However, it will be without the strong empirical support his argument offered. 

His critique of realism is directed at its reliance upon bivalence logic (either, or), strong objectivity (alleged facts, independent of context or conditions), hidden variables (alleged causes, outside of that which can be known) and faith (belief treated as fact). 

A dialogue with a homophobe

So, imagine the following scene. Bill is talking across a backyard fence with his neighbor, Sam, about their new neighbors down the street.

Sam: We don’t need people like them in the neighborhood.

Bill: What do you mean? What kind of people are they?

Sam: Isn’t obvious? Two men are buying a house together and claiming to be one another’s spouse.

Bill: What’s the big deal? It is pretty common these days.

Sam: I’ll tell you what the big deal is. It isn’t natural. It goes against nature. It is against the natural order of the world. (realism claim implying strong objectivity)

Bill: How so?

Sam: Men are attracted to women, and women are attracted to men. It is either one or the other. You can’t have it both ways. That’s just the nature of reality. (enter logic based on bivalence).

Bill: Well, LGBT people say that they are simply living according to their subjective sense of who they are. It is just the way they were born.

Sam: That isn’t possible. They have either been duped and need to be reeducated, or they are lying to avoid taking responsibility for their decision to go against the natural order. They should be put in jail for engaging in unnatural behavior.

Bill: How do you know that the natural order requires that men only be attracted to women and that women only be attracted to men?

Sam: Because God created man and woman that way in the beginning, and last I heard, he hadn’t changed his mind. (enter the hidden variable)

Bill: How do you know that this God exists and that if God exists, that this was God’s intent?

Sam: Because the Bible tells me this is the way it is, and my pastor tells me this is the way it is, so that’s the way it is. (enter faith in the Truth of a worldview)

The bivalence fallacy

Kastrup’s point is that realism, requires strong objectivity and the use of logic based on the principle of bivalence, which is part of the traditional scientific paradigm. A paradigm he argues that can’t stand and needs to be replaced. It is a dead man walking, but most people, including many scientists - especially outside of physics - haven’t noticed yet. 

He suggests that analytic idealism (Kastrup’s formulation of idealism) better describes the nature of experience, requires fewer assumptions, and doesn’t depend on bivalence logic, strong objectivity or other concepts mentioned in his critique.

We all probably need to examine our thinking and ways of looking at things. Many of us may be employing strong objectivity and a logic based on bivalence in some of our thinking. 

If you would like to explore this topic further, you might read the book cited in the opening, read Kastrup’s other books, papers and articles, watch his interviews and discussions on YouTube, and go to the website for The Essentia Foundation that he directs.

Photo: Getty