3 terms that mean you’ve already lost the argument
Mike Godwin was tired of seeing the invocation of Nazis in early Internet chatrooms. In 1990, the American attorney coined the term “Godwin’s law” after observing that “as an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1.” When those cretins are invoked, Godwin said the thread is effectively over.
This, of course, isn’t applicable to every argument. Godwin agreed that Hitler analogies were appropriate for then-candidate Donald Trump (in the right circumstance, mind you); two years later he stated that the alt-right’s march in Charlottesville fit Nazi criteria (his term of choice was “shitheads”).
The intersection of QAnon and wellness has highlighted a few intellectually lazy terms bogusly used as trump cards. The pandemic didn’t inspire the creation of these terms—they’ve long been in use—but we’ve often noticed them in pro-Q, anti-vaxx, and anti-mask rhetoric.
When these terms appear in a “COVID is a hoax” comments section or email from your sovereignty-loving yoga teacher, realize the argument is over. In fact, it never really began.
Allopathy
Samuel Hahnemann’s intentions were good. The medical doctor didn’t agree with barbaric and troublesome medical practices (such as bloodletting) at the turn of the 19th century. Pulling from an ancient idea—a little cures a lot—homeopathy was born.
To express his distaste for the “heroic medicine” of the time, Hahnemann and early homeopathic doctors coined “allopathy” to represent every form of medicine that isn’t homeopathy. The word effectively means curing a disease with its opposite, as in taking a laxative to treat constipation. Hahnemann believed that homeopathy, “like cures like”—also the basis of vaccination, it should be noted—is the real basis of healing.
In comment threads, you’ll often find the term denoting anything “Western.” The underlying assumption is “only the mode of healing I believe in works,” rendering it completely ineffectual in any scientific or medical debate.
Mainstream Media
Merely stating the term “mainstream media” (MSM) shows a profound ignorance of how media operates—or evolves. Like allopathy, it’s a catchall term that usually means “media outlets that don’t agree with my beliefs.”
Media is not a stagnant entity. It’s a form of communication, and communication systems constantly change. MSM is often (though not always, especially in the QAnon-wellness intersection) used by people that think 1950’s America was just peachy and we need to return to such traditional family values.
Media outlets have always suffered from conflicts of interest. Corporate, religious, or political control of narrative has been around since the advent of the printing press; and before that, in messages passed around villages and urban centers. What we’re experiencing today—sometimes, not always—is indicative of this longstanding trend.
The problem with the term isn’t media, but mainstream—a term defined as “prevalent current thought that is widespread.” For example, we know that social media’s reach is far wider than “traditional” media at this point. NY Times reporter Kevin Roose maintains a Twitter feed that tracks Facebook’s top 10 performing posts on a daily basis. The list is dominated by Ben Shapiro, Dan Bongino, Donald Trump, and Fox News; essentially, those that constantly complain about the MSM.
You can’t complain about it when you are it. Of course, they will, because that’s how they monetize their audiences: invent a demon (other than yourself) and pretend it’s after you.
Anyone complaining about the MSM likely doesn’t read beyond their own small list of safe spaces and has no grasp of the actual reach of those they follow. Considering media companies are competing organizations, the notion that they’re all “in on the story” is completely bogus.
We do have a serious problem with reporters rushing to break stories without doing proper fact-checking; we also have biased media outlets across the board. Those are issues we must grapple with as a society. That doesn’t mean it’s fair to lump every publication you don’t agree with as MSM.
Scientific Materialism
Scientific materialism suggests that the mechanisms that lead to consciousness are observable via scientific methods. In this case, the issue isn’t the definition itself, but how it’s used.
The roots of the term are found in the writings of Spanish philosopher George Santayana, an atheist who found utility in religious rituals. The term is widely used by creationists and intelligent design devotees as a pejorative. The gist is that scientific methods don’t allow for divine influence and therefore treat humans as robots, which is completely untrue (showing a lack of understanding of consciousness studies and neuroscience).
Scientific materialism is an offshoot of materialism, which, in the words of the political-creationist group, the Discovery Institute, states that humans are “animals or machines who inhabited a universe ruled by purely impersonal forces and whose behavior and very thoughts were dictated by the unbending forces of biology, chemistry and environment.”
As with champions of the MSM myth, scientific materialism becomes a way to write off anything remotely related to the scientific process and that suggests the universe—and humans, specifically—are not governed by “spirit.”
While the origins and mechanisms of consciousness have been debated for a long time, thanks to noninvasive scanning (such as fMRI technology) most neuroscientists agree that consciousness is dependent on biology.
Creation theorists and New Agers alike insert scientific materialism as a wedge between good-natured debates about the nature of consciousness, ignorant of the fact that there’s an important distinction between what’s currently unknown and what cannot be known. Good science relies on a commitment to exploring the former while acknowledging the latter when necessary. Debates are part of the process, but they fail completely when someone inserts a “gotcha” that’s essentially meaningless jargon.
Further readings on consciousness studies and the mind.
The Tell-Tale Brain: V.S. Ramachandran
The Consciousness Instinct: Michael Gazzaniga
From Bacteria to Bach and Back: Daniel Dennett
Mind in Motion: Barbara Tversky
Descartes’ Error: Antonio Damasio
I of the Vortex: Rodolfo Llinas
How Emotions Are Made: Lisa Feldman Barrett
Consciousness and the Brain: Stanislas Dehaene
The Ego Tunnel: Thomas Metzinger
Prehistory of the Mind: Steven Mithen
