Parasitic Mind: How Infectious Ideas Are Killing Common Sense Paperback – October 5, 2021

Don’t even bother reading this book (or my review 😉) it you are into identity politics; you'll hate it. If you can't take a joke and think you're always right, also probably not for you.If you value FREE SPEECH (i.e. for everyone, not just you) or feel frustrated with the ever growing one sided natural of academia or are tired of needing to be politically correct all the time, I think you’ll like this book.Saad has a bit of a sarcastic approach, which I really enjoyed.

Phenomenal read…light, but significant.

Good read. And gets you thinking.

A few days ago, my introduction to you happened via your Epochtimes interview. I liked what I heard and picked up The Parasitic Mind ("TPM"). Much of what you say resonates with me. I especially appreciate your ideals of freedom and truth.A disconnect I'm having is with your presentation of "truth." After perusing TPM, I used Kindle's search function on "truth," "science," a few other words, etc., to dig out your stated ideal. This is what I’m seeing:Generalp11 the truth idealdefense of truthuncover the truthp12 quest for truthp13 true knowledgepursuing and defending truthp18 objective truthsfundamental truthssearch for truthpositive contextp1 reason, science and logicp12 This is precisely why science is so liberating. It offers a framework for auto-correction because scientific knowledge is always provisional. An accepted scientific fact today might be refuted tomorrow. As such, the scientific method engenders epistemic humility.p13 scientific truthp19 truth and scienceevidentiary rules of science and logicp20 commitment to reason and the scientific methodcommitment to reason, science and the values of the Enlightenmentp23 the truth as he (scientist) sees itonly one thing matters and that is the factsp24 scientific testingp29 facts and not feelingsp30 evidentiary threshold for uncovering scientific truthtruth or falsehood of one's positionp38 scientific factsp56 scientific truths and natural lawsp60 only one truth and we find it through the scientific methodp63 truth and adherence to realityp66 theory of evolution - a scientific truth that is as incontrovertible as the existence of gravityp71 self-evident truthsp72 objective universal truthp143 empirical truthp145 pantheon of core knowledgep153 universally truenegative contextp14 anti-science lunacyp16 science denialismp19 pet ideologyone's dogmap21 shackles of the thought policeanti-intellectualism, anti-reason, anti-science and anti-liberal sentimentp23 deeply held beliefsp28 forbidden knowledgep29 political correctnessp57 no revealed truths in sciencep66 political or religious beliefsp69 knowledge is relative (no objective truth)p71 my truthp82 banal scientific truthsp142 truth of his beliefsp20 cultural and moral relativismiffyp169 Tribe of Truthnegatorsp12 This is precisely why science is so liberating. It offers a framework for auto-correction because scientific knowledge is always provisional. An accepted scientific fact today might be refuted tomorrow. As such, the scientific method engenders epistemic humility.p66 One’s political or religious beliefs cannot supersede accepted scientific knowledge (though we must remember that such knowledge remains provisional and open to falsification)It seems to me that you are championing "truth" - specifically of the "objective" sort. You reject "relativism" culturally and morally. Your main argument seems to be that objective truth is only "scientific" in nature. Yet, by stating unequivocally that such knowledge is always provisional, aren't you then saying that scientific knowledge is likewise "relativistic" ultimately? If not, how then is "scientific" truth objective?p76 Since postmodernism purports that reality is subjective, one person’s parody is another’s gold mine of meaning. With this epistemological sleight of hand, postmodernists are able to extract meaning from the most meaningless of texts.p129 Before I delve into some of these supposed causes, it is worth noting that the obfuscation starts with the use of fantastical euphemisms and misdirection in referring to the terror attacks.There was a time, not very long ago, when “absolute truth” was culturally, morally and scientifically acceptable. Concomitantly, the primary way the West thought about “truth” was as antithesis, allowing for “absolute truth.” In the late 18th, early 19th centuries, European intellectuals embraced a new methodology, sometimes referred to as Hegelian dialectic, a system wherein truth is no longer based on antithesis but on synthesis. This came out of the emerging humanist enlightenment – which placed man as the ultimate authority, supplanting the Church (God and absolute truth), i.e., no God, no revelation.Chapter 2, opens with the Geivett/Shermer debate on the existence of God. Geivett’s view of truth is clearly antithesis. Shermer, not so obviously – dialectic/synthesis. Whether there is a God or not was not settled by Shermer’s levity. But, Shermer apparently succeeded with his sleight of hand / misdirection and obfuscated the question of methodology.Jesus’ words from John’s gospel “the truth will set you free” are given in a context. “My teachings” v31, “speak just what the Father has taught me” v28, “and what I have heard from him I tell the world” v26. Jesus’ “truth” that sets free are not the facts of a scientific methodology. Jesus says they are “revealed truths”passed on from God through him. These are “truth claims” – not “the folklore and mythology of indigenous people.” However, if tribalism (Tribe of Truth) becomes acceptable consider that your kinsman, Paul, said “What advantage, then, is there in being a Jew, or what value is there in circumcision? Much in every way! First of all, the Jews have been entrusted with the very words of God.” (Romans 3:1)As you pointed out, “because scientific knowledge is always provisional. An accepted scientific fact today might be refuted tomorrow” ultimately means that if ”science” is your only source, your journey will never arrive at your ideal.Looking for a stronger and better you!

Professor Saad begins the book with the following paragraphs;“In describing a debate on the existence of God with Doug Geivett, currently a professor of philosophy at the Talbor School of Theology of Biola University, my good friend and founder of The Skeptics Society of Michael Shermer remarked:Geivett concluded his initial presentation by explaining that we are confronted here with an either-or-choice: Either God exists or He does not; either the universe was created or it was not; either life was designed or it was not; either morality is natural or it is not; either Jesus was resurrected or he was not.”Following this, Professor Saad writes, “I [Shermer] opened up my rebuttal by explaining that there are only two types of theories: Those that divide the world into two types of theories, and those that do not.”Professor Saad characterized Shermer’s reply as “brilliant levity”.While levity it might have been, but brilliant it was not. In fact, it did not address the either-or contradicting facts that Geivett had proposed. And Shermer’s statement about scientific theories was wrong. Theories may or may not divide the world, but division of society is not how scientists, or almost everybody, judge theories. Theories find their value in the estimation – are they right or wrong, do they comport with the facts found by observation, or do they not.Failure to see that some facts are true and therefore that the opposite is not true is evidence of mushy thinking. If the Sun is hot, it not also cold.Either-or-choices tell a lot about the world. By use of common sense, reason and logic, they provide a method to find the truth. Either one must choose the obvious error, or the clear truth. Throughout this book Professor Saad advocates for seeking the truth.A few more that Professor Geivett might have offered are:Either the universe started as a singularity, or it did not. (One theory and three facts say that it did. The General Theory of Relativity requires that it did. That the universe is undergoing accelerating expansion, that a background 1.7 K heat residue exists and that the universe is isotropic and homogeneous on the large scale indicate that it did).Either entropy always increases in the universe, or it does not.Either the Second Law of Thermodynamics is true, or it is not.If we accept that the Second Law as true and that entropy always increases in the universe, then we are compelled to conclude that a Creator created the universe, or he did not. (The book, How the Second Law of Thermodynamics Shows that God is real, by Jon Rod Christie, makes the case that because the original singularity was perfect order, the universe had to have been created).Either there is objective truth, or there is not.Either truth descends from a greater source, or it does not. (The Founders thought it does)Either truth, individual liberty and right to life constitute the core of an absolute trinity, or they do not.Either the universe that we see is all there is, or not.Either there is a Creator invested in a Spiritual World, or not.Either natural morality (the knowledge of right and wrong, etc) finds its source from within the material world, or not. Or it finds its source from a Spiritual world that is real or it does not.

Clear and compelling understanding to today’s college campuses

Fantastic book by a great Author. Gad Saad explains how the mind is twisted into Ideologies with a sense of humor. His knowledge is a great resource, and I found it very educational. It is also inspirational once you read his history. The Man is a treasure.

This book is a must read for everyone who wants to understand what happened to Western universities and colleges, where feelings became more important than scientific facts, lack of ability to listen to different views caused scientific stagnation, and degradation of grading system caused inadequate graduates.The only hope is that this is a reversible phenomenon.