Scientism: The worship of modern mainstream science

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: Kashai
How can you say the term is useless when in reality relevant scientist are excluded from conferences. Due to investigating an issue, that has never been appropriately investigated??

I say the term is useless because it's meaning is not specific. It has been used to describe too many different ideas.

I don't see scientists being excluded from conferences being that big of a deal. I see people claiming that mainstream science is wrong anyway, so why would anyone who knows what's up want to go to one of their uninformed gatherings?

,

Well for one reason it does mean free food.

What makes you think that anyone really comprehends what is up, or will be able to do so for the next billion years?

In context of multiverse theory consider that each doppelganger that is associated with the electron cloud. Is akin to a facet in a diamond, in perspective. From some altogether frame of reference, related to that potential.

Now add all potential doppelgangers, generated in each perspective. The result of potential island universe's outside what we refer to as an object 13.7 billion years old and about 40 billion light years in circumference.

Now consider that system entangled despite distance and relevant to what we as individuals, are at some other level or orientation/perspective.

Any thought?

a reply to: Titen-Sxull

Scientism doesn't exist.

Exactly.

I mean, what parts of science are we supposed to be worshipping here? All of it? I suppose the scripture-thumping types can imagine us doing that, because it's how they believe: it's all the Word of God, no matter how much it witters, babbles and contradicts itself.

But I don't know anyone who worships science like that.

Or are the different fields of science supposed to be different gods? You bow down to the Great God Mathematics, she lights candles to the Almighty Atom and I plead my cause before the altar of Biochemistry?

I haven't seen anyone do that either.

Or is it theories we worship? Do we pray to Universal Gravitation to take away our loneliness? Beg Relativity to rid us of our in-laws? Beseech Darwinism to evolve us into more successful people?

As far as I can see, 'scientism' is simply a case of people whose minds work in primitive, superstitious ways thinking that other people's systems of thought are the same as theirs.

a reply to: tsingtao

There are no such things as accidents, there are only just mishaps in the making.

Hence Viagra was an accident just waiting to happen.

And people may have been breeding and messing with dogs for centuries, but only in this century do we apply the science label to it all, because in those centuries labels were much more expensive to maintain and therefore not very cost effective.

I want my flying dodge neon, its a bummer, man I tell you.

originally posted by: Kashai
But the function of science is not to engage in behavior/activity based upon conjecture.

Seems like people like to say it is doing just that when scientists are in fact saying that there is not enough info.

What makes you think that anyone really comprehends what is up, or will be able to do so for the next billion years?

It isn't me saying that, it is those who claim that the ones that know the truth are being excluded.

a reply to: Ninipe

Hence the difference between faith, and believe, between religion and science. You have faith that science and religion can be two different things. But no proof of it. You have faith that religion is to give you moral support, but little proof of it. You believe that politics should create a reliable environment of rules, but again that seems contradictory to what the proof and statistics on it says over the whole of history.

In all these things if you were to really apply the scientific process the conclusion would be that none of it holds any water as it has failed many times before. Generally doing the same thing over and over expecting different results is known as insanity. And of that there is plenty of proof.

So I don't know seems pretty absurd, after mixing religion and politics failed horribly, to do the same thing now with religion and science?

Well if we go by what happened in the past then we can generally deduce that the same thing will ensue. But hey, why not just for the heck of it, lets mix science and religion and government. Sounds like one hell of concoction, also sounds like things may go BOOM. But what the hell!

But since we are at a point where we know so much, it is even for an expert basically impossible to know everything in his tiny area of expertise: to me, yeah, there is a lot I just have to believe, because I simply don't get it. Doesn't make it neither magic nor religion though.

Hence the dilemma, because you can not refute a thing does not mean a thing will work or is not and has been refuted already. It is illogical what you are saying. You are in fact going a bit backwards about it. Obviously the science is not very strong with you...You must practice.

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: Kashai
But the function of science is not to engage in behavior/activity based upon conjecture.

Seems like people like to say it is doing just that when scientists are in fact saying that there is not enough info.

What makes you think that anyone really comprehends what is up, or will be able to do so for the next billion years?

It isn't me saying that, it is those who claim that the ones that know the truth are being excluded.

So what if there are an infinite number of orientations that lead to the same conclusion?

I know that you are not "saying that" but in debate what exactly rules out conjecture?

Science.

And if that is not happening for some reason their is something wrong with science.

A Unicorn is essentially a horse with a singular horn in the general area of its forehead.

Is that impossible??

Any thoughts?

a reply to: Astyanax
Its long I have not watched it all, but its in there somewhere. And ya he is assuming things, what he should say is that if religion has been going on for so long thousand and thousands and thousands of years, then I would say that right there says something to and about the human condition. And it is not to be refuted and taken likely just because he was raised on the other hemisphere and in another ecosystem. Oh and religion is man made but so is science, unless that is you think it comes down from the heavens like some sort of heavenly rules or something?

originally posted by: Astyanax
As far as I can see, 'scientism' is simply a case of people whose minds work in primitive, superstitious ways thinking that other people's systems of thought are the same as theirs.

My favorite example against scientism happened in 1998.

In 1997, every scientist I know of, and maybe every scientist who believed in the big bang, thought the expansion of the universe was probably slowing down, because of gravity. It was a reasonable enough assumption given the preponderance of evidence of gravity.

But after new data was published in 1998, there was some initial skepticism while it was absorbed, analyzed, and more measurements were made, but after a number of years passed to process the data, all the scientists I know of were swayed by the new data, that caused them to completely flip their beliefs from an expansion that's slowing down to an expansion that's speeding up. It's quite remarkable really, but it's in stark contrast to religion where no conceivable amount of evidence can seem to shake religious beliefs and a stunning example that scientism is pretty much a fallacious concept. The other claim of scientism is that scientists think science can provide moral direction, but I don't know of any scientists who think that.

A ten year old Catholic budding scientist learned of transubstantiation, which is the Catholic belief that the bread and wine actually transform into the body and blood of Christ when the priest does a latin chant while waving his hands or however he does it. The young scientist was thrilled upon learning of this amazing transformation and asked the church if he could have before and after samples so he could look at then in the new microscope he just got for Christmas, etc.

The church was less than cooperative and apparently didn't appreciate this kind of critical thinking. It's one of the anecdotes in this video (at 1:35) which I found kind of interesting, but it does highlight to me how religious people can have difficulty coping with how scientific minds think:

Do physicists believe in God?

a reply to: solomons path

Do you have any proof of this? Or is this merely how you want it or wish it to be? Is this your believe and faith on the subject? If you install science into any human system and human hierarchy, what does it then become? Magical? Without bias? If a group of human follow day in and day out, knowing or unknowingly, in a inanimate methodology, what would the introduction of the scientific process into that ecosystem be and do?

Lets look at the definition of Religion .

noun
noun: religion

the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
"ideas about the relationship between science and religion"
synonyms: faith, belief, worship, creed; More
sect, church, cult, denomination
"the freedom to practice their own religion"
a particular system of faith and worship.
plural noun: religions
"the world's great religions"
a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance.
"consumerism is the new religion"

What you are basically saying is that science is this un-flawed and unbiased thing outside of human perception, yet negate the fact that its just something humans invented and it does not exist outside of human perception just like an the observed does not exist without an observer. What your ultimately saying is that science is above human interpretation. I dont believe it is.

So yes in short! I totally agree with what you wrote above dude. But not entirely in the way you believe you meant it.

The Gods of science lies With the Scientific community. If Your theory or question is not approved within the Scientific community, it will never be known to the Public as a valid question or theory.

In other Words; the Scientific community decides what is valid and important.

a reply to: Astyanax

Oh it exists, this thread proved that in the first few pages, by now it pretty much sealed deal shut that yes in certain forms Scientism exists.

But hey Astyanax get this the definitions and processes for religions are more varied then the ones your used to dealing with. But ya its there, in its infancy, give it time and it will bloom one day. Who knows you may actually have people worshiping the almighty atom, and they will go to war with those who blaspheme against its composition, and those obvious false general relativity infidels, All the while the cult of the graviton will be waiting in the shadows till they both exhaust there resources to take over, however they will still be waiting to discover the graviton long after they have taken over the world and erected monuments to it. There will be a war of papers, and it will all be peer previewed....To death..uh!

And I quote.

As far as I can see, 'scientism' is simply a case of people whose minds work in primitive, superstitious ways thinking that other people's systems of thought are the same as theirs.

Its a mistake to assume that others think in the same way, in the same fashion as you.

originally posted by: Kashai
So what if there are an infinite number of orientations that lead to the same conclusion?

Then there are an infinite chances for someone to prove that conclusion.

I know that you are not "saying that" but in debate what exactly rules out conjecture?

Science.

And if that is not happening for some reason their is something wrong with science.

A Unicorn is essentially a horse with a singular horn in the general area of its forehead.

Is that impossible??

That is a perfect example of what I was saying.

The question is do/did unicorns exist? The scientific answer is that there is no proof that they do/did.

Is that conjecture? I think not.

What if it is worded differently?

Unicorns are a myth. Isn't this saying pretty much the same thing? I think so because that is what things that have an unverifiable existence are called.

That doesn't stop people from claiming that the person who said that is saying that unicorns are impossible and that that is conjecture. But, what is really being said?

a reply to: daskakik
One way of relating to experience is that fundamentally subjective ones are in fact objective and again fundamentally.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Do physicists believe in God?

The very question is scientistic, as if physicists were somehow more qualified to answer the question of God's existence. As if we had to turn to scientists to answer such things.

originally posted by: galadofwarthethird
a reply to: tsingtao

There are no such things as accidents, there are only just mishaps in the making.

Hence Viagra was an accident just waiting to happen.

And people may have been breeding and messing with dogs for centuries, but only in this century do we apply the science label to it all, because in those centuries labels were much more expensive to maintain and therefore not very cost effective.

I want my flying dodge neon, its a bummer, man I tell you.

mendel with peas.

yeah, viagra was a Godsend? it is fun without the nasty side effects. blindness. bummer.

hmmm...

happy accident!

aspirin will kill ya but will prevent/help stop heart attacks. another happy accident. (i know the guys daughter)


when we get our flying cars, i'll race ya!

i'll have 3sol masses under the hood and do 1.5 C, the hard way.

originally posted by: EnPassant
The very question is scientistic, as if physicists were somehow more qualified to answer the question of God's existence. As if we had to turn to scientists to answer such things.

The 10 year old boy wasn't a scientist when he was a 10 year old boy, so it's not saying scientists are better qualified. The church made a claim and the boy simply sought to confirm the church's claim with objective evidence; he wasn't even trying to refute it.

The point isn't whether he was a scientist or not, it's that even at 10 years old he was trying to learn things objectively about the universe we live in by examining objective evidence. Anybody can do that, even 10 year old boys. It's not the exclusive prerogative of scientists.

Also, that youtube channel called "sixty symbols" is devoted to asking physicists questions and answers about various topics, and they now have 235 videos, where most having nothing to do with religion.

For you to claim there's any inference that scientists are more qualified is to make an inference that's not being made by me or them.

If you go to a youtube channel where mechanics have 235 videos of "ask me anything" and one of the questions is "Do you believe in God" then you will get the viewpoints of mechanics. Will you then complain about that because it infers that mechanics are more qualified to answer the question of God's existence? Do you see how silly your claim sounds in this context?

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: Titen-Sxull

Scientism doesn't exist.

Exactly.

I mean, what parts of science are we supposed to be worshipping here? All of it? I suppose the scripture-thumping types can imagine us doing that, because it's how they believe: it's all the Word of God, no matter how much it witters, babbles and contradicts itself.

But I don't know anyone who worships science like that.

Or are the different fields of science supposed to be different gods? You bow down to the Great God Mathematics, she lights candles to the Almighty Atom and I plead my cause before the altar of Biochemistry?

I haven't seen anyone do that either.

Or is it theories we worship? Do we pray to Universal Gravitation to take away our loneliness? Beg Relativity to rid us of our in-laws? Beseech Darwinism to evolve us into more successful people?

As far as I can see, 'scientism' is simply a case of people whose minds work in primitive, superstitious ways thinking that other people's systems of thought are the same as theirs.

Unfortunately no one can be told what the matrix is. You have to see it for yourself.

Same goes for scientism.

a reply to: vasaga
What a cop out. Next you'll be telling us that it "works in mysterious ways".

a reply to: daskakik

The actions taken in this thread already show the answers to this question, but... Would you (or anyone else in here) be willing to use violence if it would mean convincing people of something that science has discovered?

originally posted by: vasaga
The actions taken in this thread already show the answers to this question, but... Would you (or anyone else in here) be willing to use violence if it would mean convincing people of something that science has discovered?

No. I'm not even willing to spend time, other than that spent here at ATS and even that isn't wasted trying to convince people of some scientific discovery.