Scientism: The worship of modern mainstream science

a reply to: wagnificent

Continued...

The mixed blessing of our scientific progress is that the body of scientific knowledge is now enormous. It is unreasonable to think that anyone could verify all the scientific findings of the past several centuries. Thus for purely pragmatic reasons, science has branched out, and people have become highly specialized. Even spending more than a decade training for a certain specialization does not provide adequate opportunity to test every scientific find upon which assumptions are based.

This problem is further complicated by the expense of conducting scientific research. It's not cheap, and the people with the money to fund studies are generally interested in certain results and exert control over which results are published (i.e. big pharma, Monsanto, etc.). The results are then pre-digested by marketers and PR folks for mass consumption. Thus even the appropriate application of the scientific method does not guarantee that the knowledge being added to our collective scientific understanding is accurate. Peer review somewhat mitigates this to some extent, but it is no magic bullet.

I don't blame or judge those who gobble up the "scientific" findings that are brought into the public eye. I catch myself doing it too. I think it is reasonable to assume that most Americans are more likely to see these findings as "absolutely true" than they are to seeing them as "maybe true." Case in point:

news.nationalgeographic.com...

"Smoking gun." Absolute truth. Scientism.

a reply to: vasaga

When in history was this ever NOT the case regarding scientific research?

There is no pursuit of knowledge that does not seek to affect the world. Science is made by people with interests, intentions and ambitions; and it’s funded by governments and companies with agendas. Scientific development is subject to funding rules, to expectations about outcomes, and to social forces and institutions that shape our research. - See more at: www.abovetopsecret.com...

I think you are confusing science with global financial dependency. Financial dependency controls the input and output of near everything, not just science. Can you site any sources with real examples of what you say here:

The corporate grid is controlling everything that is being investigated and everything that is being published, no matter which branch of science you look at. The investigations done by free thinkers or independent researchers are not falsified by disproving hypotheses, but rather discarded by scorn and ridicule. And the biggest fans of science are not only supporting these actions when it's done to independent scientists, they are also taking over this attitude. A discussion with them is often no longer possible. - See more at: www.abovetopsecret.com...

There are many assumptions in your post. 50%? Can you site a source for that? I think 83% of all statistics are made up on the spot. Children learn scientific methods, not "science worship". The tenets of religions/faith and scientific methods are diametrically opposed principles. I don't see the correlation unless you elaborate a bit.

It is estimated that approximately 50% of all the scientific research in the world goes into military improvements. In other words, it goes into harming people rather than helping them, relieving them, or saving them. In turn, schools have become a propaganda where science being an authority is crammed into the minds of children in the same way that religion was being crammed into their skull. - See more at: www.abovetopsecret.com...

You have the right to choose whether or not to use these "toys" you speak of, as does everyone. As a whole society, we are in general doing a bang up job of supporting that which many of us seem to oppose. Your mind is free, to learn, and to teach, and most importantly for the purpose of rejecting mental or spiritual slavery. If we are distracted, it is our own choices that make us that way. Please do not blame the greed or ignorance of people on science.

hey give us toys with their technology, to keep us distracted from the slavery we are already in, and to distract us from the additional chains that are being added to our minds and bodies daily. The US is in the front, all countries will follow. - See more at: www.abovetopsecret.com...

Lastly, the title of the article in the link is: "Scientists can’t claim to be neutral about their discoveries."

My question is, can anyone else be neutral about their motives or discoveries? Everything needs to be done for a purpose, and done to achieve an outcome.

I really read your post with interest. I appreciate and respect the amount of effort and thought that went into it. I am trying to understand what the overall message of your post is. If you could summarize in a short paragraph, that would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.

a reply to: vasaga

Oh to be alive in the anti-intellectual age. Nothing better than being surrounded by those that would have us bash science and long for the dark ages. No commie scientist gonna tell me the earth is round!

originally posted by: Acronychal
So you're a little mad religion is slowly being brought to justice and revealed as the labrynth of lies it turned out to be.

Science is no more a religion than food is a religion in the hands of the obese. Like anything else in this world, when abused by those in power it is brought into disrepute. When it is used to eradicate small pox it is praised.

It is greed that prevents human progress in the field of science, not faith, and therefor I see no comparison to religion (well almost). I don't believe the earth revolves around the sun I know it does, but I can't be sure my university funding won't be cut because my government doesn't see it profitable.

The obese don't go around ridiculing everyone that doesn't like the food they like.

This thread has become a long list of straw man arguments.

originally posted by: vasaga
This thread has become a long list of straw man arguments.

Starting with the OP.

Most people don't worship science. They are not real scientisians.

originally posted by: daskakik
Starting with the OP.

Most people don't worship science. They are not real scientisians.

That depends on how you define worship. Accepting scientific findings as absolute truth counts as worship IMO. If believing someone else's truth without verifying it for yourself is not a religious act, then what is?

Are most people like this? I don't know, but I can say that I know very few people who personally verify scientific findings, read primary sources, or even understand that scientific findings (even Laws) are provisional understandings that could possibly change tomorrow.

originally posted by: wagnificent
That depends on how you define worship. Accepting scientific findings as absolute truth counts as worship IMO. If believing someone else's truth without verifying it for yourself is not a religious act, then what is?

Not caring enough to actually verify. That would be the opposite of worshoping.

Are most people like this? I don't know, but I can say that I know very few people who personally verify scientific findings, read primary sources, or even understand that scientific findings (even Laws) are provisional understandings that could possibly change tomorrow.

Because they don't care. "They are not real scientisians."

Scientism is the belief that science can solve all of our problems, social, technical and spiritual.

Scientism is a term used to refer to belief in the universal applicability of the scientific method and approach, and the view that empirical science constitutes the most authoritative worldview or most valuable part of human learning to the exclusion of other viewpoints.[1] It has been defined as "the view that the characteristic inductive methods of the natural sciences are the only source of genuine factual knowledge and, in particular, that they alone can yield true knowledge about man and society."[2] The term scientism frequently implies a critique of the more extreme expressions of logical positivism[3][4] and has been used by social scientists such as Friedrich Hayek,[5] philosophers of science such as Karl Popper,[6] and philosophers such as Hilary Putnam[7] and Tzvetan Todorov[8] to describe the dogmatic endorsement of scientific methodology and the reduction of all knowledge to only that which is measurable.[9] "Scientism" has also been taken over as a name for the view that science is the only reliable source of knowledge by philosophers such as Alexander Rosenberg.

Source


Scientism is not science it a religion/philosophy. That in observation suggest that the "current" status quo in science will in time prove to be absolute.

The problem with scientism is that science is always changing.

Hypothetically speaking a physicist travels back in time 200 years.

He pays a visit to whomever is holding the chair at Oxford in physics and begin explaining everything he knows.

He is very likely to be killed unless he can escape and erase any issue related to his presence.

Alternatively he travels 300 years into the future. He could would very well find that every thing he knows about physics, is taught in grade school. in a simpler way.

Any thoughts?

Bottom line is a human needs to believe in something. Believing in nothing still requires to believe since you don't have proof that nothing exists.

People will believe in what they want to believe because we can all choose. Let's keep our power to choose alive, without it we are nothing more than robots.

good thread, i'm all for science but only when practiced with an open mind. these days scientists are so concerned with only physical aspect of existence, and anything that they never heard of or anything they can't explain or physically and easily measure is just tossed out as garbage. that's not the right way, scientists should be focusing more on quantum and ethereal aspect of this universe i think. i feel like we are missing so many of the answers because of the stigma associated with paranormal studies and alternate realities intermingling with our own. it is my opinion that many realities exist and on occasion certain beings or things from other dimensions/realities(maybe even our own universe) come here for whatever reason, be it vacation, their own scientific research, or hunting. which would help to explain many credible witness sightings of so called "monsters/creatures" not of this realm. science just blindly disregards these things, but i think they just have not developed the technology or tools capable of studying these other realities and beings effectively. its getting to be as bad as religion mainstream science that is. with people blindly following sciennce and disregarding anything they cant explain or they consider to be supernatural. i feel like its all part of the greater cover up to keep us in the dark about the true nature of the universe and our existence in it. for whatever reason they don't want us to know i can't say. maybe we are all just food being farmed for some higher dimensional beings ha but i just think they aren't trying hard at all. they need to think outside the box instead of saying "if it isn't physically here or replicable it must be hogwash. what are your opinions on this ladies and gents?

originally posted by: JudgeEden
a reply to: candlestick

I sure do think its quite surprising when one who doesn't believe in Christianity proceeds to use Biblical quotes as a way to criticize a Christian. It's actually quite common.

I saw this kind of reaction many times ,I don't believe the most bible content,doesn't mean I don't believe some of ethical guidelines in bible.

Not good at second language =nonsense ?Fix you intelligence first.

I have no interest about your friends.

originally posted by: Artlogic

originally posted by: tsingtao

originally posted by: Artlogic

originally posted by: np6888
a reply to: Artlogic

So what you're saying is that all inventions are science. However, there's a big difference between technological inventions and non-technological ones.

I shall have to respectfully dissagree.

Perhaps you could give an example of a "non-technological" discovery, keeping in mind that, as rudimentary as they were, the very first tools used by humans (shaped stones, sharp sticks etc) were the best tech avaialable at that time....

sociology, psych, etc.

Both of these scientific fields are heavily reliant on, and a starting point for, a variety of technologies, statistical analasys is kinda tricky if you're crunching the numbers in you're head.

Sociologists increasingly draw upon computationally intensive methods to analyze and model social phenomena.[88] Using computer simulations, artificial intelligence, text mining, complex statistical methods, and new analytic approaches like social network analysis and social sequence analysis, computational sociology develops and tests theories of complex social processes through bottom-up modeling of social interactions.[89

en.m.wikipedia.org...

Tech is everywhere

yeah very ethereal and subject to interpretation.

lol, give me someone that can read people over some squid looking at data.

oooooooooooooooo but it's all so sciency and complicated!

in other words, it's all BS!

originally posted by: Acronychal
So you're a little mad religion is slowly being brought to justice and revealed as the labrynth of lies it turned out to be.

Science is no more a religion than food is a religion in the hands of the obese. Like anything else in this world, when abused by those in power it is brought into disrepute. When it is used to eradicate small pox it is praised.

It is greed that prevents human progress in the field of science, not faith, and therefor I see no comparison to religion (well almost). I don't believe the earth revolves around the sun I know it does, but I can't be sure my university funding won't be cut because my government doesn't see it profitable.

they should just do their job and stay out of areas that they have no clue about!

a reply to: wagnificent

One reason there continues to be scientific and technological advancement is because the vast majority of science & technology builds upon the existing body of knowledge. In addition, it is impossible for a single person to personally verify most scientific findings because the body of knowledge that we have today is so large. Given this, unless you are an expert in a narrow area, there is no need to personally verify scientific findings in general to accept them - they should be treated as if they are fact until you or someone else has proven otherwise.

If anyone doesn't want to accept some scientific findings that's fine, but unless they can provide some valid reasoning against that finding, then they should keep their mouth shut.

a reply to: vasaga

This thread has become a long list of straw man arguments.

Are you going to respond to your criticism or are you going to ignore it and blindly accept that you're right? Wasn't that what you feel you're fighting against (rather than perpetuating)?

a reply to: vasaga

Excellent post and long overdue. Science is imprisoning the human mind in a carapace of materialistic, anti spiritual thinking. This is the anti chamber of spiritual death. Rupert Sheldrake wrote a book called The Science Delusion. Well worth reading.

a reply to: EnPassant

What a load of tripe. What you really mean is that science is exploding your precious superstitions one by one and you just can't bear it. Same with the OP. The transparency of such ruses is obvious to anyone with a smidgen of intelligence.

originally posted by: OpenMindedRealist
Funny, there seems to be a pattern of dogmatic vitriol in the negative replies. But only religious nut-jobs jump to conclusions and get hostile when their core beliefs are brought into question...right?

Interesting how this same exact pattern is ALSO used by the priests of the religion AKA "Science"...

With respect to its great contributions to society, I think it is important to make a case that science is really affecting society more like a religion now than a field of study or a resource base of useful information. Many everyday people do not understand it at all and accept ALL its teachings on faith.

Unfortunately some scientists and academic professionals are not so noble and have perpetrated deliberate frauds and cover-ups of important discoveries.

Modern Scientific beliefs are based upon a leap of faith in the big bang theory. It has become a belief system based on faith and therefore another form of religion. Scientists, like priests can explain their beliefs but the everyday people accept it all on faith. Scientists and doctors are the priests of this new religion, getting angry and crying "heresy" when anyone respectfully disagrees with them.

The gross disrespect and intolerance I have seen of certain members of the scientific and academic communities and their disciples toward anyone who disagrees with them is just as arrogant and abusive as racial, sexual, religious, or any other kind of prejudice.

Has Science become a Religion

Science - The Illuminati Religion and Mind Control Tool for the Masses

originally posted by: tsingtao

originally posted by: Artlogic

originally posted by: tsingtao

originally posted by: Artlogic

originally posted by: np6888
a reply to: Artlogic

So what you're saying is that all inventions are science. However, there's a big difference between technological inventions and non-technological ones.

I shall have to respectfully dissagree.

Perhaps you could give an example of a "non-technological" discovery, keeping in mind that, as rudimentary as they were, the very first tools used by humans (shaped stones, sharp sticks etc) were the best tech avaialable at that time....

sociology, psych, etc.

Both of these scientific fields are heavily reliant on, and a starting point for, a variety of technologies, statistical analasys is kinda tricky if you're crunching the numbers in you're head.

Sociologists increasingly draw upon computationally intensive methods to analyze and model social phenomena.[88] Using computer simulations, artificial intelligence, text mining, complex statistical methods, and new analytic approaches like social network analysis and social sequence analysis, computational sociology develops and tests theories of complex social processes through bottom-up modeling of social interactions.[89

en.m.wikipedia.org...

Tech is everywhere

yeah very ethereal and subject to interpretation.

lol, give me someone that can read people over some squid looking at data.

oooooooooooooooo but it's all so sciency and complicated!

in other words, it's all BS!

I think you will find your sociologist cephalopod will need to be able to read both people and data to create successful outcomes in either field
I see nothing tenuous or subjective about the connection.

originally posted by: C0bzz
a reply to: vasaga

This thread has become a long list of straw man arguments.

Are you going to respond to your criticism or are you going to ignore it and blindly accept that you're right? Wasn't that what you feel you're fighting against (rather than perpetuating)?

I've responded a few times. But the majority of the ones who are criticizing aren't actually criticizing what I said. My point is that we need to start differentiating between science and scientism, and be aware and critical of scientism since it's a religion masquerading as science, and even modern scientists are not exempt from this behavior.
The 'critics' in this thread are criticizing their own version of what they think I said, which is that I'm against science.

why should I respond to replies saying that the car is not black, while I was talking about a horse being black? Especially when it's clear they are unwilling and/or unable to see the problem due to their own scientism? The ones who can see the problem will see it. The ones who can not, will fight to the death to protect the system they are attached to.

a reply to: vasaga

You're moving the goalposts here vasaga.

Your opening statement:

It has come to light that modern day science is no longer being looked at objectively. Its achievements have clouded our minds. It has gone so far, that we are blindly trusting in it, and are following it just like people following a religion. We are happy with the toys it gives us, and all the while we are forgetting what is truly important

You sum up what science means to you.

Scientism, as a worldview, is something that only a minority engage in. But you were contending that scientism is now the raison d'etre in your OP. Now you're saying "we need to start differentiating between science and scientism"? It's safe enough to say that most intelligent people will know that blindly following anything is what only a fool does, however trying to assert that because most people are not scientists therefore when they accept things that science tell us, and that they cannot verify themselves, this means they are now engaging in scientism? This is absolute rubbish.

You also accuse your detractors on this thread of being being blind followers of "scientism", which is the typical rhetoric of people who are themselves are blind followers of some ideology. Are you?