Scientism (and how our sun will one day solidify into a giant crystal orb)

Howdy ATS...

Ok, so lately I've really been getting into looking at Scientism, and I think that, as a concept, it's pretty damned fascinating and gives a name to something that I understood but had never formalized in my mind. So just by way of a quick introduction (and these are, of course, my own words), let me try to define the term. Essentially, as I see it, Scientism is a religion. The clergy are scientists, and like all religions, they want their religion and beliefs to propagate world-wide to the exclusion of all other things (especially any notion of Creation or God).

Here's the biggest problem with Scientism, most people would think, "well, they're scientists, so at least what they're saying is true and observable and in evidence." This is where you'd be wrong, and once you're savvy to it, you can begin to see how it has worked inside of our lives and society for countless generations now. I thought to post this when I saw the article (I'll include here) that I put in the OP subject titled:

One day our sun will solidify into a giant crystal orb

It goes on to explain how the sun will be a crystalline orb the size of Earth and exist for near eternity (what near eternity is, I don't know...I can't of think of eternity as an either/or proposition...after all, there's only close in horse-shoes and hand grenades). But to me this is classic Scientism, because this is so ridiculous and absolutely unprovable, yet it's presented with these multi-layered graphics of what our sun looks like inside and what will become of it, and there are countless uncritical thinkers out there that will just accept this as gospel truth, simply because it was written by a scientist. This is but one example of theory becoming fact, something that will be taught in schools and hence believed until it's simply unquestioned. I don't know, this pisses me off. I'm sick of it. I know a lot of people on here don't like religion of any sort...well how about Scientism.

Peace...

www.latimes.com...

Our sun and billions of stars just like it are headed for a strange, cold destiny. New research suggests that long after our roiling, boiling life-giving star runs out of fuel, it will slowly transform into a cold, dead, super-dense crystal sphere about the size of Earth that will linger like a translucent tombstone for close to eternity. “In tens of billions of years from now, the universe will be made largely of dense crystal spheres,” said astrophysicist Pier-Emmanuel Tremblay, who led the work published this week in the journal Nature. “In the future, these objects will be completely dominant.”

a reply to: TheElectricPriest

Here's the biggest problem with Scientism, most people would think, "well, they're scientists, so at least what they're saying is true and observable and in evidence." This is where you'd be wrong, and once you're savvy to it, you can begin to see how it has worked inside of our lives and society for countless generations now.

'Scientism' is the thing that enables you to even criticise the idea of stars dying. Think about it. If it wasn't for science we wouldn't know that stars aren't all the same or that they have finite lives.

Priests and philosophers didn't create the means of our communication. The battery that powers your mobile phone that knows where it is because of GPS and enables you to post on websites wasn't conjured into being by mindfulness.

a reply to: TheElectricPriest

I will agree with part of your post
That is that there is not "settled" science.
It constantly changes as new discoveries are made. That is also why its called scientific theory.

I much prefer this ever changing theory to the faith of religion.

a reply to: TheElectricPriest

'...New research suggests...'

That's an insurance statement right there, I should know; I've had to make lots of those over the years in my political campaigning, you know, just incase, 🙄

my question is, have they actually observed any of these "orbs"?

a reply to: TheElectricPriest

You've perfectly articulated a shining example of the Dunning-Kruger effect. "Proof" only exists in mathematics and logic, not science. You're right, there is no "proof" that this will happen to the sun, but we do have plenty of evidence that allows people with the proper knowledge to make predictions and run tests. It's not just one scientist saying "This is what happens" and then a bunch of other scientists nodding sagely and saying "well, that sounds about right."

I think your comparison to preachers is inaccurate in one glaring way. Sure, most people who consider themselves to have a scientific mindset will usually defer to the knowledge of a researcher that has spent a lot of time on a particular subject... just like a churchgoer will defer to his Priests interpretation of a confusing biblical passage, but that's pretty much where it stops. Because unlike priests, scientists usually have a whole bunch of other people who specialize in their field checking up on them and looking over their shoulder to make sure what they're saying is backed up by math and/or evidence.

That's not to say that science is fool proof, people are people after all, but the method does tend to eventually self-correct if someone starts trying to pass a unsound theory as fact.

a reply to: TheElectricPriest

I don't get it. Why would discoveries piss you off?

We know of many "stars" that seem nothing like stars, I think there is one out there that is roughly the same temperature as a cup of coffee. This theory is no less believable than that.

Point is, how can we force a "universal constant" in an infinite universe? The discoveries are exciting, and wether proven or not lend to imaginative thought which is sorely lacking in this society.

But hey don't worry about anything being taught in school that is cutting edge.

a reply to: Slanter

Hmmm, scientism embraces evidence? Really? What about the electric universe proponents correctly guessing outcomes of our explorations to the sun, to Venus, to asteroids and to mars where the conventional cosmologists were completely wrong?

All I hear is mainstream scientism with they know it all and not even a glimmer of their thoughts being 'what ifs'. How do you know theoretical mathematics is correct when they are unable to tie any of their theories to real life? What if black holes don't exists but are a phenomena that we just don't understand. Have they proved black holes? Do they have evidence of black holes? Does modern cosmology warn us that the majority of their beliefs are simply theoretical at this point?

One of my greatest hopes in life is to be alive long enough to see these fraudster magicians eat crow.

a reply to: TheElectricPriest

How come the only demographic that brings up “scientism” are the most religious people? People who fear that science will prove their religious beliefs to be outdated and useless?

I’m gonna go out on a limb and guess that you believe in intelligent design and creationism.

originally posted by: ClovenSky
a reply to: Slanter

Hmmm, scientism embraces evidence? Really? What about the electric universe proponents correctly guessing outcomes of our explorations to the sun, to Venus, to asteroids and to mars where the conventional cosmologists were completely wrong?

All I hear is mainstream scientism with they know it all and not even a glimmer of their thoughts being 'what ifs'. How do you know theoretical mathematics is correct when they are unable to tie any of their theories to real life? What if black holes don't exists but are a phenomena that we just don't understand. Have they proved black holes? Do they have evidence of black holes? Does modern cosmology warn us that the majority of their beliefs are simply theoretical at this point?

One of my greatest hopes in life is to be alive long enough to see these fraudster magicians eat crow.

If you read more about what scientists are up to, you would know the answers to those questions. You still have time to pick up a book or google some.

a reply to: Woodcarver

Hmmm, I have picked up many books on this subject and went through a lot of material from both sides. I just don't believe something because mainstream tells me it is gospel or truth. If anything, that it is mainstream makes me question it even more.

Those that are being silenced. Those that are running into massive roadblocks getting their research and data published are the ones that I pay attention to. The EU has created many questions about our sun that mainstream is unable to answer. I wonder what is worse, the religious that know they are religious and fully accept the fact or the scientists that believe they possess an open mind?

a reply to: TheElectricPriest

Scientism: Religiously following a set of rules to determine if an outcome can be repeated by which it then becomes a fact for or against.
Religion: Religiously believing in bollocks.

I don't see an issue with the terminology, tbh.

a reply to: ClovenSky

It is not about 'mainstream' in this case. You're thinking of the agenda driven mainstream, that WILL lie to you to affect an outcome. Science, on the other hand, has no vested interest other than truth.

Sure sticklers will say their theory is right, and no one should question them... but hundreds if not thousands of other truth seekers will question. And that is what science is, questioning. Might not be right today, but tomorrow something changes. And new questions emerge.

Any scientist who tells you something as fact, unless immutable, is nothing more than a preacher, preaching his own brand of ignorance. The real scientist only has questions..

And the ego seekers don't last long in their endeavours. Except to religious folk who use them as proof of this or that.

a reply to: gallop

I wish I could believe in what you just expressed.

Here is what I see. I see someone who has devoted all of their energy and a large number of YEARS towards a discipline. They have made sacrifices and memorized/regurgitated a massive amount of information. They are very specialized and only know a very small part of the overall picture. Gone are the days of the philosopher scientist of the royal society. In fact it appears the degradation started then royal society started changing to compartmentalization.

So you have a person that has spent a vast amount of money and resources, including a portion of their life towards studying a narrowly focused subject. Tell me, how willing are they going to be in challenging their views and accepting new information that could make all of their time and effort wasted?

That is modern science to me. Scientists no longer try to understand the whole. They just grab a little slice and try to understand it while ignoring everything else. They create things like dark matter and dark energy to explain their rigid unchanging theories. Theories that should have been discarded long ago on hard evidence.

originally posted by: ClovenSky
a reply to: Woodcarver

Hmmm, I have picked up many books on this subject and went through a lot of material from both sides. I just don't believe something because mainstream tells me it is gospel or truth. If anything, that it is mainstream makes me question it even more.

Those that are being silenced. Those that are running into massive roadblocks getting their research and data published are the ones that I pay attention to. The EU has created many questions about our sun that mainstream is unable to answer. I wonder what is worse, the religious that know they are religious and fully accept the fact or the scientists that believe they possess an open mind?

It all comes down to who can prove their claims to me. For those who can’t understand scientific methods, or can’t be bothered to learn, i don’t see why their opinions matter. All i see is someone who says they can’t understand. I wouldn’t accept things i don’t understand either.

Scientists get things wrong all the time. Nobody understands that better than scientists. The problem comes from people who think scientists are always right. Or people who think scientists are always wrong. Every claim should be met with skepticism, but if you don’t have the ability to apply the proper methods of figuring things out, then you just sound like a grumpy old man complaining about things you don’t understand.

If you can accept things on faith, that have no good reason to believe, you might be the type of person who just doesn’t have the tools for reasoning things out.

originally posted by: Woodcarver
a reply to: TheElectricPriest

How come the only demographic that brings up “scientism” are the most religious people? People who fear that science will prove their religious beliefs to be outdated and useless?

I’m gonna go out on a limb and guess that you believe in intelligent design and creationism.

Sorry, I was out at the VFW all day/night with a group of my fellow veterans so I wasn't able to tend to my post, but I was just catching up on it and wanted to respond to you quickly. I specifically included a video with my OP where a gentleman is discussing scientism. He's a professor at MIT...not exactly what you're describing above. Maybe you should look at the whole OP before you make these assertions...

a reply to: TheElectricPriest

The OP is 100% correct, trusting science makes just as much sense as trusting politicians. I no longer believe a single word coming out of mainstream academia...

I recently wondered why it is that, seeing how people in general don't trust politicians, corporations, the media etc., why it is that 'scientists' apparently get a free pass from society. It's as though what these "false-prophets?" say is almost always believed. Put a white lab coat on anyone and automatically what they say is near gospel.

Darwinism is an Illuminati Scam

Philip Collins explains how the Illuminati took control of science and determined our assumptions about the nature of reality. "The ruling class seized control of science and used it as an 'epistemological weapon' against the masses."

"Science" - The Matrix of Masonic Mind Control

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.

Has Science become a Religion

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

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: ClovenSky
a reply to: Woodcarver



Hmmm, I have picked up many books on this subject and went through a lot of material from both sides. I just don't believe something because mainstream tells me it is gospel or truth. If anything, that it is mainstream makes me question it even more.

Those that are being silenced. Those that are running into massive roadblocks getting their research and data published are the ones that I pay attention to. The EU has created many questions about our sun that mainstream is unable to answer. I wonder what is worse, the religious that know they are religious and fully accept the fact or the scientists that believe they possess an open mind?

It all comes down to who can prove their claims to me. For those who can’t understand scientific methods, or can’t be bothered to learn, i don’t see why their opinions matter. All i see is someone who says they can’t understand. I wouldn’t accept things i don’t understand either.

Scientists get things wrong all the time. Nobody understands that better than scientists. The problem comes from people who think scientists are always right. Or people who think scientists are always wrong. Every claim should be met with skepticism, but if you don’t have the ability to apply the proper methods of figuring things out, then you just sound like a grumpy old man complaining about things you don’t understand.

If you can accept things on faith, that have no good reason to believe, you might be the type of person who just doesn’t have the tools for reasoning things out.

I like to see those proven claims and prior to proving it I would appreciate we not call it settled. Man made climate change to raise Temps to catastrophic levels is just theory filled with lies being perpetrated to get group think that some one wishes us to believe has followed the Scientific Process for the claims. When their theory fails or succeeds are our clues if we will take them. Al's theory failed but the people still pass it as fact. Faith that Al was right was weak in me. I am a friend of the Earth and an pariah to liars.

a reply to: Murgatroid

Sir, if I may, I think this is what I have feared was going to happen. I have tried to share with ATS that there really are Scientist doing their job properly despite the UN's own scientific endeavor's to the contrary of true scientific process.

ETA

I too am appalled for I see the "elite" schools have chosen to get theirs while the can. I think Academia as we have known it is going to have a reform or die. Whom do we know in our lives that can really afford to go to the Ivy League without one of those big scholly's? Not many in my circle can afford it and neither could I without crippling loans. The Medical and Academic Dr's are all crushed with debt that I know. Yes, they will eventually make it if they live long enough but they are basically slaves to the debt for now.

originally posted by: Justoneman

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: ClovenSky
a reply to: Woodcarver



Hmmm, I have picked up many books on this subject and went through a lot of material from both sides. I just don't believe something because mainstream tells me it is gospel or truth. If anything, that it is mainstream makes me question it even more.

Those that are being silenced. Those that are running into massive roadblocks getting their research and data published are the ones that I pay attention to. The EU has created many questions about our sun that mainstream is unable to answer. I wonder what is worse, the religious that know they are religious and fully accept the fact or the scientists that believe they possess an open mind?

It all comes down to who can prove their claims to me. For those who can’t understand scientific methods, or can’t be bothered to learn, i don’t see why their opinions matter. All i see is someone who says they can’t understand. I wouldn’t accept things i don’t understand either.

Scientists get things wrong all the time. Nobody understands that better than scientists. The problem comes from people who think scientists are always right. Or people who think scientists are always wrong. Every claim should be met with skepticism, but if you don’t have the ability to apply the proper methods of figuring things out, then you just sound like a grumpy old man complaining about things you don’t understand.

If you can accept things on faith, that have no good reason to believe, you might be the type of person who just doesn’t have the tools for reasoning things out.

I like to see those proven claims and prior to proving it I would appreciate we not call it settled. Man made climate change to raise Temps to catastrophic levels is just theory filled with lies being perpetrated to get group think that some one wishes us to believe has followed the Scientific Process for the claims. When their theory fails or succeeds are our clues if we will take them. Al's theory failed but the people still pass it as fact. Faith that Al was right was weak in me. I am a friend of the Earth and an pariah to liars.

So.... what other ways are there to come to the right answers? Specifically?

Just so you know, i don’t agree with the idea that humans are wrecking the climate. I have looked at the data, and it was not a well executed study.