To a racist, (a race based bigot), there is no such thing as racism. At least not of the variety that the racist, himself, is party to. And there is a very simple and obvious reason for this once we think about it. And the reason is because from the racist's perspective and understanding of truth and reality, there is no bigotry involved. Because his bigotry, TO HIM, is simply reality. It's neither biased nor mean-spirited, it's just the truth is he sees and believes it to be. And he will only be able to see other people's racism, so long as it is not of the same variety as his own. Anyone that sees the world as he does, though, cannot be a racist. Because that person would just be a realist. As the racist, himself, presumes himself to be.
Of course there is a difference between real in the sense of an objkect existing and we can sense it existing to there being a phenomenon, like gravity, that isn't an object but is real as a phenomenon. Racism isn't a natural phenomenon like gravity, it is a social and behavioral phenomenon, and as we do observe it in some people it is a result of how our brains function, and optional.
For example, if I believe that light-skinned people are inherently superior to dark-skinned people, then my thinking and saying so is not bigotry from my perspective. It's just reality. So should someone accuse me of being a racist, I would think they're quite wrong, since I neither thought nor said anything biased, bigoted, or mean-spirited. I simply stated a fact of reality as I see and understand it. And if someone told me that my next door neighbor, who also believes as I do, was a racist, I would likewise say and believe that he is not. That he, in fact, simply recognizes true reality, as I do. And that's not racism.
See how you move from a belief, which is uncertain and a judgment we will make with or without evidence. This is a flaw in unskilled thinkers. Their beliefs might not be supported by adequate evidence so there is a motivation to double down on the validity of flawed belief, and call it fact. This seems to be a way to remove the flawed thinker from accountability, and it shows awareness of the flaw.
This is why racists never think they are racist. AND it why it's nearly impossible to get them to see themselves as being racist. Because to do that, we would have to get them to change their understanding of reality and truth. Which no human being is going to do without a fight, and a significant internal struggle. So it very rarely happens.
Unskilled thinkers will self-verfiy beliefs that are personal and flawed. We see a similar case with theists who insist their God exists, or some God exists, yet can't explain how they came to this conclusion via facts, nor how it is evident naturally. We often see theists move from claiming their belief, to referring to God as if it is a fact, or veen claim God is a fact.
And this is why the adherents of 'scientism', here on RF, cannot see themselves as being adherents of 'scientism'. And why they cannot see anyone else being adherents of it, either. Because to them 'scientism' isn't a thing, it's just reality as they see and understand reality. And that reality does not extend beyond the parameters of 'scientism' such that it might be perceived and evaluated from an 'external' point of view. There is no other or external point of view to the adherent. It simply is what is.
But I'm not posting this thread to attack the scientism crowd.
The reason I think this is an important observation is because I suspect this kind of conceptual 'blind spot' exists within a lot of the reality/truth paradigms that we humans hold onto. Not the least of which would include a lot of theological paradigms. (Not to mention our economic and political paradigms.) Which is important to consider. Are the various truth paradigms that we hold to really as true as we think they are? Or are they just one of these self-blinding biases that we get ourselves trapped in, because we can't see past them?
And I guess the tangential question would be, do we even care? Or are we willing to just sweep the whole question under the rug so we don't have to face the difficult internal struggle involved in correcting and changing our truth paradigm?
I'm not sure what the problem is, nor who is guilty of this definition:
sci·en·tism
/ˈsīənˌtizəm/
noun
RARE
- thought or expression regarded as characteristic of scientists.
- excessive belief in the power of scientific knowledge and techniques.
Rare, that's funny. I never hear this word except theists having a problem with science being used to dispute religious claims.
It is bad that a person writes with the characteristic of a scientist? No.
Is it bad to have excessive belief in the power of scientific knowledge and techniques? I don;t know, I'm not even sure what this would look like. My thought would be someone claiming that science will cure all diseases, or will solve all our problems, or has all the answers. But I don;t see anyone claiming any such thing on this site.
What biases are you seeing in those you accuse of being the scientism crowd? Let's note there is no bias in NOT being a theist.