What are some examples of scientism?

[MikeF]

I am talking about Scientism and not just the practice of science.

Regarding your second point, I would say that they are equivalent specifically in the way I mentioned.

I am questioning whether evolutionary psychology should be considered scientism as you suggest. If there is something there upon which to hypothesize, test, and develop theory about, that is science. If those studying in this field do this badly, draw conclusion unsupported by data, they are still doing science, and the process of science will expose errors in time. This is how the process works.

To the second point, I do not think anyone who understands the scientific process would hold out scientific theory as uncontestably true in the same manner in which religious beliefs are held to be uncontestably true. Science welcomes challenge, religion not so much, in my opinion.

 

[MikeF]

You are confusing science with scientism. This happens because as the man in the video stated in the first several seconds, if you can't see the difference, it's because you have fallen under the spell of 'scientism'.

Apparently so, so I'm learning to embrace the label.

Science is a process we use to try and understand the mechanics of the physical realm of existence. And yes, this leads to our gain in terms of physical functionality. We can use this knowledge to manipulate the world around us, and manipulate ourselves in relation to it, to our own advantage. And this gives we humans an increase in control over our own destiny.

This is the box in which you wish to enclose science and scientific investigation into so as to erect a shield or barrier between science and the beliefs and concepts you see as vulnerable to it.

Science or the endeavor of science is simply about acknowledging the imperfection and fallibility of we human beings and taking active steps to mitigate that fallibility when asking questions and seeking answers to those questions. The subject doesn't matter because in all cases there is a human being involved, if only as the one asking questions.

Scientism holds to the idea that this increase in control over the mechanisms of the physical realm, and the increased functionality that results, are the sole goal of human knowledge. And that the processes of science are therefor the sole reliable means of humans obtaining knowledge. It is an idea that is intrinsically devoted to philosophical materialism, and to the exclusion of any and all other existential philosophical paradigms.

Well, now if that is what scientism is, then I am certainly not a scientismist. I do not hold that the sole goal of science is the control over the physical realm, nor is it a primary goal. The goal of science is to mitigate human error in answering questions. People ask questions and seek answers for a wide variety of reasons, and those that wish to mitigate human error in the investigative process adhere to the principles and standards of science. If other existential philosophical paradigms you reference acknowledge the imperfection and fallibility of those engaged in those paradigms and actively work to mitigate that fallibility in their endeavors, then they are taking a scientific approach. They are engaged in science. If not, then they are vulnerable to all the ways we human beings can go astray and their work product will most likely reflect that.

And it mimics theism in it's desire to gain mastery over fate by gaining mastery over that which controls the otherwise uncontrollable circumstances effecting our lives.
But scientism does not accept that things are ever "out of one's control". Only that one has not yet attained the necessary knowledge to effectively control the circumstances. Both scientism and theism are based on the idea that one can gain control over the controller (either gods or physics) and thus gain mastery over their own fate. And it's this determined desire for mastery over one's own fate that drives them as an ideology. And it's why they both exhibit a 'religious fervor' akin to zealotry.

All I can say here is that if no one tries to gain control over circumstances that are presently out of ones control, then they will always remain out of ones control. If infections were considered out of ones control and no one made an effort to understand and solve the problem of infections, many who have been saved with that knowledge would not have been.

The main difference I see between theism and your use of scientism here is that the theistic approach would never understand and solve problems of infection whilst the 'scientism' approach has. How fervent one is speaks to an individuals personality, not the method or the approach to solve a problem. At least the 'scientimist' will get results for all their fervent efforts.

 

[cladking]

Whatever is hypothesized or theorized is open to continual revaluation.

No!!

Among scientismists nothing is open to reevaluation until Peers say so. Data, logic, experiment, common sense, and observation mean nothing to those with their minds made up and, most unfortunately, this includes a great many Peers.

Does the same hold true for the creation story? If you're honest, you will agree they are in no way equivalent.

Lol.

I'm the guy who thinks there's more reality in ancient writing than in most science text books (now days).

We simply don't know how to interpret most ancient writing.

 

[Samael_Khan]

I am questioning whether evolutionary psychology should be considered scientism as you suggest. If there is something there upon which to hypothesize, test, and develop theory about, that is science. If those studying in this field do this badly, draw conclusion unsupported by data, they are still doing science, and the process of science will expose errors in time. This is how the process works.

To the second point, I do not think anyone who understands the scientific process would hold out scientific theory as uncontestably true in the same manner in which religious beliefs are held to be uncontestably true. Science welcomes challenge, religion not so much, in my opinion.

I think that Scientism is more an attitude rather than a certain exploration of research and phenomena. So, evolutionary psychology in itself is a cool concept to hypothesize about. But the way many people use it is the problem, and these are mostly not scientists themselves who know the limit of their research, but many anti-religious people.

I think there are people who use scientific findings, who aren't involved in the scientific process, who are so dogmatically anti religion that their behaviour towards these views are borderline religious. IMO your opinion on Science welcoming challenge and religion not so much is true to an extent, but it largely only applies to the Abrahamic religions. Many other religions would just absorb discoveries into their worldview.

 

[Samael_Khan]

Lol.

I'm the guy who thinks there's more reality in ancient writing than in most science text books (now days).

We simply don't know how to interpret most ancient writing.

This piqued my curiosity. Please elaborate.

 

[cladking]

This piqued my curiosity. Please elaborate.

I could provide numerous examples. My favorite is Egyptologists who wax poetic in finding so many different ways to say "they mustta used ramps". Every single argument made by them boils down to the contention either that ramps were the only available "technology" or that they otherwise mustta used ramps. These are Peers but they don't even perform basic measurements and testing on the pyramids and brag about studying pyramids with their backs turned to them.

Meanwhile here's an excellent description of pyramid building that doesn't register on brains formatted like those of "homo omnisciencis";

0) When I entered into the cave, I received the tablet zaradi, which was inscribed, from between the hands of Hermes, in which I discovered these words:

1) True, without falsehood, certain, most certain.

2) What is above is like what is below, and what is below is like that which is above. To make the miracle of the one thing.

3) And as all things were made from contemplation of one, so all things were born from one adaptation.

4) Its father is the Sun, its mother is the Moon.

5) The wind carried it in its womb, the earth breast fed it.

6) It is the father of all 'works of wonder' (Telesmi) in the world.

6a) Its power is complete (integra).

7) If cast to (turned towards- versa fuerit) earth,

7a) it will separate earth from fire, the subtile from the gross.

8) With great capacity it ascends from earth to heaven. Again it descends to earth, and takes back the power of the above and the below.

9) Thus you will receive the glory of the distinctiveness of the world. All obscurity will flee from you.

10) This is the whole most strong strength of all strength, for it overcomes all subtle things, and penetrates all solid things.

11a) Thus was the world created. 12) From this comes marvelous adaptions of which this is the proceedure. 13) Therefore I am called Hermes, because I have three parts of the wisdom of the whole world. 14) And complete is what I had to say about the work of the Sun, from the book of Galieni Alfachimi. [From Latin in Steele and Singer 1928: 492. ]

The Book of THOTH - The Emerald Tablet of Hermes

This is a detailed account of pyramid building and "all" things megalithic. It was first published by the first man in the Great Pyramid and was likely found there. Even Sir Isaac Newton translated this work as part of his study on gravitational theory but he did not have the breadth of knowledge to understand it. Because it is based in science it must be solved with science which in the real world means it requires a computer and tens thousands of searches*. Essentially it simply says that water works in linear funiculars to lift heavy weights; after ordering the lights above it takes back the power of the above and below.

There are many such examples where the ancient sources have it exactly right and modern texts have a version of Look and See Science; science not based on experiment but the opinion of peers. I've mentioned elsewhere that ancient people did understand things like the nature of germs and the cause of evolution. Using nothing but their understanding of "evolution" they invented agriculture which is the only thing that allowed our species to survive after the extinction of homo sapiens.




* The search engines are such a mess it probably couldn't be done today but there was a window of opportunity in 2006 - 2010.

 

[cladking]

Please elaborate.

Here is, perhaps a better example, and the most prime example of "scientism" I know:

The only writing that exists from the great pyramid building age states literally and repeatedly that the pyramids are not tombs.

Despite the fact that there is no direct evidence that any great pyramid was a t0mb every single textbook calls them "tombs". All "evidence" to support the tomb "theory" is interpretative and/ or circumstantial.

That ancient writing was often correct permeates history and even pre-history. Modern writing is rarely really correct because it is digested knowledge spit out to feed the masses. Any attempt at synopsizing experiment or theory will always result in the product having inaccuracies. We tend to gloss over paradigms as being revealed truth when they actually have no bearing on experiment or its proper interpretation.

 

[Samael_Khan]

Here is, perhaps a better example, and the most prime example of "scientism" I know:

The only writing that exists from the great pyramid building age states literally and repeatedly that the pyramids are not tombs.

Despite the fact that there is no direct evidence that any great pyramid was a t0mb every single textbook calls them "tombs". All "evidence" to support the tomb "theory" is interpretative and/ or circumstantial.

That ancient writing was often correct permeates history and even pre-history. Modern writing is rarely really correct because it is digested knowledge spit out to feed the masses. Any attempt at synopsizing experiment or theory will always result in the product having inaccuracies. We tend to gloss over paradigms as being revealed truth when they actually have no bearing on experiment or its proper interpretation.

Popular history and science, and what in textbooks tends to suggest that there are consensus regarding certain topics when in fact many people involved directly with these professions tend to show that there are various possible conclusions and that what we see in the textbooks and popular media is just simplifying the issue for the layman.

The modern man, out of ignorance, is very derogatory towards the ancient world. We make judgements about them even though we only see the tip of the iceberg.

I am not so clued up on what the Egyptians say the Pyramids were for. Will check it out sometime.

 

[Samael_Khan]

I could provide numerous examples. My favorite is Egyptologists who wax poetic in finding so many different ways to say "they mustta used ramps". Every single argument made by them boils down to the contention either that ramps were the only available "technology" or that they otherwise mustta used ramps. These are Peers but they don't even perform basic measurements and testing on the pyramids and brag about studying pyramids with their backs turned to them.

Meanwhile here's an excellent description of pyramid building that doesn't register on brains formatted like those of "homo omnisciencis";

0) When I entered into the cave, I received the tablet zaradi, which was inscribed, from between the hands of Hermes, in which I discovered these words:

1) True, without falsehood, certain, most certain.

2) What is above is like what is below, and what is below is like that which is above. To make the miracle of the one thing.

3) And as all things were made from contemplation of one, so all things were born from one adaptation.

4) Its father is the Sun, its mother is the Moon.

5) The wind carried it in its womb, the earth breast fed it.

6) It is the father of all 'works of wonder' (Telesmi) in the world.

6a) Its power is complete (integra).

7) If cast to (turned towards- versa fuerit) earth,

7a) it will separate earth from fire, the subtile from the gross.

8) With great capacity it ascends from earth to heaven. Again it descends to earth, and takes back the power of the above and the below.

9) Thus you will receive the glory of the distinctiveness of the world. All obscurity will flee from you.

10) This is the whole most strong strength of all strength, for it overcomes all subtle things, and penetrates all solid things.

11a) Thus was the world created. 12) From this comes marvelous adaptions of which this is the proceedure. 13) Therefore I am called Hermes, because I have three parts of the wisdom of the whole world. 14) And complete is what I had to say about the work of the Sun, from the book of Galieni Alfachimi. [From Latin in Steele and Singer 1928: 492. ]

The Book of THOTH - The Emerald Tablet of Hermes

This is a detailed account of pyramid building and "all" things megalithic. It was first published by the first man in the Great Pyramid and was likely found there. Even Sir Isaac Newton translated this work as part of his study on gravitational theory but he did not have the breadth of knowledge to understand it. Because it is based in science it must be solved with science which in the real world means it requires a computer and tens thousands of searches*. Essentially it simply says that water works in linear funiculars to lift heavy weights; after ordering the lights above it takes back the power of the above and below.

There are many such examples where the ancient sources have it exactly right and modern texts have a version of Look and See Science; science not based on experiment but the opinion of peers. I've mentioned elsewhere that ancient people did understand things like the nature of germs and the cause of evolution. Using nothing but their understanding of "evolution" they invented agriculture which is the only thing that allowed our species to survive after the extinction of homo sapiens.




* The search engines are such a mess it probably couldn't be done today but there was a window of opportunity in 2006 - 2010.

So I must still get to the book of Thoth. I have just finished reading my copy of the Egyptian Book of the Dead written by the scribe Ani. Very fascinating book. I must read it again to decipher the symbolism better.

I am much of the ancient view that the ancient world was way more advanced than what the layman gives them credit for and that they knew information that we have lost. I don't see how the extract that you rewrote describes the building of the pyramids or even addresses the pyramids at all, but I certainly don't think that we know how they built them.

My opinion is that many modern people flippantly ascribe primitive solutions to the building of these megaliths and other things to sooth their own materialistic and scientism agenda. Rather, in cases like these, they should just say that they don't know and only state possible solutions without excluding others that don't suit their narrative.

The ancients were highly intelligent and accomplished amazing feats. Inca architecture alone is a great example of this.

We certainly struggle to interpret ancient worldview because they are foreign to us. Even at present day, the western world with our western worldview struggle to comprehend the worldview of nonwestern countries. The upper classes struggle to understand the worldview of the working class. It is because we lack empathy, patience and humility I think.

 

[cladking]

Popular history and science, and what in textbooks tends to suggest that there are consensus regarding certain topics when in fact many people involved directly with these professions tend to show that there are various possible conclusions and that what we see in the textbooks and popular media is just simplifying the issue for the layman.

Exactly.

"Scientism" is a misunderstanding that there is such a thing as "settled science". Science can only be settled in terms of the prevailing paradigm.

The modern man, out of ignorance, is very derogatory towards the ancient world. We make judgements about them even though we only see the tip of the iceberg.

Exactly.

I had always just assumed ancient people were stinky footed bumpkins because this is what Egyptologists et al tell us. You can't imagine my surprise when a more careful reading of ancient literature suggests it is we who are the stinky footed bumpkins and ignorant savages. I had always believed ancient writing, like the Bible and myths, sometimes had the ring of truth because humans are so perceptive and were bound to record things that resonated with reality whether they knew anything or not.

I was very very wrong. "All" ancient sources are exactly accurate but most are distorted a little bit by being translated into language we can understand. The problem is the nature of our language rather than the original source. Our brains are formatted differently so we think differently and communicate differently. Language is like an operating system for our brains but the original sources were written in a language hard wired into their brains.

 

[cladking]

I am not so clued up on what the Egyptians say the Pyramids were for. Will check it out sometime.

This isn't really off topic but I intend to try to limit my posts as much as possible.

The Pyramid Texts repeatedly says the pyramid is not a tomb and is the dead king. By this they meant that the pyramid served to remind people of the dead king. The pyramid was a mnemonic in our language. It had sundry other functions as well but were generally much less important. People need to remember these were very easy to build with linear funiculars so they didn't need infrastructural or religious reason to construct them. There was no religion. There were minor infrastructural reasons but even in aggregate they might not have sufficed to do the little work of construction.

The Pyramid Texts Index (sacred-texts.com)

Use this string site:sacred-texts.com utterance companions voyage - Google Search (site:sacred-texts.com utterance) with words like grave, tomb, etc to see what they really said.

I have just finished reading my copy of the Egyptian Book of the Dead written by the scribe Ani. Very fascinating book. I must read it again to decipher the symbolism better.

The 'book of the dead" was the template Egyptologists used to translate the PT. This failed because formatting language changed when the species changed. The vocabulary stayed the same but the way to "read" it changed.

My opinion is that many modern people flippantly ascribe primitive solutions to the building of these megaliths and other things to sooth their own materialistic and scientism agenda.

Exactly.

People want to believe we are the crown of creation but none of us even understands the nature of his own consciousness and we have devolved since ancient times.

Inca architecture alone is a great example of this.

This can be seen all over the world but what can't be seen is that all of these sites are associated with water.

We certainly struggle to interpret ancient worldview because they are foreign to us.

Just like people raise their voice speaking English to a Frenchmen, we think that if we strive hard enough to put a foreign culture into our own perspective it will be clear. But we must change our position and assumptions to see a different perspective and most people have no clue how to do this. They receive the Laws of Nature from on High and can't think of a good reason to understand ancient Egyptians anyway. Who cares what a bunch of tomb dragging, ramp using, ignorant savages thought anyway?

We have been done a great disservice by scientismists who have even resorted to suppressing data that don't agree with their assumptions.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I have seen some bizarre forms of what I would call pseudoscientism where people make up their own science and preach it as if it were some sort of truth.

 

[Ella S.]

You know the concept of a gate or as related a door. It can be open or closed. But you can't observe that, because open and closed are concepts in your mind. They are in the jargon abstracts, because they have no observable property.

I assure you that I can observe whether particular gates are open or closed.

I think you're misapplying post-modern methodology here. This approach works for the humanities, which deal in genuine abstractions, but not in science because science merely uses abstractions instrumentally to describe real things.

 

[cladking]

I have seen some bizarre forms of what I would call pseudoscientism where people make up their own science and preach it as if it were some sort of truth.

I don't know how to account for the reluctance of people and Peers to view evidence and consider arguments.

I don't believe I've "made up my own science" at all. I believe I've rediscovered ancient science which was based on Observation > Logic instead of Observation > Experiment. It worked because the operation of their brain was as logical as mathematics and reality itself. Our language has no logic so we must resort to experiment to exclude opinion and belief.

Part of scientism is the inability to consider the meaning of experiment if the axioms, assumptions, and definitions were different. The same talents that lead to the ability of formulating hypotheses are used to consider new paradigms. In practical science these abilities lead to success in reverse engineering. Obviously many of the Peers in soft sciences have no such ability. Our past and our fundamental beliefs are sacrosanct because real scientists don't even know how to study such things.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I assure you that I can observe whether particular gates are open or closed.

I think you're misapplying post-modern methodology here. This approach works for the humanities, which deal in genuine abstractions, but not in science because science merely uses abstractions instrumentally to describe real things.

Yeah, I know. Let me explain it.

We start with this as the earliest noted example of post-modern methodology. It is one of the early Greeks, named Progatoras:
"Man is the measure of all things: of the things that are, that they are, of the things that are not, that they are not."

So in that old tradition between your naturalism and my skepticism neither of us are post-modern.
As for what science is, that is with observation and understanding cultural and I have another cultural understanding of what science is.

So we are going to disagree, unless you can show that I am in effect wrong in a nonmoral sense.

 

[Ella S.]

Yeah, I know. Let me explain it.

We start with this as the earliest noted example of post-modern methodology. It is one of the early Greeks, named Progatoras:
"Man is the measure of all things: of the things that are, that they are, of the things that are not, that they are not."

So in that old tradition between your naturalism and my skepticism neither of us are post-modern.
As for what science is, that is with observation and understanding cultural and I have another cultural understanding of what science is.

So we are going to disagree, unless you can show that I am in effect wrong in a nonmoral sense.

I'm not sure any disagreement is epistemically meaningful if it cannot be resolved with an experiment. If you view our disagreement as merely the consequence of using different cultural lenses, then I'm not about to argue with you.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I'm not sure any disagreement is epistemically meaningful if it cannot be resolved with an experiment. If you view our disagreement as merely the consequence of using different cultural lenses, then I'm not about to argue with you.

Well, I know of at least 5 different methods for tests for the everyday world, for which yours is just one. But I know this. There is no reason to do this because how you do it works for you and how I do it works for me. That is the sibling of instrumentalism, the pragmatic approach.

 

[Ella S.]

Well, I know of at least 5 different methods for tests for the everyday world, for which yours is just one. But I know this. There is no reason to do this because how you do it works for you and how I do it works for me. That is the sibling of instrumentalism, the pragmatic approach.

I agree and I apologize for my destructive attitude towards you in the past on this subject. I can see the utility in having a diversity of perspectives, of which mine is only one. I will continue to represent mine to the best of my abilities, but in the future I will try to be more tolerant of differences in approach.

A particular quote from Epictetus comes to mind: "Neither does a smith provide [our community] with shoes, nor a shoemaker with arms. It is enough if everyone fully performs his own proper business. And were you to supply it with another faithful and honorable citizen, would not he be of use to it?"

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I agree and I apologize for my destructive attitude towards you in the past on this subject. I can see the utility in having a diversity of perspectives, of which mine is only one. I will continue to represent mine to the best of my abilities, but in the future I will try to be more tolerant of differences in approach.

A particular quote from Epictetus comes to mind: "Neither does a smith provide [our community] with shoes, nor a shoemaker with arms. It is enough if everyone fully performs his own proper business. And were you to supply it with another faithful and honorable citizen, would not he be of use to it?"

Well, as a former professional soldier I was conditioned the following way: Any sufficiently complex plan Will break down when it meets the enemy, for which if I am lucky to survive, then I reass, adjust and act.
Part of that is to be honest about doing *UBAR. In the everyday life that also applies as far as I can tell for when we test what works and how it works. I.e. any negative in a result of a test can either be explained away as irrelevant or accepted as if relevant as a limit to human cognition. I.e. if I don't know(a limit), I try to be honest and state that.

 

[Samael_Khan]

Exactly.

"Scientism" is a misunderstanding that there is such a thing as "settled science". Science can only be settled in terms of the prevailing paradigm.



Exactly.

I had always just assumed ancient people were stinky footed bumpkins because this is what Egyptologists et al tell us. You can't imagine my surprise when a more careful reading of ancient literature suggests it is we who are the stinky footed bumpkins and ignorant savages. I had always believed ancient writing, like the Bible and myths, sometimes had the ring of truth because humans are so perceptive and were bound to record things that resonated with reality whether they knew anything or not.

I was very very wrong. "All" ancient sources are exactly accurate but most are distorted a little bit by being translated into language we can understand. The problem is the nature of our language rather than the original source. Our brains are formatted differently so we think differently and communicate differently. Language is like an operating system for our brains but the original sources were written in a language hard wired into their brains.

I myself tend to that our civilisation has degraded compared to certain civilisations of the past. not in terms of technology, but in terms of wisdom. They were also less materialistic. Thes days we overcomplicate the most basic of matters, questioning tried and tested systems and old notions. But I think that in many cases, those systems and notions were in place because certain knowledge is simple and not complicated and leads to a better functioning society and personal well being.