Who here believes in "Scientism"?

[cladking]

So, how do you go about answering the important questions?

You can't and no one ever will. However wisdom incorporating reason and logic will improve anyone's chances of guessing correctly.

I, personally, try to sleep on such questions but to each his own.

Anyone can use any kind of knowledge system to address such questions but we all roll the dice and take our chances. This is the nature of life. It comes naturally to every other species but we must consciously consider them.

 

[Nakosis]

You can't and no one ever will. However wisdom incorporating reason and logic will improve anyone's chances of guessing correctly.

I, personally, try to sleep on such questions but to each his own.

Anyone can use any kind of knowledge system to address such questions but we all roll the dice and take our chances. This is the nature of life. It comes naturally to every other species but we must consciously consider them.

So, science is unable to answer questions for which there is no answer?

 

[cladking]

So, science is unable to answer questions for which there is no answer?

Yes! Exactly.

But ultimately virtually every question has no answer at the current time. We don't even know what causes gravity but we still have a theory. We can't answer most fundamental questions and all answers provided by experiment is subject to the assumptions, definitions, and axioms with which the experiment is performed. Despite knowing so very very little most people think we know almost everything because of technology and expert opinion. Technology doesn't represent total knowledge nor complete understanding. Expert opinion is still just opinion. In some fields expert opinion flies in the face of observation, logic , and all empirical evidence. Even in the hard sciences expert opinion transcends experiment and often is poorly seen in terms of definitions and axioms.

Science and every paradigm is rewritten regularly. People seem not to notice and believe every new discovery is the last piece of the puzzle. We've known everything for countless centuries without seeing the constant editing that we employ on reality.

 

[cladking]

In some fields expert opinion flies in the face of observation, logic , and all empirical evidence.

We think we are "intelligent" and our leaders and scientists are the most "intelligent". In reality most scientists are just slightly less ignorant and the language we use in science is the real basis of progress rather than "intelligence" that doesn't even exist. We are each more like blithering idiots than the geniuses most of us mistake ourselves to be. We see what we believe so everything we see in interpreted in such terms. This isn't knowledge it is prejudice. What we believe we see isn't real or is real only from a single perspective.

 

[Nakosis]

Yes! Exactly.

But ultimately virtually every question has no answer at the current time. We don't even know what causes gravity but we still have a theory. We can't answer most fundamental questions and all answers provided by experiment is subject to the assumptions, definitions, and axioms with which the experiment is performed. Despite knowing so very very little most people think we know almost everything because of technology and expert opinion. Technology doesn't represent total knowledge nor complete understanding. Expert opinion is still just opinion. In some fields expert opinion flies in the face of observation, logic , and all empirical evidence. Even in the hard sciences expert opinion transcends experiment and often is poorly seen in terms of definitions and axioms.

Science and every paradigm is rewritten regularly. People seem not to notice and believe every new discovery is the last piece of the puzzle. We've known everything for countless centuries without seeing the constant editing that we employ on reality.

As long as the answers are correct enough to keep people satisfied.
That's all I ask.

 

[cladking]

As long as the answers are correct enough to keep people satisfied.
That's all I ask.

The people are satisfied with wrong answers for myriad reasons ranging from the simple fact that we see what we expect and expect right answers to there often being no way to check the answers. Marrying the wrong person can result in a life of misery but there's no means of knowing what would have happened otherwise. The economy is exceedingly poorly efficient because of bad decisions and "wrong" knowledge but those who compete only have to beat out another company making bad decisions. We can go to our graves with stupid ideas about what is science and nature according to our version of science and will never change even after the science has changed which is exactly why science changes one funeral at a time.

The Spanish Inquisition had many answers that were correct enough for everyone but witches, adulterers, and heretics. Today we don't burn them at the stake we simply ignore them, cancel them, or isolate them while adopting all the worst of their behaviors for Hollywood, Madison Avenue, and the quisling media.

"Correct enough" isn't working and never did.

 

[Nakosis]

The people are satisfied with wrong answers for myriad reasons ranging from the simple fact that we see what we expect and expect right answers to there often being no way to check the answers. Marrying the wrong person can result in a life of misery but there's no means of knowing what would have happened otherwise. The economy is exceedingly poorly efficient because of bad decisions and "wrong" knowledge but those who compete only have to beat out another company making bad decisions. We can go to our graves with stupid ideas about what is science and nature according to our version of science and will never change even after the science has changed which is exactly why science changes one funeral at a time.

The Spanish Inquisition had many answers that were correct enough for everyone but witches, adulterers, and heretics. Today we don't burn them at the stake we simply ignore them, cancel them, or isolate them while adopting all the worst of their behaviors for Hollywood, Madison Avenue, and the quisling media.

"Correct enough" isn't working and never did.

Like it or not, it makes the world go round. Not a matter of what I'd choose, it is simply a matter of observation.

Doing something is better than doing nothing. Even if it is the wrong thing to do. You can't make any progress by doing nothing.

 

[cladking]

Like it or not, it makes the world go round. Not a matter of what I'd choose, it is simply a matter of observation.

Doing something is better than doing nothing. Even if it is the wrong thing to do. You can't make any progress by doing nothing.

Perhaps this is a fundamental difference between me and most other people and might be why I changed to mostly intuitive thinking in the first place: I'd far rather do nothing at all than do the wrong thing or do anything for the wrong reasons. I made the first decision very very young and the second as an adolescent. The world is teetering on a precipice made by scientism which accepts hypothesis for experiment and guesses for theory and then fails to test any assumption or examine definitions and axioms. A few buy the science and then forces opinion on the population no matter what the population wants.

Scientism has been politicized and science itself is in a stranglehold by monied interests.

 

[Nakosis]

Perhaps this is a fundamental difference between me and most other people and might be why I changed to mostly intuitive thinking in the first place: I'd far rather do nothing at all than do the wrong thing or do anything for the wrong reasons. I made the first decision very very young and the second as an adolescent. The world is teetering on a precipice made by scientism which accepts hypothesis for experiment and guesses for theory and then fails to test any assumption or examine definitions and axioms. A few buy the science and then forces opinion on the population no matter what the population wants.

Scientism has been politicized and science itself is in a stranglehold by monied interests.

Intuition works better for some than others. There have been times my Intuition has been horrible wrong. I needed a scientific process to prove my Intuition was wrong. So I accept sometimes Intuition can work and bypass the trial and error of science. Sometimes though it can keep us heading down the wrong path. Especially for stubborn folks like me.

 

[cladking]

Intuition works better for some than others. There have been times my Intuition has been horrible wrong. I needed a scientific process to prove my Intuition was wrong. So I accept sometimes Intuition can work and bypass the trial and error of science. Sometimes though it can keep us heading down the wrong path. Especially for stubborn folks like me.

There is no means possible to make the right decisions. All we can do is strive to improve our chances of making proper decisions. I don't use intuition because it is in any way superior but rather because logic and science are insufficient for virtually every single question. If you need to know how deep a well is by dropping a stone into it then certainly there are simple equations you can use if you have a stop watch or can measure time but no logic can tell you whether to marry Sylvia or Nicole. In real life you aren't going to have a stop watch with you anyway when you need to know the depth of a well so intuition is superior for measuring time in most instances. In real life you can just estimate the depth and get a rope that is amply long.

"Intuition" can be a very weak means of understanding anything depending on the definition and application. I believe we must understand science and math and use them to think and create short cuts in our thinking to greatly improve our chances but even here one can be very very wrong about almost anything. The individual who uses science and math can equally be very very wrong about absolutely anything. The biggest difference sometimes is only the one using intuition and short cuts knows he might be wrong, and so many people who want to use only logic and knowledge do not understand that any math, any science, any perspective, and any knowledge can be misapplied. While the "laws" of physics are simple the way they interact can be very subtle and very unseen. It's easy for those who believe in science (scientismists) to forget that all of reality happens simultaneously and affects all the rest of reality. It's easy to forget that every experiment applies to all of reality and not just those we pick and choose one at a time.

Reality becomes impossibly complex but science and scientism both reduce reality to something it is not. We lose sight of definitions and axioms and forget all knowledge is models constructed of such basic principles and are different from one scientist to the next.

I'm not suggesting that "intuition" by any definition is superior or inferior to logic in any specific case. I am merely suggesting that reality and how it unfolds (prediction) are impossibly complex and ofttimes logic provides no answer at all or is sure to be wrong because of highly incomplete knowledge of the variables, processes, and interactions. We can overlook gross cycles driving events while exploring the minutia of equations. In some cases intuition is virtually the only possible means of even making a prediction based on logic and known science. It can be the only possible means of doing better than the throw of the dice.

Life is complex and I'd never encourage anyone to follow in my steps however I do encourage children to be careful of what they believe because they will become those beliefs. I encourage them to look at things from many angles and to be aware of their assumptions. I believe many of our modern problems result from bad assumptions.

The mere examination of assumptions will largely prevent scientism.

 

[chlotilde]

Here is an example of what looks to me like scientism - a video by Dawkins, designed with emotive music and dreamy shots to encourage a sense of mystery, awe and wonder, in an attempt to get science to push the buttons in the human psyche that religion is commonly thought to push.

This strikes me as the sort of overreach, whereby science is elevated to another job, beyond understanding of nature, that strays into scientism.

I often wonder if he does it on purpose, but I agree, I think Dawkins fits the bill...like in this discussion he had with Pinker on the meaning of "soul" Let's kill the ghost in the machine and replace it with, IDK, some qualia in the machine, see, how pretty and meaningful life is now. IS SCIENCE KILLING THE SOUL? | Edge.org

 

[exchemist]

I often wonder if he does it on purpose, but I agree, I think Dawkins fits the bill...like in this discussion he had with Pinker on the meaning of "soul" Let's kill the ghost in the machine and replace it with, IDK, some qualia in the machine, see, how pretty and meaningful life is now. IS SCIENCE KILLING THE SOUL? | Edge.org

Yes, a very one-sided "debate" between two New Atheists with others (Dennett) in support.

But this was back in 1999. I think a lot of the heat has gone out of those early (and crashingly naïve) attempts to replace religion with science. I suspect this may be because the threat to science teaching from "Intelligent Design" has faded, with the death of the lawyer who was behind that.

 

[Joe Hinman]

Within the last few months or so, it's been claimed that there are "many" here at RF who believe in and/or advocate for "scientism", i.e., the notion that science is the means to answer all questions, or at least is the means to answer all questions worth answering.

I've been a member here for quite some time, but I can't recall seeing anyone advocating such a view. So, to clear this up I'm starting this thread for all of you RF members who do. If you are an advocate for "scientism", please reply to this post with something like "Yes, I am an advocate for scientism as you have described it".

Also, let's keep this focused on the point of the thread, which means no debates about what is or isn't "scientism", whether gods exist, evolution/creationism, or anything else. The thread quite literally has a singular purpose and I'd like to keep it that way.

Scientism is more of an attitude than a belief. It's something people seei you mot that you choose to fight for.

 

[Hermit Philosopher]

Science is the best tool known to humans to learn about the physical world.
For anything unreal like ideals, morals, constructs, laws, stories, there are philosophy, jurisprudence, literary sciences, etc.

Your use of the word “unreal” there, suggests it may be in place to clarify that not all scientists share that purely materialist point of view and that not only “hard” science is recognised as real science.

Humbly,
Hermit

 

[chlotilde]

Yes, a very one-sided "debate" between two New Atheists with others (Dennett) in support.
.

If I had been Dennett and entered that convo, I'd say...just stop it guys, we all know it's just an illusion.

 

[Heyo]

Your use of the word “unreal” there, suggests it may be in place to clarify that not all scientists share that purely materialist point of view and that not only “hard” science is recognised as real science.

Humbly,
Hermit

Yes and no. Yes there are sciences which deal with e.g. constructs as sociology or economy does. No because they still do measurements and use the scientific method. And ultimately constructs are abstracts of clusters of real phenomena.

 

[Astrophile]

It's something people seei you mot that you choose to fight for.

Could you please re-write this sentence so that it conveys some meaning?

 

[Audie]

Scientism is more of an attitude than a belief. It's something people seei you mot that you choose to fight for.

One of us here sees
( hallucinates) it most everywhere.

 

[Audie]

Could you please re-write this sentence so that it conveys some meaning?

Come now a couple typos shouldnt throw ya for such a loop.

 

[Astrophile]

Come now a couple typos shouldnt throw ya for such a loop.

I would guess that it means 'It's something people see in you, not something that you choose to fight for.' Is that how you interpret it?