Scientism

[Walker]

Fundamentally, the religious and scientific ways of doing things are different. Religion is basically the science of antiquity, operating from a position of assumed knowledge with an associated quest to understand why this assumed situation is as they believe it to me (or, very often, try to believe because the myths stretch credulity to breaking point). Science, by contrast, operates from a position of emerging, rather than assumed, knowledge.

The antiquity of 1859 ain’t much of a fundamental contrast.

[Walker]

The beauty of being a science fan rather than a theist is the ability to cheerfully admit that you don't know things without feeling that you'll be excluded, damned or scorned. In scientific circles, exclusion and scorn are more likely to come to those erroneously claiming to know things. While it's true that some science fans take a quasi-religious approach to it, they are the secular LCD, equivalent to the religious LCD of literalists and creationists. It would be wrong, both analytically and morally, to judge either approach to life by its least able members.

Have you considered that contrived derogatory contrasts smudge the view from both sides of the rose-colored glasses?

“If someone’s got a lot of money at stake, a lot of research money, the words ‘I don’t have a clue,’ are guaranteed to end his or her research funding. If someone is relatively free to say exactly what they feel like saying, yeah there are people who say we really don’t know, we are really in the dark about this. So, a lot of it depends on the institutional constraints of science itself.”

Berlinski 25:00
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S89IskZI740

[Walker]

Not so long ago in human history some disorders and bacterial and viral infections were widely considered to be caused by possession.

Meet the parasites that control human brains.
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/crux/ ... n-control/

[A_Seagull]

Non-scientism is a belief in magic!

Scientism is not so much the belief that 'science will explain everything' as the belief that science can explain some things or perhaps most things or perhaps everything that is explicable.

Well, you are free to define scientism as you wish, but as I said, I think it's like theism and atheism. There are hard atheists who believe they can rule out god, and there are soft atheists who simply don't believe in god. Similarly there are people who believe they can eliminate supernatural causes for everything and some who simply don't believe that there are supernatural causes. If you are claiming a soft version of scientism, then fair enough, I can subscribe to that, but I don't take the hard scientism view that supernatural causes are impossible. Most scientists accept that eliminating potential explanations a priori is not how science is done.

Well how do you define 'supernatural'?

People used to think that lightning was supernatural and invented gods to 'explain' it. But that was not a real explanation.

There are certainly many things that are not known and that appear to defy explanation in that they cannot be explained in terms of things that are known. But to claim that they are 'supernatural' and can only be explained in terms of anthropomorphic gods is naïve and childish and does not constitute any form of sensible explanation.

[henry quirk]

"Science can explain comfort. It just can’t measure nor describe your kid’s specific experience."

I disagree.

Science can describe and explain mechanisms, pieces and parts, but it cannot describe or explain comfort cuz comfort is what happens to the comforted, it's an internal, subjective experience only accessible 'through' the comforted (that is: you gotta ask him how he feels, you can measure brain states, sure, but to 'know' you have to ask him),

[henry quirk]

"Non-scientism, I suppose, is simply the lack of belief that science will ultimately explain everything."

That's an aspect, yeah. More though, 'non-scientism' is seein' science as the marvelous tool it is, instead of the 'world view' (*religion) some treat it as.









*in context: Emile Durkheim defined religion as "a unified system of beliefs and practices relative to sacred things, that is to say things set apart and forbidden - beliefs and practises which unite into one single moral community called a church, all those who adhere to them."

...and...

Max Lynn Stackhouse, defined religion as "a comprehensive worldview or 'metaphysical moral vision' that is accepted as binding because it is held to be in in itself basically true and just, even if all dimensions of it cannot be either fully confirmed or refuted."

[henry quirk]

"There is also an element of rhetorical gaming in the claims about science being a religion"

You're right, but that's not what's happening here.

My beef ain't with science and scientists.

[henry quirk]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism

https://www.thenewatlantis.com/publicat ... -scientism

[uwot]

Well how do you define 'supernatural'?

Good question. Dunno really. I'm not sure it means anything, to be honest. What would it mean for something to exist, but be beyond nature? I think in terms of any god type hypothesis, it means not subject to any laws that we could discover, and not something we could exercise any control over. More superscientific than supernatural.

People used to think that lightning was supernatural and invented gods to 'explain' it. But that was not a real explanation.

People still think that all sorts of things they can't explain are caused by gods, but since the time of Thales at least (roughly 600BC) there have been people trying to understand the world without any references to gods.

There are certainly many things that are not known and that appear to defy explanation in that they cannot be explained in terms of things that are known.

Yes, like why do people so consistently read what they wish, rather than what is written?

But to claim that they are 'supernatural' and can only be explained in terms of anthropomorphic gods is naïve and childish and does not constitute any form of sensible explanation.

Well, if I ever do such a thing, I'm sure you will let me know.

[uwot]

"Non-scientism, I suppose, is simply the lack of belief that science will ultimately explain everything."

That's an aspect, yeah. More though, 'non-scientism' is seein' science as the marvelous tool it is, instead of the 'world view' (*religion) some treat it as.

*in context: Emile Durkheim defined religion as "a unified system of beliefs and practices relative to sacred things, that is to say things set apart and forbidden - beliefs and practises which unite into one single moral community called a church, all those who adhere to them."

...and...

Max Lynn Stackhouse, defined religion as "a comprehensive worldview or 'metaphysical moral vision' that is accepted as binding because it is held to be in in itself basically true and just, even if all dimensions of it cannot be either fully confirmed or refuted."

Point taken.

[Dubious]

Science is simply a discipline that without reference to gods or the supernatural - because it explains nothing - keeps plodding along to see what we can see until we behold limits we can't surpass...meaning ONLY there are no explanations available. Science doesn't get any more simple or mystical than that.

[Greta]

Well how do you define 'supernatural'?

Good question. Dunno really. I'm not sure it means anything, to be honest. What would it mean for something to exist, but be beyond nature? I think in terms of any god type hypothesis, it means not subject to any laws that we could discover, and not something we could exercise any control over. More superscientific than supernatural.

I would say "supernatural" is a placeholder for nature that is not understood. At present the largest gap in which "extra nature" can be added are other dimensions. Other dimensions would seem to be possible given the strong variation of opinion in scientific communities.

If other dimensions are real then perhaps unexpected leakage between various dimensions would seem a likely cause of alleged supernature reported by the ostensibly sound of mind.

[Greta]

Not so long ago in human history some disorders and bacterial and viral infections were widely considered to be caused by possession.

Meet the parasites that control human brains.
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/crux/ ... n-control/

Do you assess the virus to be a possessing demon or problematic spirit?

[Walker]

Not so long ago in human history some disorders and bacterial and viral infections were widely considered to be caused by possession.

Meet the parasites that control human brains.
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/crux/ ... n-control/

Do you assess the virus to be a possessing demon or problematic spirit?

Two possibilities:

The invasion of the parasite alters the host.
The invasion of the parasite creates a third entity from itself and the host.

The most important question pertaining to either possibility, is:

Because the parasite appropriates the host’s interpretation of reality and influences the host’s behavior by appropriating the host’s choices:

Can the host shed the parasite’s influence upon behavior, and can the host know when the parasite is influencing behavior and somehow resist, or nullify that influence and thus experience uncorrupted awareness?

Just look at what Toxoplasma gondii (from the link) can do to behavior, and in how many hosts it is lurking, capable of activating years down the road.

Science is humble enough to admit that it probably hasn’t identified all the parasites that so affect behavior.

All this sounds like rational medical grounds to vivisect the fellow in Colorado who recently murdered his family.

His sacrifice will allow scientists to isolate the currently unknown parasite that either altered him, or joined with him to become a third entity that does evil to the host, thus helping to spare future humanity suffering caused by parasitic foreign installations.

And if the parasite isn’t found, then some measure of evil via vivisection will be done upon the host by the state as punishment, because as host one must take the bad with the good, whether or not one is a good host.

(Did he really say that? Somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but what to do with such creatures.)

The secondary question is, is societal conditioning a foreign installation?

[commonsense]

Well how do you define 'supernatural'?

Good question. Dunno really. I'm not sure it means anything, to be honest. What would it mean for something to exist, but be beyond nature? I think in terms of any god type hypothesis, it means not subject to any laws that we could discover, and not something we could exercise any control over. More superscientific than supernatural.

I would say "supernatural" is a placeholder for nature that is not understood. At present the largest gap in which "extra nature" can be added are other dimensions. Other dimensions would seem to be possible given the strong variation of opinion in scientific communities.
If other dimensions are real then perhaps unexpected leakage between various dimensions would seem a likely cause of alleged supernature reported by the ostensibly sound of mind.

Good points, all. Not to detract from the philosophic merits of these posts, but a highly rated and popular television series was themed on these very questions and replies. Uncanny.

youtube 3min 25 sec (skip the ad)
https://youtu.be/29bSzbqZ3xE?t=28