|
|
Post by shadowplay on Mar 25, 2022 2:33:53 GMT -5
I think science may have a value even there, in keeping us honest. I see people sometimes attacking science because they want to carve out a safe space for a comforting belief that conflicts with something from science. Probably better if one is forced to abandon the belief and look deeper. Yes. I see this happening more and more. There’s definitely a rise in magical thinking going on across many aspects of today’s society. For young people in particular this is fuelled by the rise of the Critical Social Justice movement and its brand of postmodern, extreme relativism. With it reason, evidence, the ability to think deeply, critically and appreciate subtlety and nuance seem to be slipping away in favour of ’my truth is as valid as yours - end of argument.’ Having said that, I agree that we need to be wary of scientism and its claim that the only valid truths are scientifically proven truths. For a start, that claim has not been scientifically proven. |
|
|
|
Post by zazeniac on Mar 25, 2022 12:39:16 GMT -5
I think science may have a value even there, in keeping us honest. I see people sometimes attacking science because they want to carve out a safe space for a comforting belief that conflicts with something from science. Probably better if one is forced to abandon the belief and look deeper. Yes. I see this happening more and more. There’s definitely a rise in magical thinking going on across many aspects of today’s society. For young people in particular this is fuelled by the rise of the Critical Social Justice movement and its brand of postmodern, extreme relativism. With it reason, evidence, the ability to think deeply, critically and appreciate subtlety and nuance seem to be slipping away in favour of ’my truth is as valid as yours - end of argument.’ Having said that, I agree that we need to be wary of scientism and its claim that the only valid truths are scientifically proven truths. For a start, that claim has not been scientifically proven. I don't agree with the generalization regarding young folk. From my vantage lack of critical thought seems as prevalent among the old. I'd say more so. But I did enjoy the cleverness of your closing sentence. It was refreshing. I view the Scientism label as politics disguised as philosophy. I don't feel threatened or put off by the likes of Dawkins or Harris. Some of it is amusing. But none of them are advocating beheadings or criminal proceedings against folks they disagree with or banning discussion. I do get annoyed by their "us versus them, circle the wagons" rhetoric. Being an avowed agnostic I've borne the brunt of many a clever atheist's derision. But none have wanted to burn me at the stake. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Mar 25, 2022 12:54:27 GMT -5
Yes. I see this happening more and more. There’s definitely a rise in magical thinking going on across many aspects of today’s society. For young people in particular this is fuelled by the rise of the Critical Social Justice movement and its brand of postmodern, extreme relativism. With it reason, evidence, the ability to think deeply, critically and appreciate subtlety and nuance seem to be slipping away in favour of ’my truth is as valid as yours - end of argument.’ Having said that, I agree that we need to be wary of scientism and its claim that the only valid truths are scientifically proven truths. For a start, that claim has not been scientifically proven. I don't agree with the generalization regarding young folk. From my vantage lack of critical thought seems as prevalent among the old. I'd say more so. But I did enjoy the cleverness of your closing sentence. It was refreshing. I view the Scientism label as politics disguised as philosophy. I don't feel threatened or put off by the likes of Dawkins or Harris. Some of it is amusing. But none of them are advocating beheadings or criminal proceedings against folks they disagree with or banning discussion. I do get annoyed by their "us versus them, circle the wagons" rhetoric. Being an avowed agnostic I've borne the brunt of many a clever atheist's derision. But none have wanted to burn me at the stake. Is that Richard Dawkins, the English fella? He said a few years ago that he believed that Down's syndrome babies should be aborted. He explained his position logically, as you would expect (at the core was the principle of 'increasing happiness and reducing suffering') but personally, I felt it illustrated quite well the problem of an overly intellectual mind, combined with little spiritual insight. |
|
|
|
Post by zazeniac on Mar 25, 2022 13:14:02 GMT -5
I don't agree with the generalization regarding young folk. From my vantage lack of critical thought seems as prevalent among the old. I'd say more so. But I did enjoy the cleverness of your closing sentence. It was refreshing. I view the Scientism label as politics disguised as philosophy. I don't feel threatened or put off by the likes of Dawkins or Harris. Some of it is amusing. But none of them are advocating beheadings or criminal proceedings against folks they disagree with or banning discussion. I do get annoyed by their "us versus them, circle the wagons" rhetoric. Being an avowed agnostic I've borne the brunt of many a clever atheist's derision. But none have wanted to burn me at the stake. Is that Richard Dawkins, the English fella? He said a few years ago that he believed that Down's syndrome babies should be aborted. He explained his position logically, as you would expect (at the core was the principle of 'increasing happiness and reducing suffering') but personally, I felt it illustrated quite well the problem of an overly intellectual mind, combined with little spiritual insight. Being familiar with IVF. I know that embryos are tested for genetic defects and discarded. So Dawkins position doesn't seem too far out. Down's syndrome can be detected in the first trimester where in most places pregnancies can be terminated. So it's happening all the time. What he actually said is that it's immoral to keep a Downs syndrome baby. He proposes an interesting argument that I find ridiculously silly. It's in the best interest of the baby. Oh sure. He's spouting nonsense. It doesn't make him a monster so much as a fool. Very different than wanting to kill and torture those you disagree with. Don't you think? |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Mar 25, 2022 13:21:31 GMT -5
Is that Richard Dawkins, the English fella? He said a few years ago that he believed that Down's syndrome babies should be aborted. He explained his position logically, as you would expect (at the core was the principle of 'increasing happiness and reducing suffering') but personally, I felt it illustrated quite well the problem of an overly intellectual mind, combined with little spiritual insight. Being quite familiar with IVF. I know that embryos are tested for genetic defects and discarded. So Dawkins position doesn't seem too far out. Down's syndrome can be detected in the first trimester where in most places pregnancies can be terminated. So it's happening all the time. yeah! There's all sorts of things happening that I would say express high level of 'smartness' but very little insight. I found this statement quite revealing,''Those who took offence because they know and love a person with Down's syndrome, and who thought I was saying that their loved one had no right to exist, I have sympathy for this emotional point, but it is an emotional one not a logical one.'' Though I would also have a darn good go at challenging his logic too. |
|
|
|
Post by zazeniac on Mar 25, 2022 13:36:49 GMT -5
Being quite familiar with IVF. I know that embryos are tested for genetic defects and discarded. So Dawkins position doesn't seem too far out. Down's syndrome can be detected in the first trimester where in most places pregnancies can be terminated. So it's happening all the time. yeah! There's all sorts of things happening that I would say express high level of 'smartness' but very little insight. I found this statement quite revealing,''Those who took offence because they know and love a person with Down's syndrome, and who thought I was saying that their loved one had no right to exist, I have sympathy for this emotional point, but it is an emotional one not a logical one.'' Though I would also have a darn good go at challenging his logic too. Maybe he is a monster. He's definitely a callous a-hole. Don't like him. I'd punch him in the nose just to see how he'd respond logically. Most science folks I know, mostly those in my family understand the limits of logic. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Mar 25, 2022 13:48:21 GMT -5
yeah! There's all sorts of things happening that I would say express high level of 'smartness' but very little insight. I found this statement quite revealing,''Those who took offence because they know and love a person with Down's syndrome, and who thought I was saying that their loved one had no right to exist, I have sympathy for this emotional point, but it is an emotional one not a logical one.'' Though I would also have a darn good go at challenging his logic too. Maybe he is a monster. He's definitely a callous a-hole. Don't like him. I'd punch him in the nose just to see how he'd respond logically. Most science folks I know, mostly those in my family understand the limits of logic. lol yes I can relate...I also found it callous. On the flip side, at a minimum, I find his desire for less suffering and more happiness easily relatable. It's interesting that humans are obviously incredibly smart as a species, and yet somehow, we screw so much up. |
|
|
|
Post by zazeniac on Mar 25, 2022 14:20:08 GMT -5
Maybe he is a monster. He's definitely a callous a-hole. Don't like him. I'd punch him in the nose just to see how he'd respond logically. Most science folks I know, mostly those in my family understand the limits of logic. lol yes I can relate...I also found it callous. On the flip side, at a minimum, I find his desire for less suffering and more happiness easily relatable. It's interesting that humans are obviously incredibly smart as a species, and yet somehow, we screw so much up. Humans just think they're smart. They think they're in "control." But humans are a very limited expression of somenothing that is. Attempting to make a calculus regarding the value of life is a fool's errand. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Mar 25, 2022 14:27:21 GMT -5
lol yes I can relate...I also found it callous. On the flip side, at a minimum, I find his desire for less suffering and more happiness easily relatable. It's interesting that humans are obviously incredibly smart as a species, and yet somehow, we screw so much up. Humans just think they're smart. They think they're in "control." But humans are a very limited expression of somenothing that is. Attempting to make a calculus regarding the value of life is a fool's errand. yep. And that's a nice reminder right now. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Mar 25, 2022 17:48:39 GMT -5
I've read authors that point out at the dawn of science there was this bargain that was made between scientists and the oppressive Vatican: scientists were studying the body and the Earth, the creations of God and how they express God's will. The mind, the spirit and the heavens were reserved for the clerics. These authors speculate that this led to a "mind/body" duality in Western thought that isn't mirrored in Eastern thought. They put the start of this split at the aftermath of Galileo and finalize it with Descartes. Eventually, predictably and understandably, the scientists threw off this constriction, and the Church has always been their enemy. This is punctuated most succinctly by Laplace answering Napoleon: N: "And where is God in your theory?" L: "I have no need for that hypothesis" What the transhumanists are about to learn is the meaning of the old myth of Icarus. Some wisdom, is quite timeless.  There will always be curious people who experiment and make discoveries that both benefit and vex mankind, regardless of this current cultural cycle. It's something that was going on long before even the invention of the notion of "science", after all, and it's quite likely that we've forgotten much of what those curious people discovered in the distant past, a trend which is likely to continue on very long time scales. I'd say our understanding of science has changed significantly over the centuries. Politics also always had an impact on science, but I think in the long run, that influence isn't really significant. What I find a lot more significant is specialization and, especially recently, compartmentalization. Just think of ancient Greece and their understanding and practice of science, like Pythagoras' esoteric numbers, or Kepler who was not just an astronomer but also an astrologer. So along the way, science has accumulated a lot of new knowledge and in terms of how this translates into modern technology, science has an impressive track record. However, specialization may have gone too far in some fields, especially where it reached the stage of compartmentalization, like let's say medicine. That's where (over)specialization actually can do more harm than good. A scientist that can still see the big picture, i.e. where his particular field of research fits in with all the other sciences as well as the place of science in general, is very rare these days, but it was the standard in ancient times. Specialization was inevitable as the body of knowledge grows along with the complexity and depth of that body. It's also likely to continue. Any given one man or woman's ability to comprehend is always going to be limited. We can distinguish between scientists and engineers - although, that distinction can and does blur at times - and for engineers this specialization is necessary to produce something like the Webb telescope, but then there's always this competing trend where a demand arises for generalists as well. In academia they'll distinguish between the two, and a more ephemeral example of it is the fad of employment advertising for "full stack developers". While I think your critique about specialization definitely applies to medicine, and while myopia can delay progress and lead to rabbit trails in any field, I'd observe that the nature of scientism is a flow of ideas from science, to philosophy/spirituality, so it seems to me that there is a movement from the specific to the general in that flow. So, for instance, you have influential figures that I might associate with scientism, like say, Carl Sagan, and he does that work by stepping outside of his specialty. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Mar 25, 2022 18:09:14 GMT -5
Another thing... the flat-earth people have increased in numbers in recent years. It illustrates to a problem with science and our society. The flat-earthers say you should only believe what you can see for yourself. That actually makes sense. The problem is you can see for yourself that the earth is round, but it requires some work, and maybe some training. As science gets more advanced, fewer people are able to follow the work and see for themselves, so scientists start to sound like high priests pushing random beliefs. A similar thing happened with some of the covid stuff. Yes, … speaking about what you can see yourself insofar as the Earth is round …. I seem to remember once reading about how it was that the Earth was originally deduced to be spherical. Basically, if in a boat you go far enough out in the ocean so that no land is visible , i.e. just water as far as the eye can see- in any direction. Then panaramically the horizon (where the sky meets water) is always equidistant from where you stand on the deck of the boat. That holds for any ocean on Earth, and I think the range of vision is actually 2.9 miles. The reason given for this is that it is due to the curvature of the Earth, which seems pretty reasonable. I can't remember who it was, but way-back-when, some bright spark used that distance measurement to calculate the size of the planet. Which turned out to be remarkably accurate, when with the subsequent advent of satellites they were able to measure this quite accurately. Now, whenever I hear about flat-Earthers, I wonder how they go about accounting for this fact. That on the ocean the horizon is always equidistant. I assume they must have an alternative explanation of some sort, but can't imagine what that might be. That would be Eratosthenes. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Mar 25, 2022 18:11:45 GMT -5
Yes, … speaking about what you can see yourself insofar as the Earth is round …. I seem to remember once reading about how it was that the Earth was originally deduced to be spherical. Basically, if in a boat you go far enough out in the ocean so that no land is visible , i.e. just water as far as the eye can see- in any direction. Then panaramically the horizon (where the sky meets water) is always equidistant from where you stand on the deck of the boat. That holds for any ocean on Earth, and I think the range of vision is actually 2.9 miles. The reason given for this is that it is due to the curvature of the Earth, which seems pretty reasonable. I can't remember who it was, but way-back-when, some bright spark used that distance measurement to calculate the size of the planet. Which turned out to be remarkably accurate, when with the subsequent advent of satellites they were able to measure this quite accurately. Now, whenever I hear about flat-Earthers, I wonder how they go about accounting for this fact. That on the ocean the horizon is always equidistant. I assume they must have an alternative explanation of some sort, but can't imagine what that might be. The horizon issue is one of their favourites, it's a 'go-to'. I looked briefly for some of the old main players on youtube, but looks like a lot of it has been scrubbed. I haven't watched this, but the title caught my eye because this is kind of how I see it.... 'Wrong but not stupid' www.youtube.com/watch?v=f8DQSM-b2ccI haven't hard a flat earth conversation in a long time, my science isn't good enough to discuss it, and I start to see their point of view, which I don't like the feeling of. The Mandela Effect is similar....it's really interesting but after a while, I don't like the way it feels. www.buzzfeed.com/morgansloss1/mandela-effects-redditAnyone who says he didn't have a monocle is part of a diabolical plot!  |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Mar 25, 2022 18:19:14 GMT -5
Beautiful vid, btw. Scientism might be seen as a response to religious intrusion in the field of Science, Creationism et al. Not judging Scientism. Think it might be fun to join a Church of Scientism. Think of it. A Church in every neighborhood. Statues of Bruno and Sagan and Einstein everywhere. You could be high priest. I just want to be in charge of the sacred flora. Tax exemptions! Scientism holidays! Yeah, they oppose creationism and then they come up with stuff like the big bang theory. Aces! And in a sense, we've already got a church of scientism these days, it usually comes along as rule by so-called 'experts'. What is especially interesting about the church of scientism is that religious movements usually attempt to give life meaning and people a special purpose, but the religion of scientism does the exact opposite, it basically took any meaning or purpose out of life by reducing everything to random collections or formations of particles that are ruled by laws of probability. No wonder people are depressed these days and are drifting aimlessly thru life, functioning but not really alive.  Fun and ironic facts: Einstein attributes the "biggest mistake" of his career publishing his theory of General Relativity including a constant so the equations would work out to an eternal, static model of the physical universe. But the theory describes a system of equations that have many solutions, and it was a Catholic priest who came up with the version that fit Hubble's observations. I think where your "believing is seeing" comes into play is that there have always been challenges to the big bang, but most of the effort and money has gone into making the observations fit the theory, which is what I understand some scientists to think about the "inflationary model". Personally, I just don't know enough to do other than except the big bang as the current consensus.  |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Mar 25, 2022 18:22:33 GMT -5
I do feel science is near useless when it comes to our most pressing issues. For me personally, that means dealing with a kind of depression as well as resolving certain deeper questions. However, I think science may have a value even there, in keeping us honest. I see people sometimes attacking science because they want to carve out a safe space for a comforting belief that conflicts with something from science. Probably better if one is forced to abandon the belief and look deeper. Science can't give life meaning or assign your life a purpose. So in that sense, science will fail you. However, depression is mostly a matter of focus. If you don't focus deliberately and don't pay attention to your inner calling but instead just react to whatever enters your field of awareness in the moment and only follow the loudest voices around you, it's almost certain that you will end up depressed at some point. Just browsing thru the news these days for half an hour will already make you depressed, no matter how good your life is. And here science can actually help, because this is just about the simple mechanics of how mind works, and in that area, neurology and cognitive psychology have a lot to offer and can really help. They still can't give your life meaning or tell you your unique individual purpose, but they can help you get pointed into the right direction and lose some unhealthy mental habits that prevent you from discovering your life's meaning and purpose. In the end though, you are always on your own. No one can help you here. And the sooner you realize that, the better it will go for you. No one can tell you why you are here and what your purpose here is. You have to find that out for yourself. And until you haven't found that, you are just passing thru life but don't really live. Philosophy tries to answer existential questions, but (predictably) fails at finding any definite answers. Religion usually claims to have definite answers, but many who follow these religions will eventually discover that just knowing it conceptually doesn't cut it either. Scientists like to answer the question of life purpose with "so that the Universe may know itself". It's an answer that has to be fully questioned to the point of dropping it to fully appreciate it. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Mar 25, 2022 18:30:23 GMT -5
Yeah, they oppose creationism and then they come up with stuff like the big bang theory. Aces! And in a sense, we've already got a church of scientism these days, it usually comes along as rule by so-called 'experts'. What is especially interesting about the church of scientism is that religious movements usually attempt to give life meaning and people a special purpose, but the religion of scientism does the exact opposite, it basically took any meaning or purpose out of life by reducing everything to random collections or formations of particles that are ruled by laws of probability. No wonder people are depressed these days and are drifting aimlessly thru life, functioning but not really alive. Yes, the "big bang theory", if it's mis-used as a creation myth, seems like an example of scientism. Ouroboros mentioned Brian Cox above. When he was on Rogan he said something interesting. They don't really know if the universe "started" at that point. All they see is that the universe is moving apart and it was once more compressed, hotter, denser, and more ordered (entropy). It could be that that state is part of a cycle of expansion and contraction, and that the universe had no beginning, ie, it is eternal. Some people find that idea more disturbing, because it seems to remove the idea of "Creator", and just doesn't fit with the way many humans think. Sagan analogized the notion of a "closed Universe" to the Dream of Vishnu on Cosmos. |
|
Fun and ironic facts: Einstein attributes the "biggest mistake" of his career publishing his theory of General Relativity including a constant so the equations would work out to an eternal, static model of the physical universe. But the theory describes a system of equations that have many solutions, and it was a 