A "censored" TedX talk about scientism. Speaker has an impressive bio. Not someone who you might suspect of being critical of scientism.
Post Reply
1 of 1
The Science Delusion
2,114 Views |
9 Replies |
Last: 4 yr ago by BusterAg
A "censored" TedX talk about scientism. Speaker has an impressive bio. Not someone who you might suspect of being critical of scientism.
Good video. Well worth the 17 minutes
Science is its own religion.
I do believe that science and print has caused us to lose our ability to fully understand the story telling medium In the Bible and other ancient stories. Before written language, story telling was extremely important due to the limitations of human memory. Stories were easy to remember, and communication of complex ideas and truths were passed through stories. I don't believe these stories were meant for literal interpretation, I think they were a mnemonic technique.
Print removed the need for such mnemonic techniques causing people to take texts literally though their origin predated written language. And later science cast doubt on such literal interpretations.
It's axiomatic that science cannot be used to prove or falsify the supernatural and miraculous, yet many believe that science does exactly that.
I do believe that science and print has caused us to lose our ability to fully understand the story telling medium In the Bible and other ancient stories. Before written language, story telling was extremely important due to the limitations of human memory. Stories were easy to remember, and communication of complex ideas and truths were passed through stories. I don't believe these stories were meant for literal interpretation, I think they were a mnemonic technique.
Print removed the need for such mnemonic techniques causing people to take texts literally though their origin predated written language. And later science cast doubt on such literal interpretations.
It's axiomatic that science cannot be used to prove or falsify the supernatural and miraculous, yet many believe that science does exactly that.
Most of claims regarding "scientism" are straw men. They generally stem from a fundamental misunderstanding of science which results in the attempt to dismantle ideas that few/none within that given scientific community actually hold.
To use an obvious and cliche example, most of the arguments against evolutionary theory are directed at ideas no evolutionary biologist actually believes. It's the ignorant attacking their own misunderstanding of evolution.
Another classic is the "science cannot disprove God" argument, as if there is this widespread belief among those with hard science degrees that God cannot exist because of X, Y or Z scientific fact. It's just not true. Claiming "this event in the Bible or Quran likely did not have happened because of a known scientific or historical reality" is very different from "God doesn't exist because..."
I say all this as someone who does believe in God, but who gets very frustrated by the blatant attempt to dismiss uncomfortable scientific ideas with straw man claims.
To use an obvious and cliche example, most of the arguments against evolutionary theory are directed at ideas no evolutionary biologist actually believes. It's the ignorant attacking their own misunderstanding of evolution.
Another classic is the "science cannot disprove God" argument, as if there is this widespread belief among those with hard science degrees that God cannot exist because of X, Y or Z scientific fact. It's just not true. Claiming "this event in the Bible or Quran likely did not have happened because of a known scientific or historical reality" is very different from "God doesn't exist because..."
I say all this as someone who does believe in God, but who gets very frustrated by the blatant attempt to dismiss uncomfortable scientific ideas with straw man claims.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
I'm reading a great book that touches on this, called Love and Quasars. You should check it out. It's by an astrophysicist that talks of faith and science. Think you'd like it.
JJMt said:Do you think Sheldrake raised straw men arguments? If so, which ones were straw men? Do you think Sheldrake has a "fundamental misunderstanding of science"?Quote:
Most of claims regarding "scientism" are straw men. They generally stem from a fundamental misunderstanding of science which results in the attempt to dismantle ideas that few/none within that given scientific community actually hold.
I think the claim that non-religious scientists cling to science as their "religion" is, generally speaking, untrue. It's a claim that misrepresents both science and religion and does both a disservice.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
"scientism" LOL
With everything going on the real world, it's amazing how there is no end to the amount of stuff people will just invent in order to waste mental energy getting twisted about.
With everything going on the real world, it's amazing how there is no end to the amount of stuff people will just invent in order to waste mental energy getting twisted about.
embryonic giraffes become giraffes because they are tapping into a morphic resonance of other giraffes from the past?
that's a hard pass from me.
that's a hard pass from me.
Sheldrake has three main points:
1) "Scientism" is a world view that believes that we understand all of the major issues related to the universe, and we just have a few details to fill in
2) "Science" is a method of inquiry based on reason, experimentation and the collection of evidence
3) There is often a conflict between science and scientism, and there are many questions about the universe which we believe to be likely, but are hesitant to look at carefully with a critical eye even in the presence of significant evidence
I agree with the above arguments 100%. I think that we have an understanding about a lot of things about the universe and reality, but we have far more to learn than what we currently know. We are still stupid when it comes to understanding the universe, and are pretty arrogant about the exhaustive nature of our body of knowledge. This arrogance does tend to prevent scientists from questioning "scientific dogmas", some of which have had very little demonstration through scientific experimentation. While I hesitate to characterize scientism as a religion, this arrogance, and stubborness to question these dogmas, does tend to resemble faith in a religion. If the dogma supports your worldview, the tendency is to accept it as absolute fact and discount questions about it as irrationality. This hesitancy to ask questions and use the scientific method to explore the universe is what I take as Sheldrake discussing as "scientism".
Finally, I do not agree with Sheldrake's list of dogmas, and I think that a few of them are not as "questionable" as Sheldrake presents. But, a few of his questions are intriguing. Why is it a universal behavior for people to be able to sense someone staring at the back of your head. How sure are we that the fundamental constants are actually fundamental and unchanging. Do crystals really learn from other crystals in different parts of the world how to chrystallize?
We could measure a lot of these, and explore these questions, but we seem reluctant to do so in order not to upset the current balance.
1) "Scientism" is a world view that believes that we understand all of the major issues related to the universe, and we just have a few details to fill in
2) "Science" is a method of inquiry based on reason, experimentation and the collection of evidence
3) There is often a conflict between science and scientism, and there are many questions about the universe which we believe to be likely, but are hesitant to look at carefully with a critical eye even in the presence of significant evidence
I agree with the above arguments 100%. I think that we have an understanding about a lot of things about the universe and reality, but we have far more to learn than what we currently know. We are still stupid when it comes to understanding the universe, and are pretty arrogant about the exhaustive nature of our body of knowledge. This arrogance does tend to prevent scientists from questioning "scientific dogmas", some of which have had very little demonstration through scientific experimentation. While I hesitate to characterize scientism as a religion, this arrogance, and stubborness to question these dogmas, does tend to resemble faith in a religion. If the dogma supports your worldview, the tendency is to accept it as absolute fact and discount questions about it as irrationality. This hesitancy to ask questions and use the scientific method to explore the universe is what I take as Sheldrake discussing as "scientism".
Finally, I do not agree with Sheldrake's list of dogmas, and I think that a few of them are not as "questionable" as Sheldrake presents. But, a few of his questions are intriguing. Why is it a universal behavior for people to be able to sense someone staring at the back of your head. How sure are we that the fundamental constants are actually fundamental and unchanging. Do crystals really learn from other crystals in different parts of the world how to chrystallize?
We could measure a lot of these, and explore these questions, but we seem reluctant to do so in order not to upset the current balance.
That's a misstatementschmendeler said:
embryonic giraffes become giraffes because they are tapping into a morphic resonance of other giraffes from the past?
that's a hard pass from me.
It is more like giraffes posses the instincts that they do based on some collective memory. The alternative theory is that the giraffe's DNA creates proteins that somehow morph into pre-programmed behaviors in the giraffe's brain.
That is obviously the most likely theory based on what we know today. Unfortunately, we have real difficulty understanding the mechanism that makes this happen. The giraffe is not born with all of these instincts intact and programmed into the giraffe's brain. Some take years to eventually develop.
Since the DNA theory is the most easily explained, it is assumed to be the only answer. But, as we learn more and more about memories, internal agency, instincts, consciousness, and how the brain works, we might figure out something that is very different. It's worth at least looking at.
I try to keep an open mind about the concreteness of materialism. Too much funky stuff around quantum entanglement, how the mind works, quantum field collapse, dark matter, cosmos expansion. Once upon a time, no one would believe you if you argued that time and space were made up of the same stuff. We figured that out, and decided that we really understood things after that.
There is no reason why there can't be some extra dimension or something where thoughts are somehow connected immaterially. Hell, the Copenhagen explanation says that matter is manipulated by the observation of a rational mind. Those two ideas are not that far apart. I am sure that there is a bunch of stuff we haven't figured out yet.
JW
Interesting betting lines for futures for A&M football as of April 2024
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
24