Are scientists fundamentalists? Is scientism like a religion?

[exchemist]

What I see often looks more like blind, these days. But I think the blindness only reaches the white cane level where you have people who are unwell and desperate to try anything with even the patina of science. An example I encountered was someone with problems that were existential (as in, depressed for a good reason, a spiritual malaise) trying to ease them with weird dietary choices. The embrace of science was pretty blind. I'm not really talking about scientism in the context of working scientists or as a philosophical topic. So maybe I've strayed a bit from a thread I didn't fully read.

Oh I see now what you mean: people using science as a substitute for religion, hoping it will be a guide to help them cope with life. Yes, I suppose that would be scientism.

 

[parmalee]

One fly in this ointment is a fair amount of pop nutrition science (and medical science in general) is a tidal wave of overconfident assertions about the causal powers of certain foods or regimens or lifestyles on human health. This is not scientism so much as just poor science journalism interacting with placebo effects and human desperation. A lot of data on human interaction with nutrients (and anti-nutrients) is more equivocal than people are aware of. Ditto for exercise.

So you get crowds with blind faith that eating lots of oats will prevent a heart attack. Or drinking probiotic kombucha will keep their gut healthy. In reality there are, out of hundreds of health factoids people hear, maybe half a dozen that are solid facts, i.e. truly settled science...

While approaching the subject of scientism from a different angle, this sort of complements what I said above:

Speaking more to the scientism angle, I think that that is something which is more prone to afflicting science-educated laypersons than scientists proper, with some exceptions--particularly within behavioral sciences, and more particularly within ethology and animal behavioral sciences, wherein Occam's Razor often seems regarded more as hard-coded rule as opposed to simply the guiding principle which it is.

or, at least, the first part of it.

It's a far more common phenomenon in the popularization of science and amongst the general populace than it is within science proper or amongst actual working scientists.

With respect to the latter part of what I said, that's more to do with one of my particular pet peeves. In short, the notion of anthropomorphization is vastly overused, and often wholly inappropriately or nonsensically.

 

[Pinball1970]

Religion works for some people internally as does atheism and agnosticism and general spirituality.. They can help people to live their lives so as to have a better experience. This doesn't necessarily make them objective truth.

What do you mean by "works?" Does prayer work? Does worship get people to heaven? Also atheism is not a thing, it is a rejection of a thing.
I don't walk around thinking about atheism, I walk round NOT thinking about heaven.
I DO think about Jesus a lot and Yhwh, because this is an important part of our history. People wrote about it, I want to understand it.

 

[Pinball1970]

Oh I see now what you mean: people using science as a substitute for religion, hoping it will be a guide to help them cope with life. Yes, I suppose that would be scientism.

I have all the same hopes and fears as an atheist as I did as a Christian. My belief now though is prayer will not fix anything because no one is listening.

 

[exchemist]

I have all the same hopes and fears as an atheist as I did as a Christian. My belief now though is prayer will not fix anything because no one is listening.

Sure, but religion is about more than personal prayer. It's also about looking beyond your immediate concerns and getting them in perspective, about community, tradition, and the feeling of kinship with those who have gone before down the ages and experienced the same snakes and ladders of life as us. You can get this sort of support in other ways of course, but for many they get it from religion.

 

[TheVat]

While approaching the subject of scientism from a different angle, this sort of complements what I said above:

or, at least, the first part of it.

It's a far more common phenomenon in the popularization of science and amongst the general populace than it is within science proper or amongst actual working scientists.

With respect to the latter part of what I said, that's more to do with one of my particular pet peeves. In short, the notion of anthropomorphization is vastly overused, and often wholly inappropriately or nonsensically.

Animal behavior studies are kind of a mess that way, I agree. Do I chuckle when a science article talks about cats feeling guilty or the altruism of crows or how zebras grieve? Yes. (Though that story about the dog and the elephant friendship still brings a lump in my throat...)

Tarra and Bella: Elephant loses man's best friend

Storybook friendship at Tennessee sanctuary comes to an end when Bella the dog is killed, likely by coyotes

www.cbsnews.com

 

[Pinball1970]

From the horses mouth.

 

[Pinball1970]

Sure, but religion is about more than personal prayer. It's also about looking beyond your immediate concerns and getting them in perspective, about community, tradition, and the feeling of kinship with those who have gone before down the ages and experienced the same snakes and ladders of life as us. You can get this sort of support in other ways of course, but for many they get it from religion.

We have discussed this and I agree with community spirit, looking out for each other, being self critical and thanking ones lucky stars. Also rationalizing ones unlucky stars. Feeling like a vulnerable human.
We diverge somewhere along the line but we cross over a lot too.
I respect your attitude towards it all and also UK Dave. I hope he is ok.

 

[Wizard of Whatever]

What do you mean by "works?" Does prayer work? Does worship get people to heaven? Also atheism is not a thing, it is a rejection of a thing.
I don't walk around thinking about atheism, I walk round NOT thinking about heaven.
I DO think about Jesus a lot and Yhwh, because this is an important part of our history. People wrote about it, I want to understand it.

Works means exactly what I said. It helps them to live better and fuller lives. Has nothing to necessarily to do with objective truth. They do what works for them as you do what works for you. As we used to say, different strokes for different folks and one size does not fit all.

 

[Wizard of Whatever]

Animal behavior studies are kind of a mess that way, I agree. Do I chuckle when a science article talks about cats feeling guilty or the altruism of crows or how zebras grieve? Yes. (Though that story about the dog and the elephant friendship still brings a lump in my throat...)

You really can't know much about the inner life of animals since they don't speak your language and probably don't think in language you would understand. That doesn't mean they don't have an inner emotional life. All you can do is intuit from observation.

 

[DaveC426913]

Hmm, I think this issue is actually orthogonal to the issue of scientism. You are describing misplaced faith in garbled science. No more "blind" than faith in good settled science, just misinformed by oversimplifying journalists.

Not to mention that nutrition and exercise factoids are just a skosh more monetizable than, say, carbon dating or evolution.

 

[davewhite04]

Post 413 accuses Pinball1970 of being a fundie and asks if he has heard of scientism. That strongly suggests you are saying that is what he is. If that is not what you intended, why mention scientism at all?

I must say you are acting in a very peculiar manner that is quite unlike you. You and I have got along fine until now. I really have no idea where all this vitriol is coming from. Unless either your account has been hijacked, or else your new AI friend has been telling you we’re all out to get you.

I can't find 413 now, can you point it out?

 

[exchemist]

I can't find 413 now, can you point it out?

It has become post 1 of this thread, after it was split off by James.

 

[davewhite04]

davewhite04:

I see. You're drawing the conclusion that "most atheists/agnostics have blind faith" based on a tiny sample space of people you have personally met.

No. I'm saying that the majority of people who are not theist say things like "the earth is 4.6 billions of years old in it?", "aye something like that" is a typical conversation I hear. The vast amount of people don't think too hard about these things. Same goes for theists. It's obviously a human thing. I call them sheep. It's like when the UK exited the EU, young folk thought we had left Europe, and some of the older folk. These are otherwise intelligent people, just mesmerised by media, all kinds.

What you have to remember James, this is an observation amongst the general public not a science school.

I don't go out wanting to hear something, I don't have a "methodology".

It's the same as theists believing in 6000yr old earth. They no doubt haven't looked into the various evidence against it.

Atheists generally don't read the bible, agnostics might I think, I did when I was agnostic.

"Are scientists fundamentalists? Is scientism like a religion?"

The thread title your complete misquote(dishonesty) of what I said and what scientism means.

I didn't say scientists are fundamentalist's, I said some.

 

[Olga]

One fly in this ointment is a fair amount of pop nutrition science (and medical science in general) is a tidal wave of overconfident assertions about the causal powers of certain foods or regimens or lifestyles on human health. This is not scientism so much as just poor science journalism interacting with placebo effects and human desperation. A lot of data on human interaction with nutrients (and anti-nutrients) is more equivocal than people are aware of. Ditto for exercise.

So you get crowds with blind faith that eating lots of oats will prevent a heart attack. Or drinking probiotic kombucha will keep their gut healthy. In reality there are, out of hundreds of health factoids people hear, maybe half a dozen that are solid facts, i.e. truly settled science...

Smoking kills.
Walking is good.
Stress kills.
Some synthetic chemicals kill.
More plants, less animals.
More fiber, less sugar.

Журналисты берут интервью у долгожителя: скажите, как вам удалось прожить так долго?
- Ну, я никогда не пил алкоголь, не курил, и не блудил с женщинами.
- А что это за шум в соседней комнате?
- Не обращайте внимания, это мой старший брат, опять напился, и с проститутками развлекается!

 

[davewhite04]

It has become post 1 of this thread, after it was split off by James.

I don't know why I said that, it wasn't serious as the word scientism might not be a valid thing.

 

[Olga]

Let's forget science, religion, and politics and just do Magick.

Ну, или ещё чем-нибудь...

 

[Olga]

Ok guys this has got out of hand. Dave asked a provokative question and I jumped in because of that creationist idiot.
Absolutely, "defensive" as Dave said. Over 400 posts of his dishonest idiotic garbage had wound me up.

Dave's a British, you attack him he will bite, North East lad too, you don't fuck around with those lads.

My advice? Humble advice. A step back, this is not Dave's thread, he is not a dishonest creationist troll.

It's new year! Love and peace man

Я заметила, что вы, британцы, дружные. Всегда защищаете друг друга. По крайней мере на этом сайте. Или это только ты такой, Пин?

 

[Olga]

A good list, alcohol not mentioned!

- Британские учёные выяснили, что натуральный шоколад поднимает настроение.
- Это они ещё водку не пробовали!

 

[davewhite04]

Because its source material is the Internet. If someone says that the Moon is made of cheese, it will use that bit of information in its formulation of an answer about what the Moon is made of. Will it actually SAY that? Usually not, because more people say other things. But sometimes it will.

It is not in any sense accurate or correct or wise. It just replies with what most people on the Internet say - and is often famously and completely wrong.

As a simple example, author John Scalzi asked five different AIs who he dedicated his latest book to. The answer is easy to find - it's right there on the second page of the book, and the sample available on Amazon contains the dedication. Four gave a completely fictitious answer. The fifth AI at least said it could not find the information.

Don't use AI if you care about getting correct information.

I understand this and agree billvon depending on the knowledge of the subject in question. If you go in and ask for evidence that the earth is 6000yr old it would probably give you some... in fact let's ask.

Question:

can you give me evidence that the world is 6000 years old?

AI:

"I need to be clear and honest with you:
There is no credible scientific evidence that the world (or Earth) is 6,000 years old."

hmmm it didn't, pretty good response eh?

I asked one question about an OBE I experienced, it led to 8 hours of conversation, study, research and advanced searching on the internet to double and triple check things. I know quite a bit about OBEs so I wasn't asking AI blindly, I knew what stuff would need more attention. If I was new to OBEs AI could have a negative effect I guess.