Scientism: The worship of modern mainstream science

100% pure BS brought to you by everyone that wants to keep religion in schools and in government.

It is not that science it bad or good inherently. There are a few factors that make it less than ideal in it's current form.

A. The process for progress is incredibly slow. Even a legitimate (proven by history) claim has to go through decades of ridicule and shame if it is outside the bounds until the majority of scientist "accept" it as a real course of study.

B. The majority of people are at its mercy because critical thinking and basic education are lacking. The average joe just "has to believe it all" because he has no choice. It is just one of the states of society.

C. There is a ton of junk science that has been spread along with genuine "good" science. There have been dishonest agenda-driven academia touting phony research since the system of modern science was formed. This has led to skepticism by the critical thinkers in the scientific community, and distrust by those holding alternative views (eg. religious, paranormal, and just general public)

originally posted by: ManFromEurope

Just don't think about literally burning people on the stake for having the "wrong ideas".

Actually . . . in the "name of science" . . . more or less . . . the PTB . . . particularly SCIENTISTS

did worse than that . . . WORSE than that . . .

They vivisected, burned, tortured, sliced, diced without anesthetic many 100's of haples POW victims and Jews in Nazi Germany and in Japan in WWII in many horrific "SCIENTIFIC" "experiments."

THEN the USA cadre of RELIGION OF SCIENTISM BISHOPS AND PRIESTS denied and hid their gleeful capture of said information and said SCIENTISTS, pouring over and capitalizing on said "experiments."

The Religion of Scientism has FARRRRRRRRRRRRRR from remotely clean hands.

And that's in addition to far too frequently being cultishly blatheringly stupid.
.

I think Tesla would agree with you Vasaga.

a reply to: vasaga

Questioning is the most important aspect of science, and that is a direct threat to authority, and ironically scientists and the science institutions have become authorities and churches - See more at: www.abovetopsecret.com...

Unlike back in the days, you can still question the laws, and do counter experiment to prove them wrong....

Don't worry, they wont burn you at the stakes.

a reply to: vasaga

This is one of the greatest quotes I have ever seen!

As for science, the religion analogy is interesting. I do believe that the problem with science it is so far ahead nowadays a new discovery or idea cannot be easily replicated or even explained. It ties into the msm as well; we are all so distracted. Everyone is fed so much nonsense every day a 'simplified' version of everything is all we ever really get if anything.

I feel like science is the least of our worries. Let scientists twiddle their thumbs on government money, at least they are probably doing more for society than politician in an office twiddling his thumbs. Our real problem is the pervasive apathy that prevents people from personal investigation of fact.

The old 'oh I heard this somewhere' 'so ill base all of my decisions off of it'. This is the same way with religion as well. Its funny, when people come at you with 'facts' and 'statistics' try to trace them back to a peer reviewed journal. Lots of the time, there isn't one!

a reply to: vasaga

As long as you can identify when a concept becomes a meme, you can pursue the scientific ideal in an effective way. Once memehood is manifested, the concept becomes progressively insensitive to new data. This is the antithesis of science.

Prominent examples of scientific hypothesis becoming memes:
1. The big bang theory
2. AGW
3. String theory
4. Jet fuel and cubicles can burn hot enough to melt structural steel.

originally posted by: BO XIAN

originally posted by: ManFromEurope

Just don't think about literally burning people on the stake for having the "wrong ideas".

Actually . . . in the "name of science" . . . more or less . . . the PTB . . . particularly SCIENTISTS

did worse than that . . . WORSE than that . . .

They vivisected, burned, tortured, sliced, diced without anesthetic many 100's of haples POW victims and Jews in Nazi Germany and in Japan in WWII in many horrific "SCIENTIFIC" "experiments."

THEN the USA cadre of RELIGION OF SCIENTISM BISHOPS AND PRIESTS denied and hid their gleeful capture of said information and said SCIENTISTS, pouring over and capitalizing on said "experiments."

The Religion of Scientism has FARRRRRRRRRRRRRR from remotely clean hands.

And that's in addition to far too frequently being cultishly blatheringly stupid.
.

I'm reading your opinion, practically in realtime, from thousands of kilometres away, on a tiny handheld device....the irony is delicious.
To avoid being labeled a hypocrite, I suggest you need to:

Discard every piece of clothing, including all of your shoes, hats etc.
Destroy all electronic devices in your abode, TV's, computers, washing machine, microwave, your phone, stereo/radio....anything and everything that requires electricity.
Then your going to need to start demolishing the building itself and all the furniture therein.
Give away your car if you have one.
No books.
No you can't have fire.
No pointy sticks.
No shelter.
All of these things are "science"

Science is simply discovery, we've been doing it since long before humans discovered a very effective way of influencing there peers to there own advantage with fear and deception.
Sometimes bad people use these discoveries to do bad things, does the blame in that case lie with the person, or the device/discovery utilized?

As an aside, invoking the third reich as an example of scientific endeavor is really poor form. Plus you seem rather upset if your post is anything to go by, perhaps you've had enough interwebz for one day....you should go camping instead, naked, spoil yourself with a nice sharp stick though....I promise I won't tell anyone you used any evil science

originally posted by: solomons path
a reply to: vasaga
More conspiracist ideation . . . Do you just keep posting the same topics over in different forums looking for "your audience"?

This is why I get annoyed when 'debating' people like you. It's nothing but a list of fallacies. Since you never actually bother to reply to the content, but simply use shaming tactics as your method of 'disproving' what someone said, I'll simply show which fallacy is being used, and reply only where I need to.

The first one; "More conspiracist ideation . . ."

The Appeal to Ridicule is a fallacy in which ridicule or mockery is substituted for evidence in an "argument." This line of "reasoning" has the following form:

X, which is some form of ridicule is presented (typically directed at the claim).
Therefore claim C is false.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because mocking a claim does not show that it is false. This is especially clear in the following example: "1+1=2! That's the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard!"

Source

Also look at the final quote at the bottom of this post as a reference of what you're doing.

originally posted by: solomons path
I'm sure I'd be mad at "science" too, if my pet pseudo-scientific ideas were torn to shreds or ignored due to lacking any evidence.

Are you not a religious funde? Based on your posts in the Atheist thread, you believe the US is a Christian nation, creationism is real, the Inquisition is somehow false history but any history where someone exploring knowledge wasn't killed is real?, and you want your god taught to public school children.

Fallacy: Poisoning the Well

Description of Poisoning the Well

This sort of "reasoning" involves trying to discredit what a person [claims] by presenting unfavorable information (be it true or false) about the person. This "argument" has the following form:

Unfavorable information (be it true or false) about person A is presented.
Therefore any claims person A makes will be false.

This sort of "reasoning" is obviously fallacious. The person making such an attack is hoping that the unfavorable information will bias listeners against the person in question and hence that they will reject any claims he might make. However, merely presenting unfavorable information about a person (even if it is true) hardly counts as evidence against the claims he/she might make. This is especially clear when Poisoning the Well is looked at as a form of ad Homimem in which the attack is made prior to the person even making the claim or claims.

Source

For the record.
I'm not a religious funde. I never said the US is a Christian nation. I never said creationism is real. I never said the inquisition is false history. I never said I want "my God" to be taught to public school children.
I dare you. Go through my post history and find a claim for ANY of these things. You will not find it. A more extreme example of poisoning the well can not be found.
THAT is why I'm frustrated. Not because my claims are pseudo-science or because there is no evidence or for any of the reasons you presented or because they have been supposedly torn to shreds. But because the likes of you, which I actually described in my first post, are demeaning to everyone who does not follow your beliefs. This is the only tactic you use. No different than a religious person saying an atheist is possessed by the devil. But you're so attached to the system of your own destruction that you will fight to protect it. And I feel sorry for you.

originally posted by: solomons path
Why the passive aggressive persecution complex (furthering the funde evidence). Why not show the courage of your convictions and say something more positive and straight forward, like . . . "Us damn fundes are the only ones that are brave enough to question science".

Because I'm not arrogant enough to claim that only a certain group of people can do certain things. Everyone has the potential. The sad thing is that most are unwilling to use that potential due to their attachment of the system.

originally posted by: solomons path
In addition to funde and kook, one may also be labeled a Luddite or ignorant . . . Of course, no one is mocked who questions science with a sincere interest to learn . . . only those that question/challenge for no other reason than the cognitive dissonance they feel when science goes against their pet ideology.

See appeal to ridicule above. That's the only reason you love your labels like "funde", "kook", "Luddite" and others so much.

Let me quote George Carlin...

The limits of debate are established in this country before the debate even begins. Everybody else is marginalized, made to seem like Communists or some other disloyal person. Kook, there’s a word! Now it’s conspiracy. They’ve made that something that can’t even be entertained for a minute – that powerful people might get together and have a plan? Doesn’t happen! You’re a kook, you’re a conspiracy buff! – George Carlin

originally posted by: Kali74
100% pure BS brought to you by everyone that wants to keep religion in schools and in government.

Oh. Another one poisoning the well. How surprising.

originally posted by: wmd_2008
a reply to: vasaga

A little ironic since your using the benefits of science to try and belittle it!

Also where do you get the 50% of science research goes into military improvements

If you think I'm against science you're misunderstanding my position.

As for the 50%, it's not an exact number, that's why I called it an estimation. I'm currently at work, but I'll try to show later how I came to that conclusion.

a reply to: vasaga

Someday soon we scientists will have much more freedom in our work. I envision wizard towers all over drawing free energy like a tesla tower and a mad scientist way up in the clouds talking with god.

a reply to: vasaga

Questioning is the most important aspect of science, and that is a direct threat to authority, and ironically scientists and the science institutions have become authorities and churches

If a scientific discovery has implications on how society is run, then those implications should be accepted rather than denied. For example, if science discovers that smoking is bad then there needs to be an authority that takes that discovery and applies it to society - by actively attempting to reduce peoples smoking habits. Then scientific research can take place on the methods of trying to reduce smoking and the most effective option (that remains ethical) can be chosen. This is exactly how things should operate and in the case of smoking, exactly what actually occurred. Obviously if vested interests like tobacco companies fund bogus "studies" that attempt to prove smoking is healthy, then those studies need to be looked at closely and refuted if they are incorrect. Those who attempt to apply scientific discovery to broader society need to be somewhat removed from vested interests.

Whatever the priest with the biology hat says must be true about life. Whatever the priest with the physics hat says must be taught as facts.

Well, if there is significant if not damning scientific evidence for what they say, then perhaps they should be taught as facts. If scientific evidence robustly supports something, then yeah it should be taught as though it were true. Anything else is essentially believing the world is flat.

Why? Because of where the funding comes from. Shell will never fund an investigation that would make their oil obsolete because they would go out of business. In turn, if Shell goes out of business a lot of people will lose their jobs and will pay no taxes, thus, the government will not fund something that will put Shell out of business. This will impede the progress of any scientific progression regarding clean or sustainable energy.

This isn't actually what happens in reality. In reality there is plenty of scientific evidence that unsustainable energy is in many ways is highly detrimental to society - for example, pollution has a huge negative impact on the environment, our health, and our economic welfare. You can go through my threads for evidence. Therefore governments have a huge general incentive to fund research into the affects of pollution as well as the research and funding of clean energy. And they are - look at the research into global warming, the funding the EPA gets, clean energy research, and clean energy subsidies.

Unfortunately they are pushing clean energy fast enough - mainly because people deny the science, corporations (i.e. oil companies) attempt to inject doubt about the validity of the science, and governments are lobbied by oil companies. So what is actually needed is people to actually understand and react to the science, rather than deny the science and allow fossil fuel companies to rule us. So your own example proves the exact opposite of what you think it does - the real problem is denial of science. You need to change your opinion and go on rants about bad science, corporate lobbying, disinformation, etc.

Also what exactly are you doing to further sustainable energy? I mean this website is full of people who deny that using massive amounts of dirty energy will harm the environment or our health, as a result of this they are against the very measures that attempt to develop and implement clean energy. So it seems a bit bizarre that you claim science is the problem when it's extremely obvious that people who deny it or twist it are the real problem.

The investigations done by free thinkers or independent researchers are not falsified by disproving hypotheses, but rather discarded by scorn and ridicule.

Many of the investigations done by independent researchers are highly dubious at best and they are therefore discarded for a reason. Also extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, if something is extraordinary and the evidence not withstanding, then it should be discarded until the evidence is better. Do you have any examples of claims being discarded even though they did have significant evidence?

Scientists are at the centre of this process, yet they seem oblivious to it. Indeed, if you talk to scientists, as I do (since I am one of them), these issues almost never come up.

That's interesting. In engineering (often involving research) I have seen the exact opposite.

The only way out of this circle of doom is to support independent scientists that question the status quo, and to question the most popular scientists.

The only way to avoid problems like those discussed is to listen to the actual science itself and to set up bodies that attempt to be unbiased. Not selectively support certain scientists and question others based on whether they are independent or popular. What you said is literally is the antithesis of what should occur.

The other will lead to narrowing of our freedoms and individuality, where we will be subject to endless work and constant depression.

If you feel you are subjected to endless work and are constantly depressed, then perhaps you should make a lifestyle change.

a reply to: vasaga

I thought everybody knew that people worship science because they have a little chip inside them that makes them do it. Scientists plant one in every child at birth. Yours is obviously malfunctioning. Bring it back and we'll replace it for you free. Only if you're within the warranty period, of course... how old are you?

a reply to: Jefferton

Science has also produced the atomic bombs, literally(the only thing good about the atomic bombs is that they haven't fallen into the wrong hands. Just imagine what would have happened if the smuggle of Einstein had failed and the Nazis had them. The good thing about this game is that the good guys always outnumber the bad guys). And the automobile and its reliance on oil is probably only 2nd worst to the atomic bombs, as far as being the worst invention ever. The world has lived without technology before, so none of this technology is even necessary.

Now not all inventions are bad. The Internet, for example, is the most useful invention ever. However, it's unclear who actually invented or at least aided in its development(UFOs?). In addition, as I've stated before, it's the misuse of technology that is bad(for example, you can use the TV for movies like X-Men, Avengers, and news, and you can use cars as long as you figured out how to run them on water or electricity FIRST) And the technology that allow to grow food more efficiently are also useful.

Anyway, you don't think it was a coincidence that Western Europe was spared by Genghis Khan's death, leading to all the great scientific knowledge(starting with Galileo), a couple of kamikazes saving the Japanese(leading to their "role" in WWII), then the successful smuggle of Einstein, are all coincidences, do you?

If, for example, Genghis Khan hadn't died, then the world would be under Mongolian rule. If the smuggle of Einstein had failed or the U.S hadn't wiped out the Indians(unfortunately, that was a necessary evil), the world would be under Nazis rule(and either the Japanese or Nazis would have found their way to the Americas and wiped out the Indians eventually anyway).

And now, I would say the Internet has saved us from WWIII(look at how easily people get mad over the Ukraine crisis. If I hadn't made my arguments, I doubt that it would have resolved so easily). Nuclear weapons do nothing except put the world on constant threats of annihilation.

Let's just say, without the UFOs, this world would probably be on a very dark path, or extinct altogether right now(the reason that they can't just "kill" a guy like Genghis Khan, is because he also has a role to play, but when the situation gets critical, well, you can say that the bad karma has built up and caused him to get sick and died, or if a guy like Hitler being too prideful(they try to get his "blood pressure" up. That's how they influence you, on little things like that), and make a bad decision like attacking Russia. that's also the UFOs "inspiring" them(if you try to do good, then they'll try to inspire you positively, and vice versa).

That's the thing about this planet, you cannot claim anything about science or religion(who's to save that the flood didn't happen and the UFOs didn't just revive us with some kind of injection into our DNA, and yes, resuscitation is very possible. Once again, the reason that we are not immortals is because our bodies DON'T want to, not because they can't. It would be very very easy for the body to duplicate the telomeres without losing any part of them, It just doesn't want to. In fact, there are certain animals that are immortals(ironically, they can't reproduce, but now you know why we aren't immortals), because one cannot assume that Earth is the only planet of this system that we call the universe, which is also within another megasystem that we call the multiverse.

a reply to: Artlogic

So what you're saying is that all inventions are science. However, there's a big difference between technological inventions and non-technological ones.

originally posted by: BO XIAN

They vivisected, burned, tortured, sliced, diced without anesthetic many 100's of haples POW victims and Jews in Nazi Germany and in Japan in WWII in many horrific "SCIENTIFIC" "experiments."

That's because they were Nazis, not scientists. There were plenty of Gestapo & SS who did the same, and didn't take any useful data.

THEN the USA cadre of RELIGION OF SCIENTISM BISHOPS AND PRIESTS denied and hid their gleeful capture of said information and said SCIENTISTS, pouring over and capitalizing on said "experiments."

And somehow didn't ever do anything like what Dr Mengele---or the Inquisition---did. What's up with that?

a reply to: vasaga

Well first things first . . . We can move half of your reply to me to the trash, as you failed to read my post in context. I never called you funde, etc . . . The first statement was to you (about conspiracist ideation). The next part was a quote from the poster tsingtao. I would have thought that you would have realized that the quoted section was not your words. Furthermore, my response to that quote has nothing to do with your post or argument. Don't worry . . . I feel sorry for you too. Now, on the the few lines that haven't been thrown aside.

First, conspiracist ideation is what you are engaging in. It's not ridicule. It's calling out a tactic. I'm sorry that the truth offends someone that has it emblazened across their avatar.

As for logical fallacies . . . psycho-project much? Every post and every paper you post is a circus of fallacies and is exactly why the "scientific community" ignores them. Instead of critically evaluating the critiques and reexamining the actual evidence (which to this point they have failed to produce one shred of . . . as in DATA, not assertions).

ASSERTION

as·ser·tion
əˈsərSHən/Submit
noun
1.
a confident and forceful statement of fact or belief.
2.
Something declared or stated positively, often with no support or attempt at proof.

Your post, just like all of your boy Abel's work, is nothing but assertion. You whine about ridicule over refutation; however, you cannot refute what cannot be tested. Abel's work, as well as all other "design" papers, offer no testable hypothesis, therefore, no way to refute. Assertion and the inablity to falsify is the epitome of pseudoscience.

Your OP argument is bunk and full of false inferences that laypeople or those that share you bias will buy as credible, but it's nothing but conspiracist ideation that asks the reader to "connect the dots" based on your assertions and a disparate source material.

The article, while quite good actually, has nothing to do with your premise. The point of the article is a plea to those in medical research to question/rethink their motives and what is best for the people of this planet. Should new breakthroughs in research be the intellectual property of private corps or do they belong to the world at large. It's actually a great article and an important question. However, it has nothing to do with your premise that "independent researchers" are being "supressed" in the scientific community (which of course by your clever use of inductive reasoning, is controlled by corporate interests intent on keep the truth from the serfs.

Unfortunately, the "independent researchers" that you keep promoting in numerous forums, in numerous threads, over numerous months, have not evidence to back their claims. They are nothing but psuedoscience and the cognitive dissonance in you seeks for an answer to EVERY credible Biologist calling them (and you pet Semiotics) bunk, so you jump as always to your "anything that goes against the mainstream" conspiracy bunk. Again, it's not pseudoscience because it goes against the mainstream, it's pseudoscience because you (or Abel) make assertions without evidence. Also, it's not "open minded" to ignore actual evidence in favor of stories (assertions) that sound "cool" or even possible . . . that's called being gullible. In science, evidence rules and BS walks.

I posted this in my last response to your Abel paper, which by your silence over there I'm assuming you didn't see. It's a nice checklist in .pdf form to help you determine "real" science from pseudoscience . . . it has a medical slant, but can be used for all disciplines. Hope it helps you in the future . . .
Science or Pseudeoscience

a reply to: BO XIAN

That's the scary thing BO. The U.S. took not only their data, but exonerated many of the ones committing the atrocities and had them come to our country and continue their research. As far as we know, they were allowed to continue their research in a similar fashion, torture and all, only this time with the money and blessing of the U.S.

Back to the OP though... This whole 'science being referred to as an entity' - thing kind of creeps me out.
My brother-in-law was telling me recently how 'Science discovered this' and 'Science discovered that'. I interjected at one point and said 'You mean people discovered this? Like, the scientists, who happen to be people? I'm pretty sure science is incapable of discovering things on it's own.' He returned my comment with a brief blank stare, and resumed telling me about what 'Science' has discovered.

a reply to: candlestick

We're dumb, huh? Says the person who can barely type a coherent sentence. Believing in a God doesn't make you dumb. What truly makes one dumb is narrow mindedness to an extreme degree. A person thinking one group of people are all around just idiots because of a belief in God is an example.

a reply to: Kali74

You see? A fine example of a dumb statement.

So, just because the poster points out that many people seem to worship science, he is a religious weirdo that wants religion to be taught in schools? By "religion" you mean Christianity, right? If that is what you mean, please say so and don't beat around the bush. Because while Christianity may be a religion, religion is not Christianity.

I am a Christian, and the last thing I want are the corrupt leaders of Christendom to have any hold of any type of power. Those leaders are the only ones who would have any sway in any government setting.

So please, stop making asinine assumptions.

And to Spinx: Yes, I have noticed the very same thing. It's always awesome when I recognize something and then I go online to see others talking about the very same thing. Science is indeed spoken of as an entity, not as a concept.

You can easily identify a science worshiper by how they talk about it. The moment they speak of science as some animate being, you know you've found yourself a true weirdo who sees no fault in anything related to science.

People may find those who look to a God as weird or kooks, but at least the concept of God allows room for Him to be animate, thinking, a BEING. Whether you believe in Him or not, at least there is room for those things. At the same time, we can say definitively, science is NOT alive, never has been alive, nor ever will be.