Scientism: The worship of modern mainstream science

This OP is the promulgation of utter bolloxology.

Science is only your enemy OP because it contradicts your skewed version of reality.....plain and simple.

People who hold views like yours are the bane of humanity.

originally posted by: np6888
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.

I shall have to respectfully dissagree.
Perhaps you could give an example of a "non-technological" discovery, keeping in mind that, as rudimentary as they were, the very first tools used by humans (shaped stones, sharp sticks etc) were the best tech avaialable at that time....

a reply to: seabhac-rua

Yeah, and are people like you the hope?

The OP NEVER hinted at a disgust in "science." He merely pointed out the faults of many who hold to it like a security blanket. Most people love what scientists have produced. I myself am a gamer and could not have such a hobby if it wasn't for scientists.

Like I said, he wasn't criticizing science, and that is more than plain to see. It is your own tunnel vision which makes you assume he was. And tell us, what IS his version of reality? Did he even state anything he believed in? You do realize that you prove the point that whenever someone doesn't worship science, as you do, that people like you are quick to label them religious nutjobs, do you not?

He is not the bane of anything, he is a free thinker, and such a mindset should be celebrated, not demonized.

a reply to: JudgeEden

Yeah like I "worship" science.

Where did I say "religious nut job"? Are you describing yourself?

Science is a quest for knowledge nothing more, nothing less.

People who attack scientific enquiry do so for a reason, wake up to that numb nuts. If the laws of the universe don't suit your views, well that's just tough sh*t for you isn't it? The OP doesn't like the idea that mainstream science, accepted by the majority, doesn't support his/her ideology, therefore the majority must be dumb, brainwashed etc. The reality is that fundamentalism has it's days numbered and its inmates are starting to get jumpy, they can smell the rot of their delusion in the air about them, so they go on the offensive.

But don't mind me, I couldn't give a toss what you believe, seriously.

a reply to: Artlogic

Fascinating . . . evidently . . . the HIGH PRIEST/BISHOP/POPE perspective on the Religion of Scientism has saturated your view.

ONLY THE STRICTLY ORTHODOX need express an opinion.

What an unsurprise.

What a good example of the attitudes manifested so chronically and dogmatically in the RELIGION OF SCIENTISM.

originally posted by: JudgeEden
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.

"Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud.It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs.Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth.It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres."

Corinthians 13 4-7

I often feel many believers of religion don't care the ethical guidelines of that religion.They just want to take advantage of the identity,to join a powerful group ,get more "friends ",etc.Sometimes these groups would make religious war,if they got enough power.Power corrupts.

originally posted by: BO XIAN
a reply to: Artlogic

Fascinating . . . evidently . . . the HIGH PRIEST/BISHOP/POPE perspective on the Religion of Scientism has saturated your view.

ONLY THE STRICTLY ORTHODOX need express an opinion.

What an unsurprise.

What a good example of the attitudes manifested so chronically and dogmatically in the RELIGION OF SCIENTISM.

I don't think you have quite grasped the concept. Have you no curiosity whatsoever about how the universe works?
Would you rather we all reverted back to an animalistic state of being?
I believe you are radically overcomplicating and overdramatizing the simple act of discovery.
Ill put it in a way I think you will understand, had I been present in the fantasy land of Eden when the talking snake offered the forbidden fruit to the magical rib woman. I'd have not only said yep we should taste of the knowledge, but I would have suggested first turning it into 3.14159

originally posted by: JudgeEden
a reply to: seabhac-rua

Yeah, and are people like you the hope?

The OP NEVER hinted at a disgust in "science." He merely pointed out the faults of many who hold to it like a security blanket. Most people love what scientists have produced. I myself am a gamer and could not have such a hobby if it wasn't for scientists.

Like I said, he wasn't criticizing science, and that is more than plain to see. It is your own tunnel vision which makes you assume he was. And tell us, what IS his version of reality? Did he even state anything he believed in? You do realize that you prove the point that whenever someone doesn't worship science, as you do, that people like you are quick to label them religious nutjobs, do you not?

He is not the bane of anything, he is a free thinker, and such a mindset should be celebrated, not demonized.

Thank you. Good to see that some people actually get the point.

Funny, there seems to be a pattern of dogmatic vitriol in the negative replies. But only religious nut-jobs jump to conclusions and get hostile when their core beliefs are brought into question...right?

Science is the application of logic to repeated observations. 'Mainstream science' is the application of bias to (real) science, using assumptions to fill in the gaps.

a reply to: OpenMindedRealist

Great thinkers for decades have decried the rapid rush toward advancing technology and science

without

highly moral management of a high spiritual quality.

The worship of science is merely a part of that messy, dreadful picture.

The idea that science has to be elevated as a great loftiness or one is to be considered a Luddite is a good example of the cult of scientism.

The movie Dr Strangelove comes to mind.

originally posted by: vasaga
We should live our lives as if we are scientists ourselves, and not fall into the religion of scientism.

At present I'm relying on the YouTube channel Thunderbolts Project for that, where I can view videos from the annual Electric Universe conference.

These conferences provide a platform for independent thinkers. I predict the young scientists who join their effort will be the leaders who will steer future science toward understanding of how the universe really works.

originally posted by: Artlogic

originally posted by: np6888
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.

I shall have to respectfully dissagree.

Perhaps you could give an example of a "non-technological" discovery, keeping in mind that, as rudimentary as they were, the very first tools used by humans (shaped stones, sharp sticks etc) were the best tech avaialable at that time....

sociology, psych, etc.

Interesting thread and yes we are now in a system where science only has one agenda and that is to keep the cash flowing, education is taught not to better the species but oneself through consumerism and survival of paying bills and keeping food on the table

not every scientist is like that , however we need to get out of this system and have science unhindered by financial motives , science for science sake and for the advancement of our species and understanding of the universe.

It would only take on super smart person to do this and free us from the system , it will happen soon


a reply to: vasaga
I would plant trees every where by the way , but you'd likely be told you can't !

originally posted by: tsingtao

originally posted by: Artlogic

originally posted by: np6888
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.

I shall have to respectfully dissagree.

Perhaps you could give an example of a "non-technological" discovery, keeping in mind that, as rudimentary as they were, the very first tools used by humans (shaped stones, sharp sticks etc) were the best tech avaialable at that time....

sociology, psych, etc.

Both of these scientific fields are heavily reliant on, and a starting point for, a variety of technologies, statistical analasys is kinda tricky if you're crunching the numbers in you're head.

Sociologists increasingly draw upon computationally intensive methods to analyze and model social phenomena.[88] Using computer simulations, artificial intelligence, text mining, complex statistical methods, and new analytic approaches like social network analysis and social sequence analysis, computational sociology develops and tests theories of complex social processes through bottom-up modeling of social interactions.[89

en.m.wikipedia.org...

Tech is everywhere

So you're a little mad religion is slowly being brought to justice and revealed as the labrynth of lies it turned out to be.

Science is no more a religion than food is a religion in the hands of the obese. Like anything else in this world, when abused by those in power it is brought into disrepute. When it is used to eradicate small pox it is praised.

It is greed that prevents human progress in the field of science, not faith, and therefor I see no comparison to religion (well almost). I don't believe the earth revolves around the sun I know it does, but I can't be sure my university funding won't be cut because my government doesn't see it profitable.

originally posted by: JudgeEden


Like I said, he wasn't criticizing science, and that is more than plain to see.

Indeed: he was insulting scientists.

It is your own tunnel vision which makes you assume he was. And tell us, what IS his version of reality? Did he even state anything he believed in?

He accused scientists of holding their "dogmatic" beliefs because of a presumed fearful and unquestioning obedience to some mythical authority, instead of the truth, which is extensively documented observation, evidence and carefully considered theory governed by reason.

You do realize that you prove the point that whenever someone doesn't worship science, as you do, that people like you are quick to label them religious nutjobs, do you not?

It's a good guess based on a statistical understanding of previous occurrences. The most common reasons for fighting science are religion and money.

Looking at OP's other posts he is promoting a low-quality article in a low quality journal which supports anti-evolution thinking, and that is almost always religiously motivated at the core. Since it's uniformly rejected by mainstream scientist, OP imagines a religious-like authority organizing this, which is false.

He is not the bane of anything, he is a free thinker, and such a mindset should be celebrated, not demonized.

OP didn't have the mindset you think he/she does.

originally posted by: vasaga
a reply to: Jefferton

Someone once said:

Imagine if trees would give off free wireless internet. We would be planting them everywhere. Too bad they only produce the oxygen we breathe.

well you would probably be big, blue and be available in 3D

As an engineer, the device if it be tablet, PC or whatever you are using as stated above and the Internet would not exsist. Though no longer in the form Tim Berners Lee intended it. You would have been able to exercise your right to free speech or whatever regardless if you were offended by it or not.

And yes some people are offended not just by the free speech but by the fact your using a PC or device so in giving two fingers to y'all

a reply to: candlestick

I sure do think its quite surprising when one who doesn't believe in Christianity proceeds to use Biblical quotes as a way to criticize a Christian. It's actually quite common.

What people like you fail to acknowledge is that no one is perfect, not even a Christian. Am I making excuses for myself? No, of course not. That is pretty much stated many times in scripture.

Also, you came after Christians with your nonsense and so I decided to try to point out that you aren't so smart either. All I did was point out something which was already obvious.

Lastly, what you said regarding believers...

I often feel many believers of religion don't care the ethical guidelines of that religion.They just want to take advantage of the identity,to join a powerful group ,get more "friends ",etc.Sometimes these groups would make religious war,if they got enough power.Power corrupts.

May be true to some, but isn't for me. I DO care about the ethical guidelines of the Bible. I don't take advantage of any identity, a Christian is what I am.

Friends? It is always so funny when one thinks they have you all figured out because they ran into a bunch of OTHER Christians who fit the description they're trying to convey. I don't have other "Christian" friends, nor do I want them. I used to be a part of them, now i'm not. If Christians got this power you speak of, I'd be affected as much as you.

I made a similar thread a while ago. For me there is a distinction that needs to be made in order to avoid knee-jerk reactions: science and scientism are not the same.

Science is a never-ending process of gathering knowledge and verifying its accuracy. It relies on logic and observation to do this, and it's exceptionally awesome for providing provisional answers questions. These answers are never final, and they are always open new knowledge that can change these answers. It is a mistake to think that science ever produces "final" answers.

Scientism is the inappropriate assumption that science has produced "final" answers, and such assumptions transform science into religion. Furthermore, unless you conduct your own research or at least read and comprehend scientific papers, you are taking someone else's word as truth, which is essentially the same as believing the teachings of a religious leader. The scientific method was developed in rejection of this exact behavior (religious belief).

Science is most reliable when no one believes anyone else. It requires a skeptical stance on all truth claims, and part of a skeptical stance is the acknowledgement that logic, just like belief, is a self-referencing system. Thus all truths are maybe true, probably true, maybe false, etc. but never absolutely true or absolutely false.