Scientism: The worship of modern mainstream science

originally posted by: EnPassant
Yes, but that is not the problem. The problem is that scientism tries to denigrate knowledge that is attained by other means and by the higher faculties of the mind.

So?

The real problem is that instead of taking your ball and going home you want to change the rules of the game they are playing.

originally posted by: solomons path
480mb is not a number I can find anywhere except your post.

That was from memory and I remembered incorrectly. It is apparently 750 x 2 Mb.

Along the same lines, how much genetic data is exchanged during human reproduction?Each sperm cell in a human male is heterogametic and haploid, meaning that it contains only one of two sex chromosomes (X or Y) and only one set of the 22 autosomal chromosomes. Thus, each sperm contains about 3 billion bases of genetic information, representing 750 Mbytes of digital information. The average human ejaculate contains around 180 million sperm cells. So, that’s 180 x 10^6 haploid cells x 750 Mbytes/haploid cell = 135 x10^9 Mbytes=135000 Terabytes!!!! Following this idea even further, while 13500 Tbytes are transferred, only one sperm cell will fuse with an egg, using only 750 Mbytes of data, combining it with another 750 Mbytes of data from the egg. Thus, essentially 99.9999…% of the data transferred during sexual reproduction is lost in the pipeline … Whether the remaining fraction of information will result in anything constructive is up to good parenting.

Link

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: EnPassant
Yes, but that is not the problem. The problem is that scientism tries to denigrate knowledge that is attained by other means and by the higher faculties of the mind.

So?
The real problem is that instead of taking your ball and going home you want to change the rules of the game they are playing.

You apparently have not given much consideration to the subject of this thread. It is not about science or changing the rules of the game. It is about how science is being used to eclipse other kinds of knowledge. It is about scientistic propaganda.

a reply to: EnPassant

No . . . I understand completely.

Environmental factors are light, heat, sex, chemical exposure. For instance . . . oh . . . Thalidomide. How is the information for exposure to Thalidomide already contained in the genome? Answer . . . it's not.

You're out of your element and your arguments make no sense to anyone with a basic knowledge of biochem.

The expression of genes in an organism can be influenced by the environment, including the external world in which the organism is located or develops, as well as the organism's internal world, which includes such factors as its hormones and metabolism. One major internal environmental influence that affects gene expression is gender, as is the case with sex-influenced and sex-limited traits. Similarly, drugs, chemicals, temperature, and light are among the external environmental factors that can determine which genes are turned on and off, thereby influencing the way an organism develops and functions.

As these examples illustrate, there are many specific instances of environmental influences on gene expression. However, it is important to keep in mind that there is a very complex interaction between our genes and our environment that defines our phenotype and who we are

Enviorment and gene expression

originally posted by: solomons path
You've shown you don't understand how transcription or translation works . . . let alone more specific function like coding vs. non.

Wordy stuff doesn't cut it. I am asking for EVIDENCE.

originally posted by: EnPassant
You apparently have not given much consideration to the subject of this thread.

I have and have come to the conclusion that it's much ado about nothing.

originally posted by: solomons path
Environmental factors are light, heat, sex, chemical exposure. For instance . . . oh . . . Thalidomide. How is the information for exposure to Thalidomide already contained in the genome? Answer . . . it's not.

You implied that the genome in conjunction with the environment determines growth and form. Now you are back tracking because your implied assertion cannot show how the environment would contribute in terms of information. You must now go back to the start and assert that all the information is in the genome.

You must now present evidence for this.

originally posted by: EnPassant

originally posted by: solomons path
480mb is not a number I can find anywhere except your post.

That was from memory and I remembered incorrectly. It is apparently 750 x 2 Mb.

Along the same lines, how much genetic data is exchanged during human reproduction?Each sperm cell in a human male is heterogametic and haploid, meaning that it contains only one of two sex chromosomes (X or Y) and only one set of the 22 autosomal chromosomes. Thus, each sperm contains about 3 billion bases of genetic information, representing 750 Mbytes of digital information. The average human ejaculate contains around 180 million sperm cells. So, that’s 180 x 10^6 haploid cells x 750 Mbytes/haploid cell = 135 x10^9 Mbytes=135000 Terabytes!!!! Following this idea even further, while 13500 Tbytes are transferred, only one sperm cell will fuse with an egg, using only 750 Mbytes of data, combining it with another 750 Mbytes of data from the egg. Thus, essentially 99.9999…% of the data transferred during sexual reproduction is lost in the pipeline … Whether the remaining fraction of information will result in anything constructive is up to good parenting.

Link

Currently it is at 3.2Gb . . . stop trying to post inaccurate information. 750x2 is only 1.5Gb . . . the actual genome is twice that and they are still learning, so there may be more.

The earliest direct estimates of the size of human genome clustered around 3,000 Mb (megabase pairs) or 3.0 ×109 bp (base pairs). The textbooks settled on about 3,200 Mb based mostly on reassociation kinetics.

originally posted by: solomons pathThe expression of genes in an organism can be influenced by the environment, including the external world in which the organism is located or develops, as well as the organism's internal world, which includes such factors as its hormones and metabolism.

Why are you posting this? I never disputed it. I asked you how you can support your assertion that genes determine growth and form by having recourse to environmental factors. This was a mistake because - as I have pointed out to you - you run into a problem with information; the information is not in the environment so you are back with the genome as far as information is concerned.

originally posted by: EnPassant

originally posted by: solomons path
Environmental factors are light, heat, sex, chemical exposure. For instance . . . oh . . . Thalidomide. How is the information for exposure to Thalidomide already contained in the genome? Answer . . . it's not.

You implied that the genome in conjunction with the environment determines growth and form. Now you are back tracking because your implied assertion cannot show how the environment would contribute in terms of information. You must now go back to the start and assert that all the information is in the genome.

You must now present evidence for this.

You are assuming that "environment" means "information" . . . it does not. If you are being obtuse or legitimately cannot see how environmental factors lead to alteration in expression, which leads to alterations in form and function . . . there is not much I can say or show you.

Your assumptions and bias are clouding how you process information . . . what's Info Theory say about that?

And . . . I gave you a very specific evidence for environment . . . Thalidomide. Lead, lack of oxygen, alcohol . . . all work. As does no exposure to sunlight, polluted water or no water (dehydration). All environment . . . all can be a factor in gene expression (function and form).

I feel that "Scientism," which inevitably I have my own nuanced understanding, has existed in approximately the same form since scientific endeavors began. Or, perhaps, shortly after.

It is a fascinating thing to me, because it seems to equally keep science grounded and be the largest hindrance to progress.

I think the largest difference in the modern age is the politicization and militarization of the general field of scientific exploration. We have a system that strongly discourages exploration into things that may not turn out anything new. This lack of risk-taking might be directly attributed to the idea that investments tend to be made on things that are more of a sure thing than an exploration that might not have a ROI.

I think that "Scientism" applies to transitional periods, a lag of sorts between denial and acceptance of new information of the general populace. This can definitely reach up into the scientists themselves (and does), but perhaps there the desire to appeal to authority is less and the questioning a bit stronger. I think the transitional periods tend to be in-between "large" discoveries. The Earth being flat is one example of this transitional period in action, and relativity is another. Its difficult to tell what the next step will be, but hindsight is much easier.

Until the general consensus states it as "truth," it is essentially complete denial of the data without exploration by those that appeal to the authority of "science." In this way, I think you could definitely correlate it with the behavior that is witnessed in many religions. Only, I think that science used in the "right" way would be significantly more effective in terms of control than any religion could ever imagine to achieve. One of the reasons is that the industry of science can back up the appeal to authority with real world items that are perceived to improve quality of life. This becomes amplified when the individual is not capable of providing these items for themselves, for whatever reason.

originally posted by: EnPassant

originally posted by: solomons path
Environmental factors are light, heat, sex, chemical exposure. For instance . . . oh . . . Thalidomide. How is the information for exposure to Thalidomide already contained in the genome? Answer . . . it's not.

You implied that the genome in conjunction with the environment determines growth and form. Now you are back tracking because your implied assertion cannot show how the environment would contribute in terms of information. You must now go back to the start and assert that all the information is in the genome.

You must now present evidence for this.

No . . . I said, Genes are primary, but do not act alone. You assumed that meant there is information floating around the environment that determines form. Keep up.

originally posted by: solomons path
Currently it is at 3.2Gb . . . stop trying to post inaccurate information. 750x2 is only 1.5Gb . . . the actual genome is twice that and they are still learning, so there may be more.

The way I understood the paper is that 750 x 2 is TRANSFERRED during mating. My question was if this is enough to transfer all the information required for growth and form.

only one sperm cell will fuse with an egg, using only 750 Mbytes of data, combining it with another 750 Mbytes of data from the egg. Thus, essentially 99.9999…% of the data transferred during sexual reproduction is lost in the pipeline …

At any rate, I am still asking for evidence, not endless repeats of the hypothesis or articles of faith.

originally posted by: solomons path

No . . . I said, Genes are primary, but do not act alone. You assumed that meant there is information floating around the environment that determines form. Keep up.

Why did you even bother when it is obvious that the central question here is information? You were implying that epigenetics could somehow reduce the problem.

originally posted by: EnPassant
At any rate, I am still asking for evidence, not endless repeats of the hypothesis or articles of faith.

Isn't this what you just called and criticised as scientism?

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: EnPassant
At any rate, I am still asking for evidence, not endless repeats of the hypothesis or articles of faith.

Isn't this what you just called and criticised as scientism?

No. It is science. I have no problem with science. The problem is with scientistic myth.

people absoultely worship mainstream science not like a devotee worships their god though. simple people do get what they pray for. thus they're convinced in their god. there be a difference in devotion though. a science worshipper is still stuck in his mind, a devotee can short circuit his mind and not care what he thinks. a science lover will spend his life in daydreams and theory, just pure langauge. A devotee's emotion can bring him to merging with god and experiencing his soul in samadhi. we are not devotees here, that is not possible for us. therefore other technologies have been created for us to getinto samadhi.

a reply to: EnPassant
Sorry, it is what others call scientism.

See, I told you it was quite worthless.

originally posted by: Serdgiam
I think that "Scientism" applies to transitional periods, a lag of sorts between denial and acceptance of new information of the general populace. This can definitely reach up into the scientists themselves (and does), but perhaps there the desire to appeal to authority is less and the questioning a bit stronger. I think the transitional periods tend to be in-between "large" discoveries. The Earth being flat is one example of this transitional period in action, and relativity is another. Its difficult to tell what the next step will be, but hindsight is much easier.

Equally 'scientific knowledge' is often transitional. Ptolemy's epicycles are gone. Newton's gravity no longer gravitates 'cos Einstein eclipsed it etc.

a reply to: vasaga

I've heard all these claims before, that science is a religion now.

On one hand I can see the point, I have people on my facebook who don't know a dam thing about science who post science related posts all the time because science is KEWL with the kids now.

On the other hand however there seem to be a lot of misconceptions about fans of science VS. the actual scientific community VS. what science actually is.

Science is a method for discerning objective reality, for making sense of data and facts and creating models with predictive capability. It has no moral bent, it can be used for good, it can be used for the benign and it can be used for evil. The intent of science wholly depends on the intention of those using its discoveries. You can use Einstein to explain lot's of previously unknown aspects of physics and you can also use some of his research to help build a bomb.

This leads to people thinking some of the scientists themselves are biased, are essentially mad scientists, but if their discoveries WORK, if their hypotheses are upheld by the facts, how could they be biased?

A scientist can use science to build a better bullet or cure cancer, but in the end, as with almost everything, its money that drives what research actually gets done. Want to change that? Change the people in charge of the money. I guarantee all these imaginary mad scientists vanish the moment all the money is going to cancer with none going to weapons.

I'm a big fan of science, but I don't bow before it because I understand what it is, a method. Scientism doesn't exist.