Scientism: The worship of modern mainstream science

originally posted by: solomons path
You are assuming that "environment" means "information" . . . it does not.

What else could it be? If there's no information received from the environment, the environment should have no effect. I'll leave this here.. And after that, let's go back to scientism please.

originally posted by: vasaga

originally posted by: solomons path
You are assuming that "environment" means "information" . . . it does not.

What else could it be? If there's no information received from the environment, the environment should have no effect. I'll leave this here.. And after that, let's go back to scientism please.

It's called chemistry . . . Specific to my example of Thalidomide:

Specifically, Wells and colleagues found that birth defects result from not only thalidomide, but also from the compounds that it breaks down to in the body, which last up to 40 times longer in the body than thalidomide itself. These compounds ultimately lead to the production of highly toxic forms of oxygen, called "reactive oxygen species," (ROS) including hydrogen peroxide and free radicals that alter disrupt normal embryonic development, causing birth defects.

The chemicals present inhibit proteins from starting/stopping at the correct time, thus changing the form and function of the organism.

When I, or any other person, talk about "environment" in regards to gene expression it's about how the environment inhibits, enhances, delays development. The "environment" is not a nebulous thing . . . each of us deal with different levels of chemical interaction based on environment. If your mother was an alcoholic during pregnancy . . . your environment is much different than those of parents who were not. If your mother was exposed to lead when pregnant, then the effects of lead on early development would have shaped your form and function. That's environment.

Chemistry . . . not information exchange. It's really not that difficult to grasp, unless you're intentionally being obtuse.

The problem with most creation/design/semiotics bunk is that it presupposes an anthropomorphic view of nature and seeks to validate it . . . the opposite of science. They then take this opposite and project it on to legitimate science and when your pet idea isn't taken seriously, due to lack of independently verifiable and testable evidence, assert that it relies on "faith", cognitive dissonance ensues and voila . . . Scientism is born. Fanciful thoughts for New Age hucksters.

a reply to: vasaga

And in response to the Lipton video that you post in every thread . . . he is simply describing Asymetric Cell Division. The clue to his work not providing what he claims is that he was working with stem cells and waited until the original cell had divided multiple times before isolating them. It's no different than taking the stem cells and isolating certain areas for transplant on a host to get an ear, or liver, or etc.

Notably, stem cells divide asymmetrically to give rise to two distinct daughter cells: one copy of the original stem cell as well as a second daughter programmed to differentiate into a non-stem cell fate. (In times of growth or regeneration, stem cells can also divide symmetrically, to produce two identical copies of the original cell.

So, despite their separation they had already developed the chemical pathways for each specific form. It had nothing to do with the medium, as it was obviously sufficient for incubation and didn't inhibit protein regulation, such as a medium like HCl or Alcohol.

Lipton's "ideas" are nothing more than assertion, and in fact, all current evidence (since his revelation in the late 60's, half a century ago) points to the exact opposite of his claims.

Don't some of you mean applied science?
As in technology.
Not exactly the same thing.

originally posted by: Astyanax
Solomon's Path, Kashai

I've been reading your exchange with interest.
Solomon, you have all but five of Freud's collected works, that is, those published in book form. But there are sure to be journal articles, letters to editors, etc., which he wrote and that you do not have because they never appeared in books. Then, of course, there would be private papers that were never published, but which would have been collected by his literary executors after his death. Maybe what Kashai saw is a reproduction from some such document.

Then again, Kashai, I went looking for drawings by Sigmund Freud on the internet and didn't find anything remotely fitting your description, but of course that doesn't mean anything definitive. However, I found this article about Freud's art, which doesn't mention anything remotely like the pictures you described.

Still, the pictures may well exist. But are you quite certain your memory isn't playing you false? Memory can be a funny thing: are you sure what you saw weren't portraits of women by Lucien Freud's friend Francis Bacon? One like this, for example? Or [url=http://www.francis-bacon.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/FBE264_Three-Studies-for-Portrait-of-Isabel-Rawsthorne-1966SMALLER_thb.jpg]this[/url ]?
It has been 24 years since you saw them, after all.

Your concerns are appreciated but no, as I mentioned I was at a lecture that specifically addressed these images.

These were sketches that according the professor who presented the lecture, could very well have been accurate representations of his patients. Understand that Freud was born in 1856 and died in 1939, a time when women were scared as right in marriage. Despite these assaults the system which Sigmund Freud was a part of took no action in respect to the perpetrator.

Guys it is kind of rude to enter a thread and rehash a debate from another thread.

When it comes to scientism, as I have tried to described a central issue is the harm it can cause. More than just feelings can be harmed and often are. Once such proclamations made in earnest are applied. As a factor to society in general, they take on a meaning that could entail life and death.

So it is much more than just about Nobel Laureates missing conferences.

One very relevant point in relation to understanding Psi outside the relevance of spiritual experiences. Is the case in fact that if it is possible that energy is obviously being transferred in a way that is personal. Not only personal but also if how this process occurs can be identified and replicated scientifically we could be talking about a better comprehension of how quantum entanglement is applied.

Any thoughts?

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: EnPassant
That sounds too much like scientism to me

Almost accused you of using the term incorrectly but thought I should get a concrete definition of scientism.
It is such a loosly defined term and used in so many different ways, by different authors, that it is pretty much useless.

How can you say the term is useless when in reality relevant scientist are excluded from conferences. Due to investigating an issue, that has never been appropriately investigated??

a reply to: vasaga

Science is not quite yet a religion, but in time it will be. In the past when powerful interests wanted something they employed a priest, for instance when the the Spanish or English took over this continent and killed off its inhabitants they usually sent in the priests with the first colonists you know to soften up the inhabitants, then the armies came. Now we have the scientist who is slowly taking over that role though albeit in a bit more smother manner in the day to day interests of the populous.

The truth is, none of this is new, not the internet nor the atom bomb or stealth jet fighter. People really just make a big deal about it, and here in this century we still got the same problems which have been plaguing people in the dark ages on a day to day basis, the only difference is that now they can blog about it, sure we may life a bit longer, but even that is bunk propaganda in a lot of cases even in the dark ages. My own great aunt who lived what people now a day would call horse and carriage dark age age in a third world country still lived to be over 100, and the fact is that is a longer lifespan then my parents will have, or me, or the average citizens of this great civilization advanced nations. Its a give and take I suppose. Oh and lets not forget such technological advances as Viagra, were would the world be without it. The motto of science is not "question everything" its "were there is a profit there is a way"

a reply to: galadofwarthethird

You raise valid points; however, I think you are confusing "science" with people, their desires, and human nature.

Science is a methodology. People subjugate others . . . not the methodology. People invented Viagra to make a buck . . . not the methodology. People (governments) use "science" as an argument from authority to con the populous . . . not the methodology.

Science is not a person or have anthropomorphic features . . . People give that in order to argue against it. Usually, but not always, as part of a larger argument against intellectual pursuits in favor of a faith based reality.

If those against said "scientism" would realize that it isn't the "science" . . . it's the people . . . their fight could be directed in the right place. However, it's not the people or scientists that most have a problem with. Plenty of people buy Viagra, so obviously a lot or okay with that. Nobody is discussing "scientism" when talking about building skyscrapers, bridges, or travelling to Mars. Nobody brings up "scientism" when the issue of breeding dogs or creating new species of orchids . . . It's only brought up when said scientific findings fly in the face of psuedoscience or faith based belief systems. Funny how that works out . . .

originally posted by: Kashai
How can you say the term is useless when in reality relevant scientist are excluded from conferences. Due to investigating an issue, that has never been appropriately investigated??

I say the term is useless because it's meaning is not specific. It has been used to describe too many different ideas.

I don't see scientists being excluded from conferences being that big of a deal. I see people claiming that mainstream science is wrong anyway, so why would anyone who knows what's up want to go to one of their uninformed gatherings?

a reply to: Spinx

Actually ya a lot of the progress in the USA was taken directly from the nazi scientists results and projects, you know operation paperclip and all, they shipped and recruited a lot of them here which they thought were useful and not only allowed them to continue there work but funded them. The base of US technologies is based on old Nazi projects. In fact one of the main reasons the US won the war was because certain key projects and scientists sided with them.

And ya its disturbing how "science" is all of a sudden an entity in and of itself. If anything this thread proves its slowly creeping to being a full blow religion, and not only that, but over time possibly a full blown state sponsored and sanctioned religion. After all its been peer previewed.

May the science be with you.

a reply to: seabhac-rua

Nah! Its been pretty clear, there is a region of scientism, and there is science.

Scientism, as a worldview, is something that only a minority engage in. But you were contending that scientism is now the raison d'etre in your OP. Now you're saying "we need to start differentiating between science and scientism"?

Seems to be a majority. After all religion was always in a majority.

It's safe enough to say that most intelligent people will know that blindly following anything is what only a fool does, however trying to assert that because most people are not scientists therefore when they accept things that science tell us, and that they cannot verify themselves, this means they are now engaging in scientism? This is absolute rubbish.

Intelligence and blindly following things, there is, nor has there been any real proof linking the two. Somehow your under the impression that if you have one you must have the other, there has been no proof of this. There have been plenty of intelligent people who have followed various things blindly, intelligence in a lot of cases is merely popularity contest, that is whoever gets the most people to agree on one thing is the right one.

What others system uses this process? That's right religion, you can make a complete idiot into a genius with enough propaganda, consensus says that the one with the most peer previews is right...Right? There are plenty of ways to circumvent such a false theory. Scientism and science, One is faith, the other is believe, there is a correlation between the two but they are completely different animals. And yes that is exactly right, if you can not prove it yourself, and have to rely on outside sources, and can not verify it for yourself, you just may be engaging in scientism not science. You may have to contemplate the fact that you may be religious bro.

A nice theory you have, like all theories it must be tested. A theory only held up only by popular opinion even if that opinion has books and papers published, even if its been done so for years and years does not necessarily make it true, but it just may make it mainstream. It is not science if it is not tested outside of its controlled medium in many different ways, many many times, to show that it is solid and holds true outside of its controlled environment. After all how many theories have proven incorrect with time, somewhere around 80% of them I think.

a reply to: daskakik


I have nothing against science but under the circumstances one can understand that if science really wanted to relate to religion, there would obviously be much more data. I like my microwave, computer and especially my electric blanket during cold nights.

The fact I can take a hot shower every morning with my high end shower head that provides me with multiple spray options makes my day. Because of science I can arrive at a destination that would require walking for a year in 12 hrs.

But the function of science is not to engage in behavior/activity based upon conjecture.


Say for example I tell you that many hooved animals have horns, to some extent these horns are actually made of material the is essentially made of hair.

So what is wrong with the idea that at some point in time, in history, horses developed a singular horn that was observable.

In context such a mutation is not impossible and if anything potentially is probable, especially taking into consideration how Horses fight?

Knowledge is not based upon conjecture and I fully agree with that.

Any thoughts?

originally posted by: EnPassant

originally posted by: Kashai

I mean today we hear about Miley Cyrus and her issues with Molley but that does not mean we should lobotomize her.

Any thoughts?

Are you saying Miley Cyrus is NOT lobotmized???

To the best of my knowledge no.

a reply to: solomons path

I am not confusing anything. I am a robot...Beep! Its you who are confused. And to not factor in human emotions and human hierarchies and systems into science is flawed science, in fact it is impossible for anything of biological process to not lead one into the other. So yes you are right Viagra is science just as much as that jet fighter or that computer your using, and the moto of science still is "were there is a profit there is a way" How would one dispute the other if that is what is in effect and done?

It is quite clear that science and emotions are interchangeable, one proves the other. There is no such thing as a science that has not been proven by chosen interests, who at first do not seek out what they want to prove. People and all that they are is all that science is when it is done among people, just like the fact that you can not have the observed without an observer. So science will become a religion, and it is already a religion for many it seems.

Science is not a person or have anthropomorphic features . . . People give that in order to argue against it. Usually, but not always, as part of a larger argument against intellectual pursuits in favor of a faith based reality.

Oh ya! Well it seems to change to suit whatever anthropomorphic features it currently represents, in our society that being special interests and groups. It has been proven to be the case every other time. You have faith that is not so, however it has been proven time and time again that it is not so.

Nobody is discussing "scientism" when talking about building skyscrapers, bridges, or traveling to Mars. Nobody brings up "scientism" when the issue of breeding dogs or creating new species of orchids . . . It's only brought up when said scientific findings fly in the face of psuedoscience or faith based belief systems. Funny how that works out . . .

It is there as well, even the shape of the buildings mirror there feeling and believes, even the way they structure skyscrapers is based on there believes and there faith in such structures, the whole structure of the world is merely a mirroring of the structuring of what you are. But that is a whole different story, I think the Op was primarily just point out the fact that science is bought and sold peer previews and all.

Science my friend is for sale to the highest bidder, hence most science is scientism paraded as something that it is not, and all in the interest of profit. It is the pinnacle and logical outcome when you put in all the factors, it is what science is, it does not have feelings or emotions its just a process, hence its just up for dibs. So ya, who is confusing what with what? And who is worshiping here? Who ascertains that this word this "science" is something more then just a process? It is merely your believe that "science" is above human concoctions, a thing in itself. Not mine.

originally posted by: solomons path
a reply to: galadofwarthethird

You raise valid points; however, I think you are confusing "science" with people, their desires, and human nature.

Science is a methodology. People subjugate others . . . not the methodology. People invented Viagra to make a buck . . . not the methodology. People (governments) use "science" as an argument from authority to con the populous . . . not the methodology.

Science is not a person or have anthropomorphic features . . . People give that in order to argue against it. Usually, but not always, as part of a larger argument against intellectual pursuits in favor of a faith based reality.

If those against said "scientism" would realize that it isn't the "science" . . . it's the people . . . their fight could be directed in the right place. However, it's not the people or scientists that most have a problem with. Plenty of people buy Viagra, so obviously a lot or okay with that. Nobody is discussing "scientism" when talking about building skyscrapers, bridges, or travelling to Mars. Nobody brings up "scientism" when the issue of breeding dogs or creating new species of orchids . . . It's only brought up when said scientific findings fly in the face of psuedoscience or faith based belief systems. Funny how that works out . . .

viagra was an accident.

no one set out to invent it.

get off my lawn and where is my flying vette?

people have been messing with dogs for 50,000 yrs.
no need for science or religion, there.

same with plants.

don't know how many labs were around back in the day. lol!

best we can do is glowing cats.

or is it rats?

Science and religion are two different things, just like politics and religion, they shouldn't mix. Religion is to give us moral support, rules of living together, more or less, building a conscious and stuff. Politics should create a reliable environment of rules, giving everyone access to the infrastructure he/she/it() needs, in order to contribute to society. Science is on its way to explore and explain the world, it has nothing to do with believing, it is proven facts accumulating.
So I don't know seems pretty absurd, after mixing religion and politics failed horribly, to do the same thing now with religion and science? But since we are at a point where we know so much, it is even for an expert basically impossible to know everything in his tiny area of expertise: to me, yeah, there is a lot I just have to believe, because I simply don't get it. Doesn't make it neither magic nor religion though.

a reply to: EnPassant

I just have issues with people who dismiss people as 'deluded' [Dawkins] when they don't accept the scientific consensus.

If you can show me when and where Richard Dawkins ever dismissed someone as deluded for not accepting the 'scientific consensus', please do so. The fact is that you are simply libelling the man.

Besides, I notice you have no problem with calling people who accept scientific explanations deluded.

Science is imprisoning the human mind in a carapace of materialistic, anti spiritual thinking. This is the anti chamber of spiritual death. Rupert Sheldrake wrote a book called The Science Delusion. Well worth reading.

Delusion my foot. Your problem is simply that science doesn't support your precious superstitions.

a reply to: galadofwarthethird

Science is not a living thing . . . no matter how much you stamp your feet.

The issues everyone in this thread has with "science" are human issues, perpetrated by . . . you guessed it . . . humans.

What or how humans behave has nothing to do with in inanimate methodology.

a reply to: EnPassant

[This] sounds too much like scientism to me: 'if science cannot explain it, never mind using intuition, common sense, the higher faculties of consciousness.'

Intuition and common sense are very much part of the scientific method. So are the 'higher faculties of consciousness' — that is to say, reason, logic and the ability to learn from observation and experience. No doubt you believe in some faculties that are 'higher' than this, but since there is no evidence apart from anecdotes and a few dubious statistical hiccups to suggest they even exist, it would be difficult to obtain reliable knowledge through these means.

If it were possible to do so, the knowledge would still have to be empirically, that is to say scientifically, verified.

What question?

This one: fourth time of asking.

Nonscientific explanations are speculation, fantasy, superstition or downright lies. If you know of one that does not fall into the above categories, please tell us about it.

Obviously you cannot, or you would have answered wrong ago, instead of beating about the bush.

And that's enough attention I've paid you. You're not really bringing anything of value to the discussion, just spouting your own unsubstantiated (and dead wrong) views..