Scientism: The worship of modern mainstream science

a reply to: Murgatroid




May the science be with you.

I was trained as a scientist in two specific disciplines: pharmacology and anthropology. I was told that those fields were "science" and taught the scientific methods. To some degree, pharmacology can be a science and yet, in using the scientific method, all conditions must be the same, all factors equal. That works in a Petrie dish as one is able to control all ingredients of the experiment---not so much in a human body because the conditions cannot be absolutely controlled.
In the field of anthropology, while we can use scientific methods for describing and cataloging artifacts, the science part of the discipline fails when the interpreters fill in where the scientific method leaves off. Science can tell me how many cubic yards of dirt was packed into containers and mounded up to form Monk's Mound at Cahokia. They can even tell the source of the dirt and the age of the organic materials and ceramics found within the mound. They cannot tell me why the mound was built---or the political system of the builders---but that doesn't stop any of my anthropologist colleagues making vast, sweeping statements about "what we know" about those things which have no scientific basis.
I view Sociology and Psychology the same way. They can legitimately use scientific method in some instances but to say that the practice of psychology is a science is a vast stretching of the term. While the practice of medicine has an underpinning of science, the practice of medicine remains an art simply because the human body does not fit into the scientific method as no way has yet been discovered to make all human bodies react in similar ways to stimuli. However, since there are a myriad of scientists currently working on creating chickens with square breasts for ease in shipping---I'm sure there are equal numbers working on making all human bodies clones of the perfect body. I'm just a bit worried about who is defining the standards used in areas where scientists go far beyond what scientific method shows and become policy makers based on "current theory."
Theories are just that---someone's best guess based on some measure of observation. As in the current climate debate. Climate change is a fact---science can show that once there were sheets of ice covering great swaths of land that are now ice-free. So the climate has changed in the past, from cold to warm, to cold to warm, etc. Science can tell us that the ice melted because temperatures rose but because they cannot duplicate exactly the conditions under which this happened, they cannot tell us the why. They lack data.
So when "scientists" and policy makers stand before crowds of people and say "the science is settled, there is no more debate" on issues governed by theory alone, I question their motives. That's the sort of thinking that got Galileo put under house arrest and publication of his works banned, wasn't it?

a reply to: diggindirt
"I view Sociology and Psychology the same way. They can legitimately use scientific method in some instances but to say that the practice of psychology is a science is a vast stretching of the term."

Psychology experiments can range from simple to complex, but there are some basic terms and concepts that all students of psychology should understand. Learn more about types of research, basic experimental design, and relationships between variables.

Source

Psychology is not just about therapy and research it also relates to marketing.

Myself I was the principal of a school where all the students had in their history at least 1 charge of murder (several as many as 12) with no convictions. 65 students between the ages of 13 and 18, whose criminal backgrounds in general, beyond the murder charges were substantial. One of my patients due a legal matter and though an adoption was able to secure a release.

I recommended that it be done against medical advise and it was ordered that way.

The young man went to live with a family that had two other siblings and he ended up killing both of them.

I have also done work for law enforcement in the context of local, county, state and federal agencies.

As well as functioned at the state level in relation to public assistance, abuse registry and matters related to suicidal behavior at the county level here in Miami, Florida.

Currently I am retired due to an injury I received while involved in an investigation. Into a rather serious problem affecting a small town in Miami-Dade county called Florida city.

I still provide advise.

Now do you see what you just did?

You made a decision based upon conjecture that really is not correct.

See you do not have to take me at my word I did those things but to be clear those are things that Psychologists do.

Any thoughts?

a reply to: Arbitrageur

They used to have scientific 'proof' of transubstantiation--a miracle that occurred on more than one occasion. The host turned blood-red. Often cited in theological arguments in the early nineteenth century. Turned out to be a kind of mould.

Science, folks, if you want the facts.

a reply to: Kashai

I have no thoughts.
You've apparently gone way beyond my pay grade.
I fail to see what your experience with murderers has to do with "science-ism" or "belief in science." Please explain.

a reply to: diggindirt

I responded to your conclusion related to psychologists.

You considered a point related to psychology that in relation to my experience was an inconsistency, in respect to what I understand about the field.

a reply to: candlestick

Oh, well my apologies. What I typed earlier was a knee jerk reaction, so I never stopped to think maybe your first language wasn't English.

I find it endearing though that you dont care about my friends.

As an aside, I really like those Pokemon you have there in your sig.

S & F for the thread and the thought put into it.

I was with you all the way until here:

It is estimated that approximately 50% of all the scientific research in the world goes into military improvements. In other words, it goes into harming people rather than helping them, relieving them, or saving them

I find this statement to be totally INaccurate.

Now, I know the reputation the US military has in some areas, and it is normal - I guess - to associate military with war and war with harm/death, but this is incredibly short-sighted.

Now, many of the inventions that have come thru the military (which we associate with defense and offense) have more to do with making our military function more efficiently than with death and destruction.

Many of the magnificent technologies that we enjoy in the civilian market were developed in the military, so try not to poopoo on it, too much:

GPS, Freeze-drying, Epi-Pens, cargo pants/shorts, Duct tape, Jeeps, computers(!), Microwaves, the INTERNET, digital cameras, antibiotics, canned good, safety razors, sunglasses, and much more...

... to name, but a few.

Other than that, great post.

originally posted by: SquirrelNutz
S & F for the thread and the thought put into it.

I was with you all the way until here:

It is estimated that approximately 50% of all the scientific research in the world goes into military improvements. In other words, it goes into harming people rather than helping them, relieving them, or saving them

I find this statement to be totally INaccurate.

Now, I know the reputation the US military has in some areas, and it is normal - I guess - to associate military with war and war with harm/death, but this is incredibly short-sighted.

Now, many of the inventions that have come thru the military (which we associate with defense and offense) have more to do with making our military function more efficiently than with death and destruction.

Many of the magnificent technologies that we enjoy in the civilian market were developed in the military, so try not to poopoo on it, too much:

GPS, Freeze-drying, Epi-Pens, cargo pants/shorts, Duct tape, Jeeps, computers(!), Microwaves, the INTERNET, digital cameras, antibiotics, canned good, safety razors, sunglasses, and much more...

... to name, but a few.

Other than that, great post.

Ok. Thanks for the information.

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

I think that is the most important point that you are making.

I think that if mainstream science were to adopt a code of ethics that disallows scorn and ridicule in scientific discourse, it would go a long way toward freeing science of scientism.

I think our inner voice, or conscience, is a powerful motivator and a necessary element for scientific progress.

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: Arbitrageur

They used to have scientific 'proof' of transubstantiation--a miracle that occurred on more than one occasion. The host turned blood-red. Often cited in theological arguments in the early nineteenth century. Turned out to be a kind of mould.

I'm sure that's not the answer they wanted to hear. Seems like they don't even try anymore.

originally posted by: Mary Rose
I think that if mainstream science were to adopt a code of ethics that disallows scorn and ridicule in scientific discourse, it would go a long way toward freeing science of scientism.

Science does have a code, it's called "present evidence to support your assertions".

Example:
Wal Thornhill: The sun is powered by electricity, not fusion.
Mainstream: Where is your evidence for this?
Wal Thornhill: I don't have any.
Mainstream:

I mean, what do you expect, really? Lots of the pseudoscientific ideas are contradicted by evidence so are non-starters.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: Arbitrageur

They used to have scientific 'proof' of transubstantiation--a miracle that occurred on more than one occasion. The host turned blood-red. Often cited in theological arguments in the early nineteenth century. Turned out to be a kind of mould.

I'm sure that's not the answer they wanted to hear. Seems like they don't even try anymore.

originally posted by: Mary Rose
I think that if mainstream science were to adopt a code of ethics that disallows scorn and ridicule in scientific discourse, it would go a long way toward freeing science of scientism.

Science does have a code, it's called "present evidence to support your assertions".

Example:
Wal Thornhill: The sun is powered by electricity, not fusion.
Mainstream: Where is your evidence for this?
Wal Thornhill: I don't have any.
Mainstream:

I mean, what do you expect, really? Lots of the pseudoscientific ideas are contradicted by evidence so are non-starters.

Why does the reply have to be instead of, 'how are you planning on testing this?'. If the person has no answer, they can easily say, 'well, until you do, we have no use for your hypothesis'.

It never has to end up with you're so stupid

Isn't that a more effective and mature way to go about it? If science and its community are going to be our guide for humanity, a little decency is not much to ask.

a reply to: vasaga

Yeah I skipped a few steps for the sake of brevity, but they apply the same code to everybody, not just pseudoscientists but scientists too. If he had a good plan for testing or providing evidence, it wouldn't be


But he doesn't, he makes some excuse about why it can't be measured.

Any scientist will be scorned for coming up with such excuses, not just pseudoscientists.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
a reply to: vasaga

Yeah I skipped a few steps for the sake of brevity, but they apply the same code to everybody, not just pseudoscientists but scientists too. If he had a good plan for testing or providing evidence, it wouldn't be

But he doesn't, he makes some excuse about why it can't be measured.

Any scientist will be scorned for coming up with such excuses, not just pseudoscientists.

Except when someone who believes the fossil record says 'we lack fossils for X because they're rare so that's why we don't have it'.

a reply to: vasaga

That's not the same thing. We know how electricity works, we know what kinds of evidence and telltale signatures it leaves, and if it's there, the evidence should be measurable.

We also know how decomposition works, and how it destroys evidence of organisms through natural processes. So it's consistent with scientific expectations that the natural processes we know of that destroy such evidence will have destroyed such evidence. It's only when rare and unusual conditions occur that such evidence is preserved in fossils.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Whether the reason for the evidence is a good or bad reason, the evidence not being there, should simply count as lack of evidence. Especially when we're dealing with inductive logic, which is inherently uncertain in the first place. Making exceptions when it's convenient undermines the whole process that's supposed to be systematic.

a reply to: vasaga
That's just not the way it is.

In some cases absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Claim: there was a 1-ton creature in this spot 300 million years ago. Evidence: none. We don't know if there was a creature there or not.

In other cases absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

Claim: there is a 1-ton creature here right now. Evidence: none. We should be able to tell if there's a one ton creature in this spot right now, don't you think?

Now if you're claiming the rules of evidence for those two situations are comparable, I must not only disagree but also encourage you to improve your critical thinking skills.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
a reply to: vasaga
That's just not the way it is.

In some cases absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Claim: there was a 1-ton creature in this spot 300 million years ago. Evidence: none. We don't know if there was a creature there or not.

Agreed, but we should not assume it was there either, like is often happening today with the fossil record. When we don't know, we simply don't know, and no conclusion should be drawn from it. It shouldn't transform into, "well, we don't know, but, it seems necessary for it to be there, so, let's assume it was there". That's already going into the direction of scientism since it's adding additional support to the current system without additional evidence.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
In other cases absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

Claim: there is a 1-ton creature here right now. Evidence: none. We should be able to tell if there's a one ton creature in this spot right now, don't you think?

Agreed.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
Now if you're claiming the rules of evidence for those two situations are comparable, I must not only disagree but also encourage you to improve your critical thinking skills.

My critical thinking skills are fine, thank you

originally posted by: vasaga
Agreed, but we should not assume it was there either, like is often happening today with the fossil record. When we don't know, we simply don't know, and no conclusion should be drawn from it. It shouldn't transform into, "well, we don't know, but, it seems necessary for it to be there, so, let's assume it was there". That's already going into the direction of scientism since it's adding additional support to the current system without additional evidence.

It depends on the case. In some cases it makes perfect sense to make such assumptions.

For example a bottom dwelling creature with eyestalks apparently evolved longer eyestalks. So if we find a 2mm eyestalk fossil followed in the fossil record by one that's 4mm and one that's 6mm, it seems quite reasonable to infer from this record that at some point between the 2mm eyestalk and the 4mm eyestalk the creatures probably had 3mm eyestalks. We don't need to have a fossil of a 3mm eyestalk to make that a reasonable assumption.

Here's a video where Dr Hazen talks about evolution though he doesn't give any specific measurements, but he does show what fossils he has from the fossil record.



Oops, sorry that video cuts off before he talks about the eyestalks, but I can upload that part if you want to see it.

originally posted by: EnPassant
a reply to: vasaga

Excellent post and long overdue. 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.

Both agree and do not agree. Some people like Richard Dawkins are clearly turning materialism into a religion. The funny thing is that from my point of view his views are going against the current science in Physics. Entanglement/Quantum theory/double slit experiment. He is saying spiritual things are ridiculous even if he have not really done a fair test in a field that humanity is still quantifying how it works so we can speak of it in Scientific terms.



There are plenty of other scientist that are in fact very interesting to listen to that do not judge things they have no experience with.