Scientism: The worship of modern mainstream science

a reply to: Kashai

I do believe we are ants questioning the essence of the sun based on dew drops in the morning, and the color of the leaves in the evening. Does it matter? Everybody it seems needs there idols, science and scientism are not above human interpretation and misinterpretation, they will both be put through the blender and the rings like all others and they will all learn to fail oh so gloriously, and its obvious some do worship science already as this thread so clearly shows.

But on a side note I just looked at your signature quotes. An interesting thought that, time as a form of communication.

originally posted by: galadofwarthethird
a reply to: Kashai

I do believe we are ants questioning the essence of the sun based on dew drops in the morning, and the color of the leaves in the evening.

With a neutrino detector on the first and a calibrated spectrometer on the second.

Don't misunderestimate us.

a reply to: galadofwarthethird

Science can be very cool but while science has solved many serious problems it has also created others.

That is commonplace historically without exception in relation to any institution.

Clearly people want very much to believe that what they think is true. But a very important function of science is to form answers based upon facts not conjecture. Was funny about skeptics in relation to discussions about psi is that they often speak, as if they understand the person they are talking to. I think mankind is entering a time of great discovery in relation to both the soul and body.

Thanks for the compliment that is something I wrote when I was in my early 20's.

a reply to: mbkennel

Actually how about a car that can drive itself in about 10 years and the potential of traveling 10 to almost 100 times the speed of light in 200 hundred years. But admittedly when Hawkins announces that he can show that God need not exist for the Universe to have existed, based upon inductive reasoning?

That is a stretch.


Any thoughts?

originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: mbkennel

Actually how about a car that can drive itself in about 10 years and the potential of traveling 10 to almost 100 times the speed of light in 200 hundred years. But admittedly when Hawkins announces that he can show that God need not exist for the Universe to have existed, based upon inductive reasoning?

That is a stretch.

Any thoughts?

Sure. Team Religion is down 15 touchdowns and 25 unsportsman-like conduct penalties at the 2 minute warning. But there are always believers I guess. We can call them cheese heads.

a reply to: mbkennel

In perspective I feel the Pavlov Dogs were retired due to, too many injuries.

While the Qualia Timber Wolves ended up being placed in the position of having to clean up after the mess.

Any thoughts?

a reply to: mbkennel

Oh ya! interesting, I suppose your right in a way. Well you know go ahead and give it a try, you may want to bring a ruler to.

a reply to: Kashai

Sorry you think it's a silly question. The point is that exploding stars are neither quantum nor classical; they are simply physical. Quantum paradoxes are real but they arise from the physical and temporal limitations of human perception. They arise when the brain is called upon to process and interpret data obtained from beyond its conceptual design limits.

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: Kashai

Sorry you think it's a silly question. The point is that exploding stars are neither quantum nor classical; they are simply physical. Quantum paradoxes are real but they arise from the physical and temporal limitations of human perception. They arise when the brain is called upon to process and interpret data obtained from beyond its conceptual design limits.

Since we can calculate the right answers, it's not beyond a few people's "design limits", but it is far from natural or inborn.

a reply to: mbkennel

Calculating right answers has been referred to as "shut up and calculate", but it's not really an indication that we've reached any kind of agreement regarding exactly how to interpret our experiments as explained in this video, so I don't find the argument that understanding is within our design limits convincing until some consensus is reached based on some kind of convincing arguments or more evidence:

Quantum Mechanics (an embarrassment) - Sixty Symbols

a reply to: Astyanax

And I apologize for the sarcasm.

I a have often considered in contemplation as to the appearance of a tree (as an example), where how it is entangled with its surroundings, is observable.

That involves the imagination but fundamentally the mechanics exist.

The apparent origin of Classical mechanics is Quantum Mechanics though and to some extent that search seems to have been diminished in relevance. I have also noted that Chaos theory even with its incredible consistencies is less discussed in the Mainstream lately as well.


Any thoughts?

a reply to: mbkennel

Perhaps it would be better to say 'perceptual and conceptuw
conceptual limits.'

One of science's greatest achievements is its predictive ability. Unlike religions, that ability is not based upon faith.

It's based upon observation and mathematics.


The OP really misunderstands science and should be locked in a room and forced to watch ever episode of Cosmos (Both Carl Sagan and Neil DeGrasse Tyson's).

originally posted by: smithjustinb

originally posted by: vasaga
Science is no longer serving the purpose of discovering truth.

If this were true, then no more discoveries would be made. But, new discoveries are made every day.

One serves a master.

Science is no longer serving the purpose of discovering truth (reason for doing).

Science is serving the master who pays them. Truth discovered is a possible by-product of serving your master payor, but it is no longer the purpose (reason for doing).

God Bless,

a reply to: ElohimJD

Anyone who works in science can tell you this is complete BS.

a reply to: JadeStar
The thing is the topic is scientism you can check Wikipedia for the definition.

GetHyped

"Anyone who works in science can tell you this is complete BS."

Not really you should read the thread and respond to what deviates from your position.

a reply to: Kashai

And you should read the thread as I already have responded on a number of occasions. I'm willing to put money down on the fact that those who crow the loudest about scientism have never spent even 5 mins in the company of a scientist.

a reply to: GetHyped

I worked with doctors all my adult life and have been posting in internet in science forums. also all my adult life.

My formal background is in Psychology and worked a lot with violent patients.

Scientism is very real issue and problem in science.

Any thoughts?

a reply to: Kashai

I usually agree with GetHyped but in this case while I generally agree that most scientists are serving the truth and not the masters funding them, there are exceptions and some doctors in the field of medicine have been outed (one even confessed), but this is usually more a case of unethical or fraudulent behavior, and as far as I can tell has nothing to do with scientism.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

I feel the idea that scientist are dropping the ball on the whole "mankind's search for truth" to be absurd. In retrospect if your going to boil and egg there is a mechanics to it. I do not believe that the psychiatrist in the 50's, that were giving there patients electroshock. As a consequence for any potential deviation to then current social norms, did so because they thought they were doing the wrong thing.

What they were doing at the time was supporting a behaviorist/materialist/minimalist model that did not work.

On the internet I was once told that considering the relevance of interconnectedness due to quantum mechanics was inappropriate.

This is because (as he explained) that the technology needed to observe such an event at the classical scale had not been developed.

Because we could not directly observe Quantum Entanglement, upon the scale of say a human being. Such a conclusion related to quantum entanglement does not exist.

Because we have not been able to test for it he opinioned I should not think about it.

Now you see to me that is a problem because in fact the origin of Classical Mechanics is Quantum Mechanics. Could there be a fundamental relationship between Density and Quantum Interconnectedness??? What about the idea that variations in Density constitutes variations in interconnectedness?

Consider that upon the large scale structure of the Universe (13.7 billion years old and about 40 billion light years wide), the relationship between Quantum Interconnectedness and Density/Relativity is apparent and observable?

Any thoughts?