Scientism: The worship of modern mainstream science

Certain invitees to a workshop on the Foundations of Physics received from the organisers letters withdrawing their invitations. The letter to Brian Josephson asserted:

"It has come to my attention that one of your principal research interests is the paranormal ... in my view, it would not be appropriate for someone with such research interests to attend a scientific conference."

while a similar letter to David Peat asserted:

"It has come to my attention that you are the author of books on Jungian synchronicity and quantum physics, and on connections between Native American Indian thought and modern physics ... in my view, it is not appropriate for an author of such books to attend a scientific conference."


Rationality and Science
It's the nature of "must", and it's all around us
It's all about me, and it's all about shove
It's a dangerous mix if you don't get it right
They'll come and get you in the dead of the night
They'll come and get you, if it's not what they like
And then they leave ... and it's bad

It's all about power, it's all about fright
They'll come and get you in the dead of the night
And they do ...

Oh yes it's bad
Sure thing it's mad
Oh yes it's sad

Source

But what happens when both academic affiliation and status are extremely high? Does the snub still happen? It sure does. The case in hand is Brian Josephson. Josephson is a full professor at Cambridge University, and he won the Nobel Prize in physics in 1973 "for his theoretical predictions of the properties of a super current through a tunnel barrier, in particular those phenomena which are generally known as the Josephson effects." Full professor at a major university with a Nobel prize is the pinnacle of status within the rarefied world of high powered academia.

But Josephson is also one of a few Nobel laureates who is publicly known for having an interest in psi. There are others like him, of course, but they prefer to keep quiet because the taboo is both powerful and unkind.

Source

Any thoughts?

See its like this is a researcher is going to look into the issues of Religion and Spirituality. It would make sense to look into its origins and in that case that would be cultures that still practice ancient indigenous belief systems. This is what Carl Jung did and after that research he developed the issue of the Collective Unconscious.

See you tell a researcher that something is impossible the next obvious point is prove that with research.

So where is all the data. Where can I read in Science or Nature the volumes of research, that totally debunks the idea that ancient man was competent in relating to religion, the extent to which they did?

Without that research the idea that psi is unworthy of serious scientific investigation has no basis.

In terms of scientist having the opportunity? Seriously, precisely how many medications have there origins in relation to discovery, by taking into consideration the claims of people who still engage in ancient indigenous practices?

As the poem suggests, "that is what makes it sad".

Any thoughts?

I agree with you Kashai. I just wish more people were willing to see the problem.

a reply to: Kashai
Not sure what the point is exactly but in your first post you have some people with an elitist attitude. Happens in every type of social circle.

Without that research the idea that psi is unworthy of serious scientific investigation has no basis.

I'm sure you know that the answer is that you can't prove a negative.

Even if we set that aside, psi being worthy of serious scientific investigation or not is a personal opinion.

a reply to: vasaga

There are other issues in respect to more recent history that being in relation to Western and Eastern contemporary culture. I am referring to the issue of behavioral modification as a standard in Psychiatry and Psychology during the
1940's, 50's and early to middle 60's.

Have you ever heard of Willowbrook State School?

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: Kashai
Not sure what the point is exactly but in your first post you have some people with an elitist attitude. Happens in every type of social circle.

Without that research the idea that psi is unworthy of serious scientific investigation has no basis.

I'm sure you know that the answer is that you can't prove a negative.

Even if we set that aside, psi being worthy of serious scientific investigation or not is a personal opinion.

Yes I know one cannot prove a negative at the same time I have spent a considerable amount of years posting this same issue at skeptic forums.

There is nada in relation to research so there is not a opinion based upon data. Like there is not an opinion that can change the term Gravity theory to Gravity principal because there is not enough data.

In this case of Psi the good news is the Population is Mankind not the Universe.

As was mentioned earlier an opinion without basis is a conjecture.

So why are Nobel Laureates excluded from conferences???

So far your only response is that we have some stuck up scientist who do not understand the difference between conjecture and scientific opinion.

a reply to: daskakik
Psychology is my Field (in the formal sense) and I have spent considerable time working with Psychiatrists. I can tell you that today the materialist perspective was excised from the mental health system after the middle 60's like it was a cancer.

Psychiatrist as well as Psychologist laugh out loud as to the possibility they will ever go back to that kind of modeling, through out the world (literally).

Reward systems work as long as the person is willing to cooperate which also applies to negative reinforcement.

In other words one cannot train a human like one trains a dog unless they are willing to cooperate.

I mean if one looks at this from the current conservative/materialist view of Biology that should not happen.

Hence the matter of Qualia in relation to Human Awareness

Any thoughts?

originally posted by: Kashai
As was mentioned earlier an opinion without basis is a conjecture.

Seems to me that a basis is not necessary at that level. A person chooses to study something or not based on their opinions. That is what I meant by it being personal.

So why are Nobel Laureates excluded from conferences???

So far your only response is that we have some stuck up scientist who do not understand the difference between conjecture and scientific opinion.

Well, that is what I see in what you posted.

Can't really comment on your follow-up post.

a reply to: daskakik


I really enjoyed those debates by the way

Yes and would request that the facts I have posted be confirmed.

And would only add that wild animals also have issues with training that relates to negative reinforcement as well.

Any thoughts?

a reply to: EnPassant

Part of the problem is that scientism acts as if anything it cannot explain is not worthy of non scientific explanations. Its the science way or no way.

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.

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: EnPassant

Part of the problem is that scientism acts as if anything it cannot explain is not worthy of non scientific explanations. Its the science way or no way.

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.

It never ceases to amaze me that the people who are most entrenched in a distorted world view are often the ones who most zealously defend it.

originally posted by: EnPassant
It never ceases to amaze me that the people who are most entrenched in a distorted world view are often the ones who most zealously defend it.

I see this as another huge piece of evidence that supports the OP's argument.

The only way that the temple cult of Scientism can maintain control is by using cult like tactics.

It's been demonstrated numerous times right here in this very thread...

"The secularists are more fanatical than any religious cult. They are a satanic cult. They deny the obvious! They have to expel scientists! They have to stop free inquiry and debate! " If you needed confirmation that humanity is satanically possessed, rent Ben Stein's 2008 documentary, "Expelled - No Intelligence Allowed." (Trailer)

It documents how scientists who see an intelligent force at work in nature are being fired from their jobs. They are being slandered as "Creationists" and religious fundamentalists. Any mention of "Intelligent Design" is forbidden. Isn't this appalling? Science is supposed to explain the complex intelligence manifest in the natural world, not deny that it exists. Intelligent Scientists "Expelled" by Illuminati

The atheistic mainstream scientism establishment is becoming increasingly desperate in it's efforts to conceal the impending collapse of the erroneous theoretical structures upon which their imaginary Darwinian universe is built. You will find nothing but denial and vicious personal attacks on anyone who dares to point out these contradictions and offer alternative theories. Only a scientific crisis which forces them to face reality will change this and God will certainly provide it ! www.henrymakow.com...

a reply to: Murgatroid

Here is a quote from Freud-

"
Sigmund Freud wrote:
There is little doubt that if attention is directed to occult phenomena the outcome will very soon be that the occurrence of a number of them will be confirmed: and it will probably be a long time before an acceptable theory covering these new facts can be arrived at. But the eagerly attentive onlookers will not wait so long. At the very first confirmation the occultists will proclaim the triumph of their views...They will be hailed as liberators from the burden of intellectual bondage, they will be joyfully acclaimed by all the credulity lying ready to hand since the infancy of the human race and the childhood of the individual. There may follow a fearful collapse of critical thought, of determinist standards and of mechanistic science."

Freud was a closet member of the society for psychical research and clearly feared the paranormal.

a reply to: Murgatroid

And the only way people like you can perpetuate your personal beliefs is to label everybody else as cult followers.

a reply to: EnPassant

The pot calling the kettle black.

a reply to: EnPassant

This is coming from the guy who denies the role of genes in development, using the example of a Laura Croft 3D model to "debunk" it?

a reply to: EnPassant

“[I]f all the members of the American Psychological Association [APA] who were concerned with Freudian psychoanalysis were collected, they would make up less than 10 percent of the membership. In another major psychological association, the Association for Psychological Science, they would make up considerably less than 5 percent.” (Stanovich, 2007, p.1)

Source

Freud supported a biology based model for consciousness in relation to materialism.

a reply to: EnPassant

Why would Freud "fear the paranormal"?

What he clearly is concerned about in the passage you quoted is the "occultists" themselves.

And we can all see that his concern was a valid one as this thread clearly demonstrates, until I joined ATS I had never before fathomed the depth of delusion that some people can reach. Quite remarkable.

Is the paranormal real? I believe so, but I understand why many scientists won't go near the paranormal, it is a realm populated by the bizarre, the unexplained, the mysterious, but mostly, by far mostly it is a realm populated with people who are, to put it mildly full of sh*t.

a reply to: seabhac-rua

The appropriate phrase in relation is Caveat emptor which is relevant to any endeavor.

Like making sure you count your change before you leave the store.

a reply to: EnPassant

It never ceases to amaze me that the people who are most entrenched in a distorted world view are often the ones who most zealously defend it.

You find your own behaviour curious? How very interesting life must be for you. I'm not sure whether to admire you or to pity you.

But this is nothing to the point. Can you or can you not propose a nonscientific explanation that does not fall into one of the categories I mentioned?

Or are you just going to favour us with more foolish, unsubstantiated opinions?