+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 13 of 13

Thread: Scientism: The Joke’s on You

  1. Link to Post #1
    UK Avalon Member loveoflife's Avatar
    Join Date
    26th February 2014
    Posts
    365
    Thanks
    1,010
    Thanked 1,221 times in 312 posts

    Default Scientism: The Joke’s on You

    Science for many has replaced religion as the modern day source of truth that explains the world that we live in and its and our origins.

    Science has also for many become a new religion, 'scientism'. To its fanatic adherents, it can do no wrong and its anomalies and failures are glossed over and ignored.

    To the MSM science is perfect and its new discoveries are lauded at every opportunity.

    I am sure that many on this forum are aware of how certain powers used religion to manipulate the masses, now science is doing the same in this technological age.

    The following article goes deeper into this and articulates better than i can.

    Scientism: The Joke’s on You


    Quote The scientific establishment is a hierarchy that operates just like any other corporation or government entity, where knowledge is apportioned on a need-to-know basis. Biologists are afraid, for example, to speak on the matter of physics because they aren’t “physicists,” while mathematicians are afraid to speak on the matter of astronomy because they aren’t “astronomers.” This ridiculous segmentation of knowledge (and there is nothing wrong with specialization) is itself also predicated on the presupposition of scientism, that reality is not a meaningful, coherent universe, but a random, chaotic mutation of accidental consequence. “It just is,” becomes the scientistic refrain, and if you don’t accept that premise and consider any other options, you must be a fool...............

    And so the age of transition is not the transition into the era of utopian scientific progress, transhumanism, technological immortality, and United Nations kumbaya most imagine; it is the age of transitioning away from all traditional forms of culture. It is the age of transition into a new global mythology that is created and manufactured in the same way the culture industry creates cultures in various societies under its control. It is a scientific dictatorship that is not scientific, but dogmatic, fascistic, and hierarchically structured on a need-to-know basis that blatantly hides, obfuscates and rejects actual data and information about human origins and life, only to be replaced by the most preposterous theories of primal sludge, lint ball planets and imagined aeons of unobserved billions of years, meaninglessly exploding forth from the universe’s (Fantasia-level) singularity point.'.........

    Quote ‘The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness.’

    Dr. Horton

  2. The Following 12 Users Say Thank You to loveoflife For This Post:

    christian (25th August 2015), Ewan (4th December 2020), Free Thinker (25th April 2021), grannyfranny100 (24th August 2015), guayabal (4th December 2020), Herbert (24th August 2015), Jake (24th August 2015), mpennery (25th August 2015), Omni (25th August 2015), ponda (24th August 2015), wavydome (16th April 2021), Wide-Eyed (24th August 2015)

  3. Link to Post #2
    UK Avalon Member loveoflife's Avatar
    Join Date
    26th February 2014
    Posts
    365
    Thanks
    1,010
    Thanked 1,221 times in 312 posts

    Default Re: Scientism: The Joke’s on You

    This thread is further evidence of the point in question. Medical industry corruption more dangerous than all wars combined. That is a shocking statement as it concerns those we put our faith in for our health.

    Does anyone else have evidence of the anomalies in science? I am not saying that is all bad or lies, though for too long its been on a pedestal and people need to be more aware of its shortcomings.

  4. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to loveoflife For This Post:

    grannyfranny100 (24th August 2015), Jake (24th August 2015), Omni (25th August 2015), ponda (24th August 2015), Wide-Eyed (24th August 2015)

  5. Link to Post #3
    Avalon Member grannyfranny100's Avatar
    Join Date
    20th April 2010
    Location
    Bay City, MI
    Posts
    1,059
    Thanks
    2,859
    Thanked 3,815 times in 874 posts

    Default Re: Scientism: The Joke’s on You

    Re-uploaded as TED have decided to censor Rupert and remove this video from the TEDx youtube channel. Follow this link for TED's statement on the matter and Dr. Sheldrake's response: http://blog.ted.com/2013/03/14/open-f...



    Joe Rogan interviews Rupert Sheldrake #550

    Last edited by grannyfranny100; 24th August 2015 at 11:56.

  6. The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to grannyfranny100 For This Post:

    genevieve (24th August 2015), loveoflife (24th August 2015), mosquito (24th August 2015), Omni (25th August 2015), ponda (24th August 2015), Shannon (24th August 2015), wavydome (16th April 2021), Wind (24th August 2015)

  7. Link to Post #4
    Avalon Member mosquito's Avatar
    Join Date
    12th April 2011
    Location
    swonK kcuF
    Age
    62
    Posts
    1,509
    Thanks
    11,258
    Thanked 7,735 times in 1,371 posts

    Default Re: Scientism: The Joke’s on You

    Quote Posted by loveoflife (here)
    Does anyone else have evidence of the anomalies in science? I am not saying that is all bad or lies, though for too long its been on a pedestal and people need to be more aware of its shortcomings.
    Rupert Sheldake's book, "The Science Delusion" looks at the history of science and the reasons for some of its' possibly erroneous assumptions. It addresses 10 key assumptions (which is by no means all of them !) and looks at the evidence which should lead us to question them.

    A thoroughly good read and a thought provoking book.

  8. The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to mosquito For This Post:

    Alan (25th August 2015), Ewan (4th December 2020), genevieve (24th August 2015), loveoflife (24th August 2015), Omni (25th August 2015), Philaletheian (26th August 2015), ponda (24th August 2015), wavydome (16th April 2021), Wind (24th August 2015)

  9. Link to Post #5
    UK Avalon Member loveoflife's Avatar
    Join Date
    26th February 2014
    Posts
    365
    Thanks
    1,010
    Thanked 1,221 times in 312 posts

    Default Re: Scientism: The Joke’s on You

    I can see why Sheldrake is not popular among his peers.


    This is from the other thread, i thought it a good idea to correlate as much info here on this thread as possible. Nearly All Scientific Papers Controlled By Same Six Corporations
    Last edited by loveoflife; 24th August 2015 at 12:16.

  10. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to loveoflife For This Post:

    genevieve (24th August 2015), Omni (25th August 2015), ponda (24th August 2015)

  11. Link to Post #6
    Deactivated
    Join Date
    6th December 2010
    Posts
    600
    Thanks
    1,824
    Thanked 2,100 times in 520 posts

    Default Re: Scientism: The Joke’s on You

    perhaps there is a better model for the delivery of scientific information, something currently in use and also applicable for the future, teach directly to the people

    (no patents, hierarchy, peer-review, funding, commercialisation, exclusivity arrangements, partnering etc. all being channels open for abuse & control)
    Last edited by Aurelius; 24th August 2015 at 16:41.

  12. The Following User Says Thank You to Aurelius For This Post:

    aranuk (29th August 2015)

  13. Link to Post #7
    UK Avalon Member loveoflife's Avatar
    Join Date
    26th February 2014
    Posts
    365
    Thanks
    1,010
    Thanked 1,221 times in 312 posts

    Default Re: Scientism: The Joke’s on You

    Quote Posted by Aurelius (here)
    perhaps there is a better model for the delivery of scientific information, something currently in use and also applicable for the future, teach directly to the people

    (no patents, hierarchy, peer-review, funding, commercialisation, exclusivity arrangements, partnering etc. all being channels open for abuse & control)
    Nassim Haramein and Rupert Sheldake are two examples of scientists explaining to the layman in terms they can understand. There are others, Bruce Lipton comes to mind.

  14. The Following User Says Thank You to loveoflife For This Post:

    Omni (25th August 2015)

  15. Link to Post #8
    Ireland Avalon Member aoibhghaire's Avatar
    Join Date
    25th October 2015
    Location
    Valdepeñas de Jaén, SPAIN
    Posts
    380
    Thanks
    6,924
    Thanked 3,402 times in 370 posts

    Default Re: Scientism: The Joke’s on You

    I'm just following on from an interesting thread here which clearly introduces how science is presented and how it can mercilessly disregard some of the heretics in science. This reminds me in risk analysis how many discoveries and evidence can be passed over because of its untimely applications.

    Why so much of science is wrong. We need to question both the claims of science and its methods.

    You can device three characters, The Believer, The Skeptic and The Heretic, to consider several fields of science including mathematics, physics, and medicine.

    The Believer is one who science reveals the Truth and will one day enable us to understand everything in the universe.

    The Skeptic accepts the basic tenets of science but retains some doubts about whether or not we will ever be able to understand everything.

    The Heretic doesn’t buy the whole project. He/she thinks the universe is not completely knowable and that our scientific theories which shape our views what we see are simply the projections of our human brains.

    We need to attack the use of theory in science which tends to be translated into “laws”. IMHO no such “laws” exist and requires setting out the case for a return to observation and experimentation instead.

    For centuries we have been measuring all sorts of things but generally only recording the results we expected and ignoring the rest.

    Two of my main objections in so much of medical practice – the reduction of human beings to measurements and the belief that the particular measurements which are made allow us to completely understand a patient and their illness. Although I have heard of a medical teacher say “Don’t listen to patients. They lie all the time. You can only trust the results.”, my own experience couldn’t more diametrically opposed from that view. ONLY the patient’s experience can be trusted.
    Measurements, sadly, frequently mislead, and ALWAYS need to be set in the context of this individual patient.

    Lifesaving claims for medicines need careful examination. Drugs do certain things which are beneficial to the human body in disease, but they inevitably have other effects which can be deleterious or even fatal.
    I wish more doctors made that more clear every time they write out a prescription.

    Regarding physics and cosmology.

    The two most important things are, firstly –
    Science gives us theories that purport to explain how the universe works. This breeds confidence in scientists who then go on to do things that carry certain risks. These risks are rationalized away on the basis of existing theory. Even if our Heretic is wrong in saying that all theory is actually erroneous, history shows us that most or perhaps all theories ultimately prove incorrect. Our perceptions and calculations of risk are therefore also likely to be erroneous. Science generally also assumes a high degree of control over experimental conditions and again this faith seems misplaced. While we may routinely underestimate risk, we also routinely overestimate our ability to control it.

    This is SUCH an important point for a greater use of the “precautionary principle”. Instead of assuming that everything we produce, all our chemicals, all our technologies are safe until proven otherwise, we should be more wary. What we need is a whole lot more humility and the ability to confess that we really don’t know very much at all. And we certainly way overestimate our ability to control things. It’s the arrogance of believers which frightens me most – people who are so sure that they, and only they are right – I’m on the side of the Heretics. It’s likely that what we think we know at any point will be proven not to be quite right in a few years’ time (or, indeed, to be completely wrong).

    The second important conclusion is that there are no fundamental laws of the universe…..apart from, maybe, two –
    As well as a possible law for uniqueness, the Heretic is open to the possibility of a second law governing complexity, namely that it increases with time.
    that the most important characteristics of the universe are its tendency to create uniqueness and its trend of ever increasing complexity.
    Take those two undeniable features on board and try and practice science or medicine by measuring, generalizing and trying to control the future!

    Aoibhghaire

  16. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to aoibhghaire For This Post:

    Anka (4th December 2020), Ewan (4th December 2020)

  17. Link to Post #9
    Avalon Member Delight's Avatar
    Join Date
    12th January 2012
    Posts
    4,260
    Thanks
    6,933
    Thanked 23,453 times in 3,909 posts

    Default Re: Scientism: The Joke’s on You

    This article is very current though 20 years old.

    Quote This interview of Vine Deloria by author Derrick Jensen, was published in July of 2000, by The Sun Magazine.

    Today, it is more relevant – and more important – than when it was published.

    Deloria passed away on November 13, 2005.
    Quote HOW SCIENCE IGNORES THE LIVING WORLD — AN INTERVIEW WITH VINE DELORIA

    July 2000: Vine Deloria is one of the most important living Native American writers. For more than a quarter century, he has produced an extraordinarily readable critique of Western culture. Central to Deloria’s work is the understanding that, by subduing nature, we have become slaves to technology and its underlying belief system. We’ve given up not only our freedom, but also our relationship with the natural world.

    Deloria was born in 1933 on the Pine Ridge Sioux Reservation in South Dakota. For many generations, his family has straddled white and Indian cultures. One of his ancestors, the son of a fur trader and a Yankton Sioux headman’s daughter, had a vision that his descendants would serve as mediators with the dominant society.

    Deloria’s father, a Dakota Episcopal priest, took his young son to the site of the 1890 Wounded Knee massacre and pointed out to him the survivors who still lived on the reservation. Deloria left home at sixteen to go to a college-preparatory school in Connecticut. After graduation, he turned down an acceptance to the University of Colorado and bought a used car with his tuition money. He went on to study geology for two years at the Colorado School of Mines (my own alma mater) before enlisting in the Marine Corps reserve. In 1956 he enrolled in Iowa State University, where he met his future wife, Barbara Jeanne Nystrom.

    They moved to Illinois so that Vine could attend a Lutheran seminary in preparation for becoming a minister, like his father. For four years, he studied philosophy and theology by day and earned money as a welder at night. Although he completed his education, he grew increasingly disappointed with “the glaring lack of solutions” the seminary provided.

    In 1964, Deloria went to work as the executive director of the National Congress of American Indians, and there he began to see the importance of building a national power base for Indians through grassroots organizing. He soon came to appreciate the need for trained Indian lawyers who could defend tribal sovereignty and treaty rights within the legal system, and in 1967 he enrolled in law school at the University of Colorado.

    Deloria maintained his ties to Christianity, even being elected to the Executive Council of the Episcopal Church. In one of his books, however, he posed a challenge to the religion of his childhood: “If, as they claim, Christianity is for all people, why not let Indian people worship God after their own conception of Him?” Deloria no longer identifies himself as a Christian, but, if pressed, offers that he is a “Seven Day Absentist.”

    Since receiving his law degree in 1970, Deloria has written many books and lectured at colleges all over the country. In both his writing and his speaking, he has never shied away from direct assaults on injustice. It’s as though he doesn’t have time or patience for the polite indirectness that characterizes so much political dialogue today. His book titles alone testify to this directness: Red Earth, White Lies (Fulcrum Books) won the 1996 Nonfiction Book of the Year Award from the Colorado Center for the Book; Custer Died for Your Sins (University of Oklahoma Press) brought accounts of the trail of broken treaties up to date; and God Is Red (Fulcrum Books) remains one of the best books written on Native American spirituality.

    Deloria recently retired from his position as a professor of history, law, religious studies, and political science at the University of Colorado in Boulder. He lives in Golden, Colorado, with his wife, who edits much of his work.

    +++

    Jensen: What would you say is the fundamental difference between the Western and indigenous ways of life?

    Deloria: I think the primary difference is that Indians experience and relate to a living universe, whereas Western people — especially scientists — reduce all things, living or not, to objects. The implications of this are immense. If you see the world around you as a collection of objects for you to manipulate and exploit, you will inevitably destroy the world while attempting to control it. Not only that, but by perceiving the world as lifeless, you rob yourself of the richness, beauty, and wisdom to be found by participating in its larger design.

    Science insists, at a great price in understanding, that the observer be as detached as possible from the event he or she is observing. Contrast that with the attitude of indigenous people, who recognize that humans must participate in events, not isolate themselves.In order to maintain the fiction that the world is dead — and that those who believe it to be alive have succumbed to primitive superstition — science must reject any interpretation of the natural world that implies sentience or an ability to communicate on the part of nonhumans. Science insists, at a great price in understanding, that the observer be as detached as possible from the event he or she is observing. Contrast that with the attitude of indigenous people, who recognize that humans must participate in events, not isolate themselves.

    Ironically, although science prides itself on being a search for knowledge, Indians can obtain knowledge from birds, animals, rivers, and mountains that is inaccessible to modern science. And Indians can use this knowledge to achieve better results. Take meteorology. Scientists know that seeding clouds with certain chemicals will bring rain, but this method of dealing with nature is wholly mechanical and forces nature to do our bidding. Indians achieved the same results more peacefully by conducting ceremonies and asking the spirits for rain. The two methods are diametrically opposed. It’s the difference between commanding a slave to do something and asking a friend for help.

    Being attuned to their environment, Indians could find food, locate trails, protect themselves from inclement weather, and anticipate coming events thanks to their understanding of how all things are related. This knowledge isn’t unique to American Indians. It’s available to anyone who lives primarily in the natural world, is reasonably intelligent, and respects other life-forms for their intelligence. Respect for other life-forms filters into our every action, as does its opposite: perceiving the world as lifeless. If you objectify other living things, then you are committing yourself to a totally materialistic universe — which is not even consistent with the findings of modern physics.

    The central idea of science, as it has been developed and applied, is to get machines or nature to do the work human beings don’t want to do. This is immensely practical, but in a shortsighted way.

    Jensen: How so?

    Deloria: Developing the automobile, for example, allowed people to get quickly from place to place, but at what cost, both in terms of accidents and of damage to the natural world? And what effect have automobiles had on our spiritual life?In a capitalist system, whoever supplies the money determines the technology. This means that science, as it’s applied, is never really for the good of humankind, but instead for the good of the financial elite or the military.

    In a capitalist system, whoever supplies the money determines the technology. This means that science, as it’s applied, is never really for the good of humankind, but instead for the good of the financial elite or the military. It also means that science will be dominated by the authorities who have found institutional favor, whether they have the best evidence for their beliefs or not.

    When beliefs and knowledge harden and become institutionalized, we turn to institutions to solve all our problems: people purchase food grown by others, settle their conflicts in courts and legislatures rather than by informal, mutually agreed-upon solutions, and wage extended and terrible wars over abstract principles instead of minor battles over the right to occupy land for hunting and fishing. Similarly, beliefs about the world are processed into philosophical and rational principles rather than anecdotal experiences, and religion is reduced to creeds, dogmas, and doctrines.

    Now, every society needs educated people, but the primary responsibility of educated people must be to bring wisdom back into the community and make it available to others. Because of hierarchies, European thinkers have not performed their proper social function. Instead, science and philosophy have taken the path already taken by Western religion and mystified themselves. The people who occupy the top positions in science, religion, and politics have one thing in common: they are responsible for creating a technical language incomprehensible to the rest of us, so that we will cede to them our right and responsibility to think. They, in turn, formulate a set of beautiful lies that lull us to sleep and distract us from our troubles, eventually depriving us of all rights — including, increasingly, the right to a livable world.They, in turn, formulate a set of beautiful lies that lull us to sleep and distract us from our troubles, eventually depriving us of all rights — including, increasingly, the right to a livable world.

    Rather than trusting our own experiences and senses, we often look to scientists for explanations of the world. In giving explanations, these scientists defer to the dogma and doctrine they learned in universities and colleges. It’s gotten to the point where almost anything anyone with a Ph.D. says is taken as gospel, rather than as someone’s opinion.

    One example of this credulity is the widespread acceptance of the notion that Indians came to the Americas across the Bering Strait. Newspapers and textbooks say that archaeologists have proven there were waves of people moving to and fro across the Bering Strait, but they haven’t proven anything of the kind. Assuming that carbon dating is anywhere near accurate, and that the researchers didn’t throw out as “noise” any results they didn’t agree with, all they can prove is that a group of people lived in such-and-such a place, however many years ago. Everything else is just theory and speculation. Respect for other life-forms filters into our every action, as does its opposite: perceiving the world as lifeless. If you objectify other living things, then you are committing yourself to a totally materialistic universe — which is not even consistent with the findings of modern physics.

    Jensen: So you view the theory that human beings came to North and South America across the Bering Strait as an article of faith, rather than as fact?

    Deloria: I’ve yet to see any remotely convincing evidence to support it. It’s a doctrinal belief that institutional science has imposed on us.

    The effort to deny that Indians are native to this land really started with the old Spanish clerics, who tried to identify Indians as either survivors of Noah’s flood or members of the lost tribes of Israel. So modern scientific theories are part of an entrenched line of thought: a Judeo-Christian insistence on seeing the world through Eurocentric eyes. Indians cannot simply be Indians. They have to have come from somewhere in or around Europe.

    Jensen: Why is this issue of deep origins important?

    Deloria: People want to believe that the Western Hemisphere, and North America in particular, was vacant, unexploited, fertile land waiting to be cultivated according to God’s holy dictates. The hemisphere thus belonged to whomever was able to “rescue” it from its wilderness state. We see the same rationalization at work today in the Amazon and elsewhere. If the Indians were not the original inhabitants of this continent but relative latecomers who had barely unpacked when Columbus came knocking on the door, then they had no real claim to the land and could be swept away with impunity. Thus, science justifies history and eases the guilt over five centuries of violence. Even today, I hear some non-Indians say, “Well, aren’t we all immigrants from somewhere?” The short answer is no. By making Indians immigrants to North America, Westerners are able to deny the fact that this is our continent.

    Another way science has assuaged Western guilt is by claiming to prove that Indians are just as destructive as Westerners. You’ve probably heard of the Pleistocene overkill hypothesis, which states, without any real evidence, that as soon as Indians “arrived” here, they started killing everything in sight. When the hypothesis was first proposed some fifty years ago by Carl Sauer, it was shot down almost immediately by Loren C. Eiseley, who raised numerous concerns that have never been refuted. One is the fact that not only large mammals disappeared during the Pleistocene Epoch, but also birds, mollusks, and frogs, which could not have been hunted to extinction. Also, there is no evidence that tribal hunting groups using ancient techniques could exterminate — or even significantly alter — an animal population, unless the hunters and prey were restricted to a very small area. The example of modern tribes who still use Stone Age methods supports this.

    So the overkill theory remained dead in the water until the 1960s, when it was revived by a book called Pleistocene Extinctions. Since then, as the destruction of the natural world has become ever more difficult to ignore, Westerners have needed ever stronger salves for their consciences, so the theory has risen up again in full force. Although there is still little real evidence to support it, its ideological function — to prove that destructiveness is part of human nature, and not just the result of a destructive way of living in and perceiving the world — is important enough to justify its admission into the scientific canon.

    There’s even a new theory that Indians were responsible for the near extinction of the buffalo. According to this argument, Indian winter encampments deprived the buffalo of feed, and so the population plummeted.

    Jensen: How could anyone make that claim?

    Deloria: Simple: by ignoring all evidence that contradicts the thesis, such as 1870s newspaper reports of white hunters shipping out trainloads of buffalo hides. In the Dodge City area alone, hunters killed 3 million buffalo in three years.

    Jensen: If Indians didn’t cross the Bering Strait, how did they come to inhabit this continent? What do the Indians themselves say?

    Deloria: That last question isn’t asked often enough, and points out another problem with the scientific tradition. Somehow it is presumed that scientists, and thus Europeans, know better than the Indians themselves how Indians got here and how they lived prior to Columbus. That attitude is patronizing at best. Instead of digging and analyzing, why don’t researchers just ask the Indians? And then, having asked, why don’t they take the answers seriously?

    Indians’ beliefs about their origins vary considerably from tribe to tribe. Many tribes simply begin their story at a certain location and describe their migrations. Others will say they came from another continent by boat. (Of course, archaeologists generally refuse to believe them, because they think Indians couldn’t have built boats, which is absurd.) A number of tribes say that they were created here. A few say they came here through a portal from another world. They walked into a cave or tunnel, for example, until it was completely dark, and they continued walking until a tiny light appeared ahead of them. As they kept moving toward it, it grew bigger, gradually revealing itself to be an entrance to a new world.

    Personally, I like the Pacific Northwest tribes’ idea that, in the distant past, the physical world was not dominant, and you could change your shape and experience life as an animal, plant, or bird. Then the world changed, and some people were caught in different shapes and became animals, plants, and so on.

    Much of the Indian knowledge of origins is revealed in ceremonial settings and involves views of time, space, matter, and cosmic purpose that the scientific perspective considers heretical. Because of this, such accounts are generally dismissed out of hand as superstition: nice campfire stories that have no connection to reality.

    Jensen: Philosopher of science Paul Feyerabend has said that “whatever fails to fit into the established category system or is said to be incompatible with this system is either viewed as something quite horrifying, or, more frequently, it is simply declared to be nonexistent.”

    Deloria: That’s standard scientific procedure. You throw out the results you don’t agree with, turn to the results that “make sense,” and say, “See, this is proven.” It’s nonsense.

    Scientists gather data from what appear to them to be similar sources and circumstances and, after much meditation, announce the discovery of “laws” that govern the universe — with some notable exceptions we rarely hear about. Sometimes these “anomalies” are acknowledged and become the basis for fruitful discussion, but more often they’re simply swept under the rug. The increasing sophistication of scientific measuring instruments continues to reveal flaws in the previously agreed-upon canon, yet this seems not to bother a great majority of scientists, nor the rest of us, who should care far more than we do.

    Scientists impose highly restrictive laws upon the natural world, thereby limiting its potential for response. They are asking incomplete questions of nature and, in many cases, irrelevant ones. In my opinion, fields purporting to be scientific should devote considerable time to reexamining what they can really prove and what is speculation, and then restate their principles. Standards of evidence need to be erected. There’s got to be some discipline and courage. Scientists should be willing to speak out when authoritative-sounding pronouncements are being made on the basis of questionable — or nonexistent — evidence.

    I like the Pacific Northwest tribes’ idea that, in the distant past, the physical world was not dominant, and you could change your shape and experience life as an animal, plant, or bird. Then the world changed, and some people were caught in different shapes and became animals, plants, and so on.

    Jensen: A friend of mine says that science is an even better means of social control than Christianity, because if you don’t believe in Christianity, you’re simply doomed to burn in a hell you don’t think exists, whereas if you don’t believe in science, you’re presumed to be stupid.

    Deloria: I think science has replaced Christianity as the dominant religion in our society. You see evidence of this whenever someone goes to court to try to establish or protect religious rights. If science and religion come into conflict, religion always loses. That’s true for everyone from Christian fundamentalists to Indians to Orthodox Jews: anybody who has a religious view that’s unacceptable to scientists.cont here

  18. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Delight For This Post:

    Constance (14th April 2021), Hym (14th April 2021), Icare (14th April 2021)

  19. Link to Post #10
    Sweden Avalon Member Rawhide68's Avatar
    Join Date
    25th May 2017
    Age
    52
    Posts
    492
    Thanks
    1,530
    Thanked 2,739 times in 452 posts

    Default Scientism The new religion

    The way life on this planet is folding out now is just crazy.

    For a long time I tryed to stay away from it , with an inner urge to explode unless I go there.

    I just spent 2 hours with my uncle who is a mathematian teacher, disgussing the subject of more than one eternities.

    In the view from his mind I got the point, but he could not understand my more philosophical point of view of eternity.


    Isn't Scientism the new religion today?
    everything it's a mathematical fact....


    I sent him the url to get him mindboggled by his own terms so to speak.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTn6Ewhb27k

    This as an important subject I want you to ponder , wonder, think about how
    Scientism has become the new religion...
    WTF?

    Even Wikipedia describes scientism in theese words
    "Scientism is the promotion of science as the best or only objective means by which society should determine normative and epistemological values. "

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism
    Last edited by Rawhide68; 24th April 2021 at 18:46.

  20. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Rawhide68 For This Post:

    Constance (24th April 2021), EarthGirl (24th April 2021), Sunny (24th April 2021), toppy (24th April 2021), Wind (24th April 2021)

  21. Link to Post #11
    Finland Avalon Member Wind's Avatar
    Join Date
    25th September 2011
    Location
    A dream called Life
    Age
    30
    Posts
    7,480
    Thanks
    83,723
    Thanked 45,628 times in 7,265 posts

    Default Re: Scientism The new religion

    Science is a method of inquiry and investigation for inquiring minds.

    Some things are fixed as definite laws... Others not so much.

    "When you've seen beyond yourself, then you may find, peace of mind is waiting there." ~ George Harrison

  22. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Wind For This Post:

    Constance (24th April 2021), Rawhide68 (29th April 2021), Tintin (24th April 2021), wondering (24th April 2021)

  23. Link to Post #12
    Australia Avalon Member Constance's Avatar
    Join Date
    26th January 2011
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Language
    English
    Age
    56
    Posts
    3,331
    Thanks
    20,396
    Thanked 23,761 times in 3,197 posts

    Default Re: Scientism: The Joke’s on You

    Until scientists are humble enough to acknowledge that there may be holes in many of the theories and philosophies that have been put forward into society and are genuinely open to considering other perspectives, they will always be missing the point.



    Why No One Has Measured The Speed Of Light

  24. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Constance For This Post:

    Rawhide68 (29th April 2021), wondering (24th April 2021)

  25. Link to Post #13
    Canada Avalon Member TomKat's Avatar
    Join Date
    23rd September 2017
    Posts
    2,016
    Thanks
    1,781
    Thanked 9,075 times in 1,792 posts

    Default Re: Scientism The new religion

    Quote Posted by Wind (here)
    Science is a method of inquiry and investigation for inquiring minds.

    Some things are fixed as definite laws... Others not so much.

    Even the great god Science has been replaced by government-mandated "scientific consensus" -- join the consensus or find another way to feed your family.

  26. The Following User Says Thank You to TomKat For This Post:

    Rawhide68 (29th April 2021)

+ Reply to Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts