Personality Cafe banner
1 - 12 of 12 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
951 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Scientism is perhaps not exactly the right word, but I want to differentiate 'science', meaning the scientific method, or the theoretical process of science from 'scientism' meaning both the institutions of science, and a body of beliefs and philosophies associated with and identified as scientific.

In one of the threads I started about the Zeitgeist movement, someone commented that he was surprised that so many infp's, or idealistic people, could support the cold, dull, scientific world that Zeitgeist suggests. I understand this criticism, but I think it is rooted in confusion over what science actually is.

Zeitgeist talks at great length about applying science to human problems. An inference that could be drawn from this is that science is not applied today, but in reality it is. But in a very different way from what Zeitgeist is talking about. Science today is always subservient to the ruling philosophies and established power structures. Science is applied in ways that serve the interests of corporations and governments, but not of the common people, or only to the extent that it does not threaten the power of established interests. The continued reliance on oil or nuclear power is an obvious example of this.

Some might object saying that science, by challenging religion, challenged the power structure, and this is true to a degree. But was it actually science that challenged religion, or was it perhaps that the state and corporate powers wanted to usurp the power of the church and used science as a tool to do so. Why has science not challenged the power of the state and corporations? Is capitalism scientific? Are wars scientific?

Science can only be a tool or servant to another philosophy or value system. Science can show what is good or true, but only if you have an already existing definition of what is good or true. Zeitgeist claims that by applying science hunger and poverty can be eliminated. But can science show that eliminating hunger and poverty is true or good? No it can't. That is a value judgment, essentially an emotional feeling. It's possible that death and destruction could be considered good or true, and science can and is still showing ways to achieve those goals. Zeitgeist then is the application of science toward an emotionally desired goal, that of peace and freedom.

Scientism then is a belief that truth, meaning, and a life philosophy can be gained from science. But science, as it is practiced in the real word is subservient to corporate and government powers. Therefore the claims made by these institutions must be treated with skepticism. What was the underlying philosophy guiding the research?

It's interesting that Zeitgeist is also attacked from the opposite side, claiming that it is nothing but crazy theories with no scientific basis. Why do people say this? Because establishment financed 'scientific' publications and individuals say so.

Scientism is the belief or rejection of belief, based on the opinion of an authority figure, one identified as scientific. This is of course not actually scientific, but a new type of religious faith.

Science as it currently works, is horrifying and is creating the 1984 and Brave New World, that many are afraid Zeitgeist would turn into. Actually Zeitgeist is an attempt to avoid the Brave New World.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,390 Posts
Scientism then is a belief that truth, meaning, and a life philosophy can be gained from science.
I think I understand what you're saying here. However, I don't believe all science and scientist serve the corporate world. For example, I think the scientists who are concerned with finding Higgs Boson may be in it for their own curiosity, prestige, adding to human knowledge etc, but actually finding Higgs Boson won't change the world - it won't deliver us better, cheaper, sustainable material resources, for instance. It won't change management theories on efficiency. It won't make Apple's Ipad better than Samsung's Galaxy Tab.

Btw, who do you consider the people who practice scientism?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
951 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
Probably almost everyone practices scientism to some degree.

Global warming is very close at this point to an article of faith among 'scientific' people. It is common to ridicule those who are unconvinced about global warming as ignorant fools. Yet how many have done the research both of the scientific data, and of the establishment connections of those individuals and institutions claiming global warming?

The same holds true around the issue of 9/11. Popular Mechanics has spoken, what anyone else has to say is irrelevant. The conflict of interest of something like NIST seems obvious. Clearly they cannot be consulted on questions of 9/11.

And then there are more well established scientific doctrines like evolution or the big bang. These are almost set in stone. Any new data is almost irrelevant.

The focus in all these cases is not on teaching and applying the scientific method, but on demanding adherence to a 'scientific' orthodoxy. The beliefs that make up this orthodoxy may even be true, but really it isn't that much different than a church demanding adherence to a religious orthodoxy. The establishment not science, determines what is and what is not acceptable belief.

I believe in the value of science, but it must be liberated from the corrupting influence of money and power. In those hands it becomes a tool of oppression rather than liberation.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
554 Posts
@Listener
science and scientism are mutually excuslive... are they not?

scientism declares that science is the only discipline that can obtain truth about reality and the world. it's a concrete world view, "single minded." scientism is not aligned with any metaphysical, philosophical, religious claims, as these "truths" cannot be proven using the scientific method. scientism is in a way an absolute form of science. strict, cold cut and dry.

theoretically, feelers, and perceivers will abhor scientism. just look around here in the nf forum.*

capitalism/economics is not *scientific because there is a fundamental difficulty that is *present - economist's and what they proclaim regarding predicted effects of numerous *governmental programs. where is the reliable evidence at the base of inferential
structure? lack of genuine randomized assessments being made. theories are produced and as sophisticated as they may be they cannot be proven. without randomized assessments how can you build a reliable predictive rule for the happenings of the proposed governmental programs and the issues?

Scientism then is a belief that truth, meaning, and a life philosophy can be gained from science.
no. scientism doesn't familiarize itself with any philosophy. scientism is absolute - scientific method is the preferential mechanic to acquire real truths of reality.*

It's interesting that Zeitgeist is also attacked from the opposite side, claiming that it is nothing but crazy theories with no scientific basis.
because it is. im also presuming that you're referring to that laughably pathetic movie. they do not know anything about egyptian, greek or persian mythology. they compare and equate the "12 apostles" to the "12 zodiacal signs" stop right there. we've already reached idiocy. there are *no "12 zodiac signs." there are 13. western astrology doesn't bother to keep up with modern science or reality for that matter. it's interesting that western astrology continues to refer pluto as a planet when it has been disproven for years. it's also hilarious that they have no understanding of sun sign positions. according to western astrology, the sun is in aries. this is incorrect. why? the position of the sun and alignment figures western astrology continues to use is laughably outdated. they apply more than 1500 years ago! i can go on and on and on. but to compare 12 apostles to "12 zodiac signs" is ridiculous. not to be taken seriously, just like astrology.

secondly, their scholarship is weak. they point to three stars on the horizon. referring to them as the three wise men.

also claims that horus, the egyptian god was born of the virgin, isis. isis was *not a virgin. No account of horus’ birth makes this statement. horus was not born on december 25th. he was born in october/november. they refer to horus as a savior. there are no accounts that testify this claim.*
*
i could go on and on. i apologize if are not referring to the concept/religion or whatever ya wanna call it.

science is horrifying? how can people shape that argument? you wouldn't be here without science. not really. we wouldn't have progressed as a society without science.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
554 Posts
and it's not based on scientific data. nor is religion. if i am not mistaken, zeitgeists borrow concepts from the bible. and do a poor job at it might i add. if you thought the bible was entertaining, get a load of what zeitgeists profess, from that movie.

religion is irrational. it requires faith. faith is not logical. by definition.
just like faith in astrology, faith in supernatural "powers", paranormal activity etc.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
554 Posts
zeitgeists are paranoid and claim institutions are out to get society.
the movie also exaggerates and sensationalizes *facts, and then draws conclusions from these exaggerated facts.*
it is mainly composed of large parts of distorted historical detail, and fabricated stories. a complete rife with factual absurdity.

how is that not garbage op?*
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
951 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
@lightened

The definition of scientism that you give does not and cannot exist. The philosophy of both individual scientists and scientific institutions is not and cannot ever be science itself. Science is a servant of some other greater philosophy. Even if it was true that science was the only way to discover truth, the fact that truth is even considered worth discovering is an emotional feeling, not a result of the scientific method.

Anyway, that's not quite what I was trying to communicate about the difference between science and what I am here calling scientism, which as I said may not be the exact right word. By scientism I meant, beliefs, philosophies or views that are supported by respected scientists and institutions, and because they are supported by these things are taken as true, and cannot be challenged. What is labelled scientific often has political and economic agendas behind it. This is how science works in practical terms. This is not actually science, but something else, which I am here referring to as scientism. This form of science can be quite destructive and often has terrible results. It is therefore quite understandable that people would have objection to a society that used this form of science, as ours does. The idea is that in a RBE science would be freed from the corruption of money and power and could instead pursue greater things, truth, freedom, peace, etc.

Of course monetary systems are not scientific, that was my point. So why do we have people who call themselves atheists, to show that they are intelligent, 'scientific' people as opposed to ignorant religious people, but we don't have a word like a-capitalist to show all those who believe and support monetary systems are ignorant and foolish? Why are there so many books and debates to show the unscientific nature of religion, but there are no such attacks against the unscientific nature of money?

About Zeitgeist, I was more referring to the idea of the Resource Based Economy suggested by the Zeitgeist movement rather than any specific information covered in the first movie.

While in my view the religious issues are the least important covered by Zeitgeist, this area of study is anything but settled, and what is actually being communicated in Biblical stories is often far from clear.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
554 Posts
@Listener

what you continue to refer to as "scientism", is not the definition of scientism. you must be referring to something else.
it's confounding.*

the reason why scientism concerns itself with absolute processing using the scientific method, as it is one of the most helpful ways of sorting out the truth, from error. *to find gaps, loopholes, to fill them in with understanding. I don't like using the word truth because that sounds philosophical. it concerns itself with reality. where is this a result of an emotional feeling?*

why is your definition of scientism destructive, having terrible results?

who said atheists are intelligent? because they have doubt and question? if you are referring to questioning and doubt, that's not atheism. that is skepticism.*

i am not certain why they doesn't seem to be a preoccupation towards * the unscientific nature of money. thanks for asking, i have something to research on.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
951 Posts
Discussion Starter · #9 ·
@lightened

I realize what I'm talking about is not what scientism technically refers to. Sorry if that caused confusion. I suppose the thread could be called Science or Appeal to the Authority of establishment scientists and scientific institutions, but that doesn't sound good.

The emotion comes in the original impulse to learn the nature of reality in the first place. Why is learning the nature of reality desirable? The reason or purpose of using science is always based in an original emotional feeling.

Scientism is essentially the application of science toward corporate and government ends, and using the term scientific as a way to deceive people into believing this particular application of science is the only application of science. This leads to a fear that a society that had a greater reliance of science to distribute resources would be tyrannical and oppressive.

Money is Not Great: How Capitalism Poisons Everything.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
951 Posts
Discussion Starter · #12 ·
@okaydrifter

Unfortunately I doubt the ideas of the Zeitgeist Movement are frequently discussed at colleges.


There were a couple things I wanted to accomplish in this thread, though I don't know if I've been entirely successful.

First was to show that applying science to human problems does not necessarily result in a cold technological dictatorship that some have compared the RBE to. This fear is based on a false understanding of science.

This false science is what I'm here referring to as scientism. Basically I mean scientists and scientific institutions that are ideologically or politically driven, even if they don't know it. Technically this is not what the word scientism means. However, I think it's actually quite appropriate. The meaning essentially is that science is the only tool to discover truth, or reality. My point is that this is not actually possible, and anyone who does think this or thinks they live their life by this, is quite blind to all of the other influences on their life and thinking. As indeed many people are about 'science' as it is practiced in the real world. It is not neutral, fair, or balanced, but always to some degree influenced by some other philosophy.
 
1 - 12 of 12 Posts
Top