Scientism: Excesive Faith In Science.

[OWL]

"The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it".

- Neil DeGrasse Tyson

Scientism is the belief that the scientific method, empirical and natural science alone are the only sources of genuine factual knowledge. 

As Leo told us on his video about knowledge, scientism is epistemologically unsound. The scientific method has it's limits and thinking other way is dogmatic.

"No belief is true" Jade Mckenna.

Edited February 8, 2016 by OWL
Misspelled quote

[Arnie]

First we should define what the scientific method is before talking about it and judging it. Aren't even the methods to achieve enlightment scientific, as you look what's out there in reality? The only difference I can think of is the letting go of the objectivity criterion in spirituality.

Regarding the quote of Neil Tyson, I wouldn't say science is true, but the knowledge gained through the scientific method is. By knowledge I don't mean the colorful models scientists make up to make their findings conceivable to human minds, but the mechanics of reality they discovered behind them.

One thing is for sure: Science works, because it can be used to manipulate reality ( technology, medicine etc. ). Is there a better proof?

"It works, bitches" - Richard Dawkins : D

I have to admit as a student of physics that there is Ego-protection involved in my writing so far. But one thing I am genuinly interested in. Leo often says that enlightened people don't care about science because they already know the ultimate truth. But saying so they would dismiss the existence of some structural nature of reality, as physics exposes. How do you reconcile nothingness as ultimate existential nature of reality with the existence of a structure, like forces and energy/matter???

 

Edited February 8, 2016 by Arnie
Clarifying a point

[Guest]

This has been a topic that has been thought about, written and debated since the philosopher-scientist Aristotle's arguments so eloquently argued an Earth-centric universe that his reasoning held sway for nearly two millennia.

Science has a philosophy of its own.   It is strongly based on syllogistic reasoning.  Syllogistic reasoning is a kind of logical argument that applies deductive reasoning to arrive at a conclusion based on two or more propositions that are "asserted" or "assumed" to be true.  Note the words asserted and assumed.  Although corroborative, repeatable experimentation is used, peer review assures that new propositions/theories do not move science outside the boundaries of the accepted dogma of the science community.

Many scientist have come up against the problems of scientific dogma.  Albert Einstein for one had a very difficult time getting his "Theory of Relativity" accepted by the entire scientific community because Newtonian concepts had such a firm hold on the scientific belief system.

Science (from Latin scientia, from scire ‘know.’ which literally implies knowledge), relies on data received by the five physical human senses.

Now that in itself should already set off some alarms.   Whatever data (information), is received by the 5 senses is limited and strictly interpretive.

What do I mean by "interpretive".  Let's take an example using the visual sense, sight.   When one looks at a tree on a sunny day, the eye, an optical instrument, receives the reflected light rays of the sun.   The sun rays bounce off of an object, in this case a tree, and the reflected rays then continue through the eye lens onto the retina which has an array of light sensitive rods and cones.   The energy of the light rays then somehow interacts with, or stimulates the rods and cones so that some sort of electromagnetic or chemical signal (I'm not an expert here) arrives at the optic nerve and that signal or those signals continue to the visual cortex which a part of the human brain located at the back of the head.

Now just look at this carefully for a moment.   The signal reaching the visual cortex has no pictures in it.  Brain surgeons have never found a picture or a thought anywhere in the brain, but they have been able to stimulate activity and measure electromagnetic signals of very low magnitude.

So how do we know that we see a tree in front of us?   I can offer a reasoned guess that maybe over the millennia of human evolution the signals received via the sense organs were interpreted and by common agreement these experiences were defined and maintained in the thought systems of societies until they became ingrained in the collective consciousness of the species.  And now the species has a trait for interpreting sensory signals.  This is my guess.  Perhaps you can come up with another one.

You might ask, "How about the invention of the modern very sensitive instruments like electron microscopes, telescopes, seismographs and so on?  Do these not enhance our sensory potentials and therefore improve on the truth of our findings?

Well, look at it carefully.  These mechanisms act as enhancers to the existing senses, but the signals received are still the same.  Light for the visual sensors, sound for the auditory sensors, physical vibrations for the seismographs and so on.  And furthermore the "interpretation" of these signals is still based on agreed understanding of the collective consciousness of the human species.  Therefore, whatever conclusions science reaches by its "scientific method" will still be limited to the "interpretation" of whatever signals are received by the senses. 

Science deals with relative truth.  And this is important to understand - when truth is being spoken of in the common everyday understanding of that word - it refers to relative truth - because it is related to the interpretation of sensory data and there is no actual knowledge of what the data really represents.

So, is there knowledge of another sort?  A knowledge that is not interpreted, but known for what it is directly?   This is called noumena as opposed to the knowledge of phenomena.

This approaches the topic of enlightenment.   It is best to leave it there.    Please continue to investigate.

joy

 

Edited February 9, 2016 by walt

[Aldo Marchand]

The human being is always trying to explain the unknown with their limited tools

and never assuming the possible existence of supernatural variables such as another dimension per example.

Edited February 9, 2016 by Aldo Marchand

[Leo Gura]

A high-quality scientist shouldn't engage in scientism. He should know the limits of science. He should acknowledge that the map is not the territory, that science is a set of temporary human-made models which seem to account for certain aspects of reality in practical ways.

Unfortunately most scientists are sloppy on this point, not to mention the hordes of people who aren't scientists but think they are "scientific and rational."

There is no need to raze all of science. Only to clearly see it's boundaries.

Science and consciousness work are in a sense concerned with separate domains and different kinds of questions. So comparing the two is a bit apples and oranges.

We need both good solid science AND lots of personal work on our egos.

 

[primitive_girl]

A good example is that my uncle is an astrophysicist and practicing Christian. I am agnostic but I admire his willingness to balance the two. I feel that you can never fully rely on one side. 

[phizzuela]

Sure, if scepticism is right we cannot know anything and so the scientist is all wrong, too. Since we can't rule out the sceptic scenario (that we are deceived all the time), this is always a possibility.

But still, the scientific method brings us more likely to the truth than any other method, because it tries to assume as little as possible (called premises, or dogmas if you will) and still explains as much as it is able to (with deduction). Therefore, there is really no other option that is less dogmatical. The philosophy of science also applies that to metaphysics, where all theorizing starts: Be as parsimonious with your assumptions as possible. Any metaphysical explanation that is not modelled according to that principle is weak. Why? Because it is easy to tell a story about the world and explain everything by just assuming and claiming things (the world is created by a pink unicorn and so forth), but really really hard to explain something like physics with only a handful of assumptions (like Newton did). So yes, the scientific method certainly has its limits, but any other method has the same problem (scepticism) plus is more dogmatical. Thus, the scientific method is our only option.

[Thomas]

Science (scientific method) is not by any mean the absolute way of life.

It is a tool created by humans, an imperfect way to explain and help us understand the world and life around us.

It isn't the life itself. Try to explain nothingness and it will become a concept.

We created the code, the words and numbers to conceptualize and discover the applicable laws and relations between them.

Yes they work.

Yes, we can evaluate our comprehension and cognition through them.

But the limit is the code itself.

Edited February 12, 2016 by Thomas

[Henri]

A good book on this topic; The marriage between sense and soul bij Ken Wilber.

[vizual]

Science tries to measure something which is unmeasurable. It tries to put a ruler to something which is zero and infinite at the same time. Science can keep measuring to amazingly small to amazingly large but it can never measure infinity or zero. Everything which is not zero is made up by ego, another story.

Science is like art, except science deludes itself that its somehow more truthful than art. I'd say art is way more truthful than science ever was, it gives a more representative picture of reality(whatever that means lol). But I guess there is fun to be had in at least trying to get as close as possible to truth with science, and that definitely counts for something.

[Ramu]

On 2/8/2016 at 5:37 PM, Arnie said:

First we should define what the scientific method is before talking about it and judging it. Aren't even the methods to achieve enlightment scientific, as you look what's out there in reality? The only difference I can think of is the letting go of the objectivity criterion in spirituality.

Regarding the quote of Neil Tyson, I wouldn't say science is true, but the knowledge gained through the scientific method is. By knowledge I don't mean the colorful models scientists make up to make their findings conceivable to human minds, but the mechanics of reality they discovered behind them.

One thing is for sure: Science works, because it can be used to manipulate reality ( technology, medicine etc. ). Is there a better proof?

"It works, bitches" - Richard Dawkins : D

I have to admit as a student of physics that there is Ego-protection involved in my writing so far. But one thing I am genuinly interested in. Leo often says that enlightened people don't care about science because they already know the ultimate truth. But saying so they would dismiss the existence of some structural nature of reality, as physics exposes. How do you reconcile nothingness as ultimate existential nature of reality with the existence of a structure, like forces and energy/matter???

 

Actually science disproves.  It does not prove anything.  It disproves the Null Hypothesis.

[Nahm]

On 2/8/2016 at 4:01 PM, OWL said:

"The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it".

- Neil DeGrasse Tyson

Scientism is the belief that the scientific method, empirical and natural science alone are the only sources of genuine factual knowledge. 

As Leo told us on his video about knowledge, scientism is epistemologically unsound. The scientific method has it's limits and thinking other way is dogmatic.

"No belief is true" Jade Mckenna.

Science has it's limits, as you are experiencing your own reality. But don't discount that if you want to push farther, you must first reach the limit to push through. The question is, is science beneficial. To say it is not would be a limit in itself. If something takes a long time to learn, there is expansion in the process. To discount it without understanding it is not an act of wisdom.

[Loreena]

Science is good but it's really annoying when people believe that everything can be cured by science and everything has a solution and answer in science. Science is just one part of the reality out of the many parts that make it

[Nahm]

I don't think everything can be 'cured' from science, nor everything has an answer. Science has cured what hundreds of millions of poeple have died from, or would otherwise die from. It is good to learn and then discuss though. It expands our views. It's one of the best tools to open the mind. It is beneficial. We wouldn't be communicating, at all, with out it. Mostly because we wouldn't have any of the technology we are using right now, and also because most of us would not be alive without it. Using technology and getting immunization shots, then ripping on science, is like living in a peaceful neighborhood and ripping on our veterans. 

[Nahm]

On 2/8/2016 at 4:01 PM, OWL said:

"The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it".

- Neil DeGrasse Tyson

Scientism is the belief that the scientific method, empirical and natural science alone are the only sources of genuine factual knowledge. 

As Leo told us on his video about knowledge, scientism is epistemologically unsound. The scientific method has it's limits and thinking other way is dogmatic.

"No belief is true" Jade Mckenna.

I agree with that, except for the limits you impose. 

Disclaimer-

"That's why I said we relate

I said we relate

It's so fun to relate"

Words of a lazy eye

 

Edited March 9, 2017 by Nahm

[Nahm]

@Arnie you are without a paradigm that surely you encounter heavy in your days. You probaby deal with the character summations that stem from the coupling of ignorance and ego protection m0re than you limit yourself by it.  I admire your vulnerability and honesty. If only people would be Buddhist for a few years before making claims about Buddhism. 

Edited March 9, 2017 by Nahm