Scientism

Ahnimus

Although I've been called a "Scientismist" or something to that effect several times I fail to see the negativity associated with Scientism. Perhaps I'm ignorant as to the definition of scientism. So, I'd like to get some different perspectives on what it actually is and the positive or negative effects of scientism.

Firstly, I don't consider it a religion. It's been suggested - and I rather like this model - that religion conveys fact and value by convergence into myth. In a religious text there will be stories, or myths, that convey a fact and a value, such as "Play with fire and prepare to be burned", this conveys a fact "Fire is hot" and a value "Meddling in aggressive behavior can backfire". However, this is simply my interpretation, the myth is entirely open to interpretation and personalization.

In Scientism, from what I understand, there are no myths or stories, there is no convergence. Rather there is a direct linkage of fact to value. The facts are clearly stated and the proposed value is also typically well communicated. In reading a theory of scientism there is little room for interpretation or personalization. However, if by looking at the facts alone we draw our own values, then it's entirely personalized and open to interpretation. At the root of this "ideology" if we call it that, are facts or science, hence the name "Scientism".

In classical religions the root source of both fact and value is a religious text of stories to which one must interpret both the fact and the value.

So, I suggest that by this definition Scientism may be the ideal approach to convergence of fact and value into a personalized fact-value system. I think the preaching involved in scientism may be a means for some to rally support for their view, but not to the extent that religious preachers succeed. For religious preaching bases it's self in a myth and for those who cannot interpret the myth, they are highly submissive to the ideas of the preacher.

farfromglorified

While I don't disagree with your post above, I'd encourage you to consider the following question in order to understand the potentially false perception you have about the difference between science and religion:

Can you prove that you exist?

Ahnimus

farfromglorified wrote:

While I don't disagree with your post above, I'd encourage you to consider the following question in order to understand the potentially false perception you have about the difference between science and religion:

Can you prove that you exist?

I'm not sure I understand.

Let me just clarify that I'm talking about scientism and not science it's self.

Yes, I can prove that I exist.

angelica

Ahnimus wrote:

Although I've been called a "Scientismist" or something to that effect several times I fail to see the negativity associated with Scientism. Perhaps I'm ignorant as to the definition of scientism. So, I'd like to get some different perspectives on what it actually is and the positive or negative effects of scientism.

Firstly, I don't consider it a religion. It's been suggested - and I rather like this model - that religion conveys fact and value by convergence into myth. In a religious text there will be stories, or myths, that convey a fact and a value, such as "Play with fire and prepare to be burned", this conveys a fact "Fire is hot" and a value "Meddling in aggressive behavior can backfire". However, this is simply my interpretation, the myth is entirely open to interpretation and personalization.

In Scientism, from what I understand, there are no myths or stories, there is no convergence. Rather there is a direct linkage of fact to value. The facts are clearly stated and the proposed value is also typically well communicated. In reading a theory of scientism there is little room for interpretation or personalization. However, if by looking at the facts alone we draw our own values, then it's entirely personalized and open to interpretation. At the root of this "ideology" if we call it that, are facts or science, hence the name "Scientism".

In classical religions the root source of both fact and value is a religious text of stories to which one must interpret both the fact and the value.

So, I suggest that by this definition Scientism may be the ideal approach to convergence of fact and value into a personalized fact-value system. I think the preaching involved in scientism may be a means for some to rally support for their view, but not to the extent that religious preachers succeed. For religious preaching bases it's self in a myth and for those who cannot interpret the myth, they are highly submissive to the ideas of the preacher.

When I use the term of "scientism" it does not refer to science. It refers to a bastardization of science. It's about distorting science principles and using them in an inaccurate way that is not about what science actually stands for. For example, religion cannot define science principles because religion is not based on the scientific method and therefore cannot enter a realm that it is not a part of. In the same way, science cannot define the realm of spirituality, or philosophy. When these boundaries are blurred and science has stretched beyond its actual parameters within the scientific method, scientism--a distorted inaccurate version-comes into play. That's how I use the term.

*runs and hides*

farfromglorified

Ahnimus wrote:

I'm not sure I understand.

Let me just clarify that I'm talking about scientism and not science it's self.

Yes, I can prove that I exist.

How?

RolandTD20Kdrummer

farfromglorified wrote:

While I don't disagree with your post above, I'd encourage you to consider the following question in order to understand the potentially false perception you have about the difference between science and religion:

Can you prove that you exist?

That's just fucking hilarious...

Ahnimus

angelica wrote:

When I use the term of "scientism" it does not refer to science. It refers to a bastardization of science. It's about distorting science principles and using them in an inaccurate way that is not about what science actually stands for. For example, religion cannot define science principles because religion is not based on the scientific method and therefore cannot enter a realm that it is not a part of. In the same way, science cannot define the realm of spirituality, or philosophy. When these boundaries are blurred and science has stretched beyond its actual parameters within the scientific method, scientism--a distorted inaccurate version-comes into play. That's how I use the term.

*runs and hides*

Ok, well, I'd like to suggest that science and scientism are separate things. Science is the study of reality and produces facts with relative certainty. Scientism I would consider an interpretation of the values of those facts, rather than a "bastardization" or "distortion" of the facts. I think that Scientism doesn't actually change or distort facts, but rather tries to philosophically interpret them.

Perhaps in some misinterpretations of facts Scientism does distort them. However, it is also true that religions manage to often misinterpret and distort facts as well. I don't think it's something exclusive to Scientism. And I just don't believe that Scientism by definition is distortion of facts, rather an interpretation of facts.

farfromglorified

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

That's just fucking hilarious...

Why?

Ahnimus

farfromglorified wrote:

How?

I can prove that I exist through objective empirical evidence. I can make myself known to any living person and they can validate my existence.

But please, before we go down this road any further, I'd like an explanation, I'm curious how this relates to scientism or religion.

farfromglorified

Ahnimus wrote:

I can prove that I exist through objective empirical evidence. I can make myself known to any living person and they can validate my existence.

That would be circular logic that would presuppose you exist in the first place. An effect on me, by you, would require two presuppositions: that you exist in the first place and that I exist in the second place. Neither can prove your existence without first presupposing it.

But please, before we go down this road any further, I'd like an explanation, I'm curious how this relates to scientism or religion.

All science requires the law of identity. Without it, nothing scientific can hold meaning. I'm asking you to prove that law. You seem big on quizzes.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

Maybe I'm just a floating brain in a jar, or a gelatinous mass of goo in some super gigantic dudes laboratory...maybe our entire universe exists in just the tip of an eyelash of something higher up...maybe were just a mere brief spark or flash of energy embedded into some structure of a higher and much greater dimension? Maybe all that goes on within us. Maybe all that or infinity can be found on the tip of our finger. well....righty...

can we discuss free will now?

RolandTD20Kdrummer

farfromglorified wrote:

That would be circular logic that would presuppose you exist in the first place. An effect on me, by you, would require two presuppositions: that you exist in the first place and that I exist in the second place. Neither can prove your existence without first presupposing it.

I'm amazed it only took you 7163 posts to completely lose your mind.

angelica

Ahnimus wrote:

Ok, well, I'd like to suggest that science and scientism are separate things.

This much is very true.

Perhaps in some misinterpretations of facts Scientism does distort them. However, it is also true that religions manage to often misinterpret and distort facts as well. I don't think it's something exclusive to Scientism. And I just don't believe that Scientism by definition is distortion of facts, rather an interpretation of facts.

Scientism is when science becomes distorted and steps beyond it's own boundaries, therefore distorted religion requires it's own term. I fully agree that most of what you despise about religion is a similar bastardization of the actual basics as defined by mystics. Absolutely.

angelica

I am being very honest when I say I very much respect science. And that I feel it is very necessary. And that I believe that as long as we preserve the parameters of the scientific method, that is great.

farfromglorified

Ahnimus,

You can continue to search for proof of your own existence outside of yourself, but I promise you that you will not find it. Perhaps this might encourage you to actually consider what I've been telling you for the past two months.

-Jeff

lucylespian

angelica wrote:

For example, religion cannot define science principles because religion is not based on the scientific method and therefore cannot enter a realm that it is not a part of.
*runs and hides*

You can run, but you can't hide !! LOL !!!

This true, and it is why scientists and athiests get so upset when religions try to to muscle their way into school curriculae, to be taught alongside science. "Intelligent design" for example, is religion trying to enter the scientific realm, I think they actually DARE....*imagine red-faced righteous indignation*.....to call it Creation Science here.

Ahnimus

Ok, I wanted to get opinions before I read the wiki article on it. You all know how much I love wikipedia.

wikipedia wrote:

Scientism is a term often used today as a pejorative[1][2][3] to describe someone of holding the view that science has primacy over all other interpretations of life such as philosophical, religious, mythical, spiritual, or humanistic explanations. It has also been applied to the view that natural sciences have primacy over other fields of inquiry such as social sciences. Today, the term is often used by religious critics of evolution via natural selection[3] and also against the most vocal critics of religion-as-such.[4] In contrast with this was its usage in the early 20th century, which was as a neutral descriptive and roughly synonymous with logical positivism.[5] Contemporary descriptive usage of the term is limited but found in some places. The Skeptics Society founder Michael Shermer, for example, self-identifies as scientistic and defines scientism as "a scientific worldview that encompasses natural explanations for all phenomena, eschews supernatural and paranormal speculations, and embraces empiricism and reason as the twin pillars of a philosophy of life appropriate for an Age of Science."[6]

Then would anyone suggest that my definition of Scientism is incorrect? If so, how does it differ from the wikipedia definition?

Ahnimus

farfromglorified wrote:

Ahnimus,

You can continue to search for proof of your own existence outside of yourself, but I promise you that you will not find it. Perhaps this might encourage you to actually consider what I've been telling you for the past two months.

-Jeff

I'm not really sure what you are getting at. I'm not out to prove my own existence. I think, therefor I am. Or as one of my t-shirts says "I think... therefor I am single."

In order to prove that an apple exists, the apple must first exist. I don't see this as circular reasoning.

angelica

Ahnimus wrote:

Ok, I wanted to get opinions before I read the wiki article on it. You all know how much I love wikipedia.



Then would anyone suggest that my definition of Scientism is incorrect? If so, how does it differ from the wikipedia definition?

The key to my way of looking at scientism, which stems from philosopher Ken Wilber, is that science can only understand observable surfaces of things. Therefore by using a purely scientific view, one must collapse the depths, values and meanings, pretending that only the surfaces exist. For example in neurology/psychology. Neurology can describe the chemical reactions (observable surfaces). In order to get a full understanding one must have the complementary view of the person's personal experience -- for example for Ted Bundy's life, in order to understand more fully, we need to also have the cultural variables, including his interactions. being the inter-subjective view, the morals, values, language etc he was raised with. And of course, to balance out the brain chemical surfaces, and in order to complete the full picture, we need his subjective view, meaning we study his psychology as well. This can only be achieved by talking to him and eliciting this view. It cannot be gauged by surfaces.

This covers the it/we/I realms. One level without the other is a partial look at the picture. Science is included in the "it" realm and half of the "we" realm, through sociology. The other aspects are subjective and are dependent upon the subjective view, which is not objective as in science.

lucylespian

Back on topic, Ahnimus, I get the impression you are keen young insect studying med or nearoscience or something, did they ever teach you that flogging dead horses just gets you a face full of horsehair ???

There are a few ideas floating around about why people anre anti-science. Most of them revolve around fear of poor outcomes. The Thalidomide fiasco was very prominent, and made worse by teh fact that the company hid the truth long after they fund out, and actually paid people to publish false studies.
The nuclear arms race, and the associated fears were also responsible for people fearing science, meddling with things which do not concern man, and should remain the nprovince of God.

I suspect you are too young to remember any of those things. People fear things they don't understand, and while we would agree that God cannot be understood, people are comfirtable thinking that teh priests are doing teh understanding for them, and smug in the knowledge that God is on their side, regardless of which side you are on. It's a simpler story and speaks more directly to prople. Science, on teh other hand, asks way more questions than it answers, and answers tend to just raise more questions. This upsets people.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

• I have no idea
• It seems very obvious we all do
• If a tree falls in the forest...
• http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_blog/2007/02/if_no_one_reads.html

scw156

this is both interesting and strange

but who am I to have an opinion... for all I know, I don't even exist

Ahnimus

angelica wrote:

The key to my way of looking at scientism, which stems from philosopher Ken Wilber, is that science can only understand observable surfaces of things. Therefore by using a purely scientific view, one must collapse the depths, values and meanings, pretending that only the surfaces exist. For example in neurology/psychology. Neurology can describe the chemical reactions (observable surfaces). In order to get a full understanding one must have the complementary view of the person's personal experience -- for example for Ted Bundy's life, in order to understand more fully, we need to also have the cultural variables, including his interactions. being the inter-subjective view, the morals, values, language etc he was raised with. And of course, to balance out the brain chemical surfaces, and in order to complete the full picture, we need his subjective view, meaning we study his psychology as well. This can only be achieved by talking to him and eliciting this view. It cannot be gauged by surfaces.

This covers the it/we/I realms. One level without the other is a partial look at the picture. Science is included in the "it" realm and half of the "we" realm, through sociology. The other aspects are subjective and are dependent upon the subjective view, which is not objective as in science.

Ok, well I'd like you to consider this:

Science studies the objective properties of a an object. Let's use an example of a red rubber ball. Science can determine that the ball is made of rubber and is spherical, in can test it's elasticity. The only thing a materialist approach cannot do is prove objectively that the object is red. However, we can measure the light reflectivity of the ball. We can measure it's place on the spectrum of light. Science can then study the retina and visual system of the observer and with enough statistical data determine how the person actually views the ball and point to the shade on the light spectrum.

So, I think that science does cover the subjectivity of experience in an objective way. For example, certain colour may evoke certain reactions in the limbic system which may correlate to an emotion. We may even be able to create an emotion spectrum to which we can point to an exact shade. We aren't that far advanced yet.

Anyway, science is studying the objective observables of an object. We can use that information to communicate ideas and expand our mutual understanding. So if I said "I have a red rubber ball." you may ask "Does it bounce?" because you know that rubber balls usually bounce. Firstly the ball was made possible through scientific discovery and mathematics. Secondly you know from empirical observation that rubber balls typically bounce.

So, this leaves only one thing that is different between experiences, the color red. Because of the variation in the way people experience colour and especially the colour red, it may appear red to me, but pink to you, say if you had 4 cones which is only possible in women. My eyes may interpret a larger range of redish colors as red, where as you see the distinction. That scenario doesn't change anything about it being a rubber ball, only the fact that it is viewed differently through our eyes. A bat may see it in grey scale. If it's blue, black, red, green, orange, yellow or pink doesn't change the fact that it's a rubber ball.

I'm not sure if you are suggesting that I should only say "I have a rubber ball" omitting the word red. Or something like "I have some cauliflower, it tastes good." perhaps I should omit the flavour. If we expand this to issues of morality and politics, "29 Israelis die in muslim suicide bombing", now it gets tricky. I'm already adding a slant to it, I'm implying that being muslim has anything to do with the bombing. I could use the term "jihadist", "palestinian", I don't even have to use a word. That's just a headline, when you get deep into the article, it's painting a whole picture, an experience for the reader.

In the above context, it is highly important to consider the experience of the reader, as with art or music. But in terms of facts, if I say "The decision to act is made 500 ms in the brain prior to conscious awareness of it.". Am I adding a slant? Or am I simply stating fact? It's not "Scientism" by your definition if I'm only stating fact, then it's "Science". Correct?

So, "Scientism" is when I say "Consciousness is delayed from the brain by 500 ms, this means that consciousness does not play a role in decision making.". Correct? Then what if I said "A rubber ball is round, made of rubber, which bounces and therefor depending on how it is thrown against a surface it will bounce in an opposite direction." Is that also "Scientism"?

Where does this line between stating facts and scientism begin? How do you distinguish between to the two?

RolandTD20Kdrummer

scw156 wrote:

this is both interesting and strange

but who am I to have an opinion... for all I know, I don't even exist

Maybe you're a government agent?

Thinking you don't exist is somewhat redundant really...

• can you interact with matter?
• does the earth move under you or do you move on it. If you move on it you exist
• When you step on the scale does it register?
• Can something that does not exist apply a breaking force to destroy other objects
• If we don't exist they why to we have the power to alter everything we observe
• can something that doesn't exist have mass?

scw156

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

Maybe you're a government agent?

Thinking you don't exist is somewhat redundant really...

• can you interact with matter?
• does the earth move under you or do you move on it. If you move on it you exist
• When you step on the scale does it register?
• Can something that does not exist apply a breaking force to destroy other objects
• If we don't exist they why to we have the power to alter everything we observe
• can something that doesn't exist have mass?

I'm just bored and am interested in this "conversation" thats going on.
I'm not sure if you are serious or just dicking around but I'll just "argue" for the sake of arguing...

can I interact with matter? sure... the matter I "believe" is really there

what if there is no Earth...

yes, a scale registers me... and way too much I might add... but what if the scale moves because I expect it to move?

anyways, I'm just having fun. I'm more of a Science person myself and have my own opinions on religion that I don't care to voice. I'm not trying to cause trouble or actually enter into this debate... I'm fine just reading everyones input at this time.




you may continue...

lucylespian

I'm going home now, and too tired to wade thorugh teh last pot from ahnimus.

I vote we put angelica and ahnimus in a room, give tehm a choice of weapon form teh follwing list......


Bible
BAseball bat
physics text book
rubber chicken

...................and let em slug it out !

PS I would just like to clarify that I can spell, I just can't type, and it's not my thinknig that is disorganised at times, it's my computer skills


Adios amigos, best day of chat and debate in ages.

You really are a great bunch of people, nice to find some common graound with Angelica today.

Cheers

angelica

Ahnimus wrote:

Ok, well I'd like you to consider this:

Science studies the objective properties of a an object. Let's use an example of a red rubber ball. Science can determine that the ball is made of rubber and is spherical, in can test it's elasticity. The only thing a materialist approach cannot do is prove objectively that the object is red. However, we can measure the light reflectivity of the ball. We can measure it's place on the spectrum of light. Science can then study the retina and visual system of the observer and with enough statistical data determine how the person actually views the ball and point to the shade on the light spectrum.

So, I think that science does cover the subjectivity of experience in an objective way. For example, certain colour may evoke certain reactions in the limbic system which may correlate to an emotion. We may even be able to create an emotion spectrum to which we can point to an exact shade. We aren't that far advanced yet.

Anyway, science is studying the objective observables of an object. We can use that information to communicate ideas and expand our mutual understanding. So if I said "I have a red rubber ball." you may ask "Does it bounce?" because you know that rubber balls usually bounce. Firstly the ball was made possible through scientific discovery and mathematics. Secondly you know from empirical observation that rubber balls typically bounce.

So, this leaves only one thing that is different between experiences, the color red. Because of the variation in the way people experience colour and especially the colour red, it may appear red to me, but pink to you, say if you had 4 cones which is only possible in women. My eyes may interpret a larger range of redish colors as red, where as you see the distinction. That scenario doesn't change anything about it being a rubber ball, only the fact that it is viewed differently through our eyes. A bat may see it in grey scale. If it's blue, black, red, green, orange, yellow or pink doesn't change the fact that it's a rubber ball.

I'm not sure if you are suggesting that I should only say "I have a rubber ball" omitting the word red. Or something like "I have some cauliflower, it tastes good." perhaps I should omit the flavour. If we expand this to issues of morality and politics, "29 Israelis die in muslim suicide bombing", now it gets tricky. I'm already adding a slant to it, I'm implying that being muslim has anything to do with the bombing. I could use the term "jihadist", "palestinian", I don't even have to use a word. That's just a headline, when you get deep into the article, it's painting a whole picture, an experience for the reader.

In the above context, it is highly important to consider the experience of the reader, as with art or music. But in terms of facts, if I say "The decision to act is made 500 ms in the brain prior to conscious awareness of it.". Am I adding a slant? Or am I simply stating fact? It's not "Scientism" by your definition if I'm only stating fact, then it's "Science". Correct?

So, "Scientism" is when I say "Consciousness is delayed from the brain by 500 ms, this means that consciousness does not play a role in decision making.". Correct? Then what if I said "A rubber ball is round, made of rubber, which bounces and therefor depending on how it is thrown against a surface it will bounce in an opposite direction." Is that also "Scientism"?

Where does this line between stating facts and scientism begin? How do you distinguish between to the two?

I don't dispute the physical sciences and forces as most of this post relates to. Objective study of surfaces and interactions of surfaces and forces are objective and fully within the realm of science. You are correct. To state a fact is not at all scientism. It is science. My understanding and use of the term scientism is fairly simple. An example: when I am telling one of my life philosophies or opinions, or anyone is for that matter, it cannot be trumped by science. Opinions are informed by all our inner feedback, including emotions, intuition, psychological background, culture, facts, knowledge, what is unconscious etc. It completely different than the study of science and can't be compared. Another example: Quantum physicists are only equipped to deal in quantum philosophy, when they are using quantum philosophy. The science itself is a different thing. Or like we ran into last week, you cannot use neuro science to cover psychology principles. You can correlate the two. But an ego is a concept and as far as I know, not something that has been mapped physically in the brain. There are many grey areas. For example, most people believe science theories are hard facts. I tend to point out that they are not. Once we enter into the realm of interpretation, I give science the benefit of the doubt that although human consciousness will limit our understanding, that's just the way it is, and that is acceptable. We're not perfect. Where I call foul is where these ideas are held to absolute truth standard. They are not. They are truths within contexts, given what we know now. So, yes, there is much grey area. Alot that I'm tolerant of.

Ultimately, if we come to map an "ego" in the brain, we still need the person's subjective words and interpretations to understand the psychological side of the coin. We cannot study people objectively and understand how they draw the conclusions they do based on what stimulus, without talking to said people. We don't know how being raised Muslim affect party A unless we ask them, because each individual responds to situations differently. Studying a human and their responses is quite different than studying a rubber ball. Hence we use different criteria for studying humanitarian disciplines than we do studying impersonal systems.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

scw156 wrote:

I'm just bored and am interested in this "conversation" thats going on.
I'm not sure if you are serious or just dicking around but I'll just "argue" for the sake of arguing...

can I interact with matter? sure... the matter I "believe" is really there

what if there is no Earth...

yes, a scale registers me... and way too much I might add... but what if the scale moves because I expect it to move?

anyways, I'm just having fun. I'm more of a Science person myself and have my own opinions on religion that I don't care to voice. I'm not trying to cause trouble or actually enter into this debate... I'm fine just reading everyones input at this time.




you may continue...

• yeah...
  • same
    • here....
      • I'm
        • just
          • bored
            • and
              • half
                • heartedly
                  • dicking
                    • around
                      • with
                        • the
                          • ideas
                            • and
                              • concepts....
                                • It's
                                  • interesting
                                    • to
                                      • think
                                        • of
                                          • the
                                            • infinite possibilities

Ahnimus

lucylespian wrote:

Back on topic, Ahnimus, I get the impression you are keen young insect studying med or nearoscience or something, did they ever teach you that flogging dead horses just gets you a face full of horsehair ???

Well actually, I'm not a student at all. I never took a liking to insect anatomy except drasophila (fruit fly) because it's used in many scientific experiments. That's about it, I'm actually a highschool dropout and the best I got is a few semesters in CCNA and an A+ Certification in computers.

I don't think I'm flogging a dead horse.

There are a few ideas floating around about why people anre anti-science. Most of them revolve around fear of poor outcomes. The Thalidomide fiasco was very prominent, and made worse by teh fact that the company hid the truth long after they fund out, and actually paid people to publish false studies.
The nuclear arms race, and the associated fears were also responsible for people fearing science, meddling with things which do not concern man, and should remain the nprovince of God.

Certainly I can understand the hesitation to science, especially since it has many skeletons in the closet. But so does everything else. If you mention crusades or salem with trials, you are going to get a mouthful about how it's not true Christianity. Science has evolved a lot since. I think it has a lot more to develop. I mean honestly, it's like communism, as a new idea it didn't takeoff too well in some places, capitalists don't like it at all. But perhaps if it had as long as capitalism to evolve, it could be just as good. Science is not nearly as old as religion, so it's still a baby.

Back to the ... rubber ball. If I said I have 10,000 red rubber balls. You might ask to see them. It seems like a lot of rubber balls for one person. May be kind of hard to believe. If I said to you "Well you cannot see my 10,000 red rubber balls, you cannot touch them, smell them or ever detect them by any physical means, but never-the-less they are there, and let me tell you about how they saved the world and triumphed over evil." you may think I'm a bit crazy. Not because you think the balls are actually pink, but because I can't show them to you, to prove they actually exist. Science is charged with simply saying "Here is what exists."

I would suggest that there is nothing wrong with science it's self. Perhaps it's the mind that is the problem. If I simply state the delay of consciousness factually, if I simply quote the experiment. I can say "Ok, sounds like consciousness doesn't do any decision making.", but another person may think something different, I honestly can't imagine what, but I know they probably do. They might say "It doesn't mean anything." but obviously it does, I can't think of anything that means nothing.

I suspect you are too young to remember any of those things. People fear things they don't understand, and while we would agree that God cannot be understood, people are comfirtable thinking that teh priests are doing teh understanding for them, and smug in the knowledge that God is on their side, regardless of which side you are on. It's a simpler story and speaks more directly to prople. Science, on teh other hand, asks way more questions than it answers, and answers tend to just raise more questions. This upsets people.

So, you are saying that people are simple. I agree with that, a lot of people are. So, scientism causes people to have to think and they don't want to. I actually think that people of moderate religiosity don't fully believe in the teachings of their faith. For example, Christianity is all about kindness, understanding and forgiveness. A large portion of people do none of these things. Wether they just don't care or think they can get forgiveness for it. It really doesn't do much, I mean, they just don't seem to take it all that seriously. Yet, they will take a bullet for it. I don't see that religion really does all that much for people in terms of morality. It seems to mostly just be a comfort zone. So, basically people will defend with ferocity this belief in something they don't really believe in. That fascinates me. At this conference Beyond Belief 2006, many scientists said that religion is strengthening, not weakening. They suspect that people will fall back strongly on their religions which will incite more violence towards other faiths and we may see a collapse or recession in social progress. What I gathered from the conference is that most people were in favor of lightening up on the authorships that trash religion. Many expressed a more moderate approach to literature. Many of them though, like Sam Hariss and Richard Dawkings insist on a different approach. One woman said "stick it in their face and they have to acknowledge it". I can see her point, but it will cause people to become defensive. We've already seen that with many things.

So, I understand the whole issue of communicating fact and suppressing values. On the other hand, people should also recognize the difference between fact and value. They can disagree with the values of scientistic thought, but can they really deny the facts? I don't know. It's a difficult issue. I just wish everyone was like me :P

angelica

lucylespian wrote:

I'm going home now, and too tired to wade thorugh teh last pot from ahnimus.

I vote we put angelica and ahnimus in a room, give tehm a choice of weapon form teh follwing list......


Bible
BAseball bat
physics text book
rubber chicken

...................and let em slug it out !

PS I would just like to clarify that I can spell, I just can't type, and it's not my thinknig that is disorganised at times, it's my computer skills


Adios amigos, best day of chat and debate in ages.

You really are a great bunch of people, nice to find some common graound with Angelica today.

Cheers

Ahnimus and I would hang out and drink Tim Horton's coffee. Then he'd invite me back to his place to see "his lab", doncha know. lol I noticed that spelling thing you've got going on, lucylespian......lol. I also think this is an amazing group of people--very intelligent and stimulating! I'm personally in an over-posting stupor right now, and heading to bed. I agree, it was cool to find common ground, even if it was over vaginas. Maybe we can just avoid the Jesus/schizophrenia debate. Peace.

lucylespian

angelica wrote:

Ahnimus and I would hang out and drink Tim Horton's coffee. Then he'd invite me back to his place to see "his lab", doncha know. lol I noticed that spelling thing you've got going on, lucylespian......lol. I also think this is an amazing group of people--very intelligent and stimulating! I'm personally in an over-posting stupor right now, and heading to bed. I agree, it was cool to find common ground, even if it was over vaginas. Maybe we can just avoid the Jesus/schizophrenia debate. Peace.

I can do that, but I would like to say one last thing on teh subject, without trying to have teh last say.
When I say that I think Jesus suffered from schizophrenia, people always assume that I am being darogatory ( ok, I can't spell that), but I am not.
I am a health professional and I do not equate mental illness with a negative connotation. I don't see why it is not possible that Jesus did indeed have schizophrenia. It is not a new disease and there was no diagnosis or treatmetn in Biblical times. People just heard voices and did weird things instead, and most often did not fit into societies. There is bugger all functional difference between demonic possesion and psychotic illness ( psychotic in the medical definition, not popular use.

Any way, peace be to the vagina lovers.