Scientism

scw156 · March 2007

this is both interesting and strange

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

Ahnimus · March 2007

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 · March 2007

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 · March 2007

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 · March 2007

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 · March 2007

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 · March 2007

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 · March 2007

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 · March 2007

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 · March 2007

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.

angelica · March 2007

lucylespian wrote:

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.

My personal take on the schizophrenia/Jesus issue is due to the fact that I've been diagnosed with bi-polar disorder. I've had many "delusions" that from the beginning told me I would heal myself from the numerous disorders I had, and that I would use my life to teach other people they can do the same thing. (my numerous disorders=bipolar, obsessive-compulsive disorder, eating disorders, addictions, etc.) These "delusions", which to me have been spiritual revelations, showed me the path, and I have healed from the above "disorders" including the "genetic" ones acquiring amazing information and knowledge along the way. (I no longer take any kind of medication, nor have any kind of "mental illness" issues). I continue to have spiritual revelations and other mystical experiences, without the distortions that once characterized illness. Shamans have been traditionally chosen for their ability to see beyond into "other worlds". The same signs that are pathologized in our culture have been revered in others. If you are looking at spiritual emergence and experience and automatically consider that pathological, I am saying that imo, you are looking at it with a negative connotation. You might try reading the book written by a psychiatrist: "Transcendence vs Madness: Healing the Split". The book, encourages health professionals to finely tune nuanced perceptions of an artist in terms of discerning mental health issues, to enable themselves to perceptively differentiate between emergence of a higher level of awareness which psychologically happens all the time, and between incapacitating illness , when both can look surprisingly similar. The health care provider's ability to differentiate can make all the difference in the world for the patient:

From Claude Steiner’s book “Scripts People Live" he comments on the studies of Jerome D. Frank and Arnold P. Goldstein regarding hope and expectation in psychotherapy:

“From their studies it is clear that the assumptions of mental health workers about their clients have an extremely strong influence on the outcome of their work. Their research shows that when there exists an assumption of illness and chronicity on the part of the workers the effect is that of producing chronicity and illness in the clients, while an assumption of curability on the part of the worker will be associated with an improvement on the part of the client. Thus, considering emotional disturbance as some form of illness, as many who work with people do, is potentially harmful and may in fact be promoting illness in people who seek help from psychiatrists. On the other hand, the assumption that psychiatric disturbances are curable since they are based on reversible decisions frees in people their potent, innate tendencies to recover and overthrow their unhappiness. Workers who offer positive expectancy, coupled with problem solving expertise, make it possible for people in emotional difficulties to take power over their lives and produce their own new, satisfying life plans.”

The transcendence/madness book covers issues of the "conensual reality" that most people see, and why most people are tied to believing that what the majority sees is all there is. Many people view looking at anything outside of such a continuum as pathological. If you are seriously stating Jesus had schizophrenia, it's pretty clear to me that you're quite entrenched in traditional western medicine illness models, which are held together by a certain mindset. This model itself is based on a perspective indicative of itself and it's beliefs, and not necessarily the truth. You are also indicating to me that you have not honed the nuanced discernment I speak of here in terms of mental health. It doesn't surprise me, considering where science/health care is in the western world. I, however, am coming from a different perspective. That of personal empowerment for individuals, prevention, and that of activating personal self-healing mechanisms. There we have my word on the subject.

That all aside, peace back to the vagina lovers.

Abuskedti · March 2007

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?

Science doesn't claim to be able to prove such things.. .only to study compare and predict..

and it does all of that with amazing results.

angelica · March 2007

Ahnimus, I would like to add one important distinction. I don't take issue at all that your beliefs are what they are and that your view is what it is, based so heavily on science. In that sense, scientism is perfectly acceptable, imo. It represents the way you are wired to see things, and that's great. My issue comes in when scientism is being passed off as science and used illegitimately to strangle other people's views and beliefs. Such as using socially ostracizing methods disguised with talk of "facts" and "science" in order to 'win' a debate or to 'prove' a point, when one does not have accurate, legitimate methods for doing so.

Rats of Multa · March 2007

religion and "religions" are different faculties of [human] culture--

"scientism" sounds like the religion of science to me,... ???

personally, i try not to allow myself to become so pigeon-holed with religious-banter that i cease to pursue new experiences,.. but it does seem that there are alot of individuals, esp. in america (esp. in christianity), who could use a little "scientism" in their daily activities,....

if only there was an ethical way to "fix" them,.....

angelica · March 2007

Rats of Multa wrote:

if only there was an ethical way to "fix" them,.....

As always, so wise.....

puremagic · March 2007

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?

To prove or disapprove is also to define. Can you define exist or non exist as it relates to humans?

Rats of Multa · March 2007

angelica wrote:

As always, so wise.....

aw shucks,.. i guess now it's my turn to run and hide,..

good morning to you too angie.....

surferdude · March 2007

Abuskedti wrote:

Science doesn't claim to be able to prove such things.. .only to study compare and predict..

and it does all of that with amazing results.

Yeah right. It can't even get the weather forecast right. Science is good at what they can do, but their weak point is admitting that they don't know something.

Science has a strong tendency to say something doesn't if science hasn't figured out a way to measure it. Say the thermometer had never been invented. Science would tend to say that people were only experiencing hot or cold in their head. Since science wouldn't have a way to measure temperature they would say it doesn't exist.

angelica · March 2007

Rats of Multa wrote:

aw shucks,.. i guess now it's my turn to run and hide,..

good morning to you too angie.....

puremagic · March 2007

surferdude wrote:

Yeah right. It can't even get the weather forecast right. Science is good at what they can do, but their weak point is admitting that they don't know something.

Science has a strong tendency to say something doesn't if science hasn't figured out a way to measure it. Say the thermometer had never been invented. Science would tend to say that people were only experiencing hot or cold in their head. Since science wouldn't have a way to measure temperature they would say it doesn't exist.

Science has a way of saying that if you define heaven as the sky above earth, then we have been to heaven and back. We have looked into the spaces of heaven and seen creations and destruction from black holes, void of form. If heaven is the Kingdom of Heaven then we are talking parables, values, interpretations of writings.

It is pointless to pit religion against science, because science is an exploring and discovery of ever changing interactive reality, the plus, the negative, the what ifs, what happens, why, the variables, etc.to which weather was an excellent example. Changes dictate thoughts, thoughts dictate what ifs, surprise, we have an invention called the thermometer, or doppler radar. Religion is an ideology.

What is the reason for multiple religions?

Scientism

Comments

Categories