Scientism

13567…17

Comments

  • surferdude
    surferdude Posts: 2,057
    puremagic wrote:
    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?
    I'm not trying to pit religion against science. They are separate.

    I was trying to point out the weakness of science. That is that if science hasn't figured out a way to measure it science says it does not exist.
    “One good thing about music,
    when it hits you, you feel to pain.
    So brutalize me with music.”
    ~ Bob Marley
  • angelica
    angelica Posts: 6,038
    surferdude wrote:
    I was trying to point out the weakness of science. That is that if science hasn't figured out a way to measure it science says it does not exist.
    Awesome.
    "The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr

    http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta

    Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
  • puremagic
    puremagic Posts: 1,907
    surferdude wrote:
    I'm not trying to pit religion against science. They are separate.

    I was trying to point out the weakness of science. That is that if science hasn't figured out a way to measure it science says it does not exist.

    The truth is you knew that wasn't a true statement before you even posted it. True, science is not exact study in many respects, especially when it comes to events caused by nature, but the progress made and the by-products of scientific studies are undeniable. Scientist are some of the most determined, egotistical, prove me wrong people on the planet. If something exists or is to be found in their field, we'll find it, but it's research intensive and peer reviewed, not a shot in the dark.

    If you answer this question to yourself, factually you will find out the weakness in religions. What is the reason for multiple religions?
    SIN EATERS--We take the moral excrement we find in this equation and we bury it down deep inside of us so that the rest of our case can stay pure. That is the job. We are morally indefensible and absolutely necessary.
  • surferdude
    surferdude Posts: 2,057
    puremagic wrote:
    What is the reason for multiple religions?
    People finding multiple paths in an attempt to get to a truth.
    “One good thing about music,
    when it hits you, you feel to pain.
    So brutalize me with music.”
    ~ Bob Marley
  • angelica
    angelica Posts: 6,038
    puremagic wrote:
    The truth is you knew that wasn't a true statement before you even posted it. True, science is not exact study in many respects, especially when it comes to events caused by nature, but the progress made and the by-products of scientific studies are undeniable. Scientist are some of the most determined, egotistical, prove me wrong people on the planet. If something exists or is to be found in their field, we'll find it, but it's research intensive and peer reviewed, not a shot in the dark.
    Are you saying it's untrue that science says what they cannot prove does not exist? An example: spiritual experiences. Science is not equipped to understand them yet, and science's way of dealing with that is to decide they are an illness. edit: because science cannot prove or conceive of the validity of a spiritual experience, science believes it's inability to be a factual understanding, and all kinds of spiritual emergence experiences are treated as a flaw/illness rather than as what they are that is truly appreciated by disciplines beyond science.
    "The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr

    http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta

    Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
  • scw156
    scw156 Posts: 442
    this thread is a real experience for me...

    some posts make me really think about things and have me interested,

    while other posts almost make me laugh and think about where I could get some drugs that would make me all crazy


    I should hang out in A Moving Train more often


    as you were
    The Sentence Below Is True
    The Sentence Above Is False
  • onelongsong
    onelongsong Posts: 3,517
    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 you de-humanize life; life has no meaning. you ask for proof of something being greater than the whole of it's parts; well here it is:
    you consist of about 90% water and 10% dust. by your theory; i can take a glass of water and throw in 10% dust and make a human. either that or you place your self worth equal to that glass of dirty water.
    i see scientism as the denial of human existance. you can explain how everything works but you can't explain why.
  • Ahnimus
    Ahnimus Posts: 10,560
    angelica wrote:
    Are you saying it's untrue that science says what they cannot prove does not exist? An example: spiritual experiences. Science is not equipped to understand them yet, and science's way of dealing with that is to decide they are an illness. edit: because science cannot prove or conceive of the validity of a spiritual experience, science believes it's inability to be a factual understanding, and all kinds of spiritual emergence experiences are treated as a flaw/illness rather than as what they are that is truly appreciated by disciplines beyond science.

    Actually that isn't true. You should watch that Beyond Belief 2006 conference. They mentioned an entire brain region that is active during spiritual experiences. The brain region is shared by most people. Science never discounted spirituality, it just put it into a physical realm. Ultimately it's believed to be advantagous in some way. We live many illusions that are/were necissary for our survival.

    And I think that statement is wrong. Dark matter was believed by scientists to exist without ever being able to measure it or observe it. It came down to there being no other options. Decades later dark matter is observed.
    I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
  • Ahnimus
    Ahnimus Posts: 10,560
    onelongsong wrote:
    when you de-humanize life; life has no meaning. you ask for proof of something being greater than the whole of it's parts; well here it is:
    you consist of about 90% water and 10% dust. by your theory; i can take a glass of water and throw in 10% dust and make a human. either that or you place your self worth equal to that glass of dirty water.
    i see scientism as the denial of human existance. you can explain how everything works but you can't explain why.

    I'm not sure how to respond to this. Yes, human beings are mostly carbon, hydrogen and oxygen atoms. A diamond is mostly carbon as well, yet it does not look like soot, nor do we. Chemistry and Molecular Biology close the gaps between soot and humans. I don't have the knowledge to lecture you on the link. I think you'll just have to look into it yourself, or have 'faith' that scientists know what they are doing. However, you can actually look into it and find all the links you need. Unlike religion that has massive holes in it.

    Abrahamic faiths don't explain anything either. They essentially say "A Mirical Happens" or "Then God" and that's the end of talking. Religion fails to explain why anything happens as well. A fantasy personal God or the easter bunny aren't going to answer any "Why" questions. As I've said before I think the question "Why are we here?" is egocentric and false. I think the answer is "There is no purpose". Unless you mean "How are we here?" then science does provide a very detailed explanation, while religion still claims "Then GOD".
    I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
  • onelongsong
    onelongsong Posts: 3,517
    Ahnimus wrote:
    Actually that isn't true. You should watch that Beyond Belief 2006 conference. They mentioned an entire brain region that is active during spiritual experiences. The brain region is shared by most people. Science never discounted spirituality, it just put it into a physical realm. Ultimately it's believed to be advantagous in some way. We live many illusions that are/were necissary for our survival.

    And I think that statement is wrong. Dark matter was believed by scientists to exist without ever being able to measure it or observe it. It came down to there being no other options. Decades later dark matter is observed.

    i think that if you could do what some of us can do with our minds; you'd think differently. it goes back to the "we know something you don't know".
    you dismiss the governments studies in psycic abilities and the psycics solving crimes today. recently was the prediction of where a missing girls body would be found outside of phoenix, az. this was not an illusion. it was a prediction made on national tv proven true weeks later.
  • angelica
    angelica Posts: 6,038
    Ahnimus wrote:
    Actually that isn't true. You should watch that Beyond Belief 2006 conference. They mentioned an entire brain region that is active during spiritual experiences. The brain region is shared by most people. Science never discounted spirituality, it just put it into a physical realm. Ultimately it's believed to be advantagous in some way. We live many illusions that are/were necissary for our survival.

    And I think that statement is wrong. Dark matter was believed by scientists to exist without ever being able to measure it or observe it. It came down to there being no other options. Decades later dark matter is observed.
    Yes we can correlate the spiritual realm to the physical. And scientists can full well come up with theories regarding these correlates as they pertain to what is observable and the practical applications of such. And at the same time, science is literally unable to perceive the spiritual level of these experiences. Which brings us back to what I am saying, in support of what surferdude said: when science cannot see or trace and study something, science says it does not exist. You yourself, are saying these experiences are illusions, mirroring this.
    "The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr

    http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta

    Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
  • Ahnimus
    Ahnimus Posts: 10,560
    onelongsong wrote:
    i think that if you could do what some of us can do with our minds; you'd think differently. it goes back to the "we know something you don't know".
    you dismiss the governments studies in psycic abilities and the psycics solving crimes today. recently was the prediction of where a missing girls body would be found outside of phoenix, az. this was not an illusion. it was a prediction made on national tv proven true weeks later.

    Studies on psychic abilities have had inconclusive results.

    Coincidence?

    Maybe you are just really gullible, not that you have some advanced brain.

    See, there is nothing that can constitute Psionic Matter as they claim. Brain fields can't get through the cranium, NA+/K+ have a half-life of about 8 seconds. There is no Psionic Matter.

    But what you are talking about is clarevoyance which is even harder to prove. It has to actually preceed the event and therefor psionic matter wouldn't be useful. So, then all you have is a bunch of information and determinism. I've had my own clarevoyant experience, I don't attribute it to God or Spirituality. I attribute it to a deterministic reality.
    I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
  • onelongsong
    onelongsong Posts: 3,517
    Ahnimus wrote:
    I'm not sure how to respond to this. Yes, human beings are mostly carbon, hydrogen and oxygen atoms. A diamond is mostly carbon as well, yet it does not look like soot, nor do we. Chemistry and Molecular Biology close the gaps between soot and humans. I don't have the knowledge to lecture you on the link. I think you'll just have to look into it yourself, or have 'faith' that scientists know what they are doing. However, you can actually look into it and find all the links you need. Unlike religion that has massive holes in it.

    Abrahamic faiths don't explain anything either. They essentially say "A Mirical Happens" or "Then God" and that's the end of talking. Religion fails to explain why anything happens as well. A fantasy personal God or the easter bunny aren't going to answer any "Why" questions. As I've said before I think the question "Why are we here?" is egocentric and false. I think the answer is "There is no purpose". Unless you mean "How are we here?" then science does provide a very detailed explanation, while religion still claims "Then GOD".

    i didn't know were talking about religion; but since you brought it up; your religion is science. first; you have "faith" that they are right. second; you look to science for the answers to your existance and meaning of life. isn't that the basis for religion? what you say is your beliefs. i believe in God; you believe in science. we are very much the same; except i don't insist i'm right; or my way is the only way. may religions do. as you found out at your grandmothers funeral. both you and that preacher insist you are right and the other is wrong. and you both preach why your right. he in his church; you here and where ever else you discuss this subject.
  • Ahnimus
    Ahnimus Posts: 10,560
    angelica wrote:
    Yes we can correlate the spiritual realm to the physical. And scientists can full well come up with theories regarding these correlates as they pertain to what is observable and the practical applications of such. And at the same time, science is literally unable to perceive the spiritual level of these experiences. Which brings us back to what I am saying, in support of what surferdude said: when science cannot see or trace and study something, science says it does not exist. You yourself, are saying these experiences are illusions, mirroring this.

    Aren't they though? Ok, so you aren't a person of faith because that requires you to believe in some strange idea to which there is no proof. Yet you will believe in some other shit with no proof.

    Do you believe color exists? Do you believe hot exists? Are these measurable things or just experiences?

    See, in both our interpretation of color and of heat, there is a very physical reality to it, this spirituality non-sense like laylines, vortexes and spirits have been repeatedly tested for and nothing, no matter has been observed.

    Back to synaptogenesis, if it was possible, we'd all be psychics.
    I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
  • Ahnimus
    Ahnimus Posts: 10,560
    onelongsong wrote:
    i didn't know were talking about religion; but since you brought it up; your religion is science. first; you have "faith" that they are right. second; you look to science for the answers to your existance and meaning of life. isn't that the basis for religion? what you say is your beliefs. i believe in God; you believe in science. we are very much the same; except i don't insist i'm right; or my way is the only way. may religions do. as you found out at your grandmothers funeral. both you and that preacher insist you are right and the other is wrong. and you both preach why your right. he in his church; you here and where ever else you discuss this subject.

    You only insist that science is wrong, or flawed. I don't blindly believe in science, I investigate it's claims, it's reseach methods and it's peer reviews. The reason science trumps religion is because it works with observables and it's so systematic that it can be proven wrong or it can stand the test of time... You may not believe dinosaurs existed because dude didn't write them in you book, but they did exist, you can see their bones on display in museums around the world. Science didn't think "Hey let's make up dinosaurs then go searching for their bones and make some shit up if we can't find 'em" it came across the bones and then spent many years bringing it all together to get the full picture. Religion is a joke when it comes to what is, it's the master of what isn't.
    I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
  • onelongsong
    onelongsong Posts: 3,517
    Ahnimus wrote:
    Studies on psychic abilities have had inconclusive results.

    Coincidence?

    Maybe you are just really gullible, not that you have some advanced brain.

    See, there is nothing that can constitute Psionic Matter as they claim. Brain fields can't get through the cranium, NA+/K+ have a half-life of about 8 seconds. There is no Psionic Matter.

    But what you are talking about is clarevoyance which is even harder to prove. It has to actually preceed the event and therefor psionic matter wouldn't be useful. So, then all you have is a bunch of information and determinism. I've had my own clarevoyant experience, I don't attribute it to God or Spirituality. I attribute it to a deterministic reality.

    inconclusive in this case means that SOME people were able to perform but because everyone couldn't complete the experiment; an absolute conclusion could not be drawn. in other words; science could not explain it.
  • angelica
    angelica Posts: 6,038
    Ahnimus wrote:
    Aren't they though? Ok, so you aren't a person of faith because that requires you to believe in some strange idea to which there is no proof. Yet you will believe in some other shit with no proof.
    I have proof. I'm wired to see those things as are the millions of people worldwide who also see them. Science cannot discern the philosophical questions of what we do with these varying views.
    "The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr

    http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta

    Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
  • angelica
    angelica Posts: 6,038
    Ahnimus wrote:
    The reason science trumps religion is because it works with observables and it's so systematic that it can be proven wrong or it can stand the test of time...
    Agreed. Science trumps religion in the department of observables.
    "The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr

    http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta

    Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
  • Ahnimus
    Ahnimus Posts: 10,560
    So anyway, this thread is about scientism. I'm personally sick of debating the validity of science. Science it's self is attacked by looney tunes. I mean it's just a ridiculous thing to attack and is apparently done to facilitate some dogmatic agenda.

    Do a thought experiemnt. Try to forget all of your beliefs and knowledge. Pretend you are a new person to this world. You have groups preaching about allah, groups preaching about jesus, and yahweh. Buddhists, Hindus, mystics and science. What do you choose to believe in?

    I think the answer is absolutely science. It's the only one that can stick something in your face and say "look, it exists."
    I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
  • onelongsong
    onelongsong Posts: 3,517
    Ahnimus wrote:
    You only insist that science is wrong, or flawed. I don't blindly believe in science, I investigate it's claims, it's reseach methods and it's peer reviews. The reason science trumps religion is because it works with observables and it's so systematic that it can be proven wrong or it can stand the test of time... You may not believe dinosaurs existed because dude didn't write them in you book, but they did exist, you can see their bones on display in museums around the world. Science didn't think "Hey let's make up dinosaurs then go searching for their bones and make some shit up if we can't find 'em" it came across the bones and then spent many years bringing it all together to get the full picture. Religion is a joke when it comes to what is, it's the master of what isn't.

    and thus you insist your religion is the only way.

Categories