[MD] Science and Scientism

[MarshaV]

Greeting Mark,

This CBC series was extremely informative.  Many of the scientists
interviewed held other than mainstream ideas and were often 
ignored or discredited.  


How To Think About Science

If science is neither cookery, nor angelic virtuosity, then what is it?
Modern societies have tended to take science for granted as a way of 
knowing, ordering and controlling the world. Everything was subject to 
science, but science itself largely escaped scrutiny. This situation has 
changed dramatically in recent years. Historians, sociologists, 
philosophers and sometimes scientists themselves have begun to 
ask fundamental questions about how the institution of science is 
structured and how it knows what it knows. David Cayley talks to 
some of the leading lights of this new field of study.

Episode 1 - Steven Shapin and Simon Schaffer
Episode 2 - Lorraine Daston
Episode 3 - Margaret Lock
Episode 4 - Ian Hacking and Andrew Pickering
Episode 5 - Ulrich Beck and Bruno Latour
Episode 6 - James Lovelock
Episode 7 - Arthur Zajonc
Episode 8 - Wendell Berry
Episode 9 - Rupert Sheldrake
Episode 10 - Brian Wynne 
Episode 11 - Sajay Samuel 
Episode 12 - David Abram 
Episode 13 - Dean Bavington 
Episode 14 - Evelyn Fox Keller
Episode 15 - Barbara Duden and Silya Samerski 
Episode 16 - Steven Shapin 
Episode 17 - Peter Galison
Episode 18 - Richard Lewontin 
Episode 19 - Ruth Hubbard 
Episode 20 - Michael Gibbons, Peter Scott, & Janet Atkinson Grosjean 
Episode 21 - Christopher Norris and Mary Midgely
Episode 22 - Allan Young 
Episode 23 - Lee Smolin 
Episode 24 - Nicholas Maxwell
 
 http://www.cbc.ca/ideas/features/science/index.html 
 
I subscribed to this from an iTune podcast, and it was free, but I think
you can also download for free from this website.  Maybe some
will find it interesting.
 
 
Marsha
 
 
 
 
  
 
On Jan 24, 2010, at 9:08 PM, markhsmit wrote:

> Hi All interested,
> 
> I have used the term scientism recently, much to some 
> individuals distaste.  I am not using that term in a 
> discriminatory fashion, as I myself am a scientist.  I use
> it to express a very real belief system.  So let me briefly
> explain.  I looked up the term on Wiki just before
> writing this, since it seems that many use that
> as a truth reference.  I do not go along with the
> battle stance of the article, but it gives a useful
> description.
> 
> Science is a useful tool.  It provides for many things
> which enhance our survival, comfort, and enjoyment.
> Within science I include applied science, such as
> engineering.
> 
> Scientism on the other hand is the blind faith that
> science provides the best, and perhaps only
> true interpretation of the world.  This is held by
> scientists and non-scientists.  The rules of scientism
> are very narrow, and dogmatic.  Indeed, it is a
> fast tenant that if science cannot measure it, it
> does not exist.  Scientism does allow for growth in
> that if something becomes measurable it does
> exist.  A good example is the ghost of gravity that
> Pirsig discusses.  Within scientism I am including
> the impact of science on such disciplines as
> psychology, economics, and personal experience.
> The faith in science is abused by those who are
> trying to get what they want.
> 
> Scientism depends on objectivity.  Everything it
> describes is at arms length.  Its proliferation is
> one of the key reasons why SOM has become much
> more dominant than it used to be.  While it does have
> some sense in the object it describes, it has no say
> in the personal experience.  This is in the realm of
> spiritualism.  Because of the hold of scientism on
> our lives, be believe that our experience in this world
> is purely due to the objective world.  For example
> the notion that the way to be happy is to make more
> money.  Money has nothing to do with happiness, and
> for those that it does, they have replaced an inner feeling
> with an object.  This kind of consumption becomes 
> endless, because there is no way it can fulfill.
> 
> So, along with scientism, and its preachers, has evolved
> a world of objectivism.  I have said before that for every
> term in psychology in English, there are forty in Sanskrit.
> We have lost the ability to experience ourselves directly.
> A good example is Richard Dawkins.  He denies the existence
> of God using objective reasoning.  He has no idea what he
> is talking about.  Now, if he had been a devote Christian
> and now was arguing against it, then I might listen.  However
> nothing of the sort has happened.  Yes, a god maybe does
> not exist in the world of scientism, but that is simply one of
> scientism's beliefs.  Science does not have the tools to measure a god.
> 
> So let me say to those who claim that spirituality does not
> exist in as real a way as, say, an airplane.  You are doing
> battle with windmills.  You are fighting your own demons.
> There is no end to that no matter how many tools of 
> scientism you use.  They are the wrong tools.  The Kingdom
> of Science is not what it appears to be.
> 
> I will end with some lyrics of Jeff Tweedy from "Wishful Thinking"
> by Wilco.
> 
> "Fill up your mind with all it can know 
> Don't forget that your body will let it all go 
> Fill up your mind with all it can know 
> 'Cause what would love be without wishful thinking"
> 
> Cheers
> Mark
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/

  
_______________________________________________________________________
   
Shoot for the moon.  Even if you miss, you'll land among the stars...