[MD] Science and Scientism

[plattholden at gmail.com]

Hey Mark,

Well said. Even at its best, science is helpless in answering even basic 
"how" questions such as, "How do non-experiencing atoms in the brain 
produce experience?" and "How did physical laws emerge?"  But, those 
failures are minor compared to the damage scientism does to one's 
psyche. Such secular objectivism and materialism leads inevitably to 
Pirsig's memorable metaphor of secret loneliness and spiritual emptiness 
-- an arrow-shaped neon sign blinking PARADISE, PARADISE,  or as 
some of our young answer.when asked about the meaning of life, "You 
work like hell and then you die."  .  

Platt


On 24 Jan 2010 at 18:08, 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