Scientific fundamentalism

[earl]

In honor of my scientific fundamentalist debating foil Tao, thought I'd post this discussion of scientific fundamentalism by Allan Wallace- psychologist, consciousness researcher and Vajrayana practitioner:

Netscape Search Fundamentalism comes in all varieties of belief systems. earl

[citizenzen]

Originally Posted by earl

In honor of my scientific fundamentalist debating foil Tao, thought I'd post this discussion of scientific fundamentalism by Allan Wallace- psychologist, consciousness researcher and Vajrayana practitioner:

Said the man using his computer and the internet to write a message.

Maybe you should scratch out your posts in the dirt with a stick.

Now that would show a little integrity.

[earl]

Originally Posted by citizenzen

Said the man using his computer and the internet to write a message.

Maybe you should scratch out your posts in the dirt with a stick.

Now that would show a little integrity.

It's just the sh_ts not knowing truth for sure ain't it? earl

[citizenzen]

I looked up Scientific Fundamentalism and found this [my comments in red]...

Scientific Fundamentalism

Ten Rules of Scientific Fundamentalism Reprinted with permission of The Wall Street Journal 1993

1. Science holds the answers to all the questions of life.

Science has never claimed to know all the answers to life. The more you examine and discover, the more questions come up. Complete knowledge of anything is a pip-dream.

2. Anyone who does not believe Rule 1 is not Scientific.

This is child's-level logic. No scientist is foolish enough to make this claim. Only science's detractors are.

3. Any evidence for intelligent design of the universe is not scientific.

I love how every statement is an absolute. "Any" evidence? I'm sure some evidence does qualify under the rubric "scientific". I'm sure that many intelligent design scientists employ the disciplines of biology, genetics, geology etc., in an attempt to prove intelligent design. Intelligent design is not merely a matter of holding up the Bible and saying, "The proofs right here!"

4. Any person who teaches there is evidence for intelligent design of the universe is not a scientist.

See statement above. Again, I love the use of absolutes... it's very unscientific.

5. Scientists know for a fact that matter is all there is.

Knows for a "fact"? We can't even prove that cigarettes "cause" cancer, or that C02 "causes" global warming. How could any scientist, considering that we don't even know what matter consists of, claim that is all there is? And yet it's assumed here that this is conventional scientific wisdom.

6. Anything which is not matter does not matter.

See note above. Yet another strawman argument.

7. Religion or religious impulse is the result of undesirable mutations in biological matter.

Who comes up with these ideas? This couldn't be funnier if it were a comedy satire.

8. Whatever is not science is religion.

That's right. There's only two things in this world. Everything either fits under that category of science or religion. More "absolute" nonsense.

9. Only science may be taught.

I think it's pretty well established that lots of theings can be taught.

10. Stuff happens, but only by coincidence.

This would be the only point I agree with. I score 1 out of 10. Does that still make me a scientific fundamentalist?

Please tell me I was wrong, Earl, and that I linked up to an old Monty Python script by mistake. Are these the concepts you adhere to: absolutist nonsense and straw man arguments?

Say it ain't so, Joe!

[earl]

Originally Posted by citizenzen

I looked up Scientific Fundamentalism and found this [my comments in red]...

Scientific Fundamentalism

Ten Rules of Scientific Fundamentalism Reprinted with permission of The Wall Street Journal 1993

1. Science holds the answers to all the questions of life.

Science has never claimed to know all the answers to life. The more you examine and discover, the more questions come up. Complete knowledge of anything is a pip-dream.

2. Anyone who does not believe Rule 1 is not Scientific.

This is child's-level logic. No scientist is foolish enough to make this claim. Only science's detractors are.

3. Any evidence for intelligent design of the universe is not scientific.

I love how every statement is an absolute. "Any" evidence? I'm sure some evidence does qualify under the rubric "scientific". I'm sure that many intelligent design scientists employ the disciplines of biology, genetics, geology etc., in an attempt to prove intelligent design. Intelligent design is not merely a matter of holding up the Bible and saying, "The proofs right here!"

4. Any person who teaches there is evidence for intelligent design of the universe is not a scientist.

See statement above. Again, I love the use of absolutes... it's very unscientific.

5. Scientists know for a fact that matter is all there is.

Knows for a "fact"? We can't even prove that cigarettes "cause" cancer, or that C02 "causes" global warming. How could any scientist, considering that we don't even know what matter consists of, claim that is all there is? And yet it's assumed here that this is conventional scientific wisdom.

6. Anything which is not matter does not matter.

See note above. Yet another strawman argument.

7. Religion or religious impulse is the result of undesirable mutations in biological matter.

Who comes up with these ideas? This couldn't be funnier if it were a comedy satire.

8. Whatever is not science is religion.

That's right. There's only two things in this world. Everything either fits under that category of science or religion. More "absolute" nonsense.

9. Only science may be taught.

I think it's pretty well established that lots of theings can be taught.

10. Stuff happens, but only by coincidence.

This would be the only point I agree with. I score 1 out of 10. Does that still make me a scientific fundamentalist?

Please tell me I was wrong, Earl, and that I linked up to an old Monty Python script by mistake. Are these the concepts you adhere to: absolutist nonsense and straw man arguments?

Say it ain't so, Joe!

most of that had nothing to do with what I posted, but not so sure Tao wouldn't agree with #1. earl

[citizenzen]

Originally Posted by earl

most of that had nothing to do with what I posted, but not so sure Tao wouldn't agree with #1. earl

Silly me! I should have checked out your link first! I only had to read the first line:

In our consideration of scientific materialism, in contrast to science, as a religious creed...

Because I'm talking about science, not scientific materialism, which is akin to Bigfoot, a mythical creature that only exists in the minds of whacked-out back woodsmen and addled philosophers.

Since your article is not about science, there isn't anything there for me to read. And If I want to bother with mythical creatures, I prefer chupacabras.

Peace out Earl.

[citizenzen]

Here's my favorite... very Blair Witch Project...

[Tao_Equus]

Thank you Earl, so kind of you to start a thread in my honour. Especially one that wants to misrepresent my whole approach to the sciences. But I get your point, I can see where you are coming from, and just to make you happy I will agree that I am a science fundamentalist.

So what are the fundamentals of science Earl? Are they wrong? Irrational? Fanciful? Flawed? Outside of the drivel found in your spiritual home, Netscape, can you define what science is?

I have a fundamental faith in science in constructing questions, formulating tests and postulating theories. But the faith is in the ability, not always its results. Some of these theories, like in our local universe mass has a relationship with gravity, I trust as though they were facts. But I do not view science as some bible of cast iron knowledge carved into granite, immutable and sacrosanct. Science to me is a kalaidescope of ideas that are not merely the product of philosophical musing, though they can start there, but are tested through experiment and peer review in order that real existant phenomena can be filtered from the noise. That such methodology produces results is beyond question, agreed?

Given your obsession in painting me into some stereotype that gives you whatever it gives you and your apparent inabilty to read what I write at face value it seems to me that it has become important to you to have me validate your beliefs. Well what other conclusion can I draw from such behaviour? Well there is no easy way to let you down, that will not happen. It may be that a part of our conciousness interacts in the zero point matrix, or that our best ideas miss some important aspects of reality. But if that is the case and they are going to be understood it will not be done by the blind acceptance of the bad science and highly dubious testimony you currently rely on to prop up your thinking. It will be done by people who produce real evidence. And I am not closed to that possibility.

For now I will be interested if you are yet capable of reading what I write and of answering the questions I posed you. Because until you can do that this is not really a discussion at all but just a humourous diversion.

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

For now I will be interested if you are yet capable of reading what I write and of answering the questions I posed you.

Apparently not

[earl]

Tao, I've always taken you at face value and your face, (worldview), is so easy to read. Now should you believe how Wallace has described scientific fundamentalism does not apply to you, I'd be happy to amend my view if you wish to point out the discrepancy. But, as I've said in another thread, I refuse to play mental hide and seek games with you. Will say, however, if you're speculating about consciousness and zero point fields, you may already be stretching out from under the classically materialist worldview. Though I have my doubts that notions from quantum physics will be able to fully explain all the anomalous experiences of consciousness-be they parapsychological, near-death experiences, etc whose evidence you barely give cursory glances to in keeping with your "staunchly held," (i.e. fundamentalistically held), worldview, scientific researchers into such phenomena are currently attempting to theoretcially explain such phenomea and consciousness itself by referencing that field. Watch it though, Tao, this could be a slippery slope for you to slide into a quasi-non-materialist view of reality. earl

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

Apparently not

Apparently still not

[earl]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

Apparently still not

What questions would you like to ask of me? As I've said in another thread when condemning you for your hide and seek games, I'm always more than happy to answer an honest question honestly and directly. Though, you do not. So, if you wish to question me about my beliefs and worldview, I'd answer you. If you merely want to debate evidence in that tired old way you do again, it's not worth my time since you seem unwilling to truly be objectively "scientific" while evaluating such. earl

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by earl

What questions would you like to ask of me? As I've said in another thread when condemning you for your hide and seek games, I'm always more than happy to answer an honest question honestly and directly. Though, you do not. So, if you wish to question me about my beliefs and worldview, I'd answer you. If you merely want to debate evidence in that tired old way you do again, it's not worth my time since you seem unwilling to truly be objectively "scientific" while evaluating such. earl

Apparently still not.
The questions I asked in my first reply to you here.
It is my belief I have answered every question you have asked me to answer. If I have not then please inform me what they are.

[earl]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

Apparently still not.
The questions I asked in my first reply to you here.
It is my belief I have answered every question you have asked me to answer. If I have not then please inform me what they are.

Do I think the fundamentals of science wrong? No. It's a fine method of inquiry. But that's not what this is all about. End of game Tao. earl

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by earl

Do I think the fundamentals of science wrong? No. It's a fine method of inquiry. But that's not what this is all about. End of game Tao. earl

You were playing a game? Very unsporting of you not to tell me that, or the rules!