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]

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]

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]

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]

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...

[youtube]SmHmnfgON4A[/youtube]​

 

[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]

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]

Apparently not

Apparently still not

 

[earl]

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]

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]

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]

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!

 

[Virtual_Cliff]

I think science has left empirical observation a long way behind. We had Schroedinger's cat, multiple universes, 11 dimensions, particles that go back in time - I lose track. It's all speculation now, and has been for some time. But that's OK.

What's often overlooked is how much what we know as science is a product of an urban civilisation. I look at it this way: if I had to live among an untouched primitive people and survive, my understanding of religion generally would be of immense usefulness. What I know about the wavelengths of light etc would be nowhere. More than that. In context, only the religion would be TRUE.

Cars and planes will pass away -the human spirit will remain.

 

[juantoo3]

I think you raise an interesting point, VC. So much of science is "soft," so little is genuinely "hard" science, but since even soft science claims heritage from hard science there remains a "certain" presumption that *all* science is smugly factual...at least in the minds of the groupies that hug onto science like so many fanatical disciples. The actual priests of science do pretty well espouse a "don't know for fact" or "not fully certain" quality to their inquiries, but that generally falls to the wayside by the time the research makes its way to the level of the laity. Among the adherents it is presumed: science=fact, and fact=truth, and truth=reality, when in fact science seldom equals fact, which disturbs the balance of the apple cart.

Just another meme....

 

[citizenzen]

I think science has left empirical observation a long way behind. We had Schroedinger's cat, multiple universes, 11 dimensions, particles that go back in time - I lose track. It's all speculation now, and has been for some time. But that's OK.

VC, Schroedinger's cat may make a good topic at a cocktail party, but it doesn't pay the bills. Science is still very much involved in practical matters. If you have any interest in the scope of scientific inquiry, I'd recommend looking through the Top 100 Stories of 2008, a yearly special feature of Discover, a science magazine. You might just rethink your statement that science is "all speculation now."

I look at it this way: if I had to live among an untouched primitive people and survive, my understanding of religion generally would be of immense usefulness. What I know about the wavelengths of light etc would be nowhere. More than that. In context, only the religion would be TRUE.

Actually VC, if you found yourself living among untouched primitive people, I think your main concerns would involve hunting, gathering, maintaining a potable water supply and keeping infections, parasites and diseases at bay. Whether you cared about the wavelengths of light or not, it wouldn't change the truth about them.

But it might be helpful to know that the eclipse is not caused by an angry God who must be appeased with a blood sacrifice; especially when you're the sickly villager who doesn't contribute much to the tribe and spends most of the day on your knees in prayer.

 

[juantoo3]

VC, Schroedinger's cat may make a good topic at a cocktail party, but it doesn't pay the bills.

And yet, look at the air time and devotion dedicated to "multi-verses" and "string theory," by people who A: are not actually on the front lines of the scientific philosophy (and can't even name just one researcher who actually is on the front line), and B: grab hold and run with the smug attitude of absolute conviction zealously trumpeting their newfound religious truth *cough cough* excuse me, "fact," and C: proceed to rub "unbeliever's" noses in it as if they really hold anything of value; and what is more, these particular sci-phi's have NO (zero-zip-nada) practical application, now or in the forseeable future. These are just two cases of scientific philosophizing bandied about as fact by people who don't fully grasp the concept nor implications except in their own little private sci-fi fantasy worlds within their minds.

Merely one example.

Science is still very much involved in practical matters.

Not to quibble but, "Engineering" is very much involved in practical matters. Science much less so.

If you have any interest in the scope of scientific inquiry, I'd recommend looking through the Top 100 Stories of 2008, a yearly special feature of Discover, a science magazine. You might just rethink your statement that science is "all speculation now."

No unobjective bias there, of course...

 

[citizenzen]

And yet, look at the air time and devotion dedicated to "multi-verses" and "string theory,"...

Look at the air time and devotion dedicated to "French Toast Jesus". By your standards we should judge religion on the fascination people found in a partially eaten breakfast product.

juantoo3, you should by now realize that what makes the news isn't the day-to-day work that people perform. Stories like "The Glide Memorial Church served another breakfast to the homeless and needy, just as they have for the past thirty years..." doesn't get reported, but some rube who finds Jesus on his french toast gets nation-wide coverage. Likewise the day-to-day work in sciences gets short shrift while fantastic theories make the news.


BTW, did you follow my link to see the scope of scientific work being undertaken? There was very little purely theoretical work in that list. Most of it dealt with real world problems such as: energy, the environment, genetics, the Earth, Drugs, Global Warming, Mars, Organ Transplants, Stem Cells, Alzheimer's Disease, Salmonella, Agriculture, Solar Energy, Fisheries, HIV, Cloning, Cyber Attacks, Electronics, Sexuality, Memory, Immunity, Mental Illness, Fitness, Volcanoes, Electricity, Meteors, Robots, Human Nature and more.

Too bad none of these issues apply to your life. Otherwise you might find them interesting.