3 ms·
I think you should look into the differences between "science", and "scientism". The latter is what happens when scientifically illiterate people are spreading
by henrikschroder 6y ago
I think you should look into the differences between "science", and "scientism".
The latter is what happens when scientifically illiterate people are spreading scientific news. Scientism is treating science as religion, as infallible, as the bringer of truth, while forgetting what science really is; the doubts, the uncertainties, the falsifiability, the hypotheses, the process.
I think this XKCD illustrates it nicely: https://xkcd.com/882/ https://xkcd.com/882/
- tehchromic 6y agoI understand this full well. I'm speaking in the context of that you'd are calling scientism because I think it's the dominant religion of our times. An example is this slogan: "I believe in science". We might say well, this person is saying they have faith that the scientific method produces ... But I would argue that this person (in aggregate in modern society) is actually much more like a religious believer. They believe without any real idea of what science is. I don't dispute the difference between the scientific method and the mythological one. All I'm saying is that religion had at it's heart a hard science and mythology was it's product. I am sorry saying that modern science produces mostly mythodology as well. I don't claim that everyone has to agree, but this is how it looks to me. So I see a world around me made of scientism. Yet you never hear the word, and certainly it's not a legitimate sounding word. So I go a step further and say, our modern religion is science which produces the mythodology which we consume. I think it's a valid position. But of course no dominant paradigm likes to consider it's falacies.