4 ms·

This felt really on point until the end: > I don’t think there’s a demonstrable pattern of high-profile scientists or science advocates getting away with destr

This felt really on point until the end: > I don’t think there’s a demonstrable pattern of high-profile scientists or science advocates getting away with destructive, narcissistic behavior (at least no more than in other professions) I nearly laughed out loud. Academia is notorious for having toxic, hierarchical dynamics. I'm not sure if the author is really unaware, or if they're blinded by wanting to form a science > religion narrative, but this last part seriously undercut what was otherwise a great article. But yes- growing up southern baptist in Dallas, the thesis strongly resonates with my experience. You'd see powerful business-men who should have had outsized egos being genuinely humbled by their beliefs. Those beliefs had a lot of flaws - I left them behind for a reason - but there was something unique and valuable about the way they cut through egos.

vlovich123 4y ago
Is that unique to scientific academia though or a problem with academia itself?
- brundolf 4y ago
  I don't think it's unique to scientific academia, but it felt like they were suggesting the scientific community is immune to these kinds of problems
  - vlovich123 4y ago
    Not immune. The author is saying the scientific community doesn't have outsized problems vs other professions or compared with religion (i.e. at most as bad as). > I don’t think there’s a demonstrable pattern of high-profile scientists or science advocates getting away with destructive, narcissistic behavior (at least no more than in other professions) "at least no more than in other professions" is the key. > Maybe Scientism is simply better at ego-maintenance than its religious analogs > Of course, Scientism still has some of the common failure modes of religion. There is plenty of hatred for the outgroup (looking at you, r/skeptic). And its image of man as the “apex intelligence” of the universe has arguably led to some existential risk. > But all that aside, I’m beginning to think of Scientism less as a perversion of science, and more as an evolutionary leap in religious culture So the basic thrust is because scientism has the go modulating aspect of religion but not as much of the ego maximizing, scientism is better than releigion. That being said, I think the author doesn't really dive into all the ego maximization that does happen (awards, success in industry, credentialism, chasing monetary rewards, etc). However, all of that happens in a religious context too (in Catholicism for example, Bishops, Cardinals, the Pope, etc). "And its image of man as the “apex intelligence” of the universe has arguably led to some existential risk." comes up even worse in a religious context ("So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them", "Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. And as I gave you the green plants, I give you everything."). Funny how human-generated philosophies always privilege our own space in the universe. It's almost as if game theory would accurately predict such an outcome.
superb-owl 4y ago
I actually started down the path of saying "Scientism has the same ego-maximizing problem as religion," but couldn't really find demonstrable patterns. Some isolated cases for sure, but nothing you wouldn't find in business or high school cliques or anywhere else with a power gradient. I really do think there's something special about religion which allows things to go radically, international-child-abuse-scandal-level wrong.
- lolinder 4y ago
  > radically, international-child-abuse-scandal-level wrong You don't get child abuse in academia because academics are rarely entrusted with other people's children. The large-scale systemic abuse and hazing of graduate students easily qualifies as an ego-driven power trip created by academia. It's not as big a scandal because it doesn't involve minors and sex.
- brundolf 4y ago
  Yeah, maybe. I'm having trouble deciding whether I think this is a difference in degree or kind. You look at things like the career/clout-driven sexual abuse that happens in Hollywood, and you think- maybe it's not all that different. But then, maybe the difference is that in Hollywood it comes from purely material pressures (?), nothing masquerading as divine authority. But then- given the subject matter, it's not hard for me to imagine some people in science seeing some prominent figures as having something like a divine-inspiration, assuming they themselves take the pseudo-spiritual view of science, even if they'd never put it that way. Even just "this person has some special insight into the biggest, most important questions" starts to sound like clergy. Maybe it's just that science is a less-religious religion? It has less of both the good and the bad ego dynamics that come with spiritual belief
- hitekker 4y ago
  You didn't look very hard. Eugenics was a form of "scientism" that justified and spread scientific racism. The scientists involved were keen on destroying races they deemed "inferior" to themselves. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2757926/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2757926/ This scientism became the basis of the Nuremberg Laws. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics#Eugenics_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics#Eugenics_in_the_Unite...

vlovich123 4y ago

Is that unique to scientific academia though or a problem with academia itself?

brundolf 4y ago
I don't think it's unique to scientific academia, but it felt like they were suggesting the scientific community is immune to these kinds of problems
- vlovich123 4y ago
  Not immune. The author is saying the scientific community doesn't have outsized problems vs other professions or compared with religion (i.e. at most as bad as). > I don’t think there’s a demonstrable pattern of high-profile scientists or science advocates getting away with destructive, narcissistic behavior (at least no more than in other professions) "at least no more than in other professions" is the key. > Maybe Scientism is simply better at ego-maintenance than its religious analogs > Of course, Scientism still has some of the common failure modes of religion. There is plenty of hatred for the outgroup (looking at you, r/skeptic). And its image of man as the “apex intelligence” of the universe has arguably led to some existential risk. > But all that aside, I’m beginning to think of Scientism less as a perversion of science, and more as an evolutionary leap in religious culture So the basic thrust is because scientism has the go modulating aspect of religion but not as much of the ego maximizing, scientism is better than releigion. That being said, I think the author doesn't really dive into all the ego maximization that does happen (awards, success in industry, credentialism, chasing monetary rewards, etc). However, all of that happens in a religious context too (in Catholicism for example, Bishops, Cardinals, the Pope, etc). "And its image of man as the “apex intelligence” of the universe has arguably led to some existential risk." comes up even worse in a religious context ("So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them", "Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. And as I gave you the green plants, I give you everything."). Funny how human-generated philosophies always privilege our own space in the universe. It's almost as if game theory would accurately predict such an outcome.

superb-owl 4y ago

I actually started down the path of saying "Scientism has the same ego-maximizing problem as religion," but couldn't really find demonstrable patterns. Some isolated cases for sure, but nothing you wouldn't find in business or high school cliques or anywhere else with a power gradient. I really do think there's something special about religion which allows things to go radically, international-child-abuse-scandal-level wrong.

lolinder 4y ago
> radically, international-child-abuse-scandal-level wrong You don't get child abuse in academia because academics are rarely entrusted with other people's children. The large-scale systemic abuse and hazing of graduate students easily qualifies as an ego-driven power trip created by academia. It's not as big a scandal because it doesn't involve minors and sex.
brundolf 4y ago
Yeah, maybe. I'm having trouble deciding whether I think this is a difference in degree or kind. You look at things like the career/clout-driven sexual abuse that happens in Hollywood, and you think- maybe it's not all that different. But then, maybe the difference is that in Hollywood it comes from purely material pressures (?), nothing masquerading as divine authority. But then- given the subject matter, it's not hard for me to imagine some people in science seeing some prominent figures as having something like a divine-inspiration, assuming they themselves take the pseudo-spiritual view of science, even if they'd never put it that way. Even just "this person has some special insight into the biggest, most important questions" starts to sound like clergy. Maybe it's just that science is a less-religious religion? It has less of both the good and the bad ego dynamics that come with spiritual belief
hitekker 4y ago
You didn't look very hard. Eugenics was a form of "scientism" that justified and spread scientific racism. The scientists involved were keen on destroying races they deemed "inferior" to themselves. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2757926/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2757926/ This scientism became the basis of the Nuremberg Laws. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics#Eugenics_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics#Eugenics_in_the_Unite...