5 ms·

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 is

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...
- superb-owl 4y ago
  Yes totally. I'm not ruling out the idea that Scientism has the same horrible group dynamics as religion. I think it's very likely it does, and possibly worse. What I'm not convinced of is that Scientism has the same level of effect on individuals--scientists don't seem to become as wildly inflated as priests or cult leaders.
  - simplify 4y ago
    > scientists don't seem to become as wildly inflated as priests or cult leaders Isn't that simply because they don't have anywhere near the amount of power or followers? For power to corrupt, you must first have power.
    - Quekid5 4y ago
      Having largely unquestioning followers certainly does bestow a certain level of power.
acjohnson55 4y ago
Academia doesn't have the same sort of centralized orthodoxy as the world religions, so I don't think an international coverup from academia is the right analogy to look for. But if you drill down to the level where rigid hierarchy exists--the individual institution--there are many examples. See the way in which Penn State covered up the years of abuse by Jerry Sandusky in order to try to protect the reputation of their football program (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penn_State_child_sex_abuse_scandal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penn_State_child_sex_abuse_sca...). Or the way in which Michigan State was negligent in their handling of Larry Nassar, a serial abuser of athletes (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_Gymnastics_sex_abuse_scandal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_Gymnastics_sex_abuse_scand...). University of Michigan has a similar scandal of its own (https://www.npr.org/2022/01/19/1074071024/university-michigan-sexual-abuse-sports-doctor https://www.npr.org/2022/01/19/1074071024/university-michiga...). Unfortunately, I think there's little reason to believe this dynamic is limited to Big Ten universities.
- superb-owl 4y ago
  It's interesting that in all three cases, it's sports-related. I'm not sure what to make of that trend.
- saghm 4y ago
  It's seems notable that all three of those examples are sports related. At least in American society (the only one I'm familiar enough to speak about), I think that sports culture is a way better example of breeding egoism and "us versus them" orthodoxy than academia. I agree that the dynamic isn't exclusive to Big Ten universities, but I think it's reasonable to argue that the esteem placed on sports in the Big Ten (and other high-performing D1 universities) is what enabled these abuses to happen. Any time an institution is revered enough, whether it's a sports team or a religion or something else entirely, there's a chance that someone involved will take advantage of the status to try to get away with something due to the lower amount of scrutiny.
- pastorhudson 4y ago
  We find all this and more in the arts. See #MeToo and Hollywood.

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...

superb-owl 4y ago
Yes totally. I'm not ruling out the idea that Scientism has the same horrible group dynamics as religion. I think it's very likely it does, and possibly worse. What I'm not convinced of is that Scientism has the same level of effect on individuals--scientists don't seem to become as wildly inflated as priests or cult leaders.
- simplify 4y ago
  > scientists don't seem to become as wildly inflated as priests or cult leaders Isn't that simply because they don't have anywhere near the amount of power or followers? For power to corrupt, you must first have power.
  - Quekid5 4y ago
    Having largely unquestioning followers certainly does bestow a certain level of power.

acjohnson55 4y ago

Academia doesn't have the same sort of centralized orthodoxy as the world religions, so I don't think an international coverup from academia is the right analogy to look for. But if you drill down to the level where rigid hierarchy exists--the individual institution--there are many examples. See the way in which Penn State covered up the years of abuse by Jerry Sandusky in order to try to protect the reputation of their football program (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penn_State_child_sex_abuse_scandal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penn_State_child_sex_abuse_sca...). Or the way in which Michigan State was negligent in their handling of Larry Nassar, a serial abuser of athletes (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_Gymnastics_sex_abuse_scandal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_Gymnastics_sex_abuse_scand...). University of Michigan has a similar scandal of its own (https://www.npr.org/2022/01/19/1074071024/university-michigan-sexual-abuse-sports-doctor https://www.npr.org/2022/01/19/1074071024/university-michiga...). Unfortunately, I think there's little reason to believe this dynamic is limited to Big Ten universities.

superb-owl 4y ago
It's interesting that in all three cases, it's sports-related. I'm not sure what to make of that trend.
saghm 4y ago
It's seems notable that all three of those examples are sports related. At least in American society (the only one I'm familiar enough to speak about), I think that sports culture is a way better example of breeding egoism and "us versus them" orthodoxy than academia. I agree that the dynamic isn't exclusive to Big Ten universities, but I think it's reasonable to argue that the esteem placed on sports in the Big Ten (and other high-performing D1 universities) is what enabled these abuses to happen. Any time an institution is revered enough, whether it's a sports team or a religion or something else entirely, there's a chance that someone involved will take advantage of the status to try to get away with something due to the lower amount of scrutiny.
pastorhudson 4y ago
We find all this and more in the arts. See #MeToo and Hollywood.