2 ms·

This observable resistance to change seems to stem from firm irrational beliefs: it's amusing how structurally close to an (institutionalized) religion institut

This observable resistance to change seems to stem from firm irrational beliefs: it's amusing how structurally close to an (institutionalized) religion institutionalized science is. Like, how most people actually believe in science: they're incapable of understanding, nor reproducing most results (e.g. flat earthers, reproducibility issues in research). A half-baked religion, which doesn't even encourage morality, what could go wrong…

nickpsecurity 2y ago
You hit on the other problem: lack of moral underpinnings to guide or limit science. I was collecting videos on Scientism yesterday when I ran into an overview of C.S. Lewis’ take on it. https://youtu.be/FPeyJvXU68k?feature=shared https://youtu.be/FPeyJvXU68k?feature=shared He correctly predicted the harms that would come from science without morals. Additionally, he observed Scientism is much like magic from older times. He makes comparisons. The end result is a tool of authoritarianism.
- mbivert 2y ago
  I didn't knew much about Scientism; the wikipedia page already contains quite a few heavy critics. Its very definition feels inconsistent: > Scientism is the belief that science and the scientific method are the best or only way to render truth about the world and reality. While it may be true locally in time, science may transcend itself over time. Furthermore, some aspects of the scientific development are poorly studied/understood/taken into account in how we do science, such as all those discoveries stemming from dreams & cie[0]. Einstein in particular was well-known to have had many valuable insights while being in a half-asleep state. That's to say, objectively, the evolution of science is shaped by chaotic events, which AFAIK isn't embraced by contemporary institutionalized science. Perhaps because it's too close to the content of religions of old. [0]: someone on HN copy-pasted this a while ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37731752 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37731752

nickpsecurity 2y ago

You hit on the other problem: lack of moral underpinnings to guide or limit science. I was collecting videos on Scientism yesterday when I ran into an overview of C.S. Lewis’ take on it. https://youtu.be/FPeyJvXU68k?feature=shared https://youtu.be/FPeyJvXU68k?feature=shared He correctly predicted the harms that would come from science without morals. Additionally, he observed Scientism is much like magic from older times. He makes comparisons. The end result is a tool of authoritarianism.

mbivert 2y ago
I didn't knew much about Scientism; the wikipedia page already contains quite a few heavy critics. Its very definition feels inconsistent: > Scientism is the belief that science and the scientific method are the best or only way to render truth about the world and reality. While it may be true locally in time, science may transcend itself over time. Furthermore, some aspects of the scientific development are poorly studied/understood/taken into account in how we do science, such as all those discoveries stemming from dreams & cie[0]. Einstein in particular was well-known to have had many valuable insights while being in a half-asleep state. That's to say, objectively, the evolution of science is shaped by chaotic events, which AFAIK isn't embraced by contemporary institutionalized science. Perhaps because it's too close to the content of religions of old. [0]: someone on HN copy-pasted this a while ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37731752 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37731752