3 ms·
Has Science Become a Dangerous Religion? – Alexandre Grothendieck
Video: https://youtu.be/vldYKQB-ZeA
In this interview, legendary mathematician Alexandre Grothendieck speaks as a representative of "Survivre", an international and interprofessional movement started by scientists to tackle the interconnected ecological and political crises facing our world.
Grothendieck offers a radical critique of "scientism," warning that it has replaced traditional religions to become one of the most powerful and negative ideological forces today. He explains how scientism acts as a hidden, common foundation for seemingly contradictory systems, from private capitalism to Soviet state capitalism and official Chinese ideologies
Rather than relying on top-down political structures or simply swapping a right-wing government for a left-wing one, Grothendieck argues for a deep ethical transformation and a complete change in how human beings relate to one another. He highlights the importance of decentralization and praises the formation of small, local groups operating on the margins of modern society. Through constructive experiments like forming communities and practicing organic farming, he believes we can begin building a new way of life.
Relevant readings: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivre_et_vivre
- JohnFen 7mo agoNo. Science is nothing remotely close to a religion, let alone a "dangerous" one. Religion requires faith and the rejection of anything that contradicts that faith. Science requires evidence and welcomes anything that shows prior interpretations of that evidence was in error.
- therisingsea 7mo agoThe point is that science can still become dogma when people treat it as the only source of truth, or when institutions use it to shut down doubt, ethics, or wider questions. In practice, take for example the peer review process. Proof work in science and mathematics often depends on trust in other work, tools, and reviewers, since no one can check everything alone. Many results are accepted before full checking is done. In that sense, it requires a small amount of trust/faith in other people's work, but it is a tested and limited trust, not blind belief.
- JohnFen 7mo ago> The point is that science can still become dogma when people treat it as the only source of truth, or when institutions use it to shut down doubt, ethics, or wider questions. Except that behaving that way is not science or scientific. Just because people blame their behavior on "science" doesn't mean that they're being scientific. > take for example the peer review process. The peer review process is also not, in and of itself, science. It's bureaucracy. Science is simply a method of inquiry. Nothing more and nothing less.