Gaia: Knights & Maidens of the Roundtable - Sciences - Science is a cult???

Re: Science is a cult???

http://url.gaia.com — Sat, 01 Sep 2007 00:09:26 GMT

...the only words that come to me right now are...I love all of you people and am proud to be on the planet with you !!!,,,

Re: Science is a cult???

http://flyingbasil.gaia.com — Wed, 29 Aug 2007 05:39:25 GMT

hehe, the best of ideas are those which are the hardest to articulate. Next time you should publish your ideas, before someone else capitalizes on them. :)

axial age... hmmm

Re: Science is a cult???

http://andrewmarkmusic.gaia.com — Wed, 29 Aug 2007 03:25:41 GMT

Hi Li, um, to get some good info. on the concept i'd suggest The Great Transformation-The Beginning Of Religious Traditions by Karen Armstrong.......To be fair to me though, i intuited what she is saying 20 years ago...................
Peace man............

Re: Science is a cult???

http://flyingbasil.gaia.com — Tue, 28 Aug 2007 22:51:28 GMT

Indeed Andrew,

In the end there is always something at stake and someone's interests or beliefs being challenged by different ideas. Difference is contentious as it is rewarding-- without difference life would be bland indeed. So we have to learn to see beyond our differences!

thanks for putting things back into context...
(I am gonna google 'axial age ethos' to figure out what it is).

Re: Science is a cult???

http://andrewmarkmusic.gaia.com — Mon, 27 Aug 2007 03:01:39 GMT

Hello Tuan and Li. The only universal truth that i see as a fact today, is that there a nearly 7 billion people on this planet that seems to be in the 'middle' of bloody nowhere; with no clear and obvious explanation as to why we are here at all! In the last 100 years we've all had our unique cultures opened up to each-other and our traditional ways of life are being challenged as never before. If i were a bookie in las Vegas taking bets on whether any traditional God is going to 'supernaturally' intervene in Human affairs, i would place the odds at this time as being very very low.

So we need to learn how to get along and fast! To me, short of a meteorite hitting us, there is no reason we couldn't live long on this earth and prosper together! But to do that EVERYONE needs to change the way they think and act. Yes, that includes the people at the top of the pyramid too. The people who practice science need to start to realize that they can no longer afford to treat the subject of their 'experiment' (the earth and all life on it) as something separate from themselves. As a resource to be exploited solely for profit!

I would suggest that some of the axial age philosophies of compassion to all living things would go along way in balancing some of the distortions that have happened in the last 500 years of materialistic reductionism. Also, the axial age ethos of individual human dignity needs to move into the forefront of thought again, especially as we are faced with such an overwhelming state/polis mentality, which is all too often used as a way to commit heinous acts of brutality...............
Now, back to Science....Peace, Andrew

Re: Science is a cult???

http://flyingbasil.gaia.com — Fri, 24 Aug 2007 22:23:59 GMT

I am sorry everyone,

I apologize if my last post appeared impatient and domineering. I just wanted to move the momentum in this thread fostered by Tuan to another thread, before it dissipated. I agree with Tuan in that threads shouldn't be an open close matter.

I just summarized the contents so that I could make sense of it and share it with others. If I had failed to add anything, (which I most likely did) an individual with an edit function should feel free to add whatever.

I don't think my posts attack were a personal attack on Tuan, which he seems to be implying. If anything, I found his question very thought provoking and insightful, and throughout the thread I tried my best to back his claim that scientific endeavour and the non-scientists uncritical veneration of it is problematic. I cited feminist and non-western ways of knowing to deconstruct science, and the modern fixation with scientific "progress."

Tuan's question "is science a cult?" is excellent. I saw it as a two pronged question that alluded to the 1) insular nature of practicing scientists and 2) the non-scientific communities uncritical reception of scientific claims. I thought the wording was a bit provocative, (which was good, just look at the intensity of the thread) but it also was susceptible to being misconstrued, as Tuan lamented.

When I was alluding to Tuan's response to Kyle, I did not see it as Tuan's conception of the issue of this thread, but a new issue altogether:

Tuan's comment on belief systems as illusionistic social constructs that rob our ability to see reality is quite a contentious claim...

but, I see your point in that a recognition of all knowledge as socially constructed allows for an unprecedented degree of insight and clarity over the human condition.

.... I wanted to discuss this in a new thread.

Because it could lead to a greater collective rumination on the nature of reality and truth, is there a universal truth? Or is it relative?

I agree with Tuan in that there is no way of verifying things that we do not experience, and even if we do experience something we experience them through the filter of belief systems and ideologies.

The reason why I said his claim was contentious is because others would think differently. For instance, is it reasonable for a concentration camp survivor to have vested interest in perpetuating one's memory of trauma into a collective historical memory? Is this less legitimate than a post-modern historian who claims that all historical truths and truth claims are relative and need to be considered equally.
... it is contentious...

The issue Tuan brought forth is truly an interesting one, but one which maybe a bit broad to be discussed here. Hence my proposition.

Li,

Mea culpa

Re: Faith in Science? short summary of our conversation so far.

Fri, 24 Aug 2007 15:49:01 GMT

"Tuan's comment on belief systems as illusionistic social constructs that rob our ability to see reality is quite a contentious claim..."

Hi Li,

I hate to argue with this phrase since it is quite personal. But my claim isn't contentious, here are a few example: 9/11, Irag War, North Korea threat, Cold War, Vietnam War, Genetic Engineering, and may be the trip to the Moon... There are so many questionable events in this world that we buy into so easily without our own examination, isn't that what we call "Belief System"

Thanks for the Summary, but this discussion is not design for open and close. It is something each and everyone of us need to figure out what is the problem. I found on this discussion, people don't like my question because they think I mistrust Science and try to discredit it and it is sound very personal. That wasn't my intention. What do you think this modern world was contructed by??? If I don't trust science, why would I choose to live in this society??? If you read all of my posts you will see my question and its intention is stated very clearly, I do not want to rewrite it again and again. One thing that I do agree with you, this question should be posted in "Philosophy" or "Psychology" category, it is irrelevant here on "Science".

This is my last post on this thread, if any of you don't like what I write, please drop me a message, I would love to response through that medium.

Re: Re: Science can be misued

http://pappychecks.gaia.com — Fri, 24 Aug 2007 09:29:58 GMT

"isn't that something that is taught immeaditly?" Yes. I must admit I made a mistake, I don't mean to imply that America or our society doesn't really know how to interpret it's messages carefully. I cant speak for everyone, but I'd say we do our best. The kind of education and critical thinking you mentoned started early for me too. I just wanted to stress the importance of interpreting the Bibles, Korans, and Scientific studies we come across so we dont run into troubles. I probably should have said "May we all continue to interpret its messages carefully" That's a bit more agreable and doesn't convay unecessary negitive ideas about our current society or education system. With that said, I've still met a few people who occasionally don't understand correlation from causation. We're all human after all. I'm no exception. There was a time when I didn't believe in free will because I thought Science had somehow prooved it to be non existant. The problem was that I was misreading or misinterpreting some of the scientific findings about neural corallates. I discovered that the issue of free will or no free will is still an article of faith and have since then sighed in relief, and abandoned trying answering that question. But the point is that all it took was one missinerpretaion and life suddenly got very serious! Sry if i seemed like i was stating the obvious, but in every disicpline, there's always a few who misinterpret the information, or are comming from a belif system their unawhare of. It happened to me and It happens to the best of us, even the well trained and highly intelligent, because you can't be skeptical about an assumption your unawhare of. And then for me, (not well trained, not highly intelligent) the differences between Scientific Realisim & Scientific Materialsm are not obvious. Thier sublte to me. Apparently (and i'm learning this just today) Scientific Realism is about the interpretation of scientific knowledge and it's relation to the world, while Scientific Materialsim progressed along with science and incorperated belifs with it too...like objectivism, monism, universalism, reductionism, the closure principle, and physicalism which are all principals of scientific materialism and not fact. None of these 6 things are subject to empirical verification or refutation. According to the book i'm reading, these are articles of faith!... Wow! That really astounded me when i read it. None of this was ever taught to me in school (thus far) We were told how to research, but these words weren't part of my vocabulary. They're new to me. I'm awhare of them now only becuase I have special interest in this. Then again, there's always a chance this was all explained to me once and i just wasn't paying attention that day. Anyway, thanks for the response man. As for your question about religion i'm glad you brought that up and I'll keep it in mind for perhaps a later post Take care :-)

Re: Science can be misued, but those who do so are being pricks

http://Domus-ulixes.gaia.com — Wed, 22 Aug 2007 21:19:45 GMT

Yes, I was actually a bit shocked that this wasn't like that in America.
But that is possibly because I take it for granted.
So I am sorry if I sounded a bit ehm, unsocial.

Re: Science can be misued, but those who do so are being pricks

http://goodworld.gaia.com — Wed, 22 Aug 2007 18:19:32 GMT

'then we as a society should teach ourselves how to interpret [science's] messages carefully.'
...At least in Holland, you get educated in this from the age of eleven. Which sources are trustworthy. Which claims are more objective then others...

I did not know this. Very interesting and and quite relevant for the Education board.

Re: Faith in Science? short summary of our conversation so far.

http://flyingbasil.gaia.com — Wed, 22 Aug 2007 18:18:32 GMT

Tuan's questioning of the prevalent public reverence towards science towards science and our discussion of this issue has brought forth a few major ideas (I think we can all agree upon) that I would like to bring to your attention, as I think we are close to depleting the first question "Science is a cult?" (please correct me if I'm wrong).

-Scientists form an insular community that many people endow with authority (Insular because non-scientists often lack the wherewithal to verify scientific claims).
-Science has its origins in Europe, it is a belief system based on (visual) rational empiricist claims (verifiable claims over physical phenomena) and a process of communal peer review.
-Concensus over what is True (paradigms and verified phenomena) and true (certain theories and ideas) change over time. (ie., the shift from geocentric to helio-centric paradigms). Truth is contingent upon our expanding knowledge and changing belief systems.

-Scientists, however, are not entirely objective as they are influenced by established cultural constructs (gender/religion/race) and social pressures (research grants, fame, etc).
-Non-scientists in contemporary society have a keen interest in the application of science in technology and medicine to order and improve their lives--hence the inordinate degree of authority people endow upon scientists and interest in the most recent scientific endeavours (circulated by the net).
-The application of scientific knowledge in technology and theories of social ordering is a form of power that can be exploited by certain groups (Nazi eugenics, Ill-informed scientific inquries into biological reproduction shaping conclusions that maintain dualistic ideas of of sex and gender that allow sexist assumptions, Theories of evolution in justifying conquest).
-Hence the need to question our faith in sciences, and the need to make it more accessible to the public-->

(forgive me if I left anything out).

Most recently, Kyle and Tuan spoke of our "faith" in the sciences, and Domus replied with the role of education. How is science or history taught in schools. If these scientific and historical inquiry were taught properly, we would dispell the patriarchal myths of the infallible scientist and Historian to garner a broader understanding of the world.
Would anyone like to spike-up a thread on science in education?

Tuan's comment on belief systems as illusionistic social constructs that rob our ability to see reality is quite a contentious claim...

but, I see your point in that a recognition of all knowledge as socially constructed allows for an unprecedented degree of insight and clarity over the human condition.
Sounds like a question we can further pursue in the philosophy thread.

I think our thread gives a modern twist to this 4th century conversation between the Daoist philosopher Zhuangzi and the 'Sophist' dialectician philosopher Huizi:
-

Zhuangzi and Huizi are on a bridge (playing pooh sticks?)

Zhuangzi observes: "The fish look so happy."
Huizi replies: "You are no fish, how do you know that they are happy?"
Zhuangzi retorts: "You are not me, so how do you know that I don't know the fish are happy?"
Huizi replies: "Of course I am not you, and I don't know what you think; but, I do know that you are not a fish, and so you couldn't possible know the fish are happy."
Zhuangzi: "Look when you asked me how I knew the fish were happy, you already knew that I knew the fish were happy.
I knew it from my feelings standing on this bridge."

Re: Science can be misued, but those who do so are being pricks

Wed, 22 Aug 2007 15:23:58 GMT

Thanks Kyle for your long analysis, it sounds very intriguing.

We are as human on this planet, have so many belief systems. These belief systems rob us from seeing the true reality, like living in a dream. We buy into almost anything that makes sense to us, even if it's a false truth. It's not our false by the way, it's the complexity of the world influent our judgement 24/7 for as long as we live. We have no way to verify any claim scientifically or religiously, at least for the majority of non-scientist like us.

Currently we are hopeless for that fact. Nothing we can do to change that complexity. The only thing we can do is to admit that we know nothing and that will help us see the world a little bit clearer. Hopefully our children will help us change that perspective in our near future.

Peace

Re: Science can be misued, but those who do so are being pricks

http://Domus-ulixes.gaia.com — Wed, 22 Aug 2007 06:35:27 GMT

Wel yeah, As you say: 'then we as a society should teach ourselves how to interpret it’s messages carefully.'
Isn't that something that is taught immediatly?
At least in Holland, you get educated in this from the age of eleven. Which sources are trustworthy. Which claims are more objective then others. Or what goals the writer did to accomplish what it wanted. For me, I was eleven at History class, when I learned that some sources are not as trustworthy as others. Like choosing polybius over Livius. Research the claims. And when I got two years further to Physics. I was taught (after useing a bunsum burner) That not all claims are valid. And that most claims can be found self-contradictive in respect to both its contence as its scientifical decendancy.

The thing is, that problem isn't everywhere in the world.
The main problem is that America is a rather religious nation. A lot of christianity, and juists.
And the idea of religion is, that your children believe in it. And not question its claims. I wouldn't be suprised that such a vision on society isn't taught in America whatsoever. It would scuttle large portions of Religion.
Because the people believe things so easily, it is easier to missuse religion. But this doesn't mean that it is like this everywhere. In Holland, you must have quite a lot of proof if you state some things. And though yes we have gossip magazines too. Almost everybody knows how to veryfy claims and resources. How else do you think we have so little members of religious factions, and an increasing amount of ex-muslims, and ex-christians?

I do not want to pcik on religion.
But doesn't it say you shouldn't believe any others words then the word of god. And you should not question the work of god.

If this is what you teach your children...
Is it wonderous that it goes wrong in the rest of the world ?!?

typo

http://pappychecks.gaia.com — Wed, 22 Aug 2007 05:20:12 GMT

Typo! I meant Jonestown, not Jamestown, and also, i spelled your name wrong Tuan. My bad. man I wish i could still edit that post... peace

Science can be misued, but those who do so are being pricks

http://pappychecks.gaia.com — Wed, 22 Aug 2007 04:50:45 GMT

Hello again Turan! When it comes to truth claims, I see Science and Religion as on par with each-other. Before deciding what one believes, I think all truth claims should be on the same playing field. No claim should, by default, get a head start. One should be equally open minded and exposed to claims of both science and religion and take it issue by issue about which claims they trust. Cults, however, are different. Cults exploit, they tend to blatenly mislead and control thier population with the authority they gain from thier faithfull members. Take “the people’s temple” for example. The leader, Jim Jones, KNEW he was a fraud. He knew he was spewing bullshit. When some visitors tried to smuggle out some people, he became afraid that the outside world might find out what was really happening in Jamestown, which would expose him as the fraud he was So what did he do? He made them all drink poison, and hunted down the escapees. And although he was able to make those 900 or so people drink because of the tremendous authority and control he had over them, what really what made him a cult comes from not just too much authority, but his MISSUSE of authority, a blatent irresponsibility, manipulation, exploitation. The man shouldn't have been trusted, and even he himself knew it. Now let’s go to science In this modern world, with the increadable growth of knowledge that we have gained in the 20th centry… Who do we regard as having the most authority about the nature of reality? Well, i would say that question could be answered by asking: What are we telling our kids? And of all the great thinkers, philosophers, religious figures, mystics etc.. who has the most authority according to what we are telling our children? and the answer is of course: Scientists. As Wallace rightly points out in that DVD I mentioned, Science dominates our education system. If you want a different opinion than what science has to offer you’d have to go to an entirely different school. A private or non-secular school. Clearly science is the most dominating authority in our society when it comes to claims about the nature of reality. Now perhaps that authority could be used in cultlike ways. I want to get into some of the the problems faced by kids in school when learning scientific materialsim as fact, but i dont want this to be too large so i’ll stay on track. In the real world Science can get involved in Cult-like activities, In other words, pepole can use the authority of Science in the way Jim Jomes used the authority of Religion. That’s realy dangerous, in the same way cults are really dangerous. In the real world, the HUGE authority science has makes it a wonderful thing to missuse for manipulation, exploitation, and control. This is true especially in advertising when the authority of scientific studies are used to make claims which mislead the public. (eg: 9 out of 10 costumers choose brand X, but that doesn’t mean it’s a good choice) Sometimes our scientific knowledge is used to exploite others. Like when our knowledge about the way children’s minds develop is used by corperations to manipulate children into craving something which might actually be detramental to their healthy development in the first place! (eg: Remember the old Joe Camel cartoon?, or notice the way sugary cereal is marketed to kids and not the parents who actually buy them… those are very well thought-out marketing scemes) But science, (and knowledge gained by scientific inquiry) is not the culprate here. It sometimes can be an accomplise, but really… unlike Jim Jones… Science is no fraud. It a system that makes valid truth claims, which are left up for the viewer to consider. And I mean that in the same way that Jesus or Muhamed or Gautama made some valid truth claims as well. It’s just up to us as human beings to take those truth claims that come from people claiming to have authority on the nature of reality, and to use them rightly or to use them to manipulate… to exploit. So again, the real question boils down to: Who do you have faith in? Don’t let someone else package the truth for you unless they’ve earned your trust. So finally, (and i hope this answers your question), I arugue that faith in even the most horrible, bullshit claims made by cults, is not cultike faith. There is literally only one true faith (and not it's not Chrisianity or Islam) It’s faith! Faith is faith no matter what your believing in. According to the family members of people who died at Jamestown, these were intelligent, normal, people. They were just like anyone else, and thier faith was just like anyone else. They just happened to believe in bullshit because they were being mislead by a prick. The real cultyness comes from the Jim Jones’ of the world, the irresponsible advertisers, the scentist who goes on TV offering alternative “cures”, and false hope for cancer patients. When science or it’s tools are used for manipulation, or when assumptions succumb to the trap of unquestioning dogma. When it’s valid claims are used to mislead. If i remember correctly, my history class taught me that the Natzi’s used Darwin’s valid truth claims, to perpetuate the idea that a person has superiority, and that superiority can be measured by the shape of your head or color of your eyes etc. So manipulation can very easily come from the authority of science. That’s why science seems like it has this cult quality, because it has such authority, and becuase people buy into manipulation from those who claim to or seem to have authority. Ask the 900 victims of Jonestown. And using science is a highly intelligent way to exploit and manipulate others, becuase a good lie always has some truth in it. That’s what sells the lie. So keeping that in mind, I offer this request the viewers of this thread, and to our society. Most of you are educated in science. We all know what the word gravity means. But if it’s true that in our own society Science is considered to have the most authority about the nature of reality, then we as a society should teach ourselves how to interpret it’s messages carefully. Perhaps we should all take a statistics class or something. That way we can more easily spot manipulation aided by misuse of scientific studies and stastics, because If you understand what a study really might mean, you can see through some of the vague, bullshit claims people can sometimes make using valid scientific data or theory… and those vague bullshit cliams can seem well… almost cultilike. Finally, let us all recognise the limits of science. What it can or cant say based on it’s modes of inquiry, and let us rightly discern assumption from fact. I hope this post wasn’t too long, and was helpful. Let me know what you think.

Re: Science is dominated by instrument mediated vision

http://flyingbasil.gaia.com — Sat, 18 Aug 2007 22:28:11 GMT

Curmudgeon,

Your very welcome (^ _^)/''

Re: Science is a cult???

http://Domus-ulixes.gaia.com — Sat, 18 Aug 2007 14:34:47 GMT

And further more, theories, only extend to a certain level of value's. Where we can differ fast, and slow, large and small, and heavy and light (mass)

There is soo much different branches of science, even in my branch 'physics' alone!
Even for me, it is sometimes quite hard to oversee things. Also, because I see different things, then other scientists do, when to different branches reach the same point. e.g. biologists and nanofysisists.

Re: Science is a cult

http://jlz.gaia.com — Sat, 18 Aug 2007 13:32:55 GMT

spot on Li.

Do you think any vortex will happen in our lifetime, as it seems things are exponentially speeding up ... if evolution it's self evolving then 'science' will have to re-dress their truths.

(I have a crazy idea devolping for a portal for internet/human co-habitation ... singularity factor.
This will be hosted on fusedroot.com (not active yet).. and plans to give the web a cool personality.. I'm not a devolper.. but they are out-there. I'm just imagination.)

lite
jlzº

Re: Science is a cult???

http://keithb7862.gaia.com — Sat, 18 Aug 2007 12:22:43 GMT

You are correct Curmudgeon. Don't know what I could possibly have been thinking.

Re: Science is dominated by instrument mediated vision and distan

Sat, 18 Aug 2007 12:15:11 GMT

Li, this is excellent.

Thanks!
Curmudgeon