Science is a cult???

I have this thought in my mind for quite sometimes. Most of the stuff we hear or read from the scientists, we often embrace them as truth even if we never witness the experiments directly.

I've got to say, we are “Blind with Science”. All they have to do is broadcast a few big underline words then we believe them instantly as if we witness the experiments ourselves. Some may be valid and some could be exaggerated a little bit. Overall the factual stuff is still unknown to us, but somehow they still make us BELIEVE. Does it sound like a cult to you???

Re: Science is a cult???

Nah, there are too many other researchers verifying others' results, hoping that they overlooked something so that they can be the ones in the media. It is up to us to be discerning when it comes to what we read, even in science. It's also easy to verify the information you're getting, with the internet, doing your own research, so if someone's making claims, there should be further evidence on the 'net to back it up, unless it's the first study done of its kind, in which you'll know to take it with a grain of salt.

I do think the science they teach in school is cultish - it's outdated and archaic, and seems lifeless, just so-called “facts,” so I know what you mean.

Re: Science is a cult???

Actually as a scientist myself, there are not always other researchers verifying results. Though, in the most fundemantal basis of physics, any veryfication of a good research should by fact result into the same conclusion. That doesn't always happen, is responsible for some of the greatest discoveries, if not The, of all time.

And yes, most stuff is easily veryfied, at least, with old research. Imagine though, that this isn't always available. It becomes even more troublesome when there is no theoretical backround. In that case, any verification can only be made be experimenting it on your own.

There are several kinds of scientists,
I'll describe the 3 kinds I've met in my life;

The Capatalistic breeded Scientist, (America, Brittain, other highly developed capatalistic societies):

Now The Capatalisitc Breeded Scientist excell the most, however the amount of excellers is quite low. For research they need to find their own Financial backround. They need to contact industries to invest in their research. This poses with the problem, that they have to publish a lot, and make name, in order to gain funding. This greatly reduces the easy with which is researched, and greatly increases the pressure to publish something fantastic. This however also produces the highest grade of scientists, if they at least can cope with the pressure, and do not publish falacies or research which has been meddled with.
It however also is depended on the Market interests. Leaving certain fields of science, completely disregarded, and other over researched, like with calori use in respect to age. :s

The The socialistic breeded Scientist (Germany, Switserland, Holland and all the other governemental financed researchers):
Now The Socialistic Scientist gets his money from the state. And he research (if he is lucky) what he pleases to research, or else what the board of University scholars choose to research. Also the state has some influence in this. This is why Socialistic researches can easily compete with the Capatalistic Researches on things like Warfare, and other state conceirned matters. (Hence, the cold War)
However, this also means that there is a very wide and even spread in the research area. everything becomes researched. And is not depended on popular demand. This does however result into a low known-around-the-globe thingy. It however greatly increases the objectivity. There is hardly any publication pressure (except in state conceirned research) If no results are made, this is also a good way of spending time. If so hadn't been discovered before. It also requires them though to make a very thorough research, it takes much more time, and the results are though less in amount, greatly larger in objectivity and quality. This is why rather often a Nobelprize winner was a socialistic researcher, however not counteracted by the capatalistic researchers.


The Beginning Science Societies. (Only China and Japan for all I know, haven't met more):
They know hell of a lot. They are so eager to learn, and are basicly walking encyclopedia's and calculators. They are perfect for engineers etc. They are also very well, in completly exploiting known idea's putting its charastaristics to the ultimate. They are great engineers and developers. However, because they are such know it all's and calculators. They achieve little to none new scientific discoveries. They are actually even afraid to challange existing idea's. The Chinese governement for instance knows this. And Import high ranking Socialistic and Capatalistic scientists. To teach their scientists to challange existing idea's, and excell in discovery. Hence, hardly any of these scientists have ever one the nobelprize. Though they are greatly superior on engineering fields.

That was basicly it.

Re: Science is a cult???

So Domus, what is your take on Science is a cult???

Re: Science is a cult???

Since Science isn't about assumptions. Or things that are stated as 'simply' true.
I'd say it isn't a cult.

(Really, my girlfriend is a mathematician, and really to prove that 1 + 1 = 2 out of the standard basic set of assumptions made by math (ground principles) you need 14 pages of writing, just to proof that :S :S :S) But, you do not have to assume it!
(only study half your life to proof everything)

However, the ideal of science is, and that which is basicly still done, is that everything we see in our world is true. And that is the essence which is needed for everyone to find proof with their own eyes. And that is science.

Re: Science is a cult???

Domus, thanks for your observations of the Scientific field 101.

Its very enlightening coming from a non-science background.
I'm quite surprised to see that a few of the former Western bloc scientists and institutions fall into the Socialist category of scientists.

and your characterization of Japanese and Chinese scientists are pretty much as I would have expected. Afterall, in traditional culture those who worked with their hands, such as scientists were not given much respect. The funding of visiting scholars from the West has been a well established tradition particularly in Japan. I think its even staggering to see the number of talented scholars from India, China, and Japan (less so) finishing or doing post-doctorates in Western institutions.

I hear that its the language barrier and the inability to accrue large amounts of capital for research funding that is keeping Japanese science from excelling.

The Japanese government think tank NIRA recently invited a professor from MIT to give a talk on the links between University towns nearby corporations (industries) and the synergistic benefits that they produce in research and technological advancement. But Japan, is a long way from developing the corporate funded -university thats becoming ever so popular in North America.

Re: Science is a cult???

Science has enabled humankind to perceive order in what is chaos to untrained minds. But in believing that order/certainty is everything, it betrays its own origins in the faculties of the whole human being.

The correct place of science is in subordination to people and not as their master.

…a hard question needs to be put today to ALL professionals, be they educators, theologians, doctors, scientists, artists… Whom are you serving?…
One of the surest ways of being able to answer this question is in terms of another: What language do you use in this service? If only professionals can understand your language then it is most likely that you are not being prophetic or wise, not being 'in the streets' with your particular gift of work and word. Matthew Fox, Original Blessing

The time and space sense of the average human is as yet very undeveloped:

How's this for perspective?
Universe:

In the context of the life of the universe, humans live, on average, for 25 seconds.
The Sun is one of 400,000,000,000 suns in our galaxy;
our galaxy is one of about 100,000,000,000 galaxies in the universe;
our universe is probably not the only one.

Life:
Life is probably inherent in the universe. It may emerge wherever, and as soon as, physical conditions became favourable to it.
Peter Russell, in his book, The Global Brain,  likens the time line of the universe to a single year.
After the creation of the universe and the formation of stable atoms, 25 minutes into the new year, nothing much happens for a couple of months. Then galxies and suns form, die and reform for many months
In early September the solar system and earth is formed. Simple life soon takes hold of the earth's cooling oceans but the evolving creatures do not crawl out onto dry land until about mid December.
Finally mammals, our earliest ancestors, begin their evolutionary career on the last but one day of the year.
Then the first humans appear at the last hour of the year (about five million years ago in real real time).

Re: Science is a cult???

You crack me up, LOL!!! did you count those suns by yourself??? If you believe in that number, join my cult, will ya.

Re: Science is a cult???

we will never know if our universe is the only one, or one of more.
but don't underestimate time. Yes, to Galaxy we are nothing. But on achievements, we do quite a lot in those few seconds. A moment, or the smallest quantized ellement of time we know of is around 10^-42 Seconds (ish). In this time, we can make either one decision, or one realisation or observation. To grasps the amount of 'knowledge' we have gathered is those few seconds, is far more uncomprehensive then the amount of suns we can see with the naked eye (or with a huge telescope in between).

As for life.
It turns out, our galaxy, isn't really our birthplace. The Milky way, is a large galaxy, which we are being pulled into… We (earth, and the sun) belong to the galaxy of saggitarius. (recently discovered) This puts some interesting light on the question of Alien life. We know that the possibilities of life are humongeous. And know that there must be billions and billions of other lifeforms out there. Yet, if we take notice, that multi-cellular organisms are actually not evolutionary more beneficial. And that such creation took 4 billion years, which, in fact is more then a quarter then the age of the entire Universe. We find the odds of Multi cellular life,(and with that plants, and life, and of course, intelligent life) To about a 1 in 1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 chance of developing intelligent life. (125 zero's) Which is ridicioully low. Statistically seen, according to the big bang. We shouldn't even exist! But oddly enough we do.

It however makes it most plausible that (as the bible indeed stated) We are the Only intelligent life in our Galaxy (since traveling in between galaxies is bullshit, and impossible even at light speed, you'd need wormholes, or stargates etc :P )

We, Are, Alone….

Re: Science is a cult???

Do you really believe in this stuff??? How do you come about to verify these information??? Do you have a lab??? or you just read??? or you just think of this by yourself???

Re: Science is a cult???

Believe in this stuff? Most of it I have seen with my own eyes. I would be deluded not to believe those things which I see with my own eyes…

I study Physics and Astrophysics on the University Of Nijmegen. Basicly the theoretical approach of physics. Which means, nothing is stated, but everything is proven. And naturally I get word from Scientific discoveries from Professors around me, and from the widespread communication between Universities. So in Essence, yes I have a lab at my disposal, and for my education I get to see all those things :)
The odds  (the things with the many zero's) are for instance out of the Entropy Calculations made by Roger Penrose. And by the sheer fact, that looking at the current sizes of our constants we are very lucky to exist in such an old Universe that doesn't get mengled up yet. (Own observations)

Re: Science is a cult???

“We know that the possibilities of life are humongeous. And know that there must be billions and billions of other lifeforms out there”. Now tell me if you actually know this as fact and you have seen it your your own eyes.

Re: Science is a cult???

Well yes 'knowing' is perhaps a big word. It is basicly all about statistics… However, if you 'know' that a 'normal' soccerball hits against a 20 centimeter reinforced concrete wall with a speed of 50 kilometer per hour, will bounce back instead of appearing out on the other side. (Which can be proven, due to statistical Quatum mechanical effects, and can actually be calculated by yourself)
If that was until I wrote this something you 'knew'
Then the likeliness of other life forms (fungus, and simple proteins actually)
is about 10000 and 100000000000000 times better knowing, then the rebounce of a soccerball… (these odds are so far distant from eachother because I haven't learned out the biological variables required for life to form. (as life is most probably present in The Venusian atmosfere, and is already on Mars (in the simple Fungus (dead though) form)
So choose for yourself !

Re: Science is a cult???

If these claims are fact, how can I verify them??? do you have any scientists email or links to their website so that I can find that out for myself??? because without doing that your claim sound like a mumbo-jumbo non sense too me. Does it sound fair???

Re: Science is a cult???

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/astrobio_venus_030211.html
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/marslife.html

(the following links are of course mambo-jumbo, since it would take me at least 4 days to explain what everything means, and for you at least a full year of study to comprehend just what it says But Wikipedia is rather straightforward: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_tunneling Odd calulation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transmission_coefficient_(physics)
 In essence this is only for one particle traveling through a rather thick wall. Multiply these odds by the amount of similtanious traveling particles, and our soccer ball has been created. It was described to me by my professor. However the odds are ridicioulsly low of course. Around 10^-34

About the life, lets make the safe assumption that for every ten stars there is at least one, sattelite or planet containing life. This is a reasonable low astimate. As plausible sources of life increase when it comes to sattelites. Take our own moon. Once, there was life (We put it there :P) but sattelites like Titan and Europa too.
Our Universe is http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/mystery_monday_040524.html
156 billion wide (a radius of 78 billion lightyears)
in here there are http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/~gmackie/billions.html 10^11 galaxies.
there are about 400 billion stars which means that for our assumption we must have at least 10^22 forms of life. (minimal fungee)
After such calulation, I agree. But we can change it if you want. Change your soccerball to a styrofoam ball, bouncing on a sheet of metal. It will still bounce, however suddenlt our chances have increased with a faculty of hundred. Now, it would mean, that we must at least 'know' that 10 billion styrofoam balls will bounce of a sheet of metal. In order to 'know' there is life somewhere else. This isn't so onrealistic. conceirning we have 7 billion people, this means that everyone on earth must have seen this happen at least twice in their lifetime. to hold any consistancy.

I deem such an assumption is therefore true.
There is life on other planets, and we know.

Re: Science is a cult???

Thank you Domus, I deffinately check them out, they sound very intriguing.

My post is not to offended you, I only try to make a point that we only know the results and we make an assumtion that they are correct without reviewing them. Sorry for misunderstanding.

Re: Science is a cult???

No, you don't need to excuse. I think what you did was very good. You should always ask why. Always find it out, don't assume so much.
It becomes a problem, because we cannot do everything. Because we lack the time. I just assume that the medicines my doctor gives me are good for me. It isn't my field of knowledge. (Though I usually get an explanation on what they do in my body)
But it is better to search it out for yourself. (In case of a sudden infected blind appendix, try assuming stuff ;) )

Re: Science is a cult???

I would like to contribute to this discussion with The Galaxy Song by Monty Python, from the movie The Meaning of Life

Download here: http://www.mwscomp.com/sounds/mp3/galaxy.mp3

Lyrics:

Just remember that you're standing on a planet that's evolving
And revolving at nine hundred miles an hour,
That's orbiting at nineteen miles a second, so it's reckoned,
A sun that is the source of all our power.
The sun and you and me and all the stars that we can see
Are moving at a million miles a day
In an outer spiral arm, at forty thousand miles an hour,
Of the galaxy we call the 'Milky Way'.

Our galaxy itself contains a hundred billion stars.
It's a hundred thousand light years side to side.
It bulges in the middle, sixteen thousand light years thick,
But out by us, it's just three thousand light years wide.
We're thirty thousand light years from galactic central point.
We go 'round every two hundred million years,
And our galaxy is only one of millions of billions
In this amazing and expanding universe.

The universe itself keeps on expanding and expanding
In all of the directions it can whizz
As fast as it can go, at the speed of light, you know,
Twelve million miles a minute, and that's the fastest speed there is.
So remember, when you're feeling very small and insecure,
How amazingly unlikely is your birth,
And pray that there's intelligent life somewhere up in space,
'Cause there's bugger all down here on Earth.

Re: Science is a cult???

Science is the study of the physical universe. When science is practiced in accord with ethics and personal and collec tive responsibility it achieves very effective results; especially in gauging who and what we are. Unfortunately, we a a very flawed species and those flaws corrupt scientific data sometimes…profit and greed are very powerful negative influences. Science juxtaposed with the highest human ideals of human dignity, compassion, and wisdom would be much more effective in solving the negative aspects of the human condition………That this isn't been done is a tragedy………

Re: Science is a cult???

I think it disrespectful to rate
science as a cult.
What about Maths -another cult?

Re: Science is a cult???

Like so many other threads on zaadz the problem here is not in the answers but in the question. It is a question without much content. There is no idea what is intended in the word “cult” nor in the word “science”. Many disputes would be avoided altogether if clear thought was devoted to formulating the questions asked. Many disputes are a result of trying to get at a questions which are ill-defined with answers frequently as ill-defined as the original question. The result? round and round and round…

Re: Science is a cult???

I've only been reading this thread, but it has been very interesting. Seems like almost everyone participating understood that Tuan had a legitimate question - he just speaks the language slightly differently, but we knew that he did not mean “is it a cult,” literally. It clearly was not intended to be disrespectful - skeptical, at best. There are some great points being made in this thread.

Re: Science is a cult???

It is difficult to have a fruitful (i.e. where the participants learn and change) conversation if there are radically different undeclared sets of assumptions at play. Forgive me if I am wrong, but Tuan seems to mistrust the confidence people place in “knowing” about things.

Science is a set of tentative beliefs, some of them taken as facts which, together, best account for the phenomena around us, thinking participants in the universe. In the final analysis no knowledge can be “verified” because we have no direct access to reality. We “see” the world with our minds not with our eyes and directly.

Using this fact of the “human condition” to argue that knowledge of things is an illusion is too simplistic to be helpful in understanding each other when discussing how best to cooperate in changing the world for the better, and how to live our interconnected lives in maximum possible harmony.

Re: Science is a cult???

I think janos hit the nail on the head, here.

“Science” is not one belief or even one system of belief. It is not about belief at all. Scientific method is about a systematic exploration of the universe. In science, when we “believe” something is true, we are prepared to act on an assumption. We “take it as fact.”

I'm reminded of many discussions (to be completely fair, they were arguments) I have had with people here in Georgia that want evolution out of the biology textbooks. They want it known that evolution is “just a theory” and that their theory of creation is just as valid.

The problem is that evolution IS “just a theory,” as is all of scientific thought. That's the whole point. In science, we allow for the possibility of error, of misunderstanding. Evolution is just a really, really, really well-founded theory, and so we're prepared to rest other scientific exploration upon it.

Their comparison, intelligent design, is not strong enough to rest other scientific exploration upon it. It may be strong enough to rest philosophical exploration upon, but that's because it's NOT SCIENCE.

In short, science does not ASK you to “believe.” So it's not a cult.

Now, if the original question was about the laziness of our consumer culture, where we'd rather just “believe” that the world is flat because we read on CNN.com that a statistical study showed that it had a 10% higher chance of being flat than any other shape, based on findings that CNN doesn't elaborate on because the article would be too long for our short attention spans…

Well. Then you might have something, there.

b

Re: Science is a cult???

Well actually, Evolution isn't a theory. It has some very clear shown effects. Of great changes of evolution, easily notable for our eyes. And, not in millions of years, but in only half a century…. :
Elephants.
Surivival of the fittest, is replaced by survival.
Humans hunted elephants for ivory intensively. Even young elephants had tusks. And haveing no tusks in the wild, was a disadvantage.
This changed when the large safari's started. Now, all of the sudden, haveing no tusks, was a great evolutionary head start!  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elephant 
Now over thirty percent of the african elephants are tuskless!! If we do not ban ivory trade. Eventually the tusked African elephant will fo extinct and be replaced by its evolved tuskless decendant…
Nobody thought evolution could go so fast…

quick note

I like your point about how humans are not seperate from this evolutionary process, even when we needlessly, consciously “select” I wonder could hunting ivory tucks be considered natural or un natural? But perhaps that point is based on what you would call “natural” and “un-natural” I happen to believe everything we do as human is a part of nature, even if it makes things look seperate form nature.

Anyway, I’m just wondering what you think of Steven Jay Gould’s claim that Evolution is both fact and theory. He claims that it’s a fact becuase it’s based on observable data, (for example, fossle records) and that it’s also a theory. The thoery according to Gould, is about how it happens, not about weather or not it happens. So fast or slow, gradually or with quick changes, it’s all the same to Gould.

Re: quick note

Yes in that sence it is still a theory. It specifications about duration, and how it happens. Is still quite busily being researched which isn't a wonder. Because there is just sooooo much life. It go nuts as a bioligist. luckily I am a physicist.

But about the human question. We are weakening our species. We keep the feeble alive through medicine. Our species is becoming weak. Luckily. We have genetic engineering. :) And yes one day humans will be engineered not to have certain inheritable illnisses or not to have weak knees. And eventually we will have replaced all of these 'weak' genes, with more accpetable ones.
In this sence, we, as humans. Would in fact be able to stop our own genetic evolution…
How about that?

man future

hi .. thanz.. you actually theres !!     ( here's a gud-9ite from me in the science room )

I live in (Zim) Africa and in this vast space I have seen some marvels of nature, man, plant, beast… spirit, science and nature.

'Science' is facinating.. We are amateur Botanists … my bro &  pal such a crazi botanist/geoligist… we got plants galore, baobabs to lilopths.. cycad mad…. mantis, stick insects.. leaf insects…
http://nurseryexotica.net  ….no presa
… its really late here.. 1.26 am .. so im babblin..i flew from bulawayo to harare today .. economics dictates that it cost me $10 US ¿ …. so.. is economics a cult .

media science has cultish angles on it .. .. 1920's …   a minute ago  …. some theories were still random …


.. & element 109 has a  FAAAAAAAAAAAAst  life…..

Re: Science is a cult???

After seventeen odd posts, can we agree that science is not a cult and that science is an essential part (but only part) of human society?

What can be denounced as a cult with good reason is “scientism”; the attitude that anything claimed to be “scientific” overrides any other consideration and any “unscientific” view can have only little value in understanding the world.

Re: Science is a cult???

My question represented with much more down in personal level than what you all understand of its content. I raised this question to examine our perception toward science, and see how we treat science just like any other religious or cult belief.

Yes, in a broader view, science isn't like a cult but in a personal level it is. Examine those scientific facts posted above and verify your feeling towards them, then you will know what I mean. These scientific facts do make so much sense even if we are so clueless about them. That's why I state “We are blinded with science”.

Shall we look closer.

Re: Science is a cult???

Tuan, I am still puzzled and intrigued.

These scientific facts do make so much sense even if we are so clueless about them.

Do you mean that scientific facts rob us of our ability to see a real world… a spiritual, not material world?

In your profile you say that you love science. Talk about causing cognitive dissonance…

You also say that your life is “full of laughter and bliss”. Now, email is a very limited medium it is easy to sound personal, judgmental or aggressive when nothing of the sort is intended.

So in this pirit of pure inquiry I have to ask, does your life have room for the suffering part of humanity? I also have to ask, what do you think about the purpose of this pod?

Re: Science is a cult???

Cognitive Dissonance, I've never heard of this word before, thank you for the link.

No Janos, I'm not contradicting myself at all. I've been blessed with experiences that Science today is hopeless to explain. These experiences lead me to a wonderful life that I've been blessed with. I love science because it does a very good job of explaining the physical world. I love science because it satisfies my logical mind. Buddhism and Hinduism under my eyes are very logical. They are not contradicting to science at all. Their approaches are quite different that is all.

Science will not be science if there is no data, analysis and result. This sequence must be follow exactly otherwise it will be call Reverse Engineer or copy. The reason why I say we are “Blinded with Science” because we have never seen data and analysis ever. What we know is just the results. So what if some Scientist decide to present a hoax, do we believe him? Until we see that someone else break that hoax, I guess we believe him for the meantime. That kind of belief is very similar to cult belief. We believe in fact without proof.

My question was raised with the intention to review our behavior towards science. It's not designed to disregard science in our live. Science is a foundation of our lives and I know that very clear. Many of us take it for granted and we somehow put trust on it so heavily that we can easily be fool by some unknown facts. Very much cult like.

Do you understand me now? Drop me a line we'll discuss this privately if you are not satisfied :=)

Re: Science is a cult???

That is a very interesting way of looking at it, Tuan! Science, religion, mathmatics, history, grammar - they are all a type of belief system, in the big picture. They are things we all agree to live by, the details of which we agree or disagree upon are arbitrary when compared to the big picture. Our beliefs are what construct our world - and when we are forced to stand back and take an objective look in at our beliefs, we may see attachments, inadequacies, fallacies, and contradictions, potentially. These things all are part of our paradigm - we may not even ever realize that the world is full of temporary things if we are so certain that our beliefs are 100% real and true.
 I think, chemically, in our bodies, a belief is no different than an addiction. When we have a belief or an addiction, we are operating from the lenses of that belief or addiction, and it is hard for us to take those lenses off and see reality, or to think outside the box of the belief or addiction for an alternative 'solution'. It's fascinating to think about. It is very Eastern, also, not exactly something us Westerners are used to contemplating (from a 'paradigm' perspective, anyway). We're kind of used to the “science vs. religion” argument, and most of us fell somewhere imbetween those two until we “discovered” Eastern philosophy.

Re: Science is a cult???

So if facts make us believe. How about the facts, that make our head become confused. And how about the facts that make us disregard them, that it seems so strange that they would be true in someone's normal world. that they aren't considered like facts, but more like fairytales?

Science is Faith

Turan!

I have a wonderfull DVD for you to watch. It’s called “healing our devisions with B. Alan Wallace”
http://axisterrae.com/productpages/dvd_healdivisions.html
I will try to paraphrase some of it for your benefit.

First, I think your asking the wrong question here, becuase what your talking about is called faith. Your very right to say we dont witness the experiments. For example, I dont doubt that genes influence behavior, but i also dont KNOW it. Because for me to know it i would have to be scientifically trained. You see? Nobody picks up a study in a scientific journal and acutally has an expertiese in that area to say: “yea! their right! I know there right!” So what were talking about here is faith. In this example, I have faith in the discovory that genes influence behavior. But again, i dont know it.

Now faith normally has a religious conotation to it, but it is not confined to religion itself. According to Wallace, faith is the very reason WHY science continues to advance. I mean think about it: If your a scientist, how can you make any new discoveries without basing them off of the discoveries of your predicessors? Do you want to spend your carreer checking to see if all of thease earlier discoveries are right? You want to sit there and see weather the speed of light really is 186,282 miles a second?…to make sure that the boiling point of mercury really is 674 degrees Farenheight? His point is that faith saturates science, becuase it would get nowhere if it didn’t. It’s about 99% faith he says. Otherwise you’d have to start your testing all the way from the beginning of science, and for your entire life you’d only get as far as, say, the discovaries of the 19th or early 20th centrury, and then die because you’d run of time. So as a scientist, it’s only the area that you study, your area of expertise that you actually KNOW. EVERYTHING else is faith.

If you want to call something a cult because it’s claims are accepted by faith, you may run into probblems. Faith isn’t just confined to religion & science. You would have to call alot of things cults. You cant have a marrage without faith. You could possibly have a binding contract, but not a marrage. It wouldn’t even be a marrage, it would be a legaly bound set of terms and conditions. In the same way you cant have friendship without faith. This is about trusting in things beyond what you can rationally empirically know.

So now the question is: who do you have faith in? who has the athority to make truth claims? Jesus? Muhamed? Buddah? The community of scientists? Teachers in school? The answer is that you have faith in whoever you believe to be trustworty :-)

I myself am somewhat familiar with science. The community of scientists have earned my trust. I have faith in them, becuase of the rigor, the empericism of the whole process. Everything is scrutenized, everything is wide open to skeptiscm. But sure, mabye some crappy scientist is there changing the data, or making claims that arn’t true, but false clams will be proven wrong eventually, even if it takes a long time. It is still self correcting process.

I think what your getting at is what’s called “scientism” When it become dogma. For example, Wallace arugues that the idea that your subjective mind is merely a product of your brain has in no way ever been scintificly validated. Which is ture! Nobody has stuided the mind subjectivaly through introspection. Only corralations and causations have been shown: If you eat marijuana or damage your brain, your mind will be effected. If you have a certian mental additude, your brain will be effected (placebo effect). But mind and brain have not ever been shown to be equivalint. There’s no scientific way of even detecting consciousness. Theres not even a definition of consciousness. If you belive that your mind is merely a product of your brain, it’s an article of your faith, but it’s not scientific fact. It’s just dogma. It has not been varified at all. Perhaps claiming dogma to be fact is what creates the Scientific “cult” your talking about. (people call this “Scientism”)

So yea. We all have faith in something. Even amoung the SCIENTISTS THEMSELVES there is tremendous faith. And finally that faith is based on what we/whoever we think is trustworthy.

Anyway, the DVD explains it aloot better. It seems very relivent to what your saying and I hope you got something out of this paraphrasing.

Please note that these are all his ideas. Not mine. I couldn’t have come up with this on my own :-) But i do belive this is all true.

Peace

Re: Science is Faith

Hi Kyle!

I did ask the wrong question, you have made my point go across very well, thanks for bringing the word “Faith”. Isn't that “Faith” sound like Religious or Cultish like???

Peace to you too my friend.

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

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.

typo

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

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

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 ?!?

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

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

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: Re: Science can be misued

“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

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 is a cult???

I have to say that I am not as satisfied with the way this thread is going as most people.

There is belief and belief. Can you check up on there being four hundred billion stars in our galaxy? Of course not, and would not it be a waste of time if you did make a successful effort prove it to yourself? The rational thing is to believe the cosmologists.

On the other hand if someone told you that the sun is not really a nuclear furnace but a hole into the fourth dimension, would you say I won't believe you until I check it out, or that I rather believe the astronomers, although I cannot check up that what they say is the truth.

So most of the time our choice comes down to which thing it is more reasonable to believe.

The sad thing is that there are more damaging beliefs by which we live without checking them out. The belief, for example, that tomorrow I have to go out again to sell my labour to someone for money, because I have no right to be here unless I earn it by being a cog in the economic machine.

Science is about helping society to eliminate poverty and avoidable suffering, and about making a living from nature with minimum effort and expenditure of resources. There need be no “ifs” and “buts” about this.

Re: Science is a cult???

Janos, 'Science is about helping society to eliminate poverty and avoidable suffering, and about making a living from nature with minimum effort and expenditure of resources. There need be no “ifs” and “buts” about this. '
Beautifully said. Science teaches us to think for ourselves.

One of the first things I came to understand in Science, is that you musn't just accept anything. (at least, not until proven, in a way which one can understand)
For instance, many popular scientific magazines rap about the 12 dimensions of string theory. But Irony is; That the string theory hasn't predicted or as for that explained anything of its mathematical outcomes. 12 dimensions seems strange. And it is, Stringtheory is a theory giving almost all of the right answers, but not explaining or contributing anything to actual proof. For so far, String theory is just a mathematical system. A machine that happens to give the right answers because this was what it was made to do…
This is for instance why The theory of special relativity, eventual got changed into special relativity. And why String theory (in my opinion) will probably never change into string-mechanics. As long as it hasn't been proven. It is fiction. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_Theory)

Re: Science is a cult???

You must consider the fact that science does destroy humanity too. Look around the world, does science take a big role in warfare??? how about Narcotic drugs??? But my point is not about debating how science influences our life, it's about how do we look at it.

Re: Science is a cult???

gr8 thread & subsequent Debate everyone …..

I am Nourished. I do believe this is a pertinent question.
Any 'institution' has it's cultish aspects and beings, as goes the colour chart.

Genetics … how far have they really gone… ok i'll thread it .

see you theres…

Lite ºjlz  (akashic monitor!)

Re: Science is a cult.

I am amazed by everyone's insightful comments, which have prodded me towards re-considering what science is and what it means to us.

Granted Tuan's title could have been better worded, but I think his rephrasal deserves some extra attention. Tuan suggested that we take a second look at our attitudes towards scientific endeavour and its processes. That is looking at science as a belief system –'a social construct' founded on arbitrary rules that we agree do live by, as Katrina had commented.

to re-rephrase the question: Does the scientific endeavour reveal more about ourselves than the world we are supposedly 'subjecting' to an empirical examination?

I am taking to task the concensus that scientists who follow a rational and empiricist methodology (scientific method)  will objectively observe and accurately describe the phenomenon subjected to their gaze.

The feminist critique of science was among the first to deconstruct scientific epistemology as being liable to being skewed by the subjectivities of the researcher. Emily Martin, a cultural anthropologist was among the first deconstruct and examine the gendered characterization of scientific literature in the field of reproductive science (1991). Revealing how the activities of the male sperm were described with words with masculine words with active connotations, whereas the activities of the female egg described with  feminine words with passive  connotations. Some scientists have described the egg in terms of the traditional femme-fatalle, victmizing the sperm as an unwitting captive, while others have described the sperm in terms of an energetic  “prince” breathing life into a slumbering princess. (general description of debate in book review)

Such revelations have brought forth a flurry of debates over the validity of scientific procedures and whether it needs to be revised.

Biologist Donna Haraway suggests that science should acquiesce to the contingency of subjectivity in scientific inquiry by recognizing the subjectivity of the researcher in their methodologies in an approach she calls ”stand-point theory.”

Others, such as MIT's Evelyn Fox Keller provide's are cautious of the fall-out that a total embrace of feminist relativism brings forth (see quote by Harding, 237), and hold science responsible for both gender-specific relativism and  the pursuit of objectivity.

Returning to our discussion,

While I agree that Bek bek certainly has a point in stating that “science does not ask us to believe so its not a cult.” The reality is that we (Westernized and westernized civilizations) allow scientists to wield a great deal of authority because societies, states,  corporations, and individuals invest their hopes, dreams, and money into scientific  discoveries that they seek to benefit from. Sometimes (albeit rarely) when the 1. fetishtic projection of our dreams upon scientific endeavours, or 2. pressures for success, or 3. entrenched social preconceptions influence the subjectivities, preconceptions and methodologies of scientists, they may unwittingly draw conclusions without being conscious of how the influence of the aforementioned three factors.

Science is certainly not a cult, but scientists are still prone to being influenced by the values entrenched in the society to which they belong.

I hope I did not misrepresent any of your ideas. If I did please do not hesitate to correct me.
hope we can continue with this discussion.

Li
 

Re: Science is a cult.

I guess I have to rephrase this again. Science in itself is not a cult, but our behavior towards it is just like a cult member. My question is about how do we see science, do we see it with our own examination or with a blind belief or faith (another big word)???

Re: Science is a cult.

Okay … my contribution …

Science “can be” a cult … depending on our individual beliefs regarding science and the scientific method.  Do people worship science?  Hmmm?  I wouldn't say I, personally, worship science.  But I believe the scientific method is valid and many of the conclusions drawn are valid … for today.

Science can be limiting.  Today's truth, verified over and over via the scientific method, will be found false tomorrow.

I learned just today that scientists in Germany have discovered matter can travel faster than the speed of light … which if true tosses out Einstein's Theory of Relativity.  (Article here.)  If, in fact, this is verified and shown to be true, then … Wow! … there are many, many basic assumptions we've made, based on the Theory of Relativity, accepted as truth, unwritten laws so to speak, that must be re-visited and re-assessed.  The implications are staggering.

Other assumptions must be invalid as well.  If this previous assumption, this truth, is no longer valid … what other truths are also false?

Perhaps Tuan is merely asking us all to step back and view science and the scientific method in a different light.  It is a tool we use to understand the world in which we live, to create order, to understand. 

The purpose of the pod is to suggest ways to move forward if we highlight an issue.  Keeping to that objective, I can only suggest that we view science and the scientific method for what they really are … tools.  Is the scientific method flawed?  For what it does, no. 

But I do feel it can be limiting, stifling.  Scientists discover something.  It makes it's way into the mainstream of thought.  It's accepted as fact.  This fact in essence becomes law, in a manner of speaking.  Any attempts to refute this truth are then vehemently opposed with all manner of arguments.

It is a belief system.  Perhaps it's time to re-visit this belief. 

Re: Science is a cult.

Ha, the Irony, Quantum Tunneling. Just the thing I used a few posts earlier then to prove the concept of 'knowing'

I have to break it to you though. They talk about Photons. Now Foton's already travel with the speed of light. Photon's are in fact light particles.
This was theoretisied in 1927 when Quantum theory was formed. And a quite famous debate began between Einstein and Bohr. Because due to Quantum-field Entanglement, There would theoretically be faster then light interaction possible. One famous paradox to counteract this, was The EPR Paradox. resulting in quantum field theory.

But don't get your hopes up too fast. Quantum tunneling is usually done in semi-conductor plates, who have dottered bandgaps in between them. The thing I wonder is if the material used was Inert for the used Radiation's wavelength. (which I doubt) And if it wasn't then it is rahter possible that we speak out of a spin switch which would could be a quantum field reaction. Not any particles going faster then the speed of light. But an Interaction travelling a few atoms instantly. Don't get your hopes up too fast. Because it would be rather strange. We know that Quantumtheory is still incomplete, and is proven to be wrong at some points. However, the speed of light, seems a very could statuture about a maximum speed, which, has in fact been proven.
But I'll Ask At my University. Send me an Email if you want to remain updated.

Re: Science is a cult.

And a beautifull example of media exaguration.

Dr. Günter Nimtz:
“The new experiment does not provide an answer to the fundamental question of whether faster-than-light transport of information is possible.”
(G.Nimtz (6 May 2004) Superluminal speed of information? Nature 429.)

And that was the right thing to do :) Relativating the media attention, by showing that you have no real proof yet. Go Nimtz!

Re: Science is a cult.

Hey Mr. Ux

Dr. Günter Nimtz:
“The new experiment does not provide an answer to the fundamental question of whether faster-than-light transport of information is possible.”
(G.Nimtz (6 May 2004) Superluminal speed of information? Nature 429.)

( ok ok .. i am the space cadet of the pod )

I can imagine my-slef on the moon in less than 2 seconds …. therefore I can break the speed of light ….POTENTIALLY

lite ºjlz

Re: Science is a cult

regarding statement from Li :

 Science is certainly not a cult, but scientists are still prone to being influenced by the values entrenched in the society to which they belong.

thanz … put so well !!

When I put my 2 cents … I'm saying the same thing… but I am not a scientist.
This pod is inspiring me to study anthropology ….. THANZ

(Big up to Homeopathy)

Lite
ºjlz

Re: Science is a cult

Nzira,

Indeed, I am not a scientist either but its been very insightful to read the thoughts of the scientists in the thread too.
Btw, when you wrote “I hear, see & feel things that are not explained by science” it reminded me of the limitations of scientific endeavour which is largely depended upon instruments that enhance human perception by translating everything into visual/readable data.
In the process of enhancing perception via machine, scientists are literally detached and distance from their subjects.

The use of instruments, have led scientists to tended towards a disregard the holistic and immediate multi-sensory experience of the world and the wisdom attained from generations of ancestors. To scientists' credit, this is beginning to change.

Re: Science is a cult

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???

OK ultimatly there IS Nothing …(=)

I hear, see & feel things that are not explained by science  °sci=truth (greek) … so get working scientists while we evolve into into multi-dimensional beings with 96 pairs of chromozones & 12 stranded DNA …. those who do not evolve WILL Go back to the trees !! What justice
intellect <less than LIGHT …..

Humanity is in 2nd gear…  if science can 'clean' our DNA ,
Then  We, 'us' as biological machines could manifest this SAME …around the same time… thats the way the universe works , like it or 'ignore' it ..  imagination is key, I'm evoving & so is evolution so the only real science is theres nothing nothing nothing…..

Hey, I'm practicing being you…  & may well be one day ..

Re: Science is a cult???

Earlier I mentioned the feminist critique of scientific methodology, in which they had revealed science to be prone to the subjective biasis of researchers. Rational empiricism is not infallible.

Domus had mentioned quite early on in the thread how market pressures on scientists for certain discoveries in capitalist countries can lead to the tampering of evidence and publication of forged conclusions.

Yet inspite of such observations, the non-scientific public uphold the science with almost religious zeal.

For instance, the recent scandal of the Biomedical scientist Hwang Woo-suk, whose successes in the field of biotechnology thrusted up to the status of a national hero in Korea.
After a recent scandle concerning embezzlement, scientific fraud, and unethnical use of embryos from his own female researchers, much of the status he has accrued over the years has disappeared.
But consider this, if you had a wife, husband, daughter, son, or any relative suffering from Parkinsons, cancer, or multiple sclerosis you would have invested much hope in the endeavours of this man.

Non-scientists do not have the knowledge to verify scientific claims. Non-scientists can only recieve the conclusions made by scientists concerning the physical world around them with faith.

This is why it is pertinent for scientists who we have endowed with authority to keep one another in check through rigorous peer-review and cross checking. Because it is the members of the scientific community who have the wherewithal to examine and verify empiricist claims.

Re: Science is a cult???

Omigod, could we please get a little less hysterical? Keith, you should rein it in a little, OK? It is a huge leap to go from a dubious uninvestigated claim by a couple of scientists in a non-peer reviewed online newspaper to chucking the theory of relativity… wow! Indeed. The theory of relativity has been tested and varified in many ways, and while it has issues with some aspects of quantum mechanics, it is not likely to be scrapped anytime soon. Especially with something like this. Let's just wait and see. Like Stoerns “demonstration”, the proof of the pudding is in the eating…

Also let's be a little careful about terminology… “science” and “technology” are not identical, however much they are confused in the popular mind and press. I recommend the book “The Pleasure of Finding Things Out” and even “Six Easy Pieces” both by Richard Feynman. The first is essays by him on a variety of subjects including what science is, and the second is a set of elementary lectures on basic physics which a non scientist should have little trouble understanding. Feynman is probably the next most brilliant physicist next to Einstein. Hans Bethe said of him that he was a magician. With a genius you could figure out how he came to the insights he had but with a magician you have no idea.

Re: Science is a cult???

Curmudgeon,

This was not merely a single on-line post.  Google it.  It spread like wildfire.  Of course, if you'll note I stated this was just released today, and also stated if this is verified as true then we have problems.  I think this is actually very, very funny!  You're doing exactly what I said shouldn't be done.

It's proven!!!  It's a fact!!!!!!  Therefore … should never, ever be questioned …

If the Theory of Relativity is not true … it's not true … we go back to the drawing board and start over again to come up with a new theory.

But, of course, we don't know the results yet.

Re: Science is a cult???

Oh, but of course, Keith, I am so sorry… if it is all over the internet then it MUST be believed… how could I have forgotten.

However, I will not let you get away with such a gross distortion of my post when you characterize it thusly:

It's proven!!!  It's a fact!!!!!!  Therefore … should never, ever be questioned …

When what I really said was this:

“The theory of relativity has been tested and varified in many ways, and while it has issues with some aspects of quantum mechanics, it is not likely to be scrapped anytime soon.”

This SAYS that the theory of relativity has been tested, which is what science is all about: testing a hypothesis to see if it agrees with experiment, which relativity does well, with great predictive power, even though, AS I SAID, there are issues with coordinating relativity and Quantum Mechanics which means there are problems to solve, questions to be answered. Richard Feynman said in one of his lectures that this was the interesting part of science for him: where theories were proven incorrect, because that is where new things were found out.

In fact you never really “prove” a theory is True, you only demonstrate it is accurate or correct so far. A theory can be falsified, by demonstrating that it does not agree with experiment, i.e., with experience, but “proof” is ongoing.

If we are after something REAL here in this thread let's try to be accurate and clear and not distort each other's position.

Re: Science is a cult???

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

Re: Science is a cult???

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???

Science is not a cult, science is just a methodology.
It is purely democratic, but just like democracy it requires a certain amount of trust and a lot of knowledge. We have to trust because as stated we cannot physically perform all experiments  (time and other limitations of humans) nor do we individually have the knowledge to do so. Science requires a healthy amount of skepticism. We need to be taught how to evaluate the use of the scientific method when we aren't experts in the pertinent field. There is a great book  by carl Sagan that describes a “skeptics toolbox” that everyone can benefit from. (the book is The Demon Haunted World: science as a candle in the dark).

The  advantage that science has is that it can admit its mistakes. That it understands that it can't prove anything, it only demonstrates a specific result that occurs given a specific set of conditions.  Science must be transparent, there can  be no secrets.  The recents events at Wikipedia are analogious to why this is so. (check out this story for more details http://www.wired.com/politics/onlinerights/news/2007/08/wiki_tracker )

The bad part of science is that it is very limited to the measurable and observable realm. Which is relatively small compared to time and space. As douglas adams said “Space is big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind- bogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist's, but that's just peanuts to space” The same goes for time, mammals are still the new kids on the block.

The Enlightenment Project and our perception of science

Curmedgeon, I agree with your suggestion to stick to the point and peer reviewed sources, but Keith's last comment is insightful as it reveals the public fascination with the scientific endeavour even though most members of the public do not have the ability to verify scientific claims. On the other hand, the reason why Tuan question's the Scientific community as cultish is because it is exclusive, even though members of the public have a vested interest in what is researched and how it is conducted, there are not many channels through which the public can intervene.

Curmedgeon, your comment about our conflation of terminology, that is, of 'science' and 'technology' is valuable as it gives insight to our perception of science. Ultimately, we see science as means to accrue knowledge, knowledge whose application in the development of new technologies allow people to improve our lives, contain and control nature, and give countries strategic advantages over others.

-essentially to bring the security of “light,” stability, and order to  the unpredicable, unstable, and unknown.

It is not science persay, that the public holds with a cultish awe and veneration, but the imagined benefits that can result from its applications in improving technology. 

Historically science is a Western intellectual construct (as Domus and Katrina hinted early on in the thread).

We can see the dominant perception of science today as a progressive continuation of the late seventeenth-eighteenth century Enlightenment Project–the project of dispelling darkness, fear, and superstition, and removing all the shackles of free inquiry and debate. During its heyday, “[t]he application of science in improving many facets of life (technologies) gave rise to the dream of a world radically improved, ordered, engineered and mastered… The idea of the improvement of the human race, and of 'moral progress' was born. And the desire to master Nature developed into the dream of a master society, and history.”

When historicizing science (rationalist empiricist inquiry) as a uniquely European theory of knowledge, we must take into account the fact that science and its technological applications in medicine and weaponry were often complicit in justifying and enacting sexist, racist, and the imperialistic endeavours.

The above statement is not as superfluous as it appears.

One means to critique the scientific endeavour itself objectively is to view it from the perspective of Indigenous epistemologies or native ways of knowing and living that science overshadows. That is the scientific system of rational empiricist inquiry, ordering, and categorizing is not necessarily superior to a holistic system of living and spiritual/corporeal experiencing of the world around us. 

… perhaps this is best told by someone who is indigenous or closely works with them in the field.

Re: Science is a cult???

So, what I have gathered so far is:
The point of the Pod is to come up with solutions to our challenges presented in the threads.

The challenge presented by Tuan was that we may take science on faith, believing blindly, and be unaware of reality because we are living in a world of illusions.

This seems dangerous because it is limiting to us - when we think that the only tools we have are things like science, math, technology, spoken/written language, etc., then we are keeping ourselves in a box of uncreativity. 

One solution may be admitting, as tuan suggested, that you know absolutely nothing (until you experience it yourself), which is at once humbling and liberating and deconstruct the world around you until there is nothing. Once you have gotten around the belief that the tools we have are the only tools, we will be more able to act as Feynman did, as Curmudgeon pointed out - like magicians instead of “human geniuses.” Feynamn seemed to receive his insights magically (dare I say spiritually, about a man who significantly helped develop the atom bomb…? just kidding), probably because he was looking at things through a truly objective lens at points along the way.

This has its practical uses (it's always about practicality with me, heheh), even if it sounds lodged in a “spiritual realm.” Asking hard questions of your beliefs, such as, “why do I believe poverty is bad?” and finding the “good” in it will allow you to look objectively at the problem, in a whole new light, so to speak, and then you can let the beliefs go. Then, you will have no predispositions blocking you from receiving truly “magical” insights into a real solution to the root of poverty, not just a solution bound in sadness, fear, emotions (not that I'm saying those things are “bad” - they're great once you're in “right-mindedness” where you can feel them without them affecting you, without letting them block you from real insight.

Re: Science is a cult???

Good point,
Taoism and Buddhism differentiate between knowledge and wisdom.
Knowledge is gained through study and wisdom is gained through experience.
If someone tells you how beautiful a flower is your going to go to a garden and look at it (experience it) not go to the library and read every book about it (knowledge)
As I said one of the limitations is that we can't experience everything, that is where experience with the scientific method and other basic tenets of science can help. While you may not reproduce the experiment you can at least evaluate the methodology and look for signs of fraud or other errors.

Science shouldn't be esoteric, its a failure of our society to give the basic tools people need to understand and decide for themselves what is true. Again I refer to the Carl Sagan book “A demon haunted world”. If people are expected to vote on issues like saving the environment or stem cell research they should be given the proper education to do so.

Science is dominated by instrument mediated vision and distance.

Zen Iguana,

The way you cited Daoism and Buddhism as alternative systems of knowing the world, that separates knowledge as recieved and wisdom as experienced hits the nail on the head, and reminded me of the stark comparison between Daoism & Buddhism as systems of knowing and Scientific Rational Empiricism as a way of knowing.


What broadly differentiates European philosophy with Asian and indigenous ways of knowing is  the supremacy of vision.

In European philosophy this is equivalent to the Cartesian dualism between the mind and body. Of the five senses, only sight was considered as a being on par with the supremacy of the mind. Hearing, taste, smell, and touch were considered too “base” and “primative”  and “subjective” to be given any import.

Likewise in science, instrument mediated visuality (also called “scopic regimes”) through the use of microscopes and telescopes, were considered the only means by which objective and rational inquiries can be carried out.

Experience, particularly bodily experience was considered too subjective to be considered of any import in the empiricist collection of data.

Science as a system of knowing failed to recognize the value of other “lived” and “experienced” ways of knowledge that were transmitted over countless generations of people living in a certain environment. [last two paragraphs particularly to the point].

Science is literally a world view dependent on a rationalizing instruments of vision that distances the observer from the object of study.

Indigenous epistemology holistically harnesses the lived experiences (sensed) to garner wisdom and knowledge of life. 

The application of scientific knowledge in improving our everyday lives maybe beneficial, but the methodology may overlook the wisdom of experience and knowledge accured over generations of people interacting with their environment.

Re: Science is dominated by instrument mediated vision and distan

Li, this is excellent.

Thanks!
Curmudgeon

Re: Science is dominated by instrument mediated vision

Curmudgeon,

Your very welcome (^ _^)/''

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

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

“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.