Scientific fundamentalism

Avi said:

The List of those who Choose in the Direction of the Strongest Influence All of the Time

• CZ
• rodgertutt

​
Click to expand...

What?! No graphics? Borrowing other people's creative ideas?

I only give it a C for effort. Try harder next time Avi! I believe in you. You can do it!
 
citizenzen said:
What?! No graphics? Borrowing other people's creative ideas?

I only give it a C for effort. Try harder next time Avi! I believe in you. You can do it!
Click to expand...

CZ, don't care for the company you were put with, rogertutt ? (maybe you prefer ronald) :D


 
juantoo3 said:
I think you'll find the essence of your answer in the concept Dawkins fleshed out with Memes, although he failed to realize how he too was implicated and affected.



Certainly, see above answer. Again, I think this is an ego and psychological symptom, not something intrinsic to any particular point of view or outlook.
Click to expand...
Jealousy, imo. You know how intolerant jealousy can be, as well as how cruel it can be, as well.



Avi said:
3) Is religious fundamentalism related to dogma, axioms, assumptions ?
Click to expand...

I think there may be some wiggle room here sufficient to say "maybe." I think this may comprise a healthy portion of the problem, but I also think there is an intentional and deliberate disconnect from any other points of view, a "closing of the mind" if you will.
Click to expand...
Jealousy, again, this time in connection to jealousy for authority.

Avi said:
4) Does science bear any similarity to religious fundamentalism ?
Click to expand...
In the sense of dogma, axioms, assumptions, disconnects and closed minds *among the groupies*, you bet. Science itself as a discipline is divorced from any such sentiment, but humans do not easily surrender emotion without adequate training and practice.
Click to expand...
There's that jealousy, again. ;)



No, you are correct. One must be sure to make the distinction between the discipline and the zealous fanatical adherents. Like with any philosophy with a large following, the problems lie among the laity who only partially comprehend, but believe they are very knowledgeable. Certainty is the culprit and the telltale indicator. A scientific researcher worth their salt *always* leaves room for doubt. It is the groupies who are absolutely certain that comprise the scientific (or religious for that matter) fundamentalists.
Click to expand...
Did you know that zealous etymologically means jealous, especially jealousy of the partisan kind.
 
I think this video clip from Lord of the Rings demonstrates the way this jealousy/zeal manifests quite well, and how we struggle with it:

[youtube]DLvIFRNbqOs[/youtube]
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Avi
3) Is religious fundamentalism related to dogma, axioms, assumptions ?
Click to expand...
Quote: Juan
I think there may be some wiggle room here sufficient to say "maybe." I think this may comprise a healthy portion of the problem, but I also think there is an intentional and deliberate disconnect from any other points of view, a "closing of the mind" if you will.
Click to expand...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Avi
4) Does science bear any similarity to religious fundamentalism ?
Click to expand...
Quote: Juan
In the sense of dogma, axioms, assumptions, disconnects and closed minds *among the groupies*, you bet. Science itself as a discipline is divorced from any such sentiment, but humans do not easily surrender emotion without adequate training and practice.
Click to expand...

One of the first things that every scientist learns, as a first year student, is that while problem solving we must explicitly identify their assumptions, boundary conditions, or other accepted axiomatic conditions.

An excellent scientist constantly challenges these assumptions to make sure that they are correct, that they conform to reality, whether they need to be generalized or narrowed, whether new data or models are required for their accuracy.

One who does not constantly check for the validity of these assumptions, could perhaps be considered a "scientific fundamentalist".

Juan's point above, that someone might not do this deliberately, seems to me would be "scientific misconduct".

Is there an analogy to "religious fundamentalism" here ? It seems to me that there is.
 
citizenzen said:
That didn't help.
Click to expand...
Indeed, when looking into jealousy, it does seem pretty empty, yet it can express itself in a number of different ways:


jeal⋅ous

  /ˈdʒɛl
thinsp.png
əs/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [jel-uh
thinsp.png
s] Show IPA Use jealous in a Sentence

–adjective
1. feeling resentment against someone because of that person's rivalry, success, or advantages (often fol. by of): He was jealous of his rich brother.

2. feeling resentment because of another's success, advantage, etc. (often fol. by of): He was jealous of his brother's wealth.

3. characterized by or proceeding from suspicious fears or envious resentment: a jealous rage; jealous intrigues.

4. inclined to or troubled by suspicions or fears of rivalry, unfaithfulness, etc., as in love or aims: a jealous husband.

5. solicitous or vigilant in maintaining or guarding something: The American people are jealous of their freedom.

6. Bible. intolerant of unfaithfulness or rivalry: The Lord is a jealous God.

Origin:
1175–1225; ME jelous, gelos < OF gelos (F jaloux) < VL *zēlōsus, equiv. to LL zēl(us) zeal + ōsus -ose 1
thinsp.png


​
What is it that can so possess and dominate peoples' minds? Just about anything, it seems.
 
seattlegal said:
Indeed, when looking into jealousy, it does seem pretty empty, yet it can express itself in a number of different ways...
Click to expand...

Hmmm... I guess I was looking more for your point of view as to who was jealous and about what?
 
Avi said:
One of the first things that every scientist learns, as a first year student, is that while problem solving we must explicitly identify their assumptions, boundary conditions, or other accepted axiomatic conditions.

An excellent scientist constantly challenges these assumptions to make sure that they are correct, that they conform to reality, whether they need to be generalized or narrowed, whether new data or models are required for their accuracy.

One who does not constantly check for the validity of these assumptions, could perhaps be considered a "scientific fundamentalist".

Juan's point above, that someone might not do this deliberately, seems to me would be "scientific misconduct".

Is there an analogy to "religious fundamentalism" here ? It seems to me that there is.
Click to expand...

Even as an armchair amateur, one must constantly challenge the assertions; are they derived from an adequate sized sample?, is the sample genuinely random?, is there any chance of inadvertant bias slipping in?, is the data developed from blind samples?, are the samples aware they are being sampled and can that influence the sampling process?, etc. There are a lot of ways a "scientific process" can be spoiled, and by far most of them are not intentional. As only one example, look at the extreme care that must be used when developing genetic samples from Neandertal specimens in order to insure that they are not somehow contaminated with modern genetics. This sounds pretty straight forward, but it is really *very* easy even with the best of intentions to accidentally introduce modern genes into the specimen. And there's the "Hawthorn effect" that can influence people's responses if they know they are being observed.

Then there is the tendency to bias. After a person has been of a particular philosophical bent for a while there is a tendency to lean in that direction without secondary consideration. That's fine I suppose if all is going according to plan, but if some anomalous finding shows itself, often the tendency is dismissal without further consideration. If a test can be shown to be contaminated, then dismissal is called for, but what if all protocols have been properly followed and still there is an anomalous result? Status quo has a lot of inertia behind it, and boat rocking isn't generally encouraged.

Philosophically "science" *says* it can change with the evidence, but as Thomas Kuhn pointed out in "Structures of Scientific Revolutions" such change is more difficult than the trite little comment would lead one to believe. Perhaps that is rightly so as far as amending hypotheses, but Kuhn also pointed to the influence of politics in this process of change as well. The change from Newtonian physics to Einsteinian physics had its difficulties, just as the change from Einsteinian physics to Quantum physics is still going through some difficulties. And that's physics...the political climate there seems more receptive to alternate ways of looking at issues.

Then we can look at anthropology, and consider the peopling of the Americas, and we repeatedly run into conflict centered on anomalous findings. The accepted "scientific" reasoning is that the Clovis peoples arrived about 15,000 years ago by a land bridge from Alaska to Russia. But more and more evidence is being found suggesting peoples here *before* Clovis, and more and more evidence is being found to suggest route(s) other than the Bering landbridge, even by sea. There are even sites found on the Pacific side of the Southern tip of South America that pre-date Clovis, which seriously challenges the entire paradigm. There are researchers that are staunch "Clovis-first" and anything that challenges that is casually dismissed. And there are researchers that are more open to alternate explanations of the peopling of America. Right now the researchers that are open to alternate explanations are in the minority, so guess which "dogma" *officially* holds sway?
 
juantoo3 said:
Philosophically "science" *says* it can change with the evidence, but as Thomas Kuhn pointed out in "Structures of Scientific Revolutions" such change is more difficult than the trite little comment would lead one to believe. Perhaps that is rightly so as far as amending hypotheses, but Kuhn also pointed to the influence of politics in this process of change as well. The change from Newtonian physics to Einsteinian physics had its difficulties, just as the change from Einsteinian physics to Quantum physics is still going through some difficulties. And that's physics...the political climate there seems more receptive to alternate ways of looking at issues.
Click to expand...

Everything you say about science could be applied to social change as well. The problem isn't one of science, but one of human behavior. Despite the glacial pace of change, it happens. Despite the difficulties, change happens. Despite the politics, change happens. I'd love for it to occur more quickly and easily myself.

I'd also love to teach the world to sing in perfect harmony...


[youtube]6mOEU87SBTU[/youtube]
​
 
juantoo3 said:
There are researchers that are staunch "Clovis-first" and anything that challenges that is casually dismissed. And there are researchers that are more open to alternate explanations of the peopling of America. Right now the researchers that are open to alternate explanations are in the minority, so guess which "dogma" *officially* holds sway?
Click to expand...

This is actually pretty common in the sciences - often there is a major theory that is generally accepted, but then a whole range of minor theories which either refute or revise this.

Cosmology is especially awash with such theories, not least because so much is theoretical and outside of practical testing, but it happens across the disciplines - especially where data is limited - and history as a field is especially vulnerable to limited data (ie, only that which has been found), plus major bias in sources, etc.

And on top of all this, complicating it all, is media presentation to the general masses that seeks a single clear and communicable explanation for the masses.

2c.
 
citizenzen said:
Everything you say about science could be applied to social change as well. The problem isn't one of science, but one of human behavior. Despite the glacial pace of change, it happens. Despite the difficulties, change happens. Despite the politics, change happens. I'd love for it to occur more quickly and easily myself.

I'd also love to teach the world to sing in perfect harmony...
Click to expand...

Well, yes ... I thought I'd been saying that all along. It's not a matter of a particular dogma, fundamentalism is a common human tendency related to ego and memes.

If I converted you, sorry. It was not my intent to proselytize. ;)
 
I said:
Cosmology is especially awash with such theories, not least because so much is theoretical and outside of practical testing,
Click to expand...

Yeah, gotta luv it! I was hoping to get a debate back and forth between the "dark matter" folks and the "dark energy" folks, just to have a "play by play" comparison to make with some of the Christian fundy discussions to demonstrate how similar the two can end up sounding...not the particulars so much as the format.

I said:
but it happens across the disciplines - especially where data is limited - and history as a field is especially vulnerable to limited data (ie, only that which has been found), plus major bias in sources, etc.

And on top of all this, complicating it all, is media presentation to the general masses that seeks a single clear and communicable explanation for the masses.
Click to expand...

Sure, which helps explain why I think fundamentalism isn't a function (or effect) of Christianity or Islam or any religion. Even applied to science it really can be seen across such a wide swath of disciplines...and history (and anthropology) are probably among the worst offenders. And lordy don't get me started on the media...
 
citizenzen said:
I looked up Scientific Fundamentalism and found this [my comments in red]...
Scientific Fundamentalism

Ten Rules of Scientific Fundamentalism Reprinted with permission of The Wall Street Journal 1993
1. Science holds the answers to all the questions of life.
​
Science has never claimed to know all the answers to life. The more you examine and discover, the more questions come up. Complete knowledge of anything is a pip-dream.
​
2. Anyone who does not believe Rule 1 is not Scientific.
​
This is child's-level logic. No scientist is foolish enough to make this claim. Only science's detractors are.
​
3. Any evidence for intelligent design of the universe is not scientific.
​
I love how every statement is an absolute. "Any" evidence? I'm sure some evidence does qualify under the rubric "scientific". I'm sure that many intelligent design scientists employ the disciplines of biology, genetics, geology etc., in an attempt to prove intelligent design. Intelligent design is not merely a matter of holding up the Bible and saying, "The proofs right here!"
​
4. Any person who teaches there is evidence for intelligent design of the universe is not a scientist.
​
See statement above. Again, I love the use of absolutes... it's very unscientific.
​
5. Scientists know for a fact that matter is all there is.
​
Knows for a "fact"? We can't even prove that cigarettes "cause" cancer, or that C02 "causes" global warming. How could any scientist, considering that we don't even know what matter consists of, claim that is all there is? And yet it's assumed here that this is conventional scientific wisdom.
​
6. Anything which is not matter does not matter.
​
See note above. Yet another strawman argument.
​
7. Religion or religious impulse is the result of undesirable mutations in biological matter.
​
Who comes up with these ideas? This couldn't be funnier if it were a comedy satire.
​
8. Whatever is not science is religion.
​
That's right. There's only two things in this world. Everything either fits under that category of science or religion. More "absolute" nonsense.
​
9. Only science may be taught.
​
I think it's pretty well established that lots of theings can be taught.
​
10. Stuff happens, but only by coincidence.
​
This would be the only point I agree with. I score 1 out of 10. Does that still make me a scientific fundamentalist?
​
Please tell me I was wrong, Earl, and that I linked up to an old Monty Python script by mistake. Are these the concepts you adhere to: absolutist nonsense and straw man arguments?

Say it ain't so, Joe!
Click to expand...
Science is not the problem, as Earl was alluding to. Some people that gravitate to Science as their "religion" are. Just like any other belief in this life, not all are rational, nor are all the people claiming to be of one belief or another.

Earl was being tongue in cheek, but with a touch of seriousness, because what he pointed out is in fact truisms held be some very vocal people who claim to be scientists.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top