Scientism

[HRM Resident]

"The excessive belief in the power of scientific knowledge and
techniques."

I wonder if there is a cure for this. Without doubt, science is
unique, powerful, and wonderful. It should be celebrated, and it needs
to be protected. Scientism, on the other hand, is just metaphysics, and
there are lots and lots of metaphysical beliefs.

One such metaphysical belief is that the human mind and
consciousness are a "computer program." There's no proof or evidence
that it is. But those who practice "Scientism" are convinced it can be
no other way. Like every other religion, "Scientism" controls it's
members by pretending that there are answers for everything if you just
have "faith." Believe in science and all will be made clear.

Sounds like every other organized religion to me.

--
HRM Resident

[James Warren]

On Wednesday, 23 November 2022 at 13:34:41 UTC-4, HRM Resident wrote:
> "The excessive belief in the power of scientific knowledge and
> techniques."

It is not excessive, it is justified.

>
> I wonder if there is a cure for this. Without doubt, science is
> unique, powerful, and wonderful. It should be celebrated, and it needs
> to be protected. Scientism, on the other hand, is just metaphysics, and
> there are lots and lots of metaphysical beliefs.

"Scientism" is just a derogatory word for science.

>
> One such metaphysical belief is that the human mind and
> consciousness are a "computer program."

More exactly, that it is a physical machine.

> There's no proof or evidence

There is evidence, but not proof. What else it might be is a mystery,
magic or supernatural, for which there is no evidence for either.

> that it is. But those who practice "Scientism" are convinced it can be
> no other way.

Name another way.

> Like every other religion,

Science cannot be a religion because it has no gods.

> "Scientism" controls it's
> members

Science has no control of its "members" or anyone else.

> by pretending that there are answers for everything if you just
> have "faith."

Not "faith" but trust because it has a proven track record.

> Believe in science and all will be made clear.

Perhaps all things that *can* be made clear. The may be some
things that are forever hidden from us.

>
> Sounds like every other organized religion to me.

Not to me. It sounds like the very opposite of religion.

You are implying that there are other ways as good as,
or better, than science for finding out about the world
yet you don't say what those ways are. What are they?

You said earlier that you hate physics and don't understand it.
Physics is the foundation of all the sciences.

You have not given any reason to doubt science, merely
propagated a dirty word for science invented by those
who believe in religion or the supernatural. Compared
to science these have produced next to nothing in our
understanding of reality. Why are you trying to demean
science?

>
> --
> HRM Resident

[HRM Resident]

James Warren <jwwar...@gmail.com> writes:

>
> It is not excessive, it is justified.
>

Do you think or dream of anything else besides cosmology? Seems
obsessive to me. Be open to new things. I cannot afford the luxury
of a closed mind. You are lucky to not be distracted by other points of
view. :-)

>
> "Scientism" is just a derogatory word for science.
>

No it's not. It's a religion or some kind of cult.
Merriam-Webster says:

"An exaggerated trust in the efficacy of the methods of natural science
applied to all areas of investigation (as in philosophy, the social
sciences, and the humanities)"

How is that derogatory?

>
> More exactly, that it is a physical machine.
>

You are splitting hairs. Fine. Your computer "mind" theory is the
hardware, not the software. Either way, it's incomplete.

>
> There is evidence, but not proof. What else it might be is a mystery,
> magic or supernatural, for which there is no evidence for either.
>

I never said it was magic or supernatural. I said I don'y know
what it is. You are starting to sound like one of those "Freedom
Convoy" activists. I am not going to answer questions like "Are you
with us or against us?" As if there's not a 3rd or 4th option. Are
false dichotomies all you have left?

>
> Name another way.
>

I don't have to. You picked one, and demand than it is right, and
that all others must agree with you. "I don't know" and "Maybe" are not
good enough for true believers! You want a "Yes, I repent for doubting
you" following. Like a cult. :-)

>
> Science cannot be a religion because it has no gods.
>

Buddishm has no god. Is it a religion? If so, how does it differ
from Scientism?

>>
>> Sounds like every other organized religion to me.
>
> Not to me. It sounds like the very opposite of religion.
>

Every religion I ever heard of say their religion is the only true
one. Scientism is no different.

> Why are you trying to demean science?
>

Not science. Treating it as a religion or cilt, as you appear to
do, is nit healthy, in my view. But hey, Skipper, it's a free country.
You can belong to any cult you wish as long as you don't harm anyone!
:-)

--
HRM Resident

[Mike Spencer]

One of the notable lines in the TV series "American Gods" [1] is:

Stories are truer than Truth.

In the sense that stories grab people by the brain stem/throat/nadgers
while precise fact doesn't, this is itself true. I knew (on line) a
Cherokee priest who said something similar although I forget his exact
words. There wouldn't be 30M Americans devoted to TFG were this not
so. And some people are enthralled by the stories emerging from
science. For those people, Science is one of the New American Gods
along with Media, Technology, Global-$WHATEVER [2].

And for gods, for stories, the Words are the thing. "Guilty" from a
judge, "Absolvo te" or "Pronounce you man and wife" from a priest --
those words change the world as "truly" as gravity imparts kinetic
energy to a falling object.

For the real, Enlightenment notion of science, the word is secondary,
an attempt to describe the observed. That was shockingly difficult
for celebrated thinkers of the 17th c. to embrace and it remains
difficult, even anathema, to a great many people, possible to the
majority. One of the reasons that the insane reactionaries (commonly
called the extreme right) give for accusing all levels of pedagogy of
promulgating hateful propaganda is the goof teachers and professors
defrock The Word in favor of observation and reasoning from it.


[1] NSFW, (arguably) gratuitous sex and violence. Read Niel Gaiman's
book of the same name on which the video is based first.

[2] And Economics as it is embraced today by the powerful, even by a
worrisome number of credentialed economists. Gaiman doesn't
include Economics in his New American Gods pantheon but he should
have as the current thinking on eternal "growth" is a children's
story constructed from 300 year old failed efforts to unite
science and The Word.

--
Mike Spencer Nova Scotia, Canada

[James Warren]

On Wednesday, 23 November 2022 at 15:10:42 UTC-4, HRM Resident wrote:
> James Warren <jwwar...@gmail.com> writes:
>
> >
> > It is not excessive, it is justified.
> >
> Do you think or dream of anything else besides cosmology? Seems
> obsessive to me. Be open to new things. I cannot afford the luxury
> of a closed mind. You are lucky to not be distracted by other points of
> view. :-)

You have things reversed. My interests a very wide. You seem to have
very few. In fact, it seems to me as if you are unwilling to entertain
new ideas. You know some ideas are wrong without being able to
say why or even consider that you might be wrong. How is that an
open mind?

> >
> > "Scientism" is just a derogatory word for science.
> >
> No it's not. It's a religion or some kind of cult.
> Merriam-Webster says:
>
> "An exaggerated trust in the efficacy of the methods of natural science
> applied to all areas of investigation (as in philosophy, the social
> sciences, and the humanities)"

So how is such a trust exaggerated? What else deserves an equal trust?
I asked this many times in past years but no one would answer.

>
> How is that derogatory?

Because that was the initial intent by people who wanted to believe
in the supernatural.

> >
> > More exactly, that it is a physical machine.
> >
> You are splitting hairs. Fine. Your computer "mind" theory is the
> hardware, not the software. Either way, it's incomplete.

No it's not.

> >
> > There is evidence, but not proof. What else it might be is a mystery,
> > magic or supernatural, for which there is no evidence for either.
> >
> I never said it was magic or supernatural. I said I don'y know
> what it is.

Suggest a possible alternative then. It is either natural or supernatural.
What else can it be?

> You are starting to sound like one of those "Freedom
> Convoy" activists. I am not going to answer questions like "Are you
> with us or against us?" As if there's not a 3rd or 4th option. Are
> false dichotomies all you have left?

WTF? I am being very rational. It is you who are kicking and screaming.
"I don't know, I don't know and I'm unwilling to consider well reasoned
possibilities".

What are those 3rd and 4th options? I am willing to consider them.

>
> >
> > Name another way.
> >
>
> I don't have to. You picked one, and demand than it is right, and
> that all others must agree with you.

You don't have to agree with me but show me the curtesy of saying why.
I don't think you are able to do that.

> "I don't know" and "Maybe" are not
> good enough for true believers!

Nor anyone else when you were not asked any questions. You were
merely presented with a reasoned proposition for your consideration.

> You want a "Yes, I repent for doubting
> you" following. Like a cult. :-)

Haha. Do you repent for acting foolish?

> >
> > Science cannot be a religion because it has no gods.
> >
> Buddishm has no god. Is it a religion? If so, how does it differ
> from Scientism?

I don't really understand Buddishm, but from what little I do understand
it is a philosophy, not a religion.

> >>
> >> Sounds like every other organized religion to me.
> >
> > Not to me. It sounds like the very opposite of religion.
> >
> Every religion I ever heard of say their religion is the only true
> one. Scientism is no different.

Science has a strong track record of findiug stuff out about the
world; religion does not, in fact religion has been a tremendous
in the progress of science.

> > Why are you trying to demean science?
> >
> Not science. Treating it as a religion or cilt, as you appear to

You exaggerate in an attempt to belittle me to cover up for
your numerous and persistent losses. :)

> do, is nit healthy, in my view. But hey, Skipper, it's a free country.
> You can belong to any cult you wish as long as you don't harm anyone!
> :-)

It is you who belong to a cult; the cult of perpetual willful ignorance. :)

>
> --
> HRM Resident

[James Warren]

On Wednesday, 23 November 2022 at 15:32:48 UTC-4, Mike Spencer wrote:
> HRM Resident <hrm...@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > "The excessive belief in the power of scientific knowledge and
> > techniques."
> >
> > I wonder if there is a cure for this. Without doubt, science is
> > unique, powerful, and wonderful. It should be celebrated, and it needs
> > to be protected. Scientism, on the other hand, is just metaphysics, and
> > there are lots and lots of metaphysical beliefs.
> >
> > One such metaphysical belief is that the human mind and
> > consciousness are a "computer program." There's no proof or evidence
> > that it is. But those who practice "Scientism" are convinced it can be
> > no other way. Like every other religion, "Scientism" controls it's
> > members by pretending that there are answers for everything if you just
> > have "faith." Believe in science and all will be made clear.
> >
> > Sounds like every other organized religion to me.
> One of the notable lines in the TV series "American Gods" [1] is:
>
> Stories are truer than Truth.
>
> In the sense that stories grab people by the brain stem/throat/nadgers
> while precise fact doesn't, this is itself true. I knew (on line) a
> Cherokee priest who said something similar although I forget his exact
> words. There wouldn't be 30M Americans devoted to TFG were this not
> so. And some people are enthralled by the stories emerging from
> science. For those people, Science is one of the New American Gods
> along with Media, Technology, Global-$WHATEVER [2].

Unfortunately, there is a risk of that among those that don't understand
how science works. Is quantum mysticism, such as Deepak Chopra
to be mentioned here?

[HRM Resident]

James Warren <jwwar...@gmail.com> writes:

> You know some ideas are wrong without being able to
> say why or even consider that you might be wrong. How is that an
> open mind?
>

I listen to pretty much anyone or anything. If it makes sense, I
follow up. If not, I move on to something else.

>
> So how is such a trust exaggerated? What else deserves an equal trust?
> I asked this many times in past years but no one would answer.
>

I trust (and have trusted) many people other than members of
Scientism. There's nothing wrong with science. It's the worshiping of
science to which I object. Just like the misquote "Money is the root of
all evil." The proper quote is "The worship of money is the root of all
evil." I won't go that far with Scientism. It's not really the
"worship" of science. It's the mistaken belief that science is the
answer to everything.

>
> Because that was the initial intent by people who wanted to believe
> in the supernatural.
>

Huh? Are you reading the minds of dead people? I don't know whi
invented the term 'Scientism.' I sure don't know their intent. Why do
you say they were derogatory towards your cult? :-)

>
> No it's not.
>

It's not incomplete? Wow! You have figured out all aspects of the
human mind and human consciousness. Write your conclusions in a good
paper, get it peer reviewed, and I bet you will win a Nobel Prize next
year. This is an amazing development.

>
> Suggest a possible alternative then. It is either natural or supernatural.
> What else can it be?
>

I don't know, but I know you love false dilemmas like you presented
in the paragraph above. RWA thinking. equivalent to "Either you
genuflect in front of TFG or your are a terrorists!" Gee. You and your
either/or thinking. Odd.

>
> WTF? I am being very rational. It is you who are kicking and screaming.
> "I don't know, I don't know and I'm unwilling to consider well reasoned
> possibilities".
>
> What are those 3rd and 4th options? I am willing to consider them.
>

I don't know what they are, but very few things that have been
presented to me as yes/no dilemmas turn out to not have more
options. I'm not kicking and screaming anything. "I do not know" is not
a yes/no or a 3rd or 4th option. It's an acknowlegment that they
like it exist, but I don't know what they are. What's wrong with that?

>
> You don't have to agree with me but show me the curtesy of saying why.
> I don't think you are able to do that.
>

You want me to say why? Simple. You are not the oracle who knows
all. Just because I can't present an opposite argument on demand doesn't
make you correct, Skipper! :-)

>
> I don't really understand Buddishm, but from what little I do understand
> it is a philosophy, not a religion.
>

"Buddhism is one of the world's largest religions . . ."

<https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/buddhism>

>
> It is you who belong to a cult; the cult of perpetual willful ignorance. :)
>

Kool-Aid time, Jimbo! Time to chow down. Enjoy your evening! :-)

--
HRM Resident

[James Warren]

On Wednesday, 23 November 2022 at 16:45:25 UTC-4, HRM Resident wrote:
> James Warren <jwwar...@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > You know some ideas are wrong without being able to
> > say why or even consider that you might be wrong. How is that an
> > open mind?
> >
> I listen to pretty much anyone or anything. If it makes sense, I
> follow up. If not, I move on to something else.

That's sensible. But you also reject sensible ideas for no good reason
other than it's against your bias.

> >
> > So how is such a trust exaggerated? What else deserves an equal trust?
> > I asked this many times in past years but no one would answer.
> >
> I trust (and have trusted) many people other than members of
> Scientism.

People are not methods of finding out about the world. Science is a method.

> There's nothing wrong with science. It's the worshiping of
> science to which I object.

I wonder who actually worships science. I don't know of any.
Even if there were such people why would you object?

> Just like the misquote "Money is the root of
> all evil." The proper quote is "The worship of money is the root of all
> evil." I won't go that far with Scientism. It's not really the
> "worship" of science. It's the mistaken belief that science is the
> answer to everything.

Not everything, but it is the only way to find out about those things
that are knowable.

> >
> > Because that was the initial intent by people who wanted to believe
> > in the supernatural.
> >
> Huh? Are you reading the minds of dead people? I don't know whi
> invented the term 'Scientism.' I sure don't know their intent. Why do
> you say they were derogatory towards your cult? :-)

Calling science a cult is derogatory.

>
> >
> > No it's not.
> >
>
> It's not incomplete? Wow! You have figured out all aspects of the
> human mind and human consciousness.

Not everything by far. The the evidence is strong that "mind" is a
physical machine equivalent to brain function. Of course if you
have a better idea I'd like to see it.

> Write your conclusions in a good
> paper, get it peer reviewed, and I bet you will win a Nobel Prize next
> year. This is an amazing development.

Yes it would be, and it would be a description of how the brain machine
works.

> >
> > Suggest a possible alternative then. It is either natural or supernatural.
> > What else can it be?
> >
> I don't know,

You don't know!! A or notA is a tautology. There is no in between!

> but I know you love false dilemmas like you presented

Show me the false dilemma between A or notA.

> in the paragraph above. RWA thinking. equivalent to "Either you
> genuflect in front of TFG or your are a terrorists!"

Bad analogy. This is not an example of A or notA. This is
a true false dilemma.

> Gee. You and your
> either/or thinking. Odd.

A or notA is logical thinking.

> >
> > WTF? I am being very rational. It is you who are kicking and screaming.
> > "I don't know, I don't know and I'm unwilling to consider well reasoned
> > possibilities".
> >
> > What are those 3rd and 4th options? I am willing to consider them.
> >
> I don't know what they are, but very few things that have been
> presented to me as yes/no dilemmas turn out to not have more
> options. I'm not kicking and screaming anything. "I do not know" is not
> a yes/no or a 3rd or 4th option. It's an acknowlegment that they
> like it exist, but I don't know what they are. What's wrong with that?

LOL You have no idea WTF you're talking about. :)

0 and 1 are integers. You are claiming that there are many more integers
between them. A or notA is not a false dilemma. You are squirming as
bad as the RWAs did.

> >
> > You don't have to agree with me but show me the curtesy of saying why.
> > I don't think you are able to do that.
> >
> You want me to say why? Simple. You are not the oracle who knows
> all. Just because I can't present an opposite argument on demand doesn't
> make you correct, Skipper! :-)

I am not claiming to know all. I presented a well reasoned proposition and
you went all haywire for some reason that you won't explain. :)

> >
> > I don't really understand Buddishm, but from what little I do understand
> > it is a philosophy, not a religion.
> >
> "Buddhism is one of the world's largest religions . . ."

A religion without gods. Weird definition of a religion. But OK.

>
> <https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/buddhism>
> >
> > It is you who belong to a cult; the cult of perpetual willful ignorance. :)
> >
> Kool-Aid time, Jimbo! Time to chow down. Enjoy your evening! :-)

Watch out for that Kool-Aid. It's drunk by those living in LaLa Land. :)

>
> --
> HRM Resident

[Mike Spencer]

James Warren <jwwar...@gmail.com> writes:

> Is quantum mysticism, such as Deepak Chopra
> to be mentioned here?

New internet game: Gwgle "quantum $ANYTHING", substituting anything
you like for the variable $ANYTHING.

Winner is (s)he who finds the most entertaining squib.

My entry:

Quantum Blacksmithing is about the intra-activity of quantum
physics, art, and blacksmithing. Blacksmithing is reinvented with
each new age of physics. With quantum physics there is a new ere
of blacksmith art that is coming into Being-in-the-world.

https://www.blogger.com/profile/16115507155506527507

And here *I* am, stuck on the physics of the 19th c. and 1950s
cybernetics. Ho hum.

http://home.tallships.ca/mspencer/gallery/maxwell-demon.html

[James Warren]

On Wednesday, 23 November 2022 at 18:44:42 UTC-4, Mike Spencer wrote:
> James Warren <jwwar...@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > Is quantum mysticism, such as Deepak Chopra
> > to be mentioned here?
> New internet game: Gwgle "quantum $ANYTHING", substituting anything
> you like for the variable $ANYTHING.
>
> Winner is (s)he who finds the most entertaining squib.
>
> My entry:
>
> Quantum Blacksmithing is about the intra-activity of quantum
> physics, art, and blacksmithing. Blacksmithing is reinvented with
> each new age of physics. With quantum physics there is a new ere
> of blacksmith art that is coming into Being-in-the-world.
>
> https://www.blogger.com/profile/16115507155506527507

How about quantum energy healing.

https://tinyurl.com/6duzevj3

>
> And here *I* am, stuck on the physics of the 19th c. and 1950s
> cybernetics. Ho hum.
>
> http://home.tallships.ca/mspencer/gallery/maxwell-demon.html

Maxwell's demon is still relevant to quantum mechanics

[HRM Resident]

James Warren <jwwar...@gmail.com> writes:


>
> Calling science a cult is derogatory.
>

Merriam Webster defines "cult" as: "great devotion to a person,
idea, object, movement, or work." Seems to me that's what you do.

Many, many people seem to have cult in mind when they invoke sacred
dogmas and demand that we "Trust the Science" or "Trust the Scientists."
Science in this usage has taken on an increasingly cult-like aspect.

The cult scientists affirm that science explains all phenomena in
terms of material objects and the physical forces among them. But this
is equivalent to materialistic philosophy, which regards material
objects and physical forces as the only realities. Mind, free will,
spirit, and God are considered illusions. This is materialistic science.

The science cult enthrones politics and ideology and calls it
'science.' That hurts the credibility of whatever goes by the name of
science, unfortunately including the open-ended process of discovery
that truly is scientific.

--
HRM Resident

[James Warren]

On Thursday, 24 November 2022 at 11:44:00 UTC-4, HRM Resident wrote:
> James Warren <jwwar...@gmail.com> writes:
>
>
> >
> > Calling science a cult is derogatory.
> >
> Merriam Webster defines "cult" as: "great devotion to a person,
> idea, object, movement, or work." Seems to me that's what you do.

Cults do not hold observations of nature to be the ultimate arbiter
of truth; science does. Science is a method of interrogating nature
not a blind belief system.

>
> Many, many people seem to have cult in mind when they invoke sacred
> dogmas and demand that we "Trust the Science" or "Trust the Scientists."
> Science in this usage has taken on an increasingly cult-like aspect.

Yes, you should trust the science because it uses observational data
to infer what might be true about the world. Even when those inferences
it is always a better bet than anything else.

>
> The cult scientists affirm that science explains all phenomena in
> terms of material objects and the physical forces among them. But this
> is equivalent to materialistic philosophy, which regards material
> objects and physical forces as the only realities. Mind, free will,
> spirit, and God are considered illusions. This is materialistic science.

Yes, that is science, not materialistic science because there is no
non-materialistic science. Science studies the stuff of the universe.
What else is there? Do you know?

>
> The science cult enthrones politics and ideology and calls it
> 'science.'

Err, not that I am aware of.

> That hurts the credibility of whatever goes by the name of
> science, unfortunately including the open-ended process of discovery
> that truly is scientific.
>

Does it? What you claim is wrong. Scientists tend to be liberal.
Is that what you mean be hurting their credibility.

This whole essay of your suggests that there are other ways,
maybe better ways, of learning about the universe. What are
those ways? If you are angry because science claims it is
the only way to learn about the universe that must be because
you believe there are other ways, else you would not be angry.
So, again, what are those other ways?

> --
> HRM Resident

[HRM Resident]

James Warren <jwwar...@gmail.com> writes:


>> >
>> Merriam Webster defines "cult" as: "great devotion to a person,
>> idea, object, movement, or work." Seems to me that's what you do.
>
> Cults do not hold observations of nature to be the ultimate arbiter
> of truth; science does. Science is a method of interrogating nature
> not a blind belief system.
>

You know more than Merriam Webster? I went with an official
definition. What part of the definition do you not fit?

>
> Yes, you should trust the science because it uses observational data
> to infer what might be true about the world. Even when those inferences
> it is always a better bet than anything else.
>

Not at all. Science and scientists are tunnel visioned. They
don't care about "side effects" as long as they get their way. It's a
good thing that we have adults around to take their "advice" and blend
it with other points of view, economic impact, etc. Science is a
valuable took for humanity, but it is not to be embraces as the
know-everything oracle. Those who do embrace it as such are members of
this cult.

>
> Yes, that is science, not materialistic science because there is no
> non-materialistic science. Science studies the stuff of the universe.
> What else is there? Do you know?
>

I don't know. I don't follow the details of cults. They are fine
as long as they don't harm others who disagree with them. You are not
like the Branch Davidians. Just a bit obsessed. :-)

>>
>> The science cult enthrones politics and ideology and calls it
>> 'science.'
>
> Err, not that I am aware of.
>

"Javex cures Covid."

>
> Does it? What you claim is wrong. Scientists tend to be liberal.
> Is that what you mean be hurting their credibility.
>

It might, but the chlorine would damage your internal organs.
Please, talk to a doctor before trying any of these political-science
"break throughs."

> This whole essay of your suggests that there are other ways,
> maybe better ways, of learning about the universe. What are
> those ways? If you are angry because science claims it is
> the only way to learn about the universe that must be because
> you believe there are other ways, else you would not be angry.
> So, again, what are those other ways?
>

It's not an essay, and I don't have a "better way." I just don't
blindly trust cults.

--
HRM Resident

[James Warren]

On Thursday, 24 November 2022 at 13:39:25 UTC-4, HRM Resident wrote:
> James Warren <jwwar...@gmail.com> writes:
>
>
> >> >
> >> Merriam Webster defines "cult" as: "great devotion to a person,
> >> idea, object, movement, or work." Seems to me that's what you do.
> >
> > Cults do not hold observations of nature to be the ultimate arbiter
> > of truth; science does. Science is a method of interrogating nature
> > not a blind belief system.
> >
> You know more than Merriam Webster? I went with an official
> definition. What part of the definition do you not fit?

The part about devotion. Any idea in science will be gladly
abandoned if new information proves it wrong.

> >
> > Yes, you should trust the science because it uses observational data
> > to infer what might be true about the world. Even when those inferences
> > it is always a better bet than anything else.
> >
> Not at all. Science and scientists are tunnel visioned. They
> don't care about "side effects" as long as they get their way. It's a
> good thing that we have adults around to take their "advice" and blend
> it with other points of view, economic impact, etc. Science is a
> valuable took for humanity, but it is not to be embraces as the
> know-everything oracle. Those who do embrace it as such are members of
> this cult.

WTF are you talking about, Science does science not politics. Some
scientists may have political views, but so what, most people do.

> >
> > Yes, that is science, not materialistic science because there is no
> > non-materialistic science. Science studies the stuff of the universe.
> > What else is there? Do you know?
> >
> I don't know. I don't follow the details of cults. They are fine
> as long as they don't harm others who disagree with them. You are not
> like the Branch Davidians. Just a bit obsessed. :-)

Obsession with science is a good thing. It means that a person
strongly desires to know what is true about the world. :)

> >>
> >> The science cult enthrones politics and ideology and calls it
> >> 'science.'
> >
> > Err, not that I am aware of.
> >
> "Javex cures Covid."

I don't see any science there.

> >
> > Does it? What you claim is wrong. Scientists tend to be liberal.
> > Is that what you mean be hurting their credibility.
> >
> It might, but the chlorine would damage your internal organs.
> Please, talk to a doctor before trying any of these political-science
> "break throughs."

Your example is Trumpism, not science. Please try again. :)

> > This whole essay of your suggests that there are other ways,
> > maybe better ways, of learning about the universe. What are
> > those ways? If you are angry because science claims it is
> > the only way to learn about the universe that must be because
> > you believe there are other ways, else you would not be angry.
> > So, again, what are those other ways?
> >
> It's not an essay, and I don't have a "better way." I just don't
> blindly trust cults.

I don't either, but I do trust science. It is much more honest than
you are. :)

Why "better way"; why not better way?

Do you trust anything? Your infallible "common sense" perhaps? :)

>
> --
> HRM Resident

[HRM Resident]

James Warren <jwwar...@gmail.com> writes:

>
> I don't either, but I do trust science. It is much more honest than
> you are. :)
>

Science depends so much in the imagery our minds generate that the
vast majority of it is cult like. People caught up in cult science
(scientism is their code word, but they are all the same) fail to see
the bigger picture and so rely on the limited whirlpools in their mind
as representations of reality which they are not.

Your brand of "science" lacks a theory of conscious experience. Our
consciousness is the one thing that we can all be certain of, yet the
gulf between the activity of the brain and what we experience is huge.
Knowing that certain experiences and particular patterns of brain
activity occur together does not satisfactorily explain how (or, indeed,
if) one gives rise to the other.

It's also a cult because it is not changing its basic precepts
despite QM that clearly shows that the world is not an objective reality
but a projection of consciousness. (Photons only coalesce to matter when
the double slit experiment is observed. In short it needs consciousness
for the photons to change.)

You'd be better off becoming a sports analyst. "Hockey Night With
James!"

--
HRM Resident

[James Warren]

On Thursday, 24 November 2022 at 14:55:12 UTC-4, HRM Resident wrote:
> James Warren <jwwar...@gmail.com> writes:
>
> >
> > I don't either, but I do trust science. It is much more honest than
> > you are. :)
> >
> Science depends so much in the imagery our minds generate that the
> vast majority of it is cult like. People caught up in cult science
> (scientism is their code word, but they are all the same) fail to see
> the bigger picture and so rely on the limited whirlpools in their mind
> as representations of reality which they are not.

Whatever the above is, I bet it's nonsense. :)

>
> Your brand of "science" lacks a theory of conscious experience. Our
> consciousness is the one thing that we can all be certain of, yet the
> gulf between the activity of the brain and what we experience is huge.
> Knowing that certain experiences and particular patterns of brain
> activity occur together does not satisfactorily explain how (or, indeed,
> if) one gives rise to the other.

That does not seem to be the case. It all looks like it's all in the head.
There is no good evidence that it's not.

>
> It's also a cult because it is not changing its basic precepts
> despite QM that clearly shows that the world is not an objective reality
> but a projection of consciousness.

Whoa there guy. Now you're going all woo-woo.

> (Photons only coalesce to matter when
> the double slit experiment is observed. In short it needs consciousness
> for the photons to change.)

Nope, it's not like that all and photons don't coalesce into anything.

>
> You'd be better off becoming a sports analyst. "Hockey Night With
> James!"

It looks like you're ready to start a quantum church. :)

>
> --
> HRM Resident

[HRM Resident]

James Warren <jwwar...@gmail.com> writes:


>
> It looks like you're ready to start a quantum church. :)
>

Teaching you anything is like teaching a pigeon to play chess. They
don't know anything about it, they don't want to hear you explain it,
and in the end they knock down the pieces and strut around like they won
the game. :-)

--
HRM Resident

[James Warren]

Wow! I was about to say the same thing! We are alike! :)

>
> --
> HRM Resident