Only 10% of the Nobel prize winners are atheist ?

[brewer]

Jesus fucking christ. Why do you constantly try to derail into philosophy?

And if you agree with Henry and science is creating barbarism, what the hell are you doing on the internet?

Wait, you/he said scientism. Yeah, an evidence based life/culture really really sucks.

There is a clear trail of "science is overrated" in Bels presence on this forum, at least thats my strong impression.

Yet he is communicating this via internet, watches NASA streaming footage of probes sending hi-res pics from the edges of the solar system, is probably constantly using his mobile and uses (at least i hope so) information gathered by astrophysicists, astronomers and scientists in general to counter the ignorant statements of the religious about all kind of facts of reality.

Imho its easy to underrate the achievements of science once you are comforably living your long lasting prosperous life, provided by the efforts of science. Just like it its easy to dismiss the efforts of any countrymen who fought for your freedom, while sitting comfortably in your home, enjoying the peace provided by them.

Thinking that science is important does not equal scientism. Just because most people (maybe) have higher regard for science than Bel has, does not make them proponents of scientism, it may however make him probably somewhat of what so many of the fundamentalist x-ians are back across the pond. Maybe thats why he comes across as a secret christian to some people on this forum, who knows.  

Fare enough. But it irks me that with Bel there is rarely any thought/contribution outside his box of philosophy.

And if Henry thought christianity was the only religion that could save culture from scientism then Henry was biased.

[Ranjr]

How do the numbers stack up for knuckle-dragging, mouth-breathers?

[The Grand Nudger]

LOL, the vast majority of them are bound to be religious as well.

[Belacqua]

There is a clear trail of "science is overrated" in Bels presence on this forum, at least thats my strong impression.

Your strong impression is incorrect.

[Peebothuhlu]

There is a clear trail of "science is overrated" in Bels presence on this forum, at least thats my strong impression.

Your strong impression is incorrect.

Hey again Belacqua.....

Uhm.... On a personal level, I'd find your comment a tad annoying.... Jus' sayin', mate.

It's like you're telling Deese23 that you know what they are thinking/feeling and, hence, they are wrong.

Not sure if you meant the sentence to play out that way or not... but...

I've alread mentioned, and others have agreed, that your word usage has... 'Shifted' just slightly from the concensus.

Again, I applaud and congratulate and other wise sing your merrits and praises for knowing another language Belaqua... But there's possibly a lsight problem now with your self expression in English.

Just a thought.

Cheers.

Not at work.

[Belacqua]

It's like you're telling Deese23 that you know what they are thinking/feeling and, hence, they are wrong.

Deese said this:

There is a clear trail of "science is overrated" in Bels presence on this forum, at least thats my strong impression.

I have no reason to think he's being dishonest. I believe that he has this impression. 

However, I do not think science is overrated, and if anyone has read that into my posts it is not a correct interpretation.

[Peebothuhlu]

...Wrote a reply...

Not at work.

[Belacqua]

 

It occurs to me that if people aren't clear on how I'm using the word "scientism," they may get the impression that I don't respect science. So let me define that as best I can. I'm using the word in the way that Michel Henry does in his books. 

As you know, science works extremely well because it operates within very clear parameters. Science deals with that which is empirical, repeatable, intersubjective (that is, perceivable by all), and quantifiable. It conducts its inquiry as independently as possible of the researchers' personal feelings and ideologies. 

Scientism has two aspects: the first is when the above parameters are said to apply in areas where they really don't. For example, I don't think that scientific principles can be used to determine aesthetic issues like quality in the arts. There is no empirical, repeatable, intersubjective, and quantifiable method for determining whether a novel or a painting is good or not. If someone tried to use science in this way, I claim it would not be real science. Therefore, if I look down on scientism, it is because someone is claiming to use science when they really aren't. 

The second aspect of scientism is what Henry claims is dangerous. This is when people say, directly or tacitly, that things in the world which science can't address are unreal or have no value at all. Here again, I think of aesthetic issues. Although there can't be any scientific test to prove what constitutes quality in the arts, that doesn't mean that such quality doesn't exist, or isn't important. If there is no scientific test people may end up claiming that we have no reason at all to say one thing is better than another -- Proust's novel is as good as The Rise of Skywalker in that neither has provable quality. 

At the moment I'm helping a grad student who is applying the principles of phenomenology to research about care for elderly people. Her claim is that those things which science can measure -- e.g. blood pressure -- are necessary but not sufficient for high-quality care. Non-quantifiable things like a sense of belonging, or a feeling of agency, are also important aspects of an elderly person's life which a focus on only measurable medical issues could ignore. Scientism, n this context, would be the claim that non-quantifiable things are "just feelings" and not something which carers can address. My student as well as Henry, in contrast, would say that those feelings are very real to the patient and may in fact need to be addressed in order to improve the blood pressure -- because humans are not separable into body and mind.

So a concern about scientism seeks to protect the integrity of science by keeping it pure, and not allowing it to be mixed up with feelings or ideology. And at the same time insists that things outside the realm of science can be real and important.

[brewer]

Convenient that you left out the christianity and bad effect part in your last post.

After years of serious thought he came to argue that scientism has had a profoundly bad effect on our culture. And finally he decided that Christianity offered the best alternative to this.

And please define "high quality" medical care. What the hell makes you think that the medical community only focuses in the measurable medical issues? I think you and her are insulting and have your head's up your ass.

[Peebothuhlu]

At work.

I must admit Belaqua, I've only ever heard the term 'Scietism' used colloquially in a derogatory fashion.