Monopolising Knowledge: A Refutation of Scientism

[@jacobsr51]

"To say that there are things more important about human being than what science can tell us isn't to denigrate science but it's actually to elevate other kinds of knowledge". (Rebecca McLaughlin)

[@jancoil4886]

Well done. The key part is that science works best when it investigates the natural world. There are vast areas of human experience where science plays a supporting role or none at all. Science can't say what freedom or justice is or what they should be. Important questions and science is silent.

[@theboombody]

No standardized units of justice, so makes it tough to measure. Would be nice if it were easier to measure, but it's not.

[@mikeclayton4976]

Humans have developed wonderful methods of inquiry: 1) Mathematics and logic (really the same thing expressed in two different languages) posit axioms and through a defined process, come to "proofs." Sometimes such "proofs" reflect our Universe (multi-Verse) beautifully, sometimes they lead to new insights, and sometimes they have little apparent value at all. 2) Science (scientific naturalism) begins with imaginative, unfettered, skeptical inquiry, accumulates verifiable evidence, applies coherent reason, and aims for powerful, robust, broad, falsifiable, and predictive explanations about our Universe (multi-Verse). Science, unlike mathematics, is incapable of "proving" anything at all. Its findings are always provisional, subject to better verifiable evidence or better, more powerful explanations. 3) Philosophy, in its best sense, begins with imaginative, unfettered inquiry and develops speculations, opinions, and arguments about a wide variety of topics. It does not seek verifiable evidence for any of these speculations. Its arguments need not be grounded in observation. For that reason, philosophy often produces delightful speculations and stories but these, of necessity, always remain, well, speculative. 4) Historical analysis gathers evidence about the past, applies coherent reason, develops explanations, and in some cases, attempts to predict future events based upon the past. It is always limited, however, by the inherent inaccuracies found even in primary sources and by the limitations on available information about the past. Nonetheless, the best history provides much insight into the human condition and the natural world. 5) The arts (aural, oral, visual, and textual) all employ the creation of beauty to help us to speculate about the human condition and thereby to provide a source of insight. They can lead to profound challenges and speculations about the human condition but unlike science, are not grounded in verifiable evidence. All of these methods, at their best, constitute useful methods of inquiry. Only science aims for falsifiable and most important, PREDICTIVE explanations about our Universe (multi-Verse). That means that science is clearly the most reliable way of "knowing" anything at all, insofar as we humans are capable of "knowing." Science can "prove" nothing at all. But because it provides PREDICTIVE explanations, it is simply our most reliable way of "knowing" anything at al. Supernaturalism, in its hundreds of thousands of forms, brands, permutations, and variants has NEVER provided any predictive explanation. EVER.

[@MrChat2357]

At least, in all those scientism video comments, you stand out with logic. Thank you mister! I was about to lose hope in humanity..

[@antibioticantibiotic5386]

Scientism is not science. It is ill using science for materialitic/atheisyic worldview. These people have double standarts for many thing multiverse is one of them. )) At the past I should have God on my side to smash someone now I should have science in my side. So people missused religion for their purposes in past now it is science which is misused.

[@Convexhull210]

Your statement self refutes itself.

[@jorgmuller4051]

Nice video. most of the problems with atheist world view gaining ground comes from fundamentalist christanity - I see atheism as a counter reaction to that fundamentalism. When I discuss with coworkers who are atheists and they make their silly claims (science this, science that blabla) the only thing that really STOPS their mumbo jumbo is when I remind them that I have double the scientific schooling they do. Showing atheists that they lack schooling in philosophy has no effect on them, its kinda sad. All in all, world needs more scientifically educated people who are openly non atheistic. For the record, I beleive in Christ and re-incarnation, not Jesus and and hell, a big difference there from the christian norm. Peace.

[@sahaalamchfrowdhury7579]

P

[@ThisDoctorKnows]

Good points you make. My question is this, what other points do you make regarding science to your atheist colleagues?

[@johnblack1965]

So you don't believe in personal responsability therefore you are not a christian.

[@kimbo99]

Excellent video. Very clear concise and comprehensive. Could I run this video in my account? I make anti skeptic videos, becauae of the way they always claim the scientific high ground. Scientism practioners are a social menace.. So could I run this video to spread the word.?

[@EmersonOliveira]

Very GOOD answer, friend. Very good at all.

[@rtube00000]

sounds like a bunch of sophistry to me. he goes on about all these supposed subjective areas of knowledge like enjoying music and whatnot, and extrapolates that those phenomena are "outside of science" merely due to their complexity. an inability to measure doesn't mean unmeasurable. science isn't meant to *give meaning to* subjective human experiences; it's meant to explain the physics behind them. it's disingenuous to act as if subjective experiences take place 'outside' of science (or physics, if you prefer), which is usually the subtle way of implying divine or supernatural actors. i believe this conflation stems from an emotional discomfort with the inability of science to (yet) answer many of our most burning questions, questions which it fundamentally can't answer. it's, to borrow a quote, like asking about the marital status of the number 5: just because it has the form of a question doesn't mean it has any physical referent or makes sense in the external world. it is quite easy to imagine, with sufficiently sophisticated technology, deconstructing human experience down to the Plank scale and being able to explain, physically, "why" everything feels the way it does. but that still may not answer the subjective mind's conception of 'purpose,' which i believe is a concern superimposed onto the natural world; a byproduct of our self-awareness.

[@LolJayl]

Consciousness and it's intentionality, and it's whys and all those 'superimpositions' are either an illusion or not. If they are not, then they are real, and if as you say physics cannot measure them then physics cannot answer every single question. And if consciousness is an illusion, well, then you're not even a solipsist...what are you exactly then?

[@ElectricQualia]

These things aren't outside of science due to complexity but due to subjectivity and non-repeatability. If a phenomenon is purely subjective, by definition it isn't a scientific phenomenon. Science studies a class of general phenomenon which are general, repeatable, empirically testable and modally falsifiable. So things like math and logic, philosophy, subjective and inter-subjective experiences are outside of its scope.

[@thebibleformula]

There is a perfect harmony of real science, true philosophy and right religion in the Bible Formula.

[@concerned1]

Scientism strips down the magic of existence to the bare nuts and bolts. It can describe the mechanism of the machine but what it doesn’t account for is the spirit of things. The spirit that makes a man want to get out of bed and achieve things.

[@Smithsonius]

Is there a need for science to disprove God in the first place? We know Rome existed, that the Egyptians built Pyramids, That the Minoan civilisation was based on Crete, that ancient Sparta had no walls. There is anthropological and archaeological evidence to show that these places and people existed without needing to scientifically prove they did (Which science can still tell us when they existed via carbon dating for example). By comparison what evidence is that there that any god existed?

[@Smithsonius]

As it happens you mentioned an article from UCB but you never actually linked it. I had a quick search but didn't see it, so maybe in future if you actually post the link I can actually have a look at what the hell you're talking about...

[@Yakzur]

@SexyJane28 I'm really glad that you're able to type in all caps as if you're yelling us to pieces, but no matter how much you metaphorically "fus ro dah" at us it's not going to change the fact that great swaths of your position are wrong. It would be nice if you could perhaps back up your claims with something other then internet yelling, but I'm going to assume that's not going to happen. Cheers.

[@Smithsonius]

You seem confused by my comment. I wasn't asking for scientific theories of a god. I was basically asking for any physical evidence of a god beyond religious texts, doesn't particularly need to be scientific.

[@thelightshinesinthedarknes8749]

The only way that you will know that there is a God is if He reveals Himself to you. This is a supernatural experience, not something that can be evaluated or measured scientifically. You can only use scientific methods and instruments to test and measure things which those methods and instruments are able and designed to test and measure. Spiritual conversion (what Christians call being 'born again'), when it truly happens, is an actual spiritual experience, as real as being physically born into the world. Everyone who has experienced this knows what has happened to them and that the experience (and God) is real and true; but no one who hasn't experienced it can understand it: It sounds like nonsense---and it will, unless and until it happens to them. To say or suggest---as some atheists do, or seem to---that because you personally don't understand something or haven't experienced it yourself it can't be real or true is nonsensical and arrogant. And once you know that something IS true---like 2+2=4---you don't need to keep searching for answers. It doesn't matter what anyone else believes about it, or whether anyone else in the world knows that it is true: You already have the answer, and you know it; you don't need to ask other people their opinion on the matter. (Knowing and asserting the truth doesn't make a person arrogant or close-minded. It's simply unnecessary to keep seeking for other explanations or answers to a problem that has been definitively solved.)

[@WarrenWebber]

"Science disproves God" Which one? Has it disproved ALL conceptions & ideas about God, or just some? There's a concept that the Cosmos & God are one & the same; does that mean science has disproved the existence of the Cosmos?

[@thephilosophermma8449]

Warren Webber well how do you know both are same . What is they are different. Then what existed before the universe of cosmos and god and one and the same

[@alliant]

By exploring these experiences we will come closer to seeing what we can intelligibly say about the God experience, and what counts as mere speculation.

[@coltranewashere]

what is science about then? can you proove it?

[@manuelturcios]

Agreed. But perhaps for different reasons.. hehe. To think that science can prove or disprove God is idiocy. Science is the study of our immediate reality through observation, measurements and experimentation. Within that framework, it cannot expect to define God.

[@EmersonOliveira]

Good answer.

[@kimbo99]

Pseudoskeptics abound here all spoiling for a fight.

[@Smithsonius]

So what exactly is your position on God SexyJane28? What evidence is there for the existence of any deity outside of their respective religious texts, texts which as a general rule, were written by the various religious orders. I mainly see religious institutions and belief as a throwback in effect to increasingly outdated methods of socio-political control. At the very least, most, bible stories and events are considered to be mostly allegorical, with only limited basis in historical events.

[@PGBurgess]

In the way scientism is used here, it is most definitly not a part of 'atheism' or any philosophical presupposition held by (pretty much all) scientists. They all accept history, sociology, ... as sources of knowledge. That offcourse does not suddenly makes religion one of them by default ... (just like astrology, ...). In the broader sense (not defended in the clip) where scientism refers to all skeptical analysis (through the scientific method), all those fields are included. And the only method shown to reliably pay off. What still is excluded are topics such as 'the beauty of art', ... which are hardly 'knowledge' in the same sense.

[@WarrenWebber]

Science is learning.

[@KevZen2000]

Scientism does exist, but science is the best way of knowing. Any claim should be examined by science if possible, and if it cannot then it remains paranormal (given if it is not a hoax, or misunderstanding), or within the realm of philosophy. The second best is philosophy, because it answers the questions that science cannot, such as what morality should I have, although it should adopt scientific evidence into its premises. Religious claims are scientific in nature, because they deal with the natural world. These are scientific hypothesis, and they can be examined by science, and if they fail the test, then they are no longer viable. Saying something is "supernatural" or beyond the natural is meaningless, because there is only the natural, and phenomena that remain beyond present day explanations of the natural, such as the paranormal. People who want to propose beings such as angels, gods, spirits, etc., needs to come up with a viable hypothesis of how these thing work in the natural world, or they are unjustified in accepting them.

[@DrowFighterMage]

Science itself presupposes many things from philosophy: that an external world exists, that other minds can exist, that the world wasn't created 5 minutes ago with an appearance of age, that mathematics have use, that the senses can be reliable, that memory (particularly written memory) can be reliable. So you're still left with philosophy as the primary. Religious claims are not often scientific in nature. While some temporal claims can be refuted (or more rarely, confirmed) by science those claims that are intrinsic to religion - transcendental claims - cannot. Though of course they can be subject to question just like anything. For example, the Aztecs believed the sun wouldn't rise if a 1000 hearts weren't sacrificed a day. That's obviously been falsified. But contrast that with like say.... a transcendent realm like heaven. By its very nature it can't be tested or experimented with, but we can attempt to find holes in the logic of such a thing. We need to distinguish between transcendental, as in beyond the physical; and supernatural, as in physical acts against any governing natural law on a physical plane. The assumption that anything outside of nature is meaningless is itself a *philosophical* position. Furthermore, it's made outside of science & outside of evidence gathered by the senses. We have to make an assumption outside our senses to use the senses anyway as stated above. Furthermore, if we cannot have things outside of natural observation then we can't have things like inalienable sentient rights, value statements, or even humanism.

[@leonardoberliner5051]

You are still in scientism. Science can not come first. Philosophy must comes first. The scientific method is based on philosophical principles. If science came first, what would be the base of the scientific method? We can not use the scientific method to prove itself to be the best tool for analyzing the natural world, we need philosophy to indicate that is the case. "Religious claims are scientific in nature, because they deal with the natural world. " Religious claims dont deal with the natural world, they actually deal with supernatural interventions in the natural world. If the supernatural is defined as a personal conscious immaterial being, then the occurrence of the intervention depends solely on the will of this conscious being. And that makes the religious claim an irreproducible event and thus outside the scope of science. For example, Lets say I got cured of a bad illness immediately right after I prayed for God. That means I got cured because God was willing to answer my prayer and not because there is a secret power about reciting some sequence of words that brings healing. If I got cured by praying, that doesn't mean everybody will get cured if they pray the same way, because it depends on the will of God to answer it. By science you will never be able to know why I got cured right at the moment of the prayer, because there is no possible material relation between sounds produced by the mouth and the healing process. The only possible answer for science is "coincidence happens". Miracles, by definition, are a convergence of facts that have unique and irreproducible occurrence. Science, by definition, can only study reproducible phenomenas. Thus, unique events will always be viewed as huge coincidences when analyzed by a straight scientific mindset, as naturalists have nowhere to escape to. "Saying something is "supernatural" or beyond the natural is meaningless, because there is only the natural, and phenomena that remain beyond present day explanations of the natural, such as the paranormal." Thats scientism in its purest. You can not know if there is not a supernatural. Nobody will ever say that "something is supernatural", because if it was supernatural it could never be "something". People only classify unique natural events as having a supernatural cause.

[@spark300c]

problem with that there clearly things that science can not answer like ethics. it why we seeing the west move away form rationalism. also if god exist if keep now with dogmatic scientism then it fall apart. problem with science it lack method to detect the supernatural. that why when supernatural stuff happens scientists at a lost and do not want admit that not there field. they have too much pride.

[@j.jasonwentworth723]

Shamanic methods provide a way to test transcendental realms, using nothing more complicated than the sonic driving provided by a drum, rattle, clapsticks, chanting, or a didgeridoo, or recordings of any of these (all actuated at the proper tempo to produce an altered state of consciousness). The techniques were developed empirically, often out of dire need in life-and-death situations, and have been known and used worldwide for at least 30,000 years (and probably much longer). Also: Shamanic experiments, which anyone can conduct for himself or herself, have indicated that not one, but many heavens exist. No one need take my word for it; they can find out personally, by undertaking such explorations themselves. Dr. Michael Harner's books "The Way of the Shaman" and "Cave and Cosmos: Shamanic Encounters with Another Reality" describe and explain the methodology of shamanic journeying, divination, and other such work.

[@j.jasonwentworth723]

Science is a very narrow (but certainly useful) viewing slot or filter for viewing reality, but by its very nature it restricts itself to repeatable phenomena that it can observe and explain, or potentially explain. But it certainly can't--and was never intended to--explain all of reality. A materialist (but not militantly so) biologist whom I heard interviewed on a radio program many years ago (I can't remember his name; I wish I could), when the subject of religion came up, said an interesting and revealing thing: "Science tells me that my children are just bags of carbon, water, and a few other chemicals, but they aren't just fancy collections of molecules. They're my children, they're precious, and I love them, and I would willingly die for them. I don't share religious people's belief in God and an afterlife of some sort, but I wish I could," and: I've never understood the attitude of people like Richard Dawkins, who take delight in--as they believe--the utter meaninglessness, purposelessness, and ultimate futility of existence. Looking at the empty chairs around the dining room table (as their family members and friends die, as the years pass), it's odd that such people don't desire, even for a moment--even though they can't believe in it--that their loved ones didn't cease to exist at death, but instead consider such oblivion--of their loved ones and, ultimately, of themselves--to be preferable. Perhaps for them, doing science is more than pursuing their interest, but also serves as a psychological salve (maybe even unconsciously), by keeping their minds off the nothingness that awaits them. If they're right, then nothing matters, because when the universe ultimately "freezes to black," it won't matter if life ever arose or not, or if we were lazy or industrious, or kind or cruel; the cold, dark, and dead universe will be the same as it would have been if we (and all life) had never existed at all.

[@Yakzur]

@SexyJane28 Atheism is not the position that you are "100% certain" there is no god, it is merely the lack of belief in god(s). If you are going to try and make a point, please do so properly.

[@siyaindagulag.]

There has been a propensity of late, for interdisciplinary endeavour to promulgate " truth" That is to say : application of scientific knowledge to philosophical, moral , political ,ethical and institutional realms of thought. Not always as a means of refuting , as in the case of religion but out of its narrow depth , methodologically. Comical though , if one should tread on the toes of the more dogmatic science. Oh the indignance that would provoke !

[@Smithsonius]

I'd love to know these 'other threads' on this topic that I have commented on, because this is, to my knowledge, the only science/god vid that I have commented on so far. In addition as I have said, I'm not asking for scientific evidence, just evidence in general. To clarify based on you're previous comments again, BELIEVING something exists doesn't mean it that it does. I wonder if you actually read these because you completely fail every time to deal with the issues put to you.

[@Μύρων-β7τ]

Clever

[@soldatheero]

""Philosophers, atheists and others may affirm or refute the existence of God, but as long as they do not deny the very existence of their own being they continue to testify to their belief in God - for I tell you with divine authority, that God is Existence, eternal and infinite. He is EVERYTHING."

[@douglasalderman2647]

you seem to miss understand many if not most of us just solve things like a puzzle based on the reality we experience what we can see hear touch ect rather than to guess there are particular things and we should act in a particular way for no reason. you know nothing with out the information we have from the reality we know. if you ignore reality then there are practically unlimited options of what could be and you know nothing about it your god could be but so could an all powerful group of unicorns or a all powerful councle of pencilcs that reward a hatred of aardvarks when you die all of these are possible and every action could have a positive or negative effect when you die you don't know and I a situation you know noting about you should not put something with specific rules on the same level of likely hood as everything else combined.

[@schechter01]

Source, please? Sounds like a pope from a few decades back...

[@Smithsonius]

So.... any chance you'll get round to offering something concrete to support god? Like I said I'm not looking for particularly scientific evidence, just evidence beyond religious texts. Like I said, we have evidence of the existence of all kinds of people, places and culture because they leave stuff behind. So what evidence is there for god. It's not really a matter of scientific proof as I keep saying, it's a matter of any proof... And I haven't misused science in the past either.

[@michaeloconnor6280]

Do you actually think that scientists walk into their laboratories and think that magical supernaturalism could explain anything at all? Really?

[@cormyat07]

Science is about facts. It's not about Truth. That's a big difference. Science is algorithmic, but some things can't be explained so mechanically.

[@theboombody]

Very well explained. Facts are only a SUBSET of truth, because facts can be generally observed and known. Not all truths are that convenient.

[@joehinojosa8314]

You might be a Little LATE there Sir. Read Origin of Species,1859

[@ThisDoctorKnows]

Help me understand your point. Thanks

[@CorndogMaker]

As long as religion doesn't claim anything that is falsifiable, it's safe from the natural sciences. As long as God remains a disembodied being outside of our universe who doesn't do anything predictable in the real world. Miracle workers can only defy physics long ago or in untestable conditions. They should also avoid saying anything measurable like "prayer works" or claim, for example, that religious people commit less crime/ have better relationships/ live healthier than the nonreligious.

[@PInk77W1]

I love how science proves God

[@Smithsonius]

Again just because people believe something is possible no matter who they are, does not make it true. Little kids believe believe that magic acts are real, yet we know they are illusions. As Arthur C. Clarke I believe it was put it, “Magic's just science that we don't understand yet.” Anyway as I said, I'm looking for anything to show god exists, haven't seen anything yet except idle speculation with no evidence to support it.

[@theb3rn7]

Absolute sophistry. I'll believe that there are other effective ways of gaining knowledge other than the scientific method when I see one demonstrated. Until then, you're only speaking in the stagnant, obsolete language of pure rationalism.

[@sirwilliambowlertonesq.2385]

Maven Dissector You're a fan of Sam Harris, I take?

[@yuudaemones2624]

+Maven Dissector Logic and mathematics seem like pretty good ways of gaining knowledge. Scientism is abhorred by most scientists, in case you didn't know. Condoning scientism is anti-intellectual as fuck.

[@wii3willRule]

+Maven Dissector Science itself is founded on assumptions and principles that are not and cannot be scientifically confirmed, only philosophically debated. Science is a good way of understanding reality, but it is far from the only way.

[@wii3willRule]

+You Daymon Unfortunately, however, many of our famous scientists slip into scientism: Dawkins, Harris, Pinker, Hawking, etc. have all, perhaps out of a natural human tendency to assume the primacy of one's own way of thinking, downplayed philosophy in favor of scientism.

[@yuudaemones2624]

wii3willRule That's pretty much the size of it, although I wouldn't even call Harris a scientist.

[@CorndogMaker]

Even self proclaimed atheist Richard Dawkins made a "Dawkins Scale" about how absolutely certain he is that there is no God and put himself at a 7. No one claims Omniscience because it is meaningless. If there were a god even he would not know that he knows everything, it's impossible to know what you do not know. Agnostic is not a useful term because EVERYONE is agnostic- Atheism/Theism address what you BELIEVE and not what you know.

[@j.jasonwentworth723]

If you've engaged in mysticism (shamanic practice, Wiccan divination, etc.), you certainly can know, and anyone can have such personal experience of the Divine. Most Westerners refuse to engage in such explorations (which don't require entheogens [although they can be used, and have been for tens of millennia]; drumming or other sonic driving works equally well) because of pride or fear, fear that their lives will never be the same afterward (I found that to be true, for which I am profoundly thankful).

[@CorndogMaker]

again, the self proclaimed atheists aren't claiming absolute knowledge so their atheism IS a valid position. It is as responsible as claiming that you do not believe in the Loch-ness Monster because you have not seen evidence for it. It is about practical knowledge, not about absolute knowledge.

[@alliant]

See I disagree. I think, if you get past the muddy theological nonsense, God is an experience available to human beings - a transpersonal experience. I think we can study these things and explore the issue as a community (mystics try to do this, buddhism tries to do this, modern consciousness studies try to do this).

[@jahshuuh]

And your not an atheist...

[@Smithsonius]

How many more times, I'm asking for evidence to support God, not scientific proof. Just proof of any kind that would actually suggest that one exists.

[@j.jasonwentworth723]

Go get your own evidence, which anyone can do. Read the articles on www.shamanism.org (and also the books "The Way of the Shaman" and "Cave and Cosmos: Shamanic Encounters with Another Reality" by Dr. Michael Harner [an anthropologist and shaman]), and then visit the other realms yourself (the Upper World is where to look for God [and the Lower World is not hell, despite what Christianity, Buddhism, and some other religions say regarding it]). If you refuse to do this, and just blow it off as unworthy of your attention, you'll be just as self-assuredly ignorant as the Catholic clergymen who refused to look through Galileo's telescope to see Jupiter's four large moons, and you might as well quit whining about "Where's the evidence for God?!" The contrapositive of "Seek and ye shall find" ("Seek not, and ye shall find not") is also true...

[@PInk77W1]

I love how science proves God