Scientism and the Religion of Science

[@KevinSolway]

The answer that science is the only valid source of knowledge is an answer that doesn't come from science.

[@Graymenn]

+Kevin Solway but it does come from scientism

[@KevinSolway]

+Smedley Butler "but it does come from scientism" Yes. Ironically it's consistent with their idea that if something doesn't come from science it's not valid. So essentially what they're saying is "This statement is false".

[@KevinSolway]

"it is by far more superior and reliable." Since you arrived at that conclusion through a means other than science, then you can't believe your conclusion is very reliable.

[@alexandeon]

Your sentence doesn't make any sense given that the word " science" means knowledge. So knowledge is the only valid source of knowledge? Yeah , science is all we know , and religions used to be, but not anymore.

[@KevinSolway]

+Paul Anderson "" science" means knowledge." Science doesn't mean knowledge, otherwise philosophy would be regarded to be part of science, and it isn't.

[@PInk77W1]

“The heart has reasons, that reason cannot know.”

[@MrWolynski]

Thank you for posting this video. Scientism really does mirror religion and this talk is not falling on deaf ears.

[@alexandeon]

"religion of science" that's messed up. What about "science of religion" indeed they did treat religion like a manual of the world for some time, we know what happened then.

[@alexandeon]

***** Just look into the Middle Ages. Using religion as a how to book for finding witches and burning them to avoid flooding and other natural disasters.

[@alexandeon]

***** Your academese style fails to impress me. Somehow I think it's all gibberish without any real content, just needless self inflicting confusion. Just as this talk was. You have that in common with the speaker.

[@themanformerlyknownascomme777]

@@alexandeon your clearly unfamiliar with the more dogmatic half, I have no doubt you may have encountered it and not recognized it for what it was. Take for example, the feathered dinosaurs, only a dozen or so species of dinosaur are confirmed to have had feathers, yet you find no shortage of people who will try and claim that all dinosaurs were coated in them (even if that is likely untrue such as with the Sauropods)

[@the81kid]

Now that was a good talk. Rational and spiritual. The universe is a mystery, science is a useful tool, but it's not an ideology, and it can't tackle the most important questions.

[@davepugh2519]

What do you think can tackle the 'most important questions'?

[@revermightstar8004]

@@davepugh2519 insight synthesized from intuition + reason + exploration of emotion and sensation + all human knowledge.

[@DarrenSaw]

@@revermightstar8004 none of that is objective provable truth

[@revermightstar8004]

@@DarrenSaw Objectivity is relative.

[@kalt7990]

This needs to go viral. Man I feel like an idiot. I've never heard of this before! Who'd've thunk a chemist could be so profound in a social historical context?

[@22andxi3]

Education used to be well rounded, now it's so specialized and streamlined that you have intelligent people with narrow minds and little wisdom. A dangerous combination. Today it's pretty much only personally motivated polymaths that pursue knowledge in many fields, most others are compartmentalized.

[@pbrucetube]

Excellent presentation but it is unlikely to be appreciated by the youtube community because so many seem to adhere to the faith of scientism.

[@Gnomefro]

William Bruce Actually, the reason it's not appreciated is because "scientism" is nothing but a ridiculous attempt to insult people by asshats who want their baseless assertions about reality to have the same status as demonstrable scientific results. That's not going to happen and it's not because anyone holds to the dogmas attributed to "scientism". It's simply not a thing.

[@roys8474]

Gnomefro It's you who are trying to put one over on your audience. Come on now, admit it, you are serving the cause of materialism with your denial of scientism. It's part of your party line. You seem to be claiming there is no such thing as scientism when you are yourself living proof of its existence. The fact that you malign any other views except "demonstrable scientific results" proves it. No one but a proponent of scientism would claim such a thing. The other option is that you are trolling bufoon.

[@pbrucetube]

Well, I can see I have struck a nerve. Actually, this was my intention. However much I appreciate your response, it is incorrect. My view of science is similar to that of the classical scientists. They did not regard science as the only valid method for acquiring knowledge (scientism). That would be to ignore knowledge acquired through the arts and humanities to say nothing of Biblical truth. While it has its limitations and it changes periodically (Newtonian mechanics lasted only about 200 years) I believe science can be very practical and useful.

[@williammcenaney9393]

William Bruce Mr. Bruce, scientistic thinkers astound me because they ignore a major problem with scientism. Science can't prove that scientism is true, since any scientistic argument for scientism will be circular.

[@noahskocilich]

+William Bruce - it's a nerve that i think needs to be struck. thank you!

[@jonathanskeet5076]

What a feeble round of applause for such a brilliant talk.

[@tyronelol]

Atheists believe the Universe came to be by some means without a Creator(God), said belief is religious by definition as it requires faith and relates humanity to an order of existence.

[@K12-t2t]

U sad it perfectly

[@karlazeen]

Except that's not actually what most athiests believe, the honest answer is to say we don't know if there really is a general god or not but we sure as hell know it is extremely unlikely to the point of it definitely not being any of the gods proposed by the worlds theistic religions, we know this the more we look throughout history and use the scientific method.

[@tyronelol]

@@karlazeen Hahaha delusional. You just admitted that you believe the Universe came to be by some means without a Creator(God). Claiming likelihood regarding the unknown(origins) is completely subjective and belief based, religious in fact, since your position requires faith and relates humanity to an order of existence. The only position that lacks belief regarding the existence of a Creator(God) is agnosticism.

[@nanashi2146]

@@karlazeen You wouldn't be an Atheist if you believed that

[@khamize]

I was going down a highway when I saw a truck that said to watch Scientism exposed on youtube

[@TheModernHermeticist]

Great talk, thanks for this - I love all Principe's lectures.

[@rameezabid356]

"knowledge and understanding comes in silence, not noise."

[@RegisChapman]

I LOVE THIS VIDEO. I constantly refer to it.

[@robinhoodstfrancis]

It´s great to hear his position on Scientism, with its rich historical focus. It´s interesting to compare with Ian Hutchinson´s argument, for example, and even the Philosopher J de Ridder. The atheist-theist debates are interesting, too. Hutchinson, in particular, offers a rich perspective with his self-disclosing and modernized approach to Christianity.

[@toserious2587]

Hes basically saying what iv been saying for the last year or two. And put a name on it. Nice to hear in not the only one who sees this

[@GodinciOrg]

Very good lecture!

[@kylebennett7957]

I am just curious if anybody can name who some prominent scientismists are? I must say that I disagree with the philosophy of scientism as presented here, but I can't think of any mainstream media personality that endorses or promotes that position, at least none that are taken seriously.

[@OfftoShambala]

Neil degrasse Tyson is a relatively prominent scientism cult leader ... pretty much all mainstream doctor celebs ... but if you are not looking into healthcare issues and or other scientific type interests or issues, you might not have come across Tyson

[@derhafi]

@@OfftoShambala "Neil degrasse Tyson is a relatively prominent scientism cult leade" is he? Hahahaha

[@penoiseballs563]

@@derhafi undeniable fact.

[@derhafi]

@@penoiseballs563 sure thing, as long as you don't know what "undeniable" and "fact" means, that sure makes sense.

[@1Hol1Tiger]

@@derhafi He is

[@miguelfirmamentearth]

at 12:42 there's a mistake there: you should research for "Flat Non Rotation Earth" declassified documents. When some Scientists go to study Antarctica (not for National Geographic tv) and then the military says: "The Earth is Flat", those scientists laugh at first. And then the military says: "You are here to study the real Antarctica, not that one of the school books"

[@Creslin321]

Really interesting and enlightening talk, I feel I learned some things from it. Personally, I disagree just a bit with the talk in that I don't really see the need to have the dogmas of scientism OR the dogmas of traditional organized religions. In my opinion, the best philosophy is to view the universe, natural and spiritual, with open minded humility and wonder. And to not accept any worldview that purports to explain "everything," whether they justify their explanation by virtue of it being written in an old book, or by faith that materialistic science will eventually explain everything so it must be right.

[@Gnomefro]

Creslin321 Of course, the "dogmas of scientism" aren't held by anyone. The entire concept of scientism is created by disgruntled people who are pissed off that their baseless assertions about reality aren't taken as seriously as the demonstrable knowledge produced by the sciences. Also, the idea that "materialistic science will eventually explain everything" of course isn't held by anyone either. Especially not scientists who understand that it's perfectly possible that there are aspects of reality that we won't be able to get at because the evidence if inaccessible. However, there are good reasons to be a materialist - namely that materialism is all there's evidence for. It's bizarre to put completely non-demonstrable phenomena like "the spiritual" on the same level. It's fine to be open minded, but you are being irrational if you believe claims about reality without evidence.

[@Creslin321]

Gnomefro Oh I would disagree that the dogmas of scientism aren't held by anyone. I would completely agree that no one would ever admit to it though. But seriously, look at philosophers like Daniel Dennett and the Churchlands. They both assert that consciousness is an "illusion" that doesn't really exist. And the reason they do this is to attempt to shoehorn consciousness into a purely materialistic world view. But this goes against just about any lived experience that anyone has ever had. Also look at things like the Turing test, which says that a machine would be "intelligent," ie, like humans, if it could just "fool" an expert human into thinking that the machine was human. This is so ridiculously reductive in terms of defining what human intelligence is that no one really should have taken it seriously. I mean, it's literally saying that something is intelligent if a human gets fooled by it. Yet it has been a major fixture in academia. Why? Because it provides a way to empirically "observe" intelligence/consciousness, even if that way is ridiculous. Anyway, I agree that it's irrational to make claims without evidence. I just feel that claiming that consciousness is an illusion, or that intelligence is defined by tricking some guy qualify as claims without evidence. And these things fall squarely under "dogmas of scientism."

[@RLekhy]

Gnomefro You sound very intelligent to me. What are main differences between science and scientism?

[@Creslin321]

R Leakey Personally, I think the main difference between science and scientism is that science is an experimental method and skeptical philosophy used to gain knowledge about the universe and question existing dogmas, whereas scientism is an attempt to create a cohesive and complete "story" of the universe by utilizing scientific discoveries, but filling in the gaps with BS when necessary. I believe that this is often done because humans have an innate desire to know "why" things are the way they are. And many of us simply aren't willing to accept "we don't know" as the answer to any of the big questions. For example, take evolution (science) and abiogenesis (often scientism). Evolution, the idea that life changes over generations to better adapt to its environment, has a mountain of evidence behind it in the form of the fossil record. There is very good reason to believe that evolution occurred on earth, but the problem is that life evolving over time does not really explain the origin of life. Enter abiogenesis, the idea that life spontaneously formed from non-living matter on earth and all of a sudden we have the answer we were looking for and can feel confident that we know how life began on earth. However, unlike evolution, there is no extremely strong evidence for abiogenesis, it's essentially an educated guess. I'm not saying it's wrong, it may be right, but the point is that we really don't know. Despite this though, many logical, scientific people will believe in abiogenesis as if it were a cold hard fact. Another issue I've noticed with adherents of scientism is that they will criticize other belief systems for having faith in some unproven conclusion, but then turn around and literally do the exact same thing. For example, I have seen several atheists rightly criticize theists for believing that some god created the universe. They will often say "why should I believe in something with no evidence? I might as well believe in fairies and the flying spaghetti monster if I am to believe in some god." This argument makes a degree of sense, after all, it's not very scientific to believe that god exists without any observational evidence. Despite this though, when some atheists I've watched in debates are questioned on how they believe the universe came into being, they will not hesitate to say that the universe sprang out of nothingness in the big bang, and then a whole bunch of random stuff happened and then poof here we are. But in doing this, the atheist has committed the same error as the theist. There is no real evidence that the big bang "just happened" and that a bunch of random events "just followed it" and then we were "just created randomly." The only real scientific answer to how the universe and we came to be is that there are a lot of competing theories and ideas but we just don't know yet. Anything other than this, is a faith based answer.

[@RLekhy]

Creslin321 Thanks for replying even though the question was to Gnomefro. I read your long post with great patience where you have touched many issues but I cannot comment on each one. I think you have misunderstood science and scientism. I do agree your statement that science is experimental method but skeptical philosophy? No, that is not science. It is mere atheist assertion. Similarly, Scientism is not as you say “An attempt to create a cohesive and complete "story" of the universe by utilizing scientific discoveries, but filling in the gaps with BS when necessary. " Scientism means in Wikipedia words, " A belief in the universal applicability of the scientific method and approach, and the view that empirical science constitutes the most authoritative worldview or most valuable part of human learning to the exclusion of other viewpoints." I suggest you to read Thomas Kuhn, Paul Feyerabend, Lokatos, Massimo Pigliucci and many more. For now you can read this short article: www.huffingtonpost.com/dave-pruett/sciences-sacred-cows-part-1_b_2392381.html

[@EG-uv8fd]

27:54

[@Thomas-wn7cl]

Great lecture

[@Mr.Oblivian]

the 'I FUCKING LOVE SCIENCE!' culture is absolutely cringe.....

[@derhafi]

Whereas the " I love my imaginary supernatural friend for whom there in no solid evidence but is reason enough to make me hate you" culture, has proven it's validity many times over. Well done!

[@Mr.Oblivian]

@@derhafi One does not have to be religious to know that the 'IFL Science' crowd is cringe. I'm not religious. It doesn't have to be a dichotomy, as you are inferring.

[@derhafi]

I have to disagree. I think everyone who claims Science and Religion can exist in harmony, without evoking some level of cognitive dissonance, is either fooling himself and/or doing a disservice to either subjects. Science does not make claims of absolute truth. It provides the best possible explanation according to the available evidence. Science tells you how the world most likely is, based on the best unscrutinised repeatable, testable, empirical evidence, always willing to change, should better evidence be unveiled, always willing to admit where the limits of knowledge are drawn. Changing ones position on a subject when new data comes in is the smart and rational thing to do. That is an essential part of science and it’s success. It is in no way a disadvantage of scientific knowledge to change…we call that change: Progress Whereas religion is dogmatic and contributes zero to our understanding of the universe we life in. The best one can hope are hindsight interpretations of verses that represent the knowledge of the time in which these scriptures were written, in a desperate attempt to stay relevant. As things stand, no deity ever was part of an explanation, predominantly that is due to the fact that all those scriptures, despite containing big claims, they have no explanatory powers at all, not to any question in nature or elsewhere. One mystery is not solves by appealing to a bigger mystery, in the form of a deity. That is why a theological one never replaced a naturalistic explanation. Ever.

[@Mr.Oblivian]

@@derhafi You're missing my point. Do you know what IFL Science' is? It stands for ' I Fucking Love Science' and it is a popular online blog site. I said, and I'll say it again: One need not be a religous person to see that the 'IFL Science' type of pop-science consumer is cringe inducing. By trying to refute what I am saying, you are seeming to say that the only type of science-driven person is one who consumes pop-science blogs that are geared toward 7th Grade junior highschool kids.

[@derhafi]

@@Mr.Oblivian If that is what you want to read into what I wrote....

[@stephenandersen4625]

well done.

[@marie-helenechaubiron9123]

If this guy was saying otherwise, he would not be allowed to teach at JHU ! What a drag .....

[@castroboutajine6435]

I never meet hounest atheist and i ask myself why i never meet a aheist witout dirty talk why do hounest atheist exist i still doubting

[@calindragota3922]

SCIENTISM tells you the EARTH is a globe, SCIENCE shows THE EARTH is FLAT ! ...

[@abbeychase4718]

What part of science shows the Earth is flat? Please provide a testable, measurable and repeatable example. Thank you.

[@abbeychase4718]

@Eric H Obviously you didn't read ALL of the history behind the Bedford level experiment. If you had, you would have known that the original experiment was flawed because it failed to account for refraction. Alfred Russel Wallace repeated the experiment, but this time made adjustments to insure that the effects of refraction were minimized, thus clearly proving that the Earth was curved. Several attempts to reproduce the experiment over lengths much longer than 6 miles have all failed to prove the Earth was flat. The Discovery Channel also ran some experiments recently with a laser and a helicopter and clearly proved the Earth was curved. How do you account for that.

[@spacedout4061]

Uhhhhh... no

[@spacedout4061]

If a flat earther ever decided to understand what they are talking about they would probably realize how dumb they are

[@spacedout4061]

@Eric H literally everything you just said is either completely false or a proof that you have no idea what you are talking about. Nobody thinks that the atmosphere is pressurized

[@mr.wrongthink.1325]

There is one thing I pray for: I sometimes pray for erection. And it worketh everyth time. My Lord, Thou do exist!

[@alexandeon]

Try a more scientific approach this time. Be your own lord.

[@mr.wrongthink.1325]

There is only one downside of not being religious: No one to talk to when receiving a BJ.

[@lewiphinehas4422]

You will pay for every careless and vile word you speak, whether you believe that or not.

[@roberttompkins6489]

Yes, how did the use of other methods of knowledge (i.e. theology, metaphysics) work out in preventing childhood diseases?

[@PInk77W1]

You mean like partial birth abortion?

[@theamberabyss1745]

That is a creationist tier argument, holy shit. Literally no better than the "why are there still monkeys" argument. Theology has to do with the study of religion, and metaphysics with understanding the fundamental nature of the universe. Neither have anything to do with curing childhood diseases.

[@randomperson2078]

How did theology do at making nukes, again?

[@roberttompkins6489]

@@theamberabyss1745 Exactly-that was my point. They both have contributed very little in comparison to science.

[@roberttompkins6489]

@@randomperson2078 Unsure-however religion has directly inflicted untold deaths as a result of countless religious wars- far more than those killed in the use of nuclear weapons in history.

[@Bonesph]

Guy coughs into a rag and then puts it into pocket then does it again, touching it. Gross.

[@DarrenSaw]

Interesting reading some of the comments to this video. A large number of which are attempting to use these notions to validate their preferred superstition hokum. No you can't hide behind this to promote creationism, flat earth and other nonsense.

[@shitwalkerog1776]

What's wrong with creationism? That's a good thing isn't it? I do see what you mean though people hide behind these fake religions because they were raised by Church Karen and probably got their asses kicked in school when they were young. so as a psychological self-defense mechanism they make up their own religious cults because they have nothing to believe in, it's quite sad actually.

[@karlazeen]

Its always funny how completely out of touch with reality theists comes across as when criticizing atheist positions, nothing but straw mans and arm chair psychological analysis galore.

[@99bit]

complete nonsense. He goes to great pains comparing "scientism" to religion, equating the great scientists to saints, etc. Yet he also goes on to say that religion is good. If scientism is a religion, and religion is good, why isn't scientism be good?

[@stephenandersen4625]

99bit because science and religion are different things. thus he highlighted the difference between methodological naturalism and philosophical naturalism. when scientists move from one to the other we aren't doing science any more.

[@malchir4036]

+Stephen Andersen 'when scientists move from one to the other we aren't doing science any more.' Absolute bollocks, because one is a methodological approach, the other one an ontological position. They're no logical connection between the 2. If this was true, no Christian could be a scientist either. Obviously there are lots.

[@stephenandersen4625]

What i was trying to say that it is one thing to say that there are very good things we can learn from observing the physical universe (something St Augustine said in the 5th century) and saying that we can ONLY learn things from the physical universe. most of the important things in life.. love, truth, justice, liberty, equality are metaphysical and not physical things.

[@99bit]

+Stephen Andersen Yes, science and religion are different things, and so the idea of "scientism" is absurd. The whole purpose of the scientism smear is to turn science into a religion and then attack that. The problem is that "scientism" when compared to other religions has no unique faults. Everything bad about "scientism" can be said of other religions. Likewise anything good about other religions can be said about "scientism." It's a pointless, self defeating comparison to make because of the obvious special pleading involved. If "scientism" is a religion, or basically a religion, or has the qualities of a religion (as the speaker so claimed), but religions can also be good and do good, why then can't "scientism" be good or do good?

[@malchir4036]

Stephen Andersen 'What i was trying to say that it is one thing to say that there are very good things we can learn from observing the physical universe (something St Augustine said in the 5th century) and saying that we can ONLY learn things from the physical universe.' And there's no-one who states this. Nor does this have anything to do with methodological/metaphysical naturalism. Metaphysical naturalists don't think justice doesn't exist, just that it's not transcendent above the universe.

[@ganshrio7336]

NO SUCH THING AS SCIENTISM

[@PInk77W1]

Global Warming

[@khanusmagnus577]

Uh yeh there is , here you are reaffirming its existence LMFAOO