Scientism: America's State Religion

By Edward Feser.

Paul Feyerabend (1924-1994) was the enfant terrible of late 20th-century philosophy of science. He delighted in mischief, juxtaposing vast knowledge of science and its history with antics like egging on creationists, playing devil’s advocate for astrology, and calling for the “separation of science and state.”

He has nevertheless secured a place in the canon, because he is brilliant, extremely well-read, and funny—and his views, when correctly understood, are important and challenging. No doubt it helps that he is a man of the Left, despite saying things that were often criticized for giving aid and comfort to the religious Right.

Feyerabend was once labeled “the worst enemy of science” by the prestigious journal Nature. But even a casual reader can see that what Feyerabend actually opposed was scientism, the transformation of science into an ideology and of its practitioners into a secular priesthood.

Read the full article here

[Well worth reading. I found this article very appropriate for our time.

Here are the last two paragraphs which might give you an incentive to read the whole thing.]

These developments illustrate the ways in which the practice of science can sometimes be arbitrary, dogmatic, authoritarian, politicized, blinkered, highly fallible, and destructive of other social values—just as Feyerabend warned. That does not entail that COVID-19 is not a serious problem (it is) or that the lockdown was not initially justifiable (it was). But expertise that does not acknowledge its own limitations takes from us as much as it gives, and irrationalism is never more dangerous than when clothed in rationalist drag.

Feyerabend’s last word on the subject should be our own: “The hardest task needs the lightest hand or else its completion will not lead to freedom but to a tyranny much worse than the one it replaces.”

Arguments for Immateriality

 

 

If truth (ontological truth) is the apprehension of the real…what is reality?
If we cannot agree on that, how could we ever agree on the kind of analysis (logical truth) we make of it.
If our logical truth differs from our behavior( the living the way we think, moral truth) it would be very difficult to derive any common sense.
Realizing full well that one is not convinced by logical argument alone; here is some arguments for the existence of non materiality.

From Benedict M. Ashley's "The Way Toward Wisdom" 2009

page 97

Argument #1

The argument from effects to cause for the existence of a First Cause of the universe and of its non materiality can be formulated as follows.

1. With our natural senses we observe changeable substances A,B, C…in the process of change, and first of all in motion. Thus, by rational analysis, we know A exists, and we can define it with a real and essential definition by finding a certain unity among its observed categorical properties.

2. Since, by the principle of causality (that nothing that is moved moves itself). A’s observed motion must be caused either by some other material or nonmaterial agent B as its efficient cause.

3. The efficient action of B is either essentially identical with B, in which case it is Z, the prime unmoved mover of the motion, or it is only some mover C whose action also depends on the action of Z.

4. The number of movers that, like C, act to move others only when they are themselves moved, cannot be infinite, since in an infinite series of such moved movers there would be no prime mover Z, and hence none of the intermediate agents would be in act but only in potency to act, and hence not actually causing motion.

5. Therefore, Z, a prime mover that requires no other mover to act exists, but it cannot be a material mover, since no material thing either moves itself or is in motion without being moved by another.

In this demonstration no term or principle is used that has not already been directly observed by the senses, or that is not evident directly from an intellectual analysis of the data of the senses, or demonstrated logically from premises formulated on the basis of such data. Thus, this theorem pertains to the foundational generic subject of natural science, not properly to any other science. 

Hence it is pre-supposed to all the more specific conclusions of natural science, that is, to all of modern science that refers to the fundamental forces of gravity, electromagnetism, the weak
and strong nuclear forces, and perhaps a counter gravitational force called “dark energy” that explains cosmic expansion.

WOMEN IN SCIENCE

 E = MC² C comes from Celeritas, latin for swift, speedy . 

Speedy indeed, 670 616 629 mph.

It started with Lavoisier, Faraday had the idea that light was electromagnetic, Maxwell had the math to prove him right.

Emilie, Marquise Du Chatelet 1706-1749 . an extremely curious and intelligent woman who would not suffer or accept the gender discrimination of her time. She translated ‘Principia Mathematica’ of Isaac Newton and disagreed with him about E = M X V. She was very bold indeed. She turned out to be right by siding with Gotfried Leibniz that it was E = M X V² , which was at the basis of Einstein squaring the speed of light in his well known formula. Einstein was obsessed with the idea of finding out the nature of light. After he advanced his theory, he was lucky to find the great Max Planck on his side. That E =M was an amazing discovery and E = MC² implied a tremendous amount of E in a very small amount of matter. (In the sun four million tons of matter a second is turned into energy, light)

     Another amazing woman who was not given her due during her life time was Lise Meitner who worked many years with Otto Hahn. She discovered that bombarding the nucleus of the Uranium atom with neutron, split the nucleus. A theory she explained to Otto Hahn over the phone, because she had to leave Germany due to her being Jewish. Otto Hahn who was finishing the experiment they had both worked on, told everybody that the explanation of the experiment’s result was his, when in fact it was entirely Lise Witner’s. History was corrected, but much, much later. 

[ An aside ] Which reminds me that we would not think of blaming science for the discrimination due to the cultural milieu at that particular time and place. So why are we so quick to blame religion for war caused by the cultural milieu at a particular time and place.]

     Then there is Lisa Randall , a leading theoretical physicist and expert on particle physics, string theory and cosmology. After reading “Warped Passages”, Unraveling The Mysteries Of The Universe’s Hidden Dimensions. I became a fervent admirer. Her theories that lead to the fact that our 3D universe might be a boundary of a much bigger multi-dimension universe,. will be tested in coming experiment at the Large Hadron Collider in Geneva. Her work has attracted enormous interest and was the most quoted (cited) in all of science a few years ago.

WAR AND RELIGION 2

 

(The word "atheist" can very well be replaced by "the-without-religion")

Is religion violent and atheism peaceful? Sam Harris talks about the movement: “Faith religion remains a perpetual source of human conflict." The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the future of Reason (New York and London:: WWNorton, 2004]. In order to bring world peace, we must eradicate religion,. The religions Harris particularly wants to eliminate are Islam Christianity and Judaism. These irrational survivals and of violence susceptible of an era pre-modern must be suppressed. "All reasonable men and women have a common enemy. Our enemy is none other than faith itself". [Ibid.,79]

WAR AND RELIGION

 Would the World Be Safer Without Religion?

     If religion makes people want to murder each other, maybe religion is bad for the world. Killing in the name of God or religious belief, which shames every religion, ought to give the person of faith pause.

 But should it cause us to abandon faith? Would the world be better off if religion disappeared? 

Some people would say yes, and since it’s impossible to conduct this experiment, as faith is definitely not going away, we can’t be sure. But when we observe the horror of religiously motivated violence or hatred, maybe the correct question is, "without religion would it be even worse"? 

LOGICAL FALLACIES

  

1. Hasty Generalizations are based on atypical, irrelevant, or inaccurate evidence.

Example:

Of course our students are physically fit; just look at the success of our sports teams this year.

2.Faulty Cause And Effect (Post Hoc) is the result of assuming that because B follows A, A must be the cause of B.

Example:

Tourism in this city started to decline right after Mayor Sctt was elected. To save our tourist industry, let’s replace her now!

3. Reductive Reasoning reduces a complex effect to a single cause.

Example:

People who want to be healthy should eat turnips. My Aunt Alice loved turnips, and she lived to be ninety four.

4. False Analogies occur when one overlooks the fact that two things being compared are more different than they

are similar.

Example:

Why am I required to take certain courses before I can graduate from this university? No one requires me to buy certain groceries before I can leave the supermarket.

5. Begging (Avoiding) the Question occurs when one assumes as true the very point he or she is arguing.

Example:

Improving public transportation in this city won’t solve highway congestion. Even if public transportation is clean, safe, and efficient, people will still prefer to use their cars.

6. Circular Reasoning occurs when the argument merely restates the conclusion it was meant to support.

Example:

The minister is such a good person because she is so virtuous.

7. Equivocation involves using a term in a completely different way than one’s opponent uses it.

Example:

Why, of course the Central Intelligence Agency wants to know what kind of grades my children get! Otherwise, it wouldn’t be called an intelligence agency, would it?

8. Ad Hominem Arguments attack the opponent rather than his or her argument. (Ad hominem literally means” against the person.”)

Example:

Senator Jones’ bill on gun control should not be taken seriously; after all, this is the same man who has had at least five extramarital affairs.

9. False Either/Or Arguments assume that only two alternatives exist in a given situation.

Example:

The case is clear: either we support the death penalty or we allow crime to run rampant.

10. Band Wagon Appeals suggest that one should accept something because it is popular; that is, everyone else has”hopped on the bandwagon.”

Example:

A recent poll showed that seventy percent of the American public believes emissions requirements on automobiles have gone too far; therefore, these laws are unreasonable and should be repealed.

11. Non Sequitur occur when one fails to show clear connections between his premise (starting point) and conclusion.

(Non sequitur literally means ”it does not follow.”)

Example:

Maria loved college, so I’m sure she will make an excellent teacher

PONTIFICATION

 

Here is one of my often repeated (to myself) pontifications: “Entertainment and entertainers are a waste of my time."

I am a person.

A person differs from other beings by having a spiritual intellect.

I fulfill my nature as a person to the degree that I use my intellect.
For obvious reasons the first (or main) use of my intellect is to help me to survive. Thereafter, 'areas' of my life that maximize the use of my intellect would be the most desirable areas.

Is ‘entertainment’ such an area?

Definitions of ‘entertainment' are numerous and diverse. No matter what the definitions are, if I keep to my 'maximizing the use of my intellect’ point of view, a choice is possible.
Ex.: Watching a game of chess is better than
watching a game of hockey.
- Writing a novel is better than reading one.
- Writing a song is better than singing or listening to one.
Etc. etc

If I want to call work, entertainment ( it might be for some), then mindless work is the least desirable.

One certainly has to take a break from ‘directed thinking’, like:
a) Seeing the world, nature, with the ‘heart’, letting thoughts go by.
b) Watching entertainment that requires little concentration (or thinking). Ex.: musical entertainment, etc.
c) A break could also be had by directing my thinking to a new subject.
d) Directed thinking that involves physical exercise. Ex.: any physical sport.
Irrelevant to my point here (as it would take me too far) is the pertinent question:” Has all ‘directed thinking” the same value?

Do I know why I believe what I believe? To the degree that I know, I’m a thinker and as thinking differentiates me as a human, I’m therefore to that same degree more human.
However, only if I believe that my spirit is an advance, a progress on my mineral, vegetable, animal constituents of my being, only then can I find normal and desirable a further progress in the direction of maximized intellect.
So then, entertainment is not my ‘beef’, but minimal thinking is.

The ‘breaks’ in my life (this is where entertainment comes in) should not take the greatest part of my life.
The ‘breaks’ with the most ‘thinking’ have more value.
So because I think that some entertainment have minimum thinking value, does not permit me to say that all entertainment is undesirable or a waste of time.
What I should have thought is that excessive minimal thinking in one’s life is not desirable.

Does anybody care?
 
Obviously, every one of the points I made here could be analyzed and expanded at great length …not today.