Comments on: The Shamans of Scientism http://www.michaelshermer.com/2002/06/shamans-of-scientism/ books, essays, columns, reviews, and multimedia clips of famed skeptic Michael Shermer Tue, 20 Jul 2010 13:08:23 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0 By: Bill Cahalan http://www.michaelshermer.com/2002/06/shamans-of-scientism/comment-page-1/#comment-1506 Bill Cahalan Sat, 31 May 2008 20:49:13 +0000 http://michaelshermer.com/writing/2002/06/01/shamans-of-scientism/#comment-1506 Many of the above comments seem to present science and religion, and maybe science and philosophy, as essentially opposed. I'm with the camp which sees these as more and more complementary as time goes on, as evidenced by a growing number of impressive writings. It's impossible to be scientific without engaging constantly in acts of non-scientific faith, such as asserting the belief that science is the most important way of attaining knowledge. That's not scientifically testable. Most industrial citizens, including astrophysicists, believe that Earth orbits the Sun, and that the Sun is much bigger than Earth; we who believe these "facts" are mostly trusting in what other scientists have actually tested, not our own testing or observations. Etc. Likewise, 20th century science has revealed an immense, expanding, evolving, self-organizing Universe, in which sub-atomic reality is ultimately mysterious. This has inspired much religious exploration and in many cases a much-expanded image of divinity. Such exploration can be engaged in by scientists, but is philosophical/theological in nature, not scientific. Science needs religion (without which it veers toward scientism), and religion needs science. May growthful dialogue, rather than narrow-minded criticism between religion, philosophy, and science blossom in the coming decades! (See Michael Dowd's new book Thank God for Evolution, Sarah Maitland's A Joyful Theology, and also iras.org-- Institute for Religion in an Age of Science) Many of the above comments seem to present science and religion, and maybe science and philosophy, as essentially opposed. I’m with the camp which sees these as more and more complementary as time goes on, as evidenced by a growing number of impressive writings. It’s impossible to be scientific without engaging constantly in acts of non-scientific faith, such as asserting the belief that science is the most important way of attaining knowledge. That’s not scientifically testable. Most industrial citizens, including astrophysicists, believe that Earth orbits the Sun, and that the Sun is much bigger than Earth; we who believe these “facts” are mostly trusting in what other scientists have actually tested, not our own testing or observations. Etc. Likewise, 20th century science has revealed an immense, expanding, evolving, self-organizing Universe, in which sub-atomic reality is ultimately mysterious. This has inspired much religious exploration and in many cases a much-expanded image of divinity. Such exploration can be engaged in by scientists, but is philosophical/theological in nature, not scientific. Science needs religion (without which it veers toward scientism), and religion needs science. May growthful dialogue, rather than narrow-minded criticism between religion, philosophy, and science blossom in the coming decades! (See Michael Dowd’s new book Thank God for Evolution, Sarah Maitland’s A Joyful Theology, and also iras.org– Institute for Religion in an Age of Science)

]]> By: Rodrigo http://www.michaelshermer.com/2002/06/shamans-of-scientism/comment-page-1/#comment-1179 Rodrigo Wed, 30 Apr 2008 19:34:28 +0000 http://michaelshermer.com/writing/2002/06/01/shamans-of-scientism/#comment-1179 I think most of the comments missed the whole point of the article. Mainly, the one who asked "why use the term 'scientism' with its often pejorative connotation"? When Shermer uses the word "scientism", he certainly considers its pejorative connotation, but instead of simply rejecting or substituting the term, he embraces it as a distinction marker between two kind of -isms: scientism and religious -isms (Christianism, Islamism etc.). Yes, there is an -ism within the assumption that science can explain all kinds of phenomena. We could only say so if all there is to be known were already known and scientifically explained. In this particular sense, scientism is faith-based. But similarities stop there. While religious -isms profess the hopes for a better future for mankind in a dogmatic worldview, scientism base them in science, which is always open to dispute. Science, though, is itself as indifferent to scientism as it is to religions. All science does is asking, previously assuming there might be answers, but not necessarily what the answers are. These only come after a lot of hard work and can never be called truly definitive, although some of them are more established than others. I think most of the comments missed the whole point of the article. Mainly, the one who asked “why use the term ‘scientism’ with its often pejorative connotation”?
When Shermer uses the word “scientism”, he certainly considers its pejorative connotation, but instead of simply rejecting or substituting the term, he embraces it as a distinction marker between two kind of -isms: scientism and religious -isms (Christianism, Islamism etc.).
Yes, there is an -ism within the assumption that science can explain all kinds of phenomena. We could only say so if all there is to be known were already known and scientifically explained. In this particular sense, scientism is faith-based.
But similarities stop there. While religious -isms profess the hopes for a better future for mankind in a dogmatic worldview, scientism base them in science, which is always open to dispute.
Science, though, is itself as indifferent to scientism as it is to religions. All science does is asking, previously assuming there might be answers, but not necessarily what the answers are. These only come after a lot of hard work and can never be called truly definitive, although some of them are more established than others.

]]> By: MJJ http://www.michaelshermer.com/2002/06/shamans-of-scientism/comment-page-1/#comment-1013 MJJ Tue, 08 Apr 2008 22:01:16 +0000 http://michaelshermer.com/writing/2002/06/01/shamans-of-scientism/#comment-1013 >Why use the term “scientism” with its often pejorative connotation? Let’s simply call it “science”. Understandable by anyone but our highest elected officials. The term scientism is used by philosophers to denote those who follow this belief. It is well described in the article above. Since philosophers have effectively shown this belief to be self-refuting, it is appropriate for the term be used as a pejorative. >Why use the term “scientism” with its often pejorative connotation? Let’s simply call it “science”. Understandable by anyone but our highest elected officials.

The term scientism is used by philosophers to denote those who follow this belief. It is well described in the article above. Since philosophers have effectively shown this belief to be self-refuting, it is appropriate for the term be used as a pejorative.

]]> By: PeteK http://www.michaelshermer.com/2002/06/shamans-of-scientism/comment-page-1/#comment-269 PeteK Mon, 28 Jan 2008 16:19:15 +0000 http://michaelshermer.com/writing/2002/06/01/shamans-of-scientism/#comment-269 Well yes, evolution is still happening in some lineages. Creation isn't a once and for all event, but an ongoing process... Well yes, evolution is still happening in some lineages. Creation isn’t a once and for all event, but an ongoing process…

]]> By: Gus Spoon http://www.michaelshermer.com/2002/06/shamans-of-scientism/comment-page-1/#comment-158 Gus Spoon Mon, 21 Jan 2008 16:17:24 +0000 http://michaelshermer.com/writing/2002/06/01/shamans-of-scientism/#comment-158 I like the idea that God is the ultimate and inevitable concluding result of the evolution process and that some are still evolving. I like the idea that God is the ultimate and inevitable concluding result of the evolution process and that some are still evolving.

]]> By: Gus Spoon http://www.michaelshermer.com/2002/06/shamans-of-scientism/comment-page-1/#comment-157 Gus Spoon Mon, 21 Jan 2008 16:07:15 +0000 http://michaelshermer.com/writing/2002/06/01/shamans-of-scientism/#comment-157 Science is not in the business of proving or disproving God's existence. Science deals with repeatable experiential observation in the physical universe up to a certain limit which it now appears to have reached. Hawkins thinks outside the box; he can never go there; what is the use? Science is not in the business of proving or disproving God’s existence.

Science deals with repeatable experiential observation in the physical universe up to a certain limit which it now appears to have reached.

Hawkins thinks outside the box; he can never go there; what is the use?

]]> By: PeteK http://www.michaelshermer.com/2002/06/shamans-of-scientism/comment-page-1/#comment-122 PeteK Sat, 19 Jan 2008 22:33:01 +0000 http://michaelshermer.com/writing/2002/06/01/shamans-of-scientism/#comment-122 Perhaps Hawking doesn't answer God questions because he is a scientist, and God (as defined in the physicists' way) is supposed to be beyond science, beyond the physical universe. Something that is beyond the physical universe is by definition outside of science's aegis. Science describes the physical universe, its evolution from the first thousandths of a second after the Big Bang, to the present. But it doesn't explain why any universe exists to be described, why the universe contains the things it does, why science works at all, etc...But then again, Bronze Age creation stories cannot either. Everything within the physical universe is caused by, or influenced by, something else within the physical universe - life, for instance..but the Universe itself, all of existence demands an explanation from without. Such a god would be beyond human comprehension, and therefore meaningless even to discuss. That is roughly what Hawking means when he speaks about God. Not the traditional, old man in the sky with a white beard who created the world in 6 days 6000 years ago...Dawkins mentions the difference in Chapter One of the God Delusion, parceling religion into familiar supernatural religion, and Einsteinian religion. This difference can lead to a lot of misconceptions and misunderstandings... Perhaps Hawking doesn’t answer God questions because he is a scientist, and God (as defined in the physicists’ way) is supposed to be beyond science, beyond the physical universe. Something that is beyond the physical universe is by definition outside of science’s aegis.

Science describes the physical universe, its evolution from the first thousandths of a second after the Big Bang, to the present. But it doesn’t explain why any universe exists to be described, why the universe contains the things it does, why science works at all, etc…But then again, Bronze Age creation stories cannot either.

Everything within the physical universe is caused by, or influenced by, something else within the physical universe – life, for instance..but the Universe itself, all of existence demands an explanation from without. Such a god would be beyond human comprehension, and therefore meaningless even to discuss.

That is roughly what Hawking means when he speaks about God. Not the traditional, old man in the sky with a white beard who created the world in 6 days 6000 years ago…Dawkins mentions the difference in Chapter One of the God Delusion, parceling religion into familiar supernatural religion, and Einsteinian religion. This difference can lead to a lot of misconceptions and misunderstandings…

]]> By: Todd Laurence http://www.michaelshermer.com/2002/06/shamans-of-scientism/comment-page-1/#comment-75 Todd Laurence Sun, 13 Jan 2008 15:05:25 +0000 http://michaelshermer.com/writing/2002/06/01/shamans-of-scientism/#comment-75 "the real universe is within, and what is outwardly seen is only secondary." http://www.groundreport.com/article.php?articleID=2837166 "entelekk" - numomathematics “the real universe is within, and what is outwardly
seen is only secondary.”

http://www.groundreport.com/article.php?articleID=2837166

“entelekk” – numomathematics

]]> By: David H. Slack http://www.michaelshermer.com/2002/06/shamans-of-scientism/comment-page-1/#comment-65 David H. Slack Thu, 10 Jan 2008 19:51:01 +0000 http://michaelshermer.com/writing/2002/06/01/shamans-of-scientism/#comment-65 Shermer, Dawkins, et al have pointed out on occassion how all of us social apes can fall into that mode of perception our heros being deified. Regardless of the intent of the article, it does remind me not to accept all the claims made by someone simply because of who they are. I, for one, tend to accept what Steven Hawking's state in his books because I do not have anywhere near the same level of understanding. However, unlike theology, scientific claims are up to dispute and open for discussion and experimentation. Shermer, Dawkins, et al have pointed out on occassion how all of us social apes can fall into that mode of perception our heros being deified. Regardless of the intent of the article, it does remind me not to accept all the claims made by someone simply because of who they are. I, for one, tend to accept what Steven Hawking’s state in his books because I do not have anywhere near the same level of understanding. However, unlike theology, scientific claims are up to dispute and open for discussion and experimentation.

]]> By: addicted http://www.michaelshermer.com/2002/06/shamans-of-scientism/comment-page-1/#comment-64 addicted Thu, 10 Jan 2008 17:32:50 +0000 http://michaelshermer.com/writing/2002/06/01/shamans-of-scientism/#comment-64 A lot of you are missing the year that this article was published i.e. 2002. At that time most of the US did not (at least openly) disparage Science like it does now, and with the tech boom, etc, there was much enthusiasm that science would be our guiding light for the future. A lot of you are missing the year that this article was published i.e. 2002. At that time most of the US did not (at least openly) disparage Science like it does now, and with the tech boom, etc, there was much enthusiasm that science would be our guiding light for the future.

]]>