Scientific Fundamentalism

This term has been bandied about on a number of threads on DU in the past few days. None of them adequately explain what is meant by scientific fundamentalism, at least to my satisfaction (go ahead, amuse me). Generally, the term is thrown out as a missive when one of us godless heathens mentions Christian or Islamic fundamentalists as being generally bad for society.

So here's your task, anti-scientific fundamentalists. Describe what you mean by the term. And you have to be specific. You can't just say greedy material reductionists and leave it at that. Fundamentalism means adhering to a core set of dogmas, so you need to detail what those dogmas are, where they come from, and why they do not change even in light of new information.

Show your work.

But I'll be surprised if anyone takes you up on it. Much easier to bash the strawman.

But if God really is "Truth" and "Love" then we aren't contradicting ourselves...

All you've done is assume your conclusion, and that leaves us no better off than we were prior to the discussion.

If it is your assertion that God is "Love" or "Truth," whatever that might mean, then you should probably be able to demonstrate this in some way. Does God represent all Love? What about all Truth? Is he just a synonym for each? Can we interact with either in a way that lets us perceive them as separate from God? If so, then what is the difference between them? If not, then how can we determine whether it's "only" Love or "only" Truth, as opposed to God-love or God-truth?

Science has many definitions. In light of fundamentals, science is a description of reality. It has to be as accurate as the state of the art permits and has to operate in terms of what is known about reality.

The term "fundamentalism" has acquired too much baggage through its use to describe magic and other experience that demands conditions outside of repeatability and can substitute belief for provability.

Science has to work all the time, for anybody and everybody, no matter what the actor thinks about it.

Given that fundamentalism implies an unwillingness to incorporate unpleasant demonstrable contrary verifiable experience, it cannot apply to the study of science.

This is an interesting, thought provoking question.

the fact that the scientific community didn't want to endorse (or express any respect for) ID or creationism. But my experiences are probably colored by living here in Kansas, where we just had another knock-down-drag-out fight over teaching evolution in schools. I don't really understand how science can be fundamentalist, when doing science requires us to be open to new discoveries, as long as they're verifiable.

in the sense used by the conservatives.

However I have used the term "scientific fundamentalist" as follows:



<edit: fix typo by adding not in subject line>

One common dogmatic belief is that cells come from other cells. Clearly this has a problem in how the first cell came about since it had no cellular precursor But it is still pretty regularly taught to freshman biology students as part of the triad of beliefs that form the fundamental tenets of "cell theory." And the fact that all contemporary cells come from other cells is sufficiently useful in everyday biology to overcome the issue of the Ur cell.

My experience is that part of the wonder of science is its ongoing tension between resistance to change (a classic definition of conservatism) and the desire to attack the existing structure to reveal and overcome its flaws.

first, and most importantly, science concerns approximations to the truth -- and its theories seem always to concern events with some spatial and temporal limitations: nobody ever engages in infinite regress arguments in science (as one might in mathematics) and takes the results of such arguments seriously

second, often typically different from children; even in the monocellular level, gene expression can depend on environment and cell-history; in any case, certainly after a number of generations, the descendant is unlikely to be identical with the ancestor; thus, an abstraction such as "cell" (which is, after all, intended to be a word describing a class of things, none of which may really be the same) does not necessarily mean the same thing after long periods of time -- so in fact the "ur cell" becomes a purely ideological abstraction. If one tries to peer into the remote past, based on the evidence one can gather here and now, it's possible to make some reasonable guesses about what we might call "urly cells" but ...

either in our understanding or in nature. Both the prevailing chemistry of the planet and the details of life have changed. So yes, I agree that the notion that cells as we know them in their current diversity came from something rather unlike they are today is not a problem for biologists at all. It is quite possible that early life created an RNA based world, rather than the DNA based genetics we now accept as the norm.

But our shared belief in the notion that descent occurs with hereditary modification is actually another well accepted (and well established) dogma. At any rate, it is the issue of dogma within contemporary biology, as illustrated by one of the tenets of cell theory, that I was trying to point out. Not really anything about the issue of the Ur cells.

With respect to "scientific fundamentalism" I think it quite a misnomer. Fundamentalist are generally focused on literal meanings taken from some unchanging fount of knowledge. Science doesn't create an unchanging fount of knowledge.

The construction of shared conceptual understanding we call the "body of science" despite it's value and strength is nothing more than currently prevailing reasoned assertions of the meaning of our observations. Scientists expect that current understanding is neither complete or without flaw. However, some of the things we know are quite enduring and seem so true and so useful that they go unchallenged and will continue to do so until something outside of ordinary everyday science (typically within the milieu of prevailing ideas rather than being aimed at replacing them) occurs to introduce a paradigm shift in prevailing thinking. These things, like the simple tenets of "the cell theory" become dogma.

That doesn't mean that there are no "scientific fundamentalists" -- it merely means that such people will be limited in their ability to do good science

There was once a "Fundamental Dogma of Molecular Biology" -- that stated DNA was always copied to RNA, never the other way around. It is true often enough to have been very useful as a working hypothesis for a generation of molecular biologists -- but to understand retroviruses, it was necessary to abandon the "fundamental dogma"

While the name "Fundamental Dogma" may have been a bit of a joke, it is nevertheless true that not everyone who receives a scientific education is really able to think flexibly about well-established (but possibly still inaccurate) scientific ideas: there really are some people with scientific training who remain very rigid in their thinking and hence are unable to innovate. Frankly, there's a trade-off: a willingness, to quickly cast aside ideas that have worked well in many contexts, can also be a symptom of a crank

Maybe I misunderstood what you were saying about an "ur cell" -- but "cell" to me is an abstraction just as "human" is. My definition of human doesn't include "has two heads" and yet there are instances of the real class that the abstraction doesn't cover. It's impossible to deduce real facts by reasoning from abstract definitions -- although this is the aim of scientific theory building. So a regression argument that leads to some "problem of ur cells" shouldn't be taken too seriously by anyone except a dogmatist

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_fundamentalism

or this:

http://www.cjas.org/~leng/scifund.txt

It's not like I made up the term, is it?

I've heard that argument before, and don't completely understand it. By definition, science isn't the field for speculations about a higher power.... science is concerned with measurable physical phenomena. If there is a higher power directing those phenomena, we're not likely to be able to prove that scientifically. That is outside the realm of science.

I think an SF isn't a scientist, but a layman. My problem is with people who refuse to consider ID and yet many of them cannot tell you why they believe in evolution. They take it from authority.

Second, ID is a new creation, but as I understand it if you found a curiously shaped rock in the woods. You could study it (perhaps fairly quickly) to determine whether it was created by a tool-using species or by wind and water. Same for a formation of rocks. Is it a former house or just a random clump of rocks. Grottenstein is pretty crude, but it was designed. What are the steps used to distinguish between something designed and something which is more natural? Bit of a jump to go from a castle or tool to an entire planet, but why is it unscientific to even consider the possibility?

When somebody comes up with a new argument call me.

What are the steps used to distinguish between something designed and something which is more natural?

In the cases you meantion we have specific knowledge about the differences between natural processes engaged in the formation of structures and human processes.

but why is it unscientific to even consider the possibility?

It is not. What is unscientific is to waste time on hypotheses that cannot go anywhere.

Unlike the above case we simple CANNOT make such a distinction in biology. Despite the best efforts of IDers they simply cannot define what the difference between 'designed' and 'non-designed' life would be. The very best so far has been totally flawed statistical arguments. THE VERY BEST. The whole 'too complex' argument is a non-starter for design - if there's one thing we do know about design from the way we design is that WE DO NOT strive for complexity - we strive for simplicity.

If anything the complexity of life is an argument AGAINST design.

What about Oparin then? It's untestable, cannot be duplicated in a lab, and yet it is taught - to children or youth, as the way that life 'probably' began. How scientific is that? I think Oparin is the creationists real enemy more than Darwin is, although some call that 'chemical evolution'. However, my research on the local textbooks found that they both mentioned 'creation' as another possibility.

Speciation is another funny subject. For example tigers and lions. Do they have a common ancestor? What about housecats? Lately I learned that tigers and lions can interbreed and produce viable offspring. So are they really a different species, or more like different breeds? Can a housecat breed with a puma? Is that more absurd than a recorded instance of a chihuahua breeding with a sleeping female great dane?

What about all the nonsense that physicists research and write about what happened in the first 10E-60th second of the big bang? How testable is that? And where does it go?

It's not just human activity though, because nature contains beaver damns, squirrel nests, beehives, etc. There is building and burrowing going on all the time.

It's hardly untestable - it at least puts forward a falsifiable hypothesis.

Speciation is another funny subject. For example tigers and lions. Do they have a common ancestor? What about housecats? Lately I learned that tigers and lions can interbreed and produce viable offspring. So are they really a different species, or more like different breeds?

There are no clear cut lines. It is fuzzy all the way. The important point is that the offspring of lions and tigers are:

a) Reduced in reproductive capability
b) Only possible due to captivity

The fact that lions and tigers can produce offspring is indeed strong evidence for a distant ancestor - and the fact that the offspring are not viable just shows how geographic separation and genetic drift have created two differing organisms. Given enough time they would eventually be completely incompatible.

Taxonomy is after all a human construct - an abstraction. Biology does not care if it makes our abstractions incomplete.

Can a housecat breed with a puma? Is that more absurd than a recorded instance of a chihuahua breeding with a sleeping female great dane?

I have no idea about the specific reproductive potential of a domestic cat/great cat - although I strongly suspect there is none - dogs are not very divergent at all. Genetically small changes have led to the wide variety of breeds - just showing how powerful small changes actually are.

What about all the nonsense that physicists research and write about what happened in the first 10E-60th second of the big bang? How testable is that?

It is not at all testable - what you have there is the mapping of observational data to a theoretical framework. It's really not that different to any other case of this done in science except we're talking about an extreme case. Again new observations could change anything.

It's not just human activity though, because nature contains beaver damns, squirrel nests, beehives, etc. There is building and burrowing going on all the time.

We again have reference points for these sorts of activities.

it's just that their habitat mostly does not over-lap.

There is no observational data at 10E-60 seconds after the big bang, so I am not sure how they are mapping observational data to a theoretical framework. Nor is Oparin testable. For one thing we have no way of determining the compostion of either the primordial atmosphere or oceans.

Badly written high school textbooks overemphasize Oparin.

knowledge. I have never seen the other side of the moon, but I believe it's there and could confirm it if I had the money to fly on a rocket. I believe in microscopic organisms for the same reason: no, I can't see them, but I can see the effects they leave behind, and could confirm their existence with the right equipment. Belief in a creator is also from authority, yet there is nothing to confirm beyond "take my word and I'll take your tithe."

Yes, I refuse to consider ID for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is the complete inability to prove it. Teach ID all day in philosophy class, or intro to fiction or comparative religion or even in a language class, but it has no place in a science class. Zero. I would say the same for astrology.

Your example to discuss and study if something is created or designed is flawed - when you get to a certain point you have to leave science behind and faith is the only thing you have left. If you have a godometer, then I suppose you could study it, but I fail to see the point without some way to confirm that belief.

What created God? Was he designed or did he evolve from something else?

Scientists don't refuse to consider intelligent design simply because they're stubborn or incapable of abandoning convictions that they currently hold. They refuse to consider it because the evidence in favor of it is non-existent and because the evidence in favor of evolution is overwhelming. It's all about the evidence. The rational, skeptical, scientific position is that the strength of our convictions should be directly related to the strength of the evidence supporting them. To accept things in the absence of evidence and reason, except when you have no other choice, or to reject things with strong evidence in their favor is irrational and unscientific. Granted, the evaluation of the weight that should be given to evidence is always a gray area, which is why science works as a collective and constantly self-correcting endeavor. Religion does not, which is where the fundamental(ist) difference lies.

Not sure what you mean about a higher power though. Would a highly advanced alien being able to do things that seem like magic to us be a "higher power"? The study of one such would certainly not be outside the realm of science. And if you mean a supernatural being, there is no such thing. Nature and natural laws would still encompass such a being, like it or not, and it would still be understandable (at least in principle, if not in practice) by the methods of science.

discussion about "scientific fundamentalism" boiled down to the fight over ID/creationism/religion, or whether there was some other meaning to the term. Looks like there isn't. While we were fighting over teaching evolution here in Kansas, I heard every ID argument under the sun, and none stood up to scrutiny. There seems to be a basic disagreement about what science is, or should be, with many groups seeking scientific status for their opinions. (Have you read The Republican War on Science? I consider this one more aspect of that war.)

Welcome to DU, BTW. It's good to see fellow skeptics. :hi:

The whole notion of "scientific fundamentalism" is just an invention by religionists and post-modernists trying to paint science as "just another belief system". The post-modernists are just sore because science works so much better than whatever the heck it is THEY do, and the religionists would like to see the same restrictions on teaching science in public schools that the Constitution requires them to live with. But neither group can get past the fact that science requires no belief-it gets tested every minute of every day and works very, very well at what it purports to do, and that its knowledge and understanding constantly improve, something they cannot claim for their own fields of thought.

The wiki entry is borderline worthless. The only information it contained that was of any value whatsoever, was the two warnings that the entry did not adhere to the quality standards of wikipedia, nor did it cite any references. That about sums up the rest of the entry.

The second post was funny. Clearly written by a former student of Professor Provine of Cornell University, it had all the standard boilerplate Discovery Institute language, but was tailored as an attack on Provine. But just to show that I actually read the thing completion, let me address the amusing list of things to watch out for when watching a documentary about the solar system on the Science Channel.

1. How many times does the program state or imply that there might be an
explanation or answer to the problem that they are addressing that
lies outside of the field of science? It could be a solution from the
arts, from literature, from recreation, morality, or philosophy--not
just religion.

Your watching a science documentary and are upset that it doesn't cover how Shakespeare's Sonnets are just as valid as Kepler's Laws in explaining planetary motion. Look, the reason we have literature, arts, and philosophy is to cover ideas outside the boundary of science. If you want to an exciting discussion of Shakespeare, I suggest tuning to another channel.

2. How many times does the program acknowledge the fact that there is
more to the cosmos than physical matter? Is there any attention paid
to metaphysics, non-Euclidean mathematics, dimensional forces beyond
time, morality, or energy that is not mechanical in nature?

Actually, non-Euclidean mathematics comes up frequently in most discussions of cosmology. Space is curved, you know. Time and energy are quantifiable and can be measured. Morality? What the hell does that have to do with planetary mechanics? Again, I'm watching the Science channel. If I want morality, I'll turn to PBS's Religion and Ethics Weekly.

3. Is there any content in the program that portrays another solution to
the problem being considered other than science? Are solutions from
the arts, metaphysics, etc., mentioned in any kind of a positive way?

Last time I watched a documentary on the Science channel relating to the solar system, they had some very nice pictures from renaissance.

4. Is blind mechanistic opportunistic chance the only possibility given
as to how a particular event occurred?

No, in fact both Newton and Kepler were quite clear on this point.

5. How many times does the program denigrate and ridicule religion in
selling its solution to whatever problem it is addressing?

Many times. In fact geocentric Ptolemists are mercilessly ridiculed anytime cosmology documentaries are presented on the Science Channel. Fucking extremists.

in other words, someone who thinks that secular ideas and justifications ought to be privileged over sectarian religious ones in the public political discouse.

They use it to attack science as "just another grand narrative." And since Postmodernists are Relativists of the Social Constructivist variety (that is, the notion that there is no true reality and thus everything is a social construction) the implication is that science is no more "true" then mythology, religion, and superstition.

I've noticed a dangerous trend as of late of religious wackos and new agey luddites using postmodernist rhetoric to push their agenda.

Take one to the top of a very tall building. Push him off. Shout to him that his falling to his death wasn't gravity, but only one possible reality. Hopefully, the judge is also a postmodernist. Or better yet, a poststructuralist. Those are even better.

:evilgrin:

Never heard it put quite so well.

(though that's the fight I have the most experience with, and am the most tired of). Over the past few years, there's been a concerted attempt to discredit science and imply that truth is all relative, regardless of what the evidence says.

Attacks on the science of global warming.
Attacks on the science of immunization.
And so on.

Folks on the left and right don't like it when science upsets their worldview. Unable to defend their views, they instead attack science as not having the authority to make any claims in the first place. I would love to think it signals the beginning of the end for irrational viewpoints, but we could never be that lucky.

I fear it will lead to a particularization of civil society, with each little group holding on to thier own "absolute truth" and anyone who attacks their BS is called "insensitive to other cultures" or "Western-centric." That is why I oppose, for the most part, laws requiring ancient Native American remains to be reburied, such laws favor Native American religious beliefs out of this notion that not doing so is "culturally insensitive."

The terms are mutually exclusive.

A scientist must admit that any worthwhile hypothesis MUST be falsifiable. Contradictory evidence must result in a new hypothesis.

A fundamentalist Must never admit that a hypothesis is falsifiable. Contradictory evidence must be rejected to protect the hypothesis.

It is much like calling someone shit4brains. We all know that feces can't really function as a brain even though sometimes it seems that way. And we also know that a scientist can't be called a fundamentalist unless the name caller tortures the definitions to conform to their semantic argument. And people who do that are called shit4brains. :)

Could come up with such a well reasoned argument.

"I'll do the stupid thing first and then you shy people follow."

Science is all about falsification, looking at the evidence, and revising one's position on conceptual issues. What is there to be a fundamentalist about? I mean, I believe pretty strongly in the theory of evolution such that if someone tells me that they think it's a bunch of crock I'll just laugh really hard. But if solid evidence ever surfaces that can better account for how we got to be who we are than evolution can I'll give it a good sober look. So I may be kind of a scientific asshole on certain counts, but my mind is always open.

Its so simple and elegant, and conforms to observation so well, that it is close to impossible to imagine that there is an alternative. But if there was good evidence against it, all the scientists I know would be on that like white on rice...dessiminating, changing their hypothesis, etc. It would be in all the scientific journals, etc.

But no viable alternative has EVER been offered, and having studied evolution for the past 4 years, I am about 99.99 percent sure that no alternative will EVER be offered.

And ID....ID is bullshit, through and through.

when I would regard people as ignorant for dismissing evolution that I would be regarded as a scientific fundamentalist. It's not that I don't have an open mind, it's that I have no time for closed ones.

The anti-science PoMo BS the Creationists get their rhetoric from is based on a misinterpretation of the philosopher of science Thomas Kuhn ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Samuel_Kuhn ). They use that BS to argue that "Darwinism" is just another "dogmatic paradigm."

Please...just name a person or two who is a sci fundie. You get bonus points if you can show any sci fundies who have set off car bombs or who have caused the death of others.

The math in this case is easy.

Fundie = word that has changed to mean something bad...violent or idiot religionists.

Atheist = people who can say uncomfortable things.

hmmm...we don't like fundies, we don't like atheists, and we want to feel like we are the "good middle" between this people...I KNOW!!!

ATHEIST = FUNDAMENTALIST.

The Grand Council of the Non-Divine, in it's infinite wisdom, compassion, and presence too pity on us intellectual apprentices and compiled for us the Truth.

Okay I can't keep a straight face anymore. I never get why some religious individuals keep wanting to refer to atheist fundamentalists. What are we fundamentalists about? I would really like an answer to that on...

People who use terms like that are completely ignorant of what fundamentalism is. But why am I suprised...if there is anything the RT forum has taught me, is that words mean nothing, and absolutely anything, at the same time.

There are no "fundamentals" in atheism except "I have no belief in god". If you want to argue that ALL atheists are fundamentalist atheists, based on the the fact that they have no belief in god, then okay..sure, whatever. But otherwise, your being an ignorant ass.

Its just a cheap attempt at insulting people, and thats all it is.

It does strike me that I have seen words used here in very odd ways. Perhaps when you are able to believe in god, you're also granted authority to go ahead and use the language that we've all agreed upon in any way you choose. For example, belief can mean evidence, science can mean religion, and fundamentalism can mean skepticism. :crazy:

Notice how many times the concepts of theism devolve into simple word games. No one here would say "Evolution is just a theory", but we've had similar sophistry show up in just about every discussion.

I've been told that god isn't "supernatural" because some people find the concept of god to be quite "natural"; that the definition of "objective" is a personal choice; that god clearly "exisits" but is not a "being". All of these statements fall to pieces when subjected to even casual inspection, but they allow the debater to make points that at least sound good at the moment.

As cyborg_jim pointed out, this type of wordplay may be the last refuge for theology. There's really no way for modern, rational humans to deny the crushing logical flaws of the religious texts or the overwhelming scientific evidence against salvationist beliefs. The only thing left is to abandon logic completely and hide among the vague and capricious structures of an organic system like human language.

The object, of course, is not to convince an opponent of anything. It's simply a desperate attempt to cling to anything that can maintain your own beliefs until that nasty rational person gives up and goes away. Sadly, I'm reminded of the polar bears, casting around for the few remaining ice flows as modern society melts the underlying structure of their lives.

Fundie doesn't always = bad / violent.

Fundamentalism is not a substitute for "idiot or violent". Fundamentalism actually MEANS something. That was why I was arguing that the term Atheist Fundamentalism is completely idiotic and nonsensical. Because the word is being applied wrong, as a means to insult others. There are NO fundamental tenets to atheism, there is no doctrine/structured system of belief for atheism....fundamentilism does not apply in the case of atheism.

Wasn't it?

I'm confused...

But yes, I've seen atheists compared to fundamentalists as well... in the whole theist vs. agnostic vs. atheist discussion.

If there are any "scientific fundamentals", they are thing like Evolution, Gravity, and Chemistry, that if you don't believe in, you are quite simply ignorant. These are things even religious people should "believe" in. But there is no "scientific bible", and you really have to stretch (or essentially tear apart) the word fundamentist, to apply it to science.

But besides that, I don't get what the complaint is. Who are these scientific fundamentalists? Where are they? I work in a university biology department, and I have never met one of these people. And what do they believe...they believe that science doesn't have limits? That science is always right?

I don't understand the term. Its dumb.

Again, not "fundamentals" but "fundamentalists". I would think that these are people who believe strongly in what is already established.

Suppose some experiment was to be devised which indicated that gravity might be an effect rather than a force. Would you think there would be a number of scientists who would fight to prove that that experiment was faulty, and rail against whatever evidence it produced? It doesn't seem too farfetched to me, considering what has gone on in the past.

It all depends on the definition of "fundamentalist". I'm not so familiar with the concept myself, but I've seen people on here who identify as fundamentalists who deny that that term means that one has to believe that the bible as written is literal fact. Until we can all agree on terms, discussions like these are sloppy at best, pointless at worst.

:rofl:

"It all depends on the definition of "fundamentalist". I'm not so familiar with the concept myself, but I've seen people on here who identify as fundamentalists who deny that that term means that one has to believe that the bible as written is literal fact. Until we can all agree on terms, discussions like these are sloppy at best, pointless at worst."

This is the point that I have tried to make over and over and over and over and over and over in this forum. The semantic games in this forum drive me batty. Like I said, calling people scientific fundamentalists is disengenious and is totally an insult game to make people of a certain demographic (leftists christian lites, as I call them) feel better about themselves.



"Suppose some experiment was to be devised which indicated that gravity might be an effect rather than a force. Would you think there would be a number of scientists who would fight to prove that that experiment was faulty, and rail against whatever evidence it produced? It doesn't seem too farfetched to me, considering what has gone on in the past. "

Yes, absolutely. But that is a HUGE claim...absolutely huge. So it would not only make sense, but it would be the job of scientists, to "rail against the evidence" in order to make sure its airtight. If it was, opinion would change. Unlike a lot of religionists, scientists don't make a scientific idea part of their identity. So if you attack a scientific idea, scientists don't feel like your attacking them. Not that their isn't some ego involved...scientists are human after all, but I have NEVER seen a scientist go nuts (like a christian fundamentalist) when you critique them (hell, I've been critiqued myself...and asked tough questions when presenting data. But I was never personally hurt by it).

There is no wordsmith "God" to hand down decisions from on high as to what "fundamentalist" is supposed to mean to everyone. Sorry that science falls apart in discussions of a philosophical nature, but there it is.

You may be right that some (most even, perhaps) use these uncertainties to "make people of a certain demographic feel better about themselves", however that is not how I'm using it. I'm only attempting to answer the question.

You're right that scientists, even if they have to be dragged kicking and screaming into accepting new ideas (by that I mean they will not even consider the validity until the evidence is overwhelming), will eventually do so. (However, is that even true? Are ALL doctors pro-vaccination? Are ALL dentists pro-flouride? I'm not sure...)

As for your not seeing someone "go nuts", that's anecdotal, and somewhat insulting to people here. As I said before, people here have said that they are fundamentalists, and that it does not mean that they are crazy and will 'go nuts' if their beliefs are challenged.

"As for your not seeing someone "go nuts", that's anecdotal, and somewhat insulting to people here. As I said before, people here have said that they are fundamentalists, and that it does not mean that they are crazy and will 'go nuts' if their beliefs are challenged."

At least I have anecdotal evidence for that statement, which your right...it means nothing. But...

"You're right that scientists, even if they have to be dragged kicking and screaming into accepting new ideas "

At least I know fundamentilists who go "nuts" when their beliefs are questioned (you may not believe this, but one of my best friends is a fundie, who almost lost it on me after I whittled down his beliefs). Do you know any scientists who, "have to be dragged kicking and screaming into accepting new ideas?" I know many scientists, and I can't say that applies to any one of them.

who still believes in the Reagan miracle.

I don't believe any sort of person is 100% uninclined toward irrational behavior. :)

I guess I'm not really supposed to chime in here... but I did want to say this:

In the past, there have been groups of scientists who have been resistant to new information. Many scientists appeared to cling desperately to Newtonian physics, despite new evidence which showed it did not apply at the micro level. Similarly, some paleontologists were upset by the notion that birds and dinosaurs may have evolved along separate lines... or how it was birds started flying... whatever it is... the point is that scientists can also cling to "beliefs" despite new evidence, just like any other group of humans. Not all, mind... but some.

So... I'm pretty sure that's not how the term is most often used here, but still... it does exist, IMO.

"In the past, there have been groups of scientists who have been resistant to new information. Many scientists appeared to cling desperately to Newtonian physics, despite new evidence which showed it did not apply at the micro level."

Can you provide some sort of link or article about this? Or is this "common knowledge"? How many scientists "clinged desperately"? Was it thousands or hundreds?


" Similarly, some paleontologists were upset by the notion that birds and dinosaurs may have evolved along separate lines... or how it was birds started flying..."

Upset? Or suspicious of the new idea? What paleontologists? Where did you read this?


" whatever it is... the point is that scientists can also cling to "beliefs" despite new evidence, just like any other group of humans. Not all, mind... but some."

Science is inherently conservative, that is true. Sometimes, if a theory has a lot going for it, new evidence takes awhile to be incorporated...and that is how it should be, isn't it. How many scientists do you know that "cling to beliefs"? Can you give me an example? Or is it just a blanket statement that you assume is true?

Does that have anything to do with scientific fundamentalism though? I thought that term had more to do with people who supposedly thought of "science as a religion",not people who disagreed with other scientific theories.

that many scientists, even very influential and well-respected ones, had a lot of trouble accepting even the very notion of quantum physics. I would suspect it was only hundreds... as there aren't so many physicists are there? Who knows, maybe it was thousands.

Upset at the popularity of the notion, and suspicious of the reasoning behind the theories. You can read it in lots of places. I can't remember the guy's name... but the first guy to theorize it was ridiculed by most others in the field. I thought it was pretty big news, actually.

I didn't guess as to how many would rather cling to what they believe is true rather than openly consider new theories / evidence. So whether or not I personally know any is beside the point, wouldn't you say? Isn't their very existence enough? Also, I don't have to assume it's true. It is true. It's well demonstrated throughout history.

There we go again with semantics. :)

When a Hypothesis, especially if extremely different and/or radical, is introduced in Scientific Journals, it is attacked, repeatedly and relentlessly, if it holds up to the extensive testing, observation, and experiments, then it, eventually, is allowed the privilege of being called a Theory. Even then, many Scientists will never be satisfied, and will continue to test this theory, using any new information available and may even refine it or replace it entirely, in time.

The point of the Scientific process is to NOT rely on ONE source of "authority" and also has a strong dose of healthy skepticism when a new hypothesis is introduced. This is a reason why all genuine Scientific Journals are peer-reviewed, any time a scientist introduces a hypothesis to the scientific community, its a challenge to say: "Try to prove me wrong."

While science does have its rock stars, Einstein and Hawking are two examples, this doesn't mean that Scientists take what they said or theorized as gospel. In fact, Einstein was wrong on Quantum Mechanics, but that isn't the point, the point is that Quantum Mechanics is now a generally accepted, if still challenged theory, as all of them are, and no one person can derail science because of how the scientific process works.

Yes, science is conservative, and it works best that way, the reason is because just because an idea or hypothesis is new, doesn't mean it is right, and you cannot ask a scientist to just accept a hypothesis as a valid theory without challenging it first.

There are new hypothesises proposed EVERY DAMNED DAY in scientific journals, and most do not stand up to scrutiny by other scientists that view them and test them. Its a self correcting process, that never ends, and hopefully new will, otherwise we would know EVERYTHING, and then where would the joy of discovery come from then?

Your post #58 is an interesting case of scientists acting like humans, big freakin' deal, so which hypothesis was correct again?

Scientists aren't robots, and, back in the 1830s, they weren't even called scientists yet! Yes, the scientific method was implemented in various ways since Greek Philosophers thought of it almost 3000 years ago. However, the professionalism that goes along with that is much more recent, the latter half of the 19th Century. Just like in every other professional field, there are feuds, name calling and all sorts of nastiness that goes along with that. Even today, some feuds come up, and nastiness ensues, and while this is generally frowned upon, as being unprofessional, scientists still make new discoveries, and test new hypothesis.

If you want to see nastiness like the post you made, then you should see Mathematicians! What you posted was tame compared to how these guys sometimes attack each other, yet it doesn't change the fact that 2+2=4.

Rq: .. scientists .. have been resistant to new information ..
Em: Do you know this for a fact? ...
Rq: .. many would rather cling to what they believe is true .. than openly consider new theories ..
Sn: You seem to not understand the scientific process <followed by a song-and-dance the way it's supposed to be>

Me: <It ain't necessarily so>

I understand the process just fine.

And when evidence is discovered, it should be accepted. In the past, it has not been. Einstein was not just wrong... he refused to accept the evidence, until it was overwhelming. This is what I describe as "kicking and screaming". It's one thing to be skeptical. It's another thing to embarrass oneself by stubbornly refusing to see that you were wrong.

Evidence are facts that are discovered, either through experiment or observation. Most scientists, the large majority, accept facts just fine. Theories, on the other hand, are explanations of the facts, not the facts themselves, that's why Evolution is described as both fact and theory. The fact that Evolution happens isn't in dispute, Darwin observed species in isolated environments on Earth, the Galapagos Islands being the most famous example, and wrote "The Origin of Species" which described natural selection and other processes of Evolution, that's the theory, based on observation. Yet, he didn't have all the facts, Genes weren't even discovered yet, as an example, so the exact mechanism was unknown to him.

Just a note of caution, however, that certain facts are in dispute till they can be verified, the example of Genetics is a good one. However, there is another, the Big Bang Theory versus the Steady State Theory. One postulated that the Universe has a beginning, and MAY have an end, though that's still an unknown at this point, the other postulated that the Universe has existed and will exist for an eternity. At the time that both theories were proposed, there was very little evidence for either of them, both claimed to have found evidence(the same evidence), and, in the middle of the 20th century, scientists were divided into two camps because of it.

Both theories said the universe was expanding, but for different reasons. In Steady State Theory, matter and energy were constantly renewed, allowing the Universe to expand indefinately, and also states it didn't have a beginning at all, no Big Bang. The Big Bang theory, on the other hand, stated that all the matter and energy in the Universe was already made, and it was made DURING the Big Bang. Later observations, in the 1960s, were beginning to show that matter is finite within the Universe, only the oldest of galaxies are Quasars or Radio Galaxies, these were the furthest away from us, and hence the oldest. Then, in the late 1960s, the Microwave Background Radiation was discovered, a map of the early Universe, and the after glow of the Big Bang. Since that discover Steady State adherents dropped dramatically, and most scientists today now know that the Big Bang is fact.

Nowadays scientists are trying to figure out what happened either at precisely when the Big Bang happened, or what will happen, Billions, perhaps trillions of years hence, whether this is a closed or open Universe. Many times theory ends up getting ahead of fact, black holes where theoratical objects that were predicted Einstien's theory of General Relativity. However once Astronomer's knew what to look for, and had the right technology, especially Radio Telescopes, numerous Black Holes have been discovered. With more recent theories by scientists like Stephen Hawking, even more discoveries were made.

Let's not even go into the debate on the Unification Theories, whether the Standard Model, String Theory or M-Theory. They have a tendancy to make my head hurt. :)

I guess the point is that we should differentiate between the humanity of scientists, and look to the process itself, I wouldn't say its flawless, that's impossible for flawed beings like humans to come up with, but its the best model we have for understanding the Universe and Everything in it.

This is also different from alleged scientists, people, some quite educated, who get air time on TV, but really have no clue what the hell they are talking about. Like that guy who "discovered" Cold Fusion, allegedly, back in the early the mid 1990s. Usually these people refuse to allow their "theories" from being published in peer reviewed journals, and are what could be termed, pseudoscientists.

it is well-known and yet ancient enough not to offend anyone living.

Schwann was an excellent early microbiologist and biochemist who became interested in the study of fermentation. In particular, he became interested in the precipitate associated with the formation of alcohol from sugar and in a series of careful studies showed that the precipitate (yeast) was required for the fermentation and that carbon dioxide was emitted by the yeast; he further carefully studied the effects of killing the yeast and of restricting oxygen (known to be needed by living organisms).

Liebig was an excellent physical chemist, who also controlled one of the premier chemical journals of his time. He had his own ideas about fermentation -- namely, that the molecules of sugar collided violently and formed carbon dioxide and alcohol. He was quite sure of his theory and maintained that anyone who disagreed with him simply didn't understand what he was saying -- and Liebig thought Schwann's theory was superstitious vitalistic nonsense. So Liebig, in one of the nastiest pieces of non-scientific writing ever to appear in a scientific journal, ridiculed Schwann's theory -- by describing it as involving little animals, with bladders shaped like champagne-bottles, that gobbled up sugar with their little mouths and farted out carbon dioxide. This attack, by a well-regarded physical chemist, essentially destroyed Schwann's career.

This illustrates, unfortunately, it is entirely possible for a scientist (and even a scientist who is very competent in some respects) to have an authoritarian personality, that cannot tolerate anyone who disagrees.

History has been kinder to Schwann than Liebig was, and Schwann's work on several other subjects, as well as yeast, is recognized as important.

But they are not the same. Some scientists just like to play the role of skeptic in any debate. Take Roger Penrose, for example. I suspect he just likes to play the role of mean old professor poo pooing the nonsense of young whippersnappers and their silly string theories and new fangled cognitive science ideas. You know the guy's probably wrong, but damn it, you still have to do a shit load mathematical work to prove him so.

Pretty good one, too, I think.

http://www.pbs.org/faithandreason/gengloss/sciism-body.html

Scientism

Unlike the use of the scientific method as only one mode of reaching knowledge, scientism claims that science alone can render truth about the world and reality. Scientism's single-minded adherence to only the empirical, or testable, makes it a strictly scientifc worldview, in much the same way that a Protestant fundamentalism that rejects science can be seen as a strictly religious worldview. Scientism sees it necessary to do away with most, if not all, metaphysical, philosophical, and religious claims, as the truths they proclaim cannot be apprehended by the scientific method. In essence, scientism sees science as the absolute and only justifiable access to the truth.

Edited to add the following from one of it's proponents.

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000AA74F-FF5F-1CDB-B4A8809EC588EEDF

Scientific American
Michael Shermer

excerpt:

Scientism is a scientific worldview that encompasses natural explanations for all phenomena, eschews supernatural and paranormal speculations, and embraces empiricism and reason as the twin pillars of a philosophy of life appropriate for an Age of Science.

Scientism's voice can best be heard through a literary genre for both lay readers and professionals that includes the works of such scientists as Carl Sagan, E. O. Wilson, Stephen Jay Gould, Richard Dawkins and Jared Diamond. Scientism is a bridge spanning the abyss between what physicist C. P. Snow famously called the "two cultures" of science and the arts/humanities (neither encampment being able to communicate with the other). Scientism has generated a new literati and intelligentsia passionately concerned with the profound philosophical, ideological and theological implications of scientific discoveries.

That's the point that escapes me. I understand the meaning of the word and it is a valid philosophical position to take, but I still don't get how it can be absolute when the underlying scientific method it uses for understanding reality is not absolute. The scientific method requires constant observation, testing, and revision. There is no final state. The only other point I'd make about the word is that it clearly demarcates what can be ascertained as reality and what lies outside its scope. The first definition you posted is ambiguous and misleading on this point. Scientism posits that it is the only valid method of understanding reality, but it also posits that there may be truths that lie outside ability of the scientific method to find.

Scientism is great for understanding reality, but has limitations when it comes to truth. I guess I'm a crappy fundamentalism.

What Shermer describes as scientism actually directly contradicts the PBS definition. Take a better look at the two excerpts you just quoted.

The definition of scientism that you give is a good one, but what Shermer describes and what the people he mentions espouse is not scientism as you define it, but simply science, and the admiration (yes, perhaps even tending to reverence) for what it has discovered and achieved. I've read all of the people he mentions extensively, and none of them adhere(d) to the philosophy of scientism that you describe. What they all say is that science is the best (not necessarily the only) tool that we have for discovering truth about the physical world, and that nothing else even remotely as good has ever come along. None of them would claim that truths about things like how to live a moral life or how to add meaning to the human condition are not worth knowing because they are not discoverable by science.

I think that the notion of scientism is largely an invented one, that exists in people's minds but not really in practice, except among a few fringe types. When people write about or describe scientism, they seem to be merely looking in from the outside at what they think other people are thinking, and not actually practicing that philosophy themselves. I've been a scientist for my entire professional life and have been reading about science since my age was single digits (a rather long stretch), and in all that time, I have never read or heard of a science book, essay or article that had as its thesis that science was the only way to discover truth. And think about it...are there any journals of scientism out there? Is there a National Academy of Scientism or an American Association for the Advancement of Scientism? It's all just gung-ho enthusiasm for science.

Are these definitions supplied by people who actually believe this stuff, or are they stereotypes created for the purpose of insulting people who don't believe this stuff?

almost certainly (See #12) To insult or simply to paint in a false light in order to try to make their own screwed up worldview look better by comparison.