> I think a sound argument could be made that "scientization" of a wide range of values, institutions and other non-scientific ventures has cause significant harm to science.

True....but they are so far ahead and have so much momentum, I am very confident they are fine.

Now, if a rival ideology was to arise....well, they may not be as resilient as they would have been if they'd monitored their flock more carefully. Time will tell I suppose.

> By labelling a whole range of capitalist western cultural values, practices and structures as "scientific", ranging from capitalist economics, western "racial" categories, political institutions, etc... the failures in those structures and the genocide and discrimination they've enabled have permanently made a lot of people skeptical about the whole idea of "science" across the board.

For their sake, let's hope someone doesn't come along who'd be so shallow and opportunistic as to exploit that weaknesses, and the many other ones.

>> Is this to say that it is a fact that numbers are never fudged within the practice of science? > > > > You are free to verify and question them. You don't have to take them for granted. It's not that science is never wrong, it's that you are allowed to correct it and many people have done so before you, so it's pretty good most of the time.

I will ask more directly: is it a fact that numbers are never fudged within the practice of science?

>> By what means have you acquired comprehensive knowledge of the entirety of reality? Science?

> Mostly heuristics. Which ain't as good as science and often wrong, but it gets "good enough" results faster.

What does "good enough" mean, in quantitative terms (% correct, objectively)?

When others resort to heuristics, do you have no issues with it?

For example:

>> But humans seek a deeper understanding of reality, not accessible or relevant to science.

> That is utter bollocks.

Why are heuristics here "utter bollocks", but yours are "good enough"?

>> Do you know for a fact (as opposed to believe) that deeper understandings of reality are not available via religion?

> Yes. If you can't poke it with a stick, than it's not part of this reality.

Can you poke emotions, the comprehensive, physical/metaphysical phenomenon, with a stick?

Also: can you link to any authoritative scientific resource that makes this claim?

> Your deeper understanding is meaningless when it can't interact with this reality. And when it interacts with this reality, you can just do science on it.

So says your heuristics. Are your heuristics equal to reality?

> And when it interacts with this reality, you can just do science on it.

Is "science" all one can do?

Does only science have utility?

Is "science" what you are doing here today?

> Also the level of understanding that science provides is already so insanely more detailed than anything you can ever hope to find in a religious text, that even called it "deeper understanding" is just nonsense.

How does advancement in science render other ideas nonsense, necessarily? Please explain the physical cause and effect relationship - the actual one please, not your heuristic estimation of it.

> Religion doesn't even give you really basic understanding of how the world works.

Says your heuristics. How much actual (non-heuristic, non-imagined) knowledge (as opposed to belief) do you have about religion anyways?

>> And are you asserting as a fact that the entirety of the content of all religion is pure fantasy?

> Some of it might be "based on a true story", but largely fantasy, yes.

What does "largely" mean, in quantitative terms (% fantasy, objectively)?

> That's why we call it religion, not history.

Actually, that is your imagination.

Perhaps if your religion metaphysical framework and its leaders were more adamant that their followers try to care about the truth, its followers would be able to realize they are speculating and use the resources available to discover truth.

https://www.etymonline.com/word/religion

Delusion comes in many forms - religion is one, Scientism is another.

> Are you asking if science is capable of accurate divination or are you questioning my seeming certainty that psychology can provide accurate guidance on human behaviour?

"my seeming certainty" is a nice way to describe your assertion of fact: "While psychology is a young science that is still working out fundamental principles—it's still a science and will be able to confirm which of those behaviours actually are healthy."

Science can discover some things, but what percentage of the whole it discovers is unknown.

> If you're asking about predicting the future with accuracy—science is more into predicting the future with probabilities rather than with accuracy.

Scientific Materialist's claims about what science will or can do on the other hand....

> If you're asking how I can justifiably say psychology will be able to provide accurate guidance of human behaviour, it already does to a limited extent.

> We're only now gaining the tools we need in order to see what the problems actually are and the field faces a lot of stigma from religions and from it's youth and immaturity (including not a small amount of sheer lunacy),

Is your consideration comprehensive?

Are you describing religion as it is, or might you be describing your (subconscious) model of religion? What says science/medicine on the matter?

> but give it time

I will grant science as much leeway and consideration s as its disciples grant religion.

> You'll probably find it interesting that it seems to be confirming collectivist views more than individualist ones.

Religion has done that for far longer than science...granted, they don't walk the talk well, but give it time.

> I think it's far more likely that psychology will simply confirm which aspects of religions and philosophies line up with actual human behaviour rather than invent new ones.

"Confirm" is an interesting word. Nice and ambiguous.

> A lot of people have been thinking on these things for a lot of time and we've got lots of good answers—science can eventually tell which ones don't work in practice.

Science can assert which ones don't work in practice, but whether their assertions are accurate is another matter.

>When I talk about "science" I'm talking about the scientific method, which I think is good.

Science is composed of a lot more than that.

> Since I like the scientific method, I am ok with the scientific method becoming the dominant motivator for human decision-making. If that was the case, we could have resolved climate change sooner and put more money into renewables.

Could have.

Does science teach its followers to have curiosity about whether their predictions of the future, or counterfactual reality, are actually true?

>Soo yeah... I would prefer the scientific method to be the main framework people think in, not sure what you're point is.

Part of my point is that like religious people, people who have been ideologically captured by science are also unable to distinguish between their beliefs, facts, and the unknown.

As proof, I offer your comment.

> Science is not a religion it's a method to approach problems.

If you deconstruct it into its constituent parts, applying some abstraction in the process, I propose that one will find that people's psychological relationship with science is extremely similarly to that with religion.

Faith, or more accurately the cognitive processes that underlie it, are fundamental to human beings - it is our evolved nature. And simply declaring it to be gone does not make it go away - although, it can certainly make it appear as if it has gone away.

> The scientific method is valueless and therefore useless as any kind of ideology.

The scientific method has no volition, it must be implemented by humans....and humans loooooove their ideologies.

> Or calls to "follow the science". Also a ridiculous statement.

Now we're talking - but consider: what percentage of the people who subscribe to the ideology are able to realize and acknowledge that?

> No, because it works. It's a completely pragmatic position.

How pragmatic is climate change?

> if it isn't accessible by science it isn't reality, it's delusion.

Have you a scientific proof of this fact?

> Science does say: "This is true to the best of our knowledge."

So do religious people.

Is this all that science (and its disciples) say?

> The numbers aren't fudged

Is this to say that it is a fact that numbers are never fudged within the practice of science?

Note: I am not asking for a prediction of the average quality of science, I am asking precisely about this specific claim.

> You don't have to believe the gospel.

Opinions seem to vary on this. As I recall, it wasn't all that long ago that there was an international advertising campaign on the matter.

> It's all just a experiments, predictions and replication, and you are free to join.

It is often claimed to be the sole source of truth - this too is a part of what "science" is, comprehensively.

>> But humans seek a deeper understanding of reality, not accessible or relevant to science.

> That is utter bollocks.

By what means have you acquired comprehensive knowledge of the entirety of reality? Science?

> Humans like to hear pleasurable stories, they don't care about gaining an understanding.

This seems fairly true - take your comments as a prime example, and those of other atheists in this thread and others.

Wilful ignorance is a human problem, not solely a religious problem. If you disagree, consult science on the matter.

> If they wanted to have a deeper understanding of reality, they'd do science.

Do you know for a fact (as opposed to believe) that deeper understandings of reality are not available via religion?

> But the stories science tell might not be the ones they want to hear and they can get a little complicated, as they are based in reality, not fantasy.

Might this be a two way street? Do you perhaps believe yourself to have a direct line to reality itself (or perhaps: act as if you do, without any conscious awareness of it)?

And are you asserting as a fact that the entirety of the content of all religion is pure fantasy? And if that isn't what you're saying, would you mind stating what it is you are intending to say, in less ambiguous terms?

I believe that religion has some advantages over science, one being that it can be arguably better at dispelling Maya....or, the sensation of omniscience that is a side effect of consciousness.

Might there be some artifacts of Maya within your words, and in the thinking that underlies them?

Is it only the religious who are infected by delusion?

> In the US, there is an incentive to use religion to control people and drag them toward their ideologies.

The same could be argued of The Science.

> Religion is so vague that it can be used by well-meaning people or ill-intentioned people.

Often, so too is The Science.

> The ill-intentioned people in a few large and powerful countries will make it easier to accelerate the downfall of religion everywhere, which is a net good.

Similarly, ill-intentioned people in a few large and powerful countries will make it easier to accelerate the downfall of humanity everywhere.

Also: I propose that "is a net good" is problematic due to being stated as an objective truth rather than a personal opinion. One would think "rational, scientific thinking" people would be less prone to this well known by science psychological phenomenon, but results suggest otherwise.

> While psychology is a young science that is still working out fundamental principles—it's still a science and will be able to confirm which of those behaviours actually are healthy.

Can science grant one the ability to see the future with accuracy, or might it be more true that it only reinforces that pre-existing illusion?

Science seems to grant humans little power in this arena (to be fair: it isn't really trying), but Eastern Religions have been working on the problem for ages and have many suggested approaches, many of which seem to work fairly well.

> It's how scientific pursuit is facing a threat from increasing religious fundamentalism in many parts of the world.

It may be worth wondering about the specifics of the backlash, where it exists.

For my part, I think "science", in all its forms (including the media and public's ~worship of it), is getting "too big for its britches", and I would prefer they "stick to their lane". Or at least: try to consider whether they do have a lane that they would be well advised, for the benefit of the whole, to stick to.

> This itself is a great irony considering those parts of the world have also experienced great scientific development alongside.

They have also typically experienced interference in their affairs by foreign powers, as well as many other things.

Causality seems simple, but it is not actually.

> so in most cases there's nothing for science to "destroy".

I think a sound argument could be made that the "scientization" of society's representation of reality has caused significant harm to the recruitment efforts of religions.

Some people think this is a good thing, some people think this is a bad thing, most people do not wonder what the actual truth of the matter is. One would think that an increasingly scientific culture would have increased interest in what is true, but that seems highly questionable to me.

Such things don't exist in base nature, they only exist within human culture.

Also, there's more involved than just evidence, there is also the element of trust. If I believe myself to have reason to not trust a person or an organization, it will modify how I consider "the" evidence - the point of the quotation marks being that what is often referred to as "the" evidence is usually only a subset of all evidence, and typically seems to not take into consideration that what evidence exists is a function of what evidence was looked for, or discarded.

Comparing the various versions of "reality" that different individuals describe offers some useful insight into the nature of humans, as well as the nature of reality.

A similar myth is that all Christians believe the same thing.

Another somewhat similar mythical belief is that mind reading is possible. Even Scientific Materialists believe that one, strangely enough...demonstrating the power of myths, I suppose.

>I think your point is valid and I also wonder how much of our problem is “hyperbolic language”.

Or more generically: language that demonstrably does not match shared reality. Unfortunately, a widely distributed meme prevents that form of valid criticism.

Whoever designed this Matrix seems to have brought their A-Game. 😁

>The truth is that if you believe that God is on your side, you are capable of committing any crime necessary to whatever ends you attribute to him, as we've seen throughout history.

True, but potentially misinformative (a vague term, and used as such for appropriateness).

Replace God with most any ideology or methodology and it is also true.

Complaining that someone commented on something that literally exists (and in a non-trivial position: the title) seems like the opposite of good epistemic guidelines.

>The entire point about evolution is based on a foundation of not seeming to understand how evolution works. Fish didn't will legs on themselves. Carnivorous plants didn't will the ability to trap flies on themselves. The author is attributing desire and action to raw happenstance on that front...

That is one form of evolution, but there are others.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_evolution

> Just a few basic things we have to do. Deeper changes come from questioning how on earth people still think the senate is a reasonable institution. after increasing the number of states by 5x.

FTFY.

And regarding "how on earth people still think":

See also: https://ml4a.github.io/ml4a/how_neural_networks_are_trained/

> Of course the Senate is the only body that can approve Supreme Court appointments. How convenient.

The entire structure of the systems seems rather convenient. And archaic. And...some other things.

Nothing strategically planted heuristics can't paper over though!

> In general the US population gets most things right over time.

I suspect knowing this would require access to a counterfactual reality machine. No such machine is required to believe it though!

> Nearly all our problems can be fixed by more democracy and giving the people a greater influence.

Perhaps, but maybe only for very specific definitions of "nearly", "can", "fixed", "democracy", "giving", and "influence". People tend to have strong aversions to complexity/accuracy though, so maybe best avoid such styles of thinking - leave that up to The Experts, and of course, Democracy (our most sacred institution)!

I'm sure it will all work out in the end.

Oh I read it, and agree with it.

What is happening in the US is very much not the will of the people, it is extremely sophisticated theatre.

> Why do we allow those who benefit massively from the status quo to stymie any change or progress?

Democracy. The current governance of the country is literally The Will of The People.

And in case you're the type to criticize it, first realize: it is literally our most sacred institution (as seen on TV - over, and over, and over).

> As I said in my original post, an organism has to reproduce. There are other factors but that one by itself is sufficient. Every organism from single celled life to plants to humans reproduces. The Earth doesn't generate baby Earths that go out into the solar system and compete for resources with the offspring of other planets.

organism: a whole with interdependent parts, likened to a living being. - "the upper strata of the American social organism"

>>> It isn't a coherent theory so you can't scientifically disprove it the way you could disprove a coherent (but wrong) scientific theory.

>> If a theory cannot be scientifically proven or disproven, does that mean that it is necessarily incorrect?

> Regarding your second question if a theory can't be objectively proven or disproven (i.e., it isn't falsifiable) then it isn't what I consider a theory.

theory:

• a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained.

• a set of principles on which the practice of an activity is based.

• an idea used to account for a situation or justify a course of action.

The question was: If a theory cannot be scientifically proven or disproven, does that mean that it is necessarily incorrect?

> And the only method that I'm aware of with a track record for testing objective truth is science.

Were pre-historic/pre-scientific peoples (neanderthals, etc) unable to tell if someone was dead, as just one example?

> it demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of what the concept living organism means in Biology

Can you give one example that demonstrates this?

> It isn't a coherent theory so you can't scientifically disprove it the way you could disprove a coherent (but wrong) scientific theory.

If a theory cannot be scientifically proven or disproven, does that mean that it is necessarily incorrect?