Since the subject raised some interest in another thread, and since it is germane to CAS's own deeply (and rightly) held mistrust of "Scientism", below is an excerpt from an excellent New York Times review of Richard Dawkins's latest work, The Greatest Show on Earth. Although I do not necessarily agree in full, the author of the review, Nicolas Wade, discusses the subject quite intelligently.

"Other systems of thought, like religion, are founded on immutable dogma, whereas science changes to accommodate new knowledge. So what part of science is it that changes during intellectual revolutions? Not the facts, one hopes, or the laws. It’s the highest-level elements in the cognitive structure — the theories — that are sacrificed when fundamental change is needed. Ptolemaic theory yielded when astronomers found that Copernicus’s better explained the observations; Newton’s theory of gravitation turned out to be a special case of Einstein’s.

If a theory by nature is liable to change, it cannot be considered absolutely true. A theory, however strongly you believe in it, inherently holds a small question mark. The minute you erase the question mark, you’ve got yourself a dogma.

Since the theory of evolution explains and is in turn supported by all the known facts of biology, it can be regarded as seriously robust. There’s no present reason to think it has any flaws. But when we learn how life evolved on other planets, evolution could turn out to be a special case of some more general theory.

When Dawkins asserts that evolution 'is a fact in the same sense as it is a fact that Paris is in the Northern Hemisphere,' it seems he doesn’t know what a theory is. Yet he is justified in his passion to demonstrate how beautifully the theory of evolution explains the biological world. How can his knickers be untwisted?

The best way, in my view, is to distinguish between evolution as history and evolution as science. Evolution is indeed a historical fact. Every living thing and every fossil-bearing rock bears evidence that evolution occurred. But evolution is not a scientific fact as philosophers of science see it. In science it plays a far grander role: it is the theory without which nothing in biology makes sense. The condition of this high status is that it cannot be the final and absolute truth that Dawkins imagines it to be; it is liable to future modification and change like any other scientific theory.

This brings me to the intellectual flaw, or maybe it’s a fault just of tone, in Dawkins’s otherwise eloquent paean to evolution: he has let himself slip into being as dogmatic as his opponents. He has become the Savonarola of science, condemning the doubters of evolution as 'history-­deniers' who are 'worse than ignorant' and 'deluded to the point of perversity.' This is not the language of science, or civility. Creationists insist evolution is only a theory, Dawkins that it’s only a fact. Neither claim is correct".

Those who are interested may read the full review here.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12 Oct 09 | 10:12AM by Kyberean.

A bump for this, just for fun, and not that I expect anyone is interested.

Here is William Blake on the impulse that gives rise to scientism:

"But the Spectre, like a hoar frost & a Mildew, rose over Albion
Saying: 'I am God, O Sons of Men! I am your Rational Power!
Am I not Bacon & Newton & Locke who teach Humility to Man,
Who teach Doubt & Experiment? & my two wings, Voltaire, Rousseau?
Where is the Friend of Sinners? that Rebel against my Laws
Who teaches Belief to the Nations & an unknown Eternal Life?
Come hither into the Desert & turn these stones to bread.
Vain foolish man! wilt thou believe without Experiment?
And build a World of Phantasy upon my Great Abyss? [...]

The Spectre is the Reasoning Power in Man, & when separated
From Imagination and closing itself as in steel in a Ratio
Of the Things of Memory, It thence frames Laws & Moralities
To destroy Imagination, the Divine Body, by Martyrdoms & Wars. [...]".


Not to mention framing abject stupidity of the Dawkins variety.

I really don't kow why Dawkins allows himself to be drawn into this Theistic Nonsense.
The real strength of Dawkin's work is to show the utter nonsense, wishful thinking,
brutal tradition, and unquestioned dogma that is Organized Religion.

Obviously, this leads to Atheist conclusions that seem glaringly obvious although they
may be no more scientifically provable than their opposite conclusion. It is hard to
argue a negative - some say impossible.

But this Evolution Debate foolishness is the clearest example of, "Pay no attention to
that man behind the curtain" sort of desperation that Theists are reduced to employing
in the absence of rational arguement. Evolution can be as wrong as heck but that does not
provide one shred of verification for any God/Supernatural claims in the Bible or any other
Theistic document that purports to reveal Divine Instruction,etc.

Perhaps Dawkins is laughing all the way to the bank with his lecture and publication fees.
But instead of being drawn into the "Creation Debate" he ought to just say, "So what? You're
still full of Crap."

Climbing off soapbox now,

Cathexis

Quote:

he ought to just say, "So what? You're still full of Crap."

That's exactly what he does do, in only slightly more polite terms, and that's one reason why I suspect he is as full of crap as his opponents.

Your assessment of Dawkins is correct regarding the level to which the fesces of thought has risen.

One assesrtion must be noted: that immutable dogma is the basis for religion - sorry, fellas, this is just not so.
Suggested reading: Graves, King Jesus - David Rohl's entire corpus, especially "Genesis: Legend, the beginning of Civilization" - and, having read only these two, be assured that the content is considered important and taken very seriously at the highest levels - what the ordinary "believer" thinks is probably sufficient for his needs, but may hardly be construed as the actual "dogma" of his religion - the problem sociologically, is that it is the ignorant who can be impelled by the unscrupulous to sacrifice themselves flying aircraft into buildings.

FWIW,

My words were strong because they are stongly held but I meant
no offense to you personally as it was your post above mine in
order of replies. IMHO, no faith-based argument can have any
rational solution. So you pays your money and you takes your choice.

Peace,

Cathexis

No offense was taken - "no faith-based argument can have any rational solution" - alas, that sounds dogmatic,and flies in the face of the history of phlosophy - however, the books I mentioned are based on factual history, or reasonable surmises therefrom - I strongly suggest reading in these areas - particularly Graves - Dr. Rohl's book has thrown an immense monkey wrench into the whole business of creating a time-line in Egyptology and subsequently into archaeology as well - it is so much fun to watch the "establishment" squirm when academic "dogma" must face solidly based new information that contradicts the "textus receptus" - Nothing is set in stone, but Spenser's Mutabilitie - (maybe - sound affect: hideous laughter fading darkly away down a dank and foggy alleyway).

Quote:

[...] thrown an immense monkey wrench into the whole business of creating a time-line in Egyptology.

Dreadfully off-topic, I realize, but since it's my thread, I'll be lenient. ;-)

I wonder what you or other knowledgeable forum members think of Schwaller de Lubicz's Egyptological researches? Schwaller is another who seems to have thrown his share of monkey wrenches into orthodox Egyptology.

I smell Kant lurking somewhere and must admit my ignorance if that's where you're headed re: History of
Philosophy. As far as Egyptology is concerned the travails of Rob.'t Schoch et al in trying to argue the
Archaeologists (as opposed to the Geologists) are truely illuminating as a case study in Dogma. I am
personally thrilled by such possibilities. A favorite quote from the film, "Agony and the Ecstacy":
"If the wine is sour, throw it out!"

But Dogma is usually thought of as being rooted in Arrogance, Self-Interest, and Authoritarianism which
is why it was anathema to the Classical Skeptics. Especially in its' negative conotations. HOWEVER,...
No amount of Dogma, or the rejection thereof can be considered an argument in support of the mundane
reality of Divine Revelation, Miracles, Violating the known laws of the Universe by Supernatural Agencies.
Etc,etc.etc. A Scientific Dogma does not argue for a Supernatural Alternative. That is a Logical Fallacy.


I think these new ideas of Alternative History are exciting and promising. Another fellow in a completely
other area that you might enjoy at least learning about is Barry Fell. I find the Copper Culture material
truely fascinating re: Where did the Copper of the Bronze Age come from? Just the Battle of Kadesh and you're
looking at at least 100,000 bladed weapons and probably an equal number of spearheads. From those puny little
mines in Sinai or Libya? Anyway, that is much more speculative but intriging nonetheless. Whatever you may
think of Barry Fell, I'm pleased to hear your minds are open to new knowledge.

My Best,

Cathexis

FWIW,

I previewed the above and it looked great last nite and now at work it
is terribly formatted. Any way to edit my own posts ?

That'll_Do

cathexis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> I think these new ideas of Alternative History are
> exciting and promising. Another fellow in a
> completely
> other area that you might enjoy at least learning
> about is Barry Fell. I find the Copper Culture
> material
> truely fascinating re: Where did the Copper of the
> Bronze Age come from? Just the Battle of Kadesh
> and you're
> looking at at least 100,000 bladed weapons and
> probably an equal number of spearheads. From those
> puny little
> mines in Sinai or Libya? Anyway, that is much more
> speculative but intriging nonetheless. Whatever
> you may
> think of Barry Fell, I'm pleased to hear your
> minds are open to new knowledge.
>
> My Best,
>
> Cathexis


Within the field of so-called 'alternative' archaeology I think that there is potential for some interesting ideas to be explored. There is certainly a true spirit of amateurism and real enthusiasm, but the problem is that they almost always have an highly incomplete knowledge set and have fallen so in love with their big idea that they are terribly prone to circular thinking. There is rarely an attempt to self-test their own hypothesis, which is really the difference between pseudo-science and the true scientific method, at least in theory. I'm certainly highly sceptical about the more extreme alternative archaeological theories, such as those involving Atlantiean and Alien influenced civilizations, but I'm also more than a little suspicions about some of the motivations about those who doubt the indigenous origins of many of the new world's monuments. Although I think there is nothing racist about the current wave of alternative archaeologists, it has to be said that most of these theories can be clearly traced back to Eurocentric Victorian times and have only the flimsiest of evidence to support them. Saying that I think it is important to realise that migration and trade happened even in ancient times. There's also an equally suspicious movement to try to rewrite African history too, although this is motivated by a different set of politics. But, I find much that is said by orthodox archaeologists to also be highly debatable, especially some of the assumptions made by the anthropological school. I'm not saying that they are wrong, but I do feel that some of their social reconstructions stretch the credibility of the evidence.

As for Dawkins. Well as a person he's not my favourite human being, but in this age of rising superstition and religious militancy I think he's necessary, if only because he generates debate. Let's face it The God Delusion would have sold two and a half copies if he was less provocative. Of course some of his rhetoric does tie him in knots under closer analysis, but hold him up to the Religionists and those who spout Pseudo-Scientism, and his logic, reasoning, supporting evidence, etc... is certainly standing on firmer ground.

Cathexis:

Quote:

I'm pleased to hear your minds are open to new knowledge.

I imagine that many who post or lurk here share such a perspective. That would be in keeping with the spirit of CAS, who, as I recall, was fascinated by and devoured Forteana.

The English Assassin:

Quote:

I'm also more than a little suspicions about some of the motivations about those who doubt the indigenous origins of many of the new world's monuments.

What's interesting is that Schwaller's work, for instance, is on Egypt, so there's clearly no racialist trojan horse at work, there.

Quote:

[Dawkins] is certainly standing on firmer ground.

Perhaps, but all that means, to me, is that Dawkins's quicksand foundation is sinking more slowly than the others'. When it comes to science-worshippers and traditional religious worshippers--who have far more in common than they realize--I choose neither. Dawkins and his world-view, or religious fundamentalists and their world-view? That is a false choice.

Anyway, I am violating my earlier vow to try to stick to less abstract, value-laden, and therefore contentious subjects when posting in this forum, so I shall try to shut up, now!

Ah Forteana !

There's a phrase I love. If CAS was interested in it I admire him the more.
To me, Alternative History, Forteana, Pseudo-Science, and the fantastic works
of people like Poe, HPL, CAS and others are all closely linked. Since I reject
the claims of X-tians, et al to posess any proof that their moldy parchments
contain a shred of truth to claims of Divine Revealation, Instruction, or
Intervention in the Mundane World - Well, then I feel free to enjoy Fantasy &
Forteana whether they be fact or fantasy entertainment. Some, like the writing of CAS I consider obviously fantasy and others like the Age of the Sphinx or the possibilty of Alternative Pre-Columbian No. Amer. history I consider eerily possible if not scientifically proven.

Dawkins is also very entertaining: He rattles the bars of closed Religionist Minds
very well. He is able to do this because he does not live in a land where God sez
to cut off his head for such shenanigans. In this his is wise and fortunate. Too
bad Salman Rushdie can't say the same thing. So fickle this God !

Anyway, I'm kinda talked-out on Dawkins: He's not why I started coming here. But
like I said, I do appreciate that people think here whether they agree with me or not.

Cathexis

Kyberean Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------


> Perhaps, but all that means, to me, is that
> Dawkins's quicksand foundation is sinking more
> slowly than the others'. When it comes to
> science-worshippers and traditional religious
> worshippers--who have far more in common than they
> realize--I choose neither. Dawkins and his
> world-view, or religious fundamentalists and their
> world-view? That is a false choice.

I think we see science and scientists in very different light. I'm not sure where this view that scientists comes from that they dogmatically stick to one point of view. To my mind science is a dialogue of ideas based on evidence, deduction and logic rather than a previously held assumption that is set in stone. Of course scientists are human and are prone to all the faults that we all are and there are many examples of scientific hubris, but still I firmly believe that this is a minority. In my limited undergraduate experience of scientists there is much debate about even the most minuscule of details. And no I'm not a science worshipper or science groupie: almost without exception i can say that the lecturers and researchers I met were all lacking even the remotest semblance of having the social skills or manners that one would normally associate with an adult human being. Although similar arrogances can been seen across the whole of academia in my opinion. Yes, they probably are at times guilty of not vigorously questioning some established scientific theories as much as they might, but to my mind the thought processes and the motives of investigation that those key theories are built on have less inherent bias to them than those of coming from alternative-science and spiritualist perspectives. Yes there is plenty of interpretation in science but I see no problem with this as those interpretations are not built on assumptions and all scientific hypothesises are tested by actively trying to disprove them, which can not be said for the creationists nor much of what is considered pseudo-science. Of course sometimes science might fall short of these aims, but I don't think this is the norm.

Probably the only thing that is even close to being dogma in science is the scientific method, but I don't see this as being the same as religious dogma, as there is no world view nor value system necessarily associated with it, nor will religionists come seriously close to debating the validity of the core beliefs of their religious faith. I think even a cursory look at the history of science will show that core theories have been overthrown and adapted over time. Not through cultural change but through investigation. Of course you could argue that scientific method might have a cultural bias attached to it, but it still remains a clear attempt to reach a objective truth, even if this ambition is an impossible one.

Now I really don't care what other people think or believe regarding non-scientific concepts nor do I care to change their minds. I find some of them interesting in their own right, some purely examples of circular thinking, some morally dubious, some sinister and some of the more outlandish ones just amuse me. However I do object when people with a clear theological/ideological agenda make claims that there belief system satisfies scientific criteria to be held as a valid scientific theory. This just isn't the case with Creationism for example. Therefore I think it is fair that real scientists like Dawkins expose these lies. Equally I'm fine with sceptics attacking/debunking those who try to exploit others or undermine genuine scientific research based on pseudo-science. I am not however quite so happy with those who wade in attacking people who just happen to hold a different belief system. This might well apply to Dawkins, I don't know as I've not read him, but he doesn't represent all of Science nor Evolution.

I hope this post isn't too inflammatory - it's not meant to be.

First, please bear in mind the title of this thread. It is about Dawkins as a representative of the extreme views of Scientism--i.e., of "science as religion-substitute". It is not about all science or scientists--although I do believe that more of them are like Dawkins than most would admit, just as I believe that scientific materialism pervades Western culture like an invisible, odorless gas.

At a minimum, we can agree that endeavoring to change others' minds in this area is futile. That said...

Such types as Dawkins are indistinguishable from fundamentalist religious believers in at least two ways:

1. They display a tremendous emotional attachment to their belief-system; and,

2. They are extremely hostile to, and intolerant of, anyone who criticizes or fails fully to share their belief-system.



As I have stated previously, scientific materialists such as Dawkins tend to be convinced that their world-view and method provide the sole criteria by which every question should be judged. This arrogant, ovine certainty, as well as the notion that science uncovers eternally absolute or objective "truth", is absurd. Such absurdity holds for any creation of the extremely limited human brain and sensorium.

In addition, and as I have also mentioned before, it should be obvious that scientific evidence and empiricism do not reach us "pure". The senses and the cerebral surface impose considerable limitations. So do the instruments that scientists use to measure phenomena. In addition, much prior social, cultural, and intellectual conditioning prepares us for the reception of the scientific method and its concepts as the sole media of "truth".

For these reasons, I respectfully disagree that most scientists display the sort of open-mindedness that, say, CAS had. Today, we are thoroughly brainwashed from elementary school forward that "Science = Truth". I do not like Creationists any better than you do, but Creationists have a long way to go before they can exert the sort of propagandizing influence on young minds that scientific materialism currently has in the school curriculum. Of course, once upon a time, the religionists held sway in the classroom, so perhaps today's over-reaction is merely repayment, in kind.

One thing, however, is certain: McLuhan's observation that, if a fish were asked to name the features of its environment, the last thing it would identify as such would be water. In the same way, scientific materialism so pervades this culture that it has become an invisible "given", something so "self-evident" that it is beyond questioning. And when one does question this belief-system, one meets with reactions ranging from incredulity, to sarcasm, to outright anger. (Do you need evidence? Then look at the replies on the topic in this very forum!) What do such reactions remind you of? To me, they recall the emotional reactions of an offended religious believer.

In any case, I repeat that the way of conventional religion versus the way of scientific materialism is a false dichotomy, and I choose neither.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 25 Oct 09 | 12:28PM by Kyberean.