🗑️ 🧵 "Science" as Nu-Religion
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 02:27:31 UTC No. 16223525
For the sake of this discussion, assume with me that (in practice) all modern metaphysical-moral-spiritual systems (what have you) are incapable of outfitting devotees with the cognitive tools/heuristics necessary to cope properly with reality (and by reality I mean the totality of material existence accessible to human/human-derivatives/general sapients), or that such capability is locked behind radical transformation of the system itself. Assume further with me that this lack has generated an environment in which the modern Enlightenment based and industrially modified scientific social apparatus is being identified to some extent as a semi-priesthood promulgating the "religion" of "Science" (putting aside for now the contributions of ancient priesthoods, particularly those of the Near East, to the form and content of the early body of human scientific knowledge) in perhaps a subliminal way.
Do YOU think that this identification is logically grounded at all? Are YOU excited, terrified, or utterly ambivalent towards the evolution of a class of priest-scientists putting forth moral dogmas with the gravitas of thousands of years of painful and beautiful refinement but not necessarily providing any grounding whatsoever to said dogmas? Do YOU think that public perception of professional scientists as such will be a help or a hindrance to the continued development of scientific knowledge in our current times?
Also, if you think that this is not the case at all just post your favorite textbook on any STEM subject.
Pictured is annoying cultish behavior bringing this to mind.
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 02:29:57 UTC No. 16223529
Please bring actual science discussion to this sub.
Or I’m gonna reach through this screen and slap the shit out of you
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 02:36:37 UTC No. 16223542
>>16223529
Sure. Post fave textbook and I'll talk about the field.
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 02:41:45 UTC No. 16223553
>>16223525
You fucking heathen. The pries - erm - experts are NOT to be questioned. It isn't for us mere peasants.. erm i mean us mere consumer-workers to doubt the established SCIENCE laid out by the expert class. We are too simple minded to understand the divine plan.. nor are we able to read the holy peer reviewed studies. Their interpretation is meant to guide humanity for the original sin of skepticism. Science has no place for skeptics. Leave the thinking to your betters. What is required of you and I is faith. Faith in the experts. Faith in their judgment. I pray to Darwin that you rectify your heretical thoughts. I will be reporting this to the Great Experts. As for you? I recommend you go to confessional, erm i mean therapy and get yourself figured out.
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 02:52:38 UTC No. 16223566
>>16223553
Sure though, but why is a more general scientific priesthood bad?
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 03:04:29 UTC No. 16223591
>>16223566
>why is a more general scientific priesthood bad?
No reason to be hypothetical. I think the images I posted pretty much show the current very real downsides of a scientific priesthood. Science the religion promotes and propagates on principles that are directly antithetical to actual scientific inquiry. Science is uncertain and always updating. Science admits incomplete understanding, and requires experimentation and controversy to develop. Science as religion means authorities become the arbiters of truth. It leads to regressive behavioral patterns on a societal wide scale. Research that threatens established institutions or shareholder profits get silenced or destroyed. Science as religion turns science into a platform for capitalists and politicians to maintain their power. There's an extreme conflict of interest. The rich financial class is opposed to innovation as a matter of principle. Anything novel is a potential threat to the status quo, and therefore a threat to their portfolio values. In the extreme case it means killing innovators to prevent any unpredictable outcomes. And this is really only the tip of the iceberg
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 03:26:46 UTC No. 16223628
>>16223591
I see your point, but in this case it seems that what is more an issue is any sort of "Scientific" religion following the same evolution as the Christian church, where the system is altered until it becomes a more practical tool for the ends you mentioned, which I generalize to the proximal and ultimate interests of the controlling class/culture.
Most of the issues you point to in your images seem to be the result of the present vacuity of modern media outlets, where I am certain rational scrutiny informs a minimal part of day-to-day business.
The expansion of science seems to be proceeding despite the vicissitudes of the public's perception of it.
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 05:02:11 UTC No. 16223790
>>16223525
The point of science is to make models that have predictive power. That's it. Everything else on top of that is something else. What you're complaining about id not different a scenario than if Christianity was true, but the priests were warping it and telling lies for their own gain, or to not lose their jobs.
The binary of science and religion should be science and faith instead, as people focus too much on established religions, and not the process of believing in something religiously. Faith in science is not the same as faith in the people that tell you they did "good" science.