I have written before on the problems of science in the last century and a bit. On the whole, the worst of these can be attributed to Karl Popper’s theories of “falsifiability”, which has become attempting to get an emotional kick by presenting scientists as brave because they propose theories which could be disproved.
There are serious philosophical flaws with that view (see here, here, and especially here), but it also:
- conflates evidence of any possible other explanation/cause with proof (proof shows what is, not what might might be);
- ignores the fundamental necessity of observation: first and foremost, scientists MUST be observers - and, to be an objective observer, one must be competent with emotions and have a highly developed understanding and ability to work with one’s own emotions. Failure on that aspect leads to:
- bigotry in science, including the failure to observe gendered differences and discrimination;
- lack of ethics as a result of being consumed by an emotional high;
- jumping to conclusions.
(This and this are a little better than most of what I have read.)
On that last one, one of the most common things I would tell young engineers, back when I was working, is “what do the numbers say?” So even in other areas of life, people can be excited by the emotional high of (thinking they are) finding a solution on the basis of what is “intellectually” (actually emotionally) “pleasing”.
The emotional incompetence I am referring to shows up in many areas - including some of the comments made about animals, particularly pets.
However, the aspect I wish to write about is religion - and, in approaching this from the point of view of science, I am including the study of theology.
The problem I have is that here, science gets into what can be observed physically, and often doesn’t know about, ignores, or actively denies evidence such as that of psychic ability and proof of survival after death (even Carl Sagan once wrote that the [possible] past life memories of young children was worth exploring).
Hence, religions get categorised and described on the basis of what can be seen physically by an external observer - what are the rituals.
There is no nuanced acknowledgement of the differences in theological belief, and thus - out of emotional incompetence - the predominant faith systems those scientists/theologians were raised in are assumed to be the basis for classification.
Typically, this is - in Western science, which is the bias I working within - the Abrahamic religions, particularly neochristianity.
As such, science fails to recognise that, for Paganism and other Indigenous religions, reverence for the Earth is a sacred duty - and thus we have new terms “invented” by science that conveniently ignore that reality because coming up with something new is a bigger emotional thrill than acknowledging that others were there millennia before you ...
They also miss the MASSIVE social engineering and other problems of neochristianity ...
Amongst other problems such as the perpetuation of harm and the delay of taking action against the climate crisis, this harms the standing of science.
This argument of mine could also fit into the hard vs. “soft” science argument.
Where I can, I will try to highlight possible flaws / issues you should consider:
- there may be flawed logical arguments in the above: to find out more about such flaws and thinking generally, I recommend Brendan Myers’ free online course “Clear and Present Thinking”;
- I could be wrong - so keep your thinking caps on, and make up your own minds for yourself.
If you appreciated this post, please consider promoting it - there are some links below, and there’s also Instagram.
Remember: we generally need to be more human being rather than human doing, to mind our Mӕgan, and to acknowledge that all misgendering is an act of active transphobia/transmisia that puts trans+ lives at risk & accept that all insistence on the use of “trans” as a descriptor comes with commensurate use of “cis” as a descriptor to prevent “othering”.
.jpg)
