Richard Smoley

Dec 15, 2015 7:21 AM EST

If I understand this correctly "scientism" has become the religion of some small minded scientists who cannot conceive of any faculty higher than reason.
At least Wittgenstein said:"What we cannot speak about we must pass over in silence.", leaving the door open for further solutions, which he later went on to propose in his investigations.
"Scientism" though shuts the door completely by claiming something like: "What we cannot speak about shouldn't be allowed to exist at all".
This assumes that science is complete in itself, that it has all the answers except for a few details, and that we should have complete faith in it as a panacea for everything, otherwise we are deluded. But, the true scientist knows better than this, because his motive is more than idle curiosity about the world, he knows there is always further to go and so he values highly the ability to create and use imaginative methods to unravel the mysteries of the world we inhabit. Also, he is not afraid of being proven wrong.
Eastern philosophy which underlies many religions begins by asking what is "chit?" or "citta"? Then it shows how ideas are inseparable from the being producing them, and more importantly that the qualities of these ideas are directly connected to a being's perception, happiness or misery.
Scientism on the other hand throws in the towel by declaring that there simply is no "chit", because our subjective thoughts are the by-products of matter vibrating in a random manner and with no higher purpose. So "scientism" doesn't want to understand what "virtue" is.
Politically, there is a vested interest by some corrupt individuals in power to promote "scientism" so that people lose connection with their inner sense of morality, their conscience and intuition. There is a good reason for this. When people lose their humanity they can be manipulated much easier into made to behave in predictable ways.

- Byron Zeliotis

Dec 15, 2015 9:41 AM EST

I wouldn't say that scientism is the province of scientists alone, although to all appearances most scientists appear to adhere to it.

My own views deal with the "what is citta?" question by simply positing that consciousness is what relates self and other (see my earlier post). If this is so, consciousness, citta, pervades the universe, and there is nothing, however apparently inanimate, that does not possess it to some degree.

After all, even matter vibrating in a random manner has to have some sense--however dim by our standards--of a world against which, as it were, it is doing the vibrating.

I too have wondered about the vested interest side of the issue. In any event it would seem that no sooner had the Western world shaken off the tyranny of dogmatic Christianity than it took on the new one of materialism and what Guenon calls the reign of quantity.

- Richard Smoley

Dec 15, 2015 10:23 AM EST

Now this is a topic I can get into..Well look-- you can't fairly say this stuff is axiomatic to them and then say it's "unstated assumptions"--that's unfair. To be fair to science, the methodology that gives rise to what you call scientist, they do not say there is no creator God. They say we see no proof of one. Where is the evidence? They don't exactly say, "The world is constructed of blind physical forces that managed in some way to generate the entire known universe." They say, we observe physical forces generating the universe. We can find no scientifically verifiable evidence of anything else happening. THey do not aver that how life arose remains unknown--you may not be keeping up, quite, on evolutionary theory and observation. They don't have all the answers but essentially they see it as a kind of tendency over much time in some circumstances, just as inherent physical laws are the observed tendency (even those are provisional). Darwin never said that life evolved "as the sole and exclusive result of natural selection". He found this shaping condition, this shaping tendency in the physical world, and described it. He doesn't actually get into how life first arose, except in the vaguest terms and makes no definite statement about it. And again, for later evolutionary theory it's rare to find anyone who says that there's nothing else because *they don't bother with the question*. They just include what's observable and testable and with the innate probability of theory. The other thing seems pointless to go into--they are not really that mystified, you see.

It's true that many neurologists and biologists assume and some of them state that consciousness is merely an epiphenomenon (or side-effect) of brain states and activities (only a few of which, however, are understood) ...but again, I don't think that's some kind of scientism philosophy, I think it's just them sticking with their method and saying, "that's all we need to explain it." I personally do not agree with them on that. As for life after death they don't see evidence that is verifiable. All of it can be argued with--it's all some subjective person's account so far.

No one has said that there are no unseen forces--gad, they are constantly speculating about unseen forces. Higgs Bosun, the nature of dark energy, dark matter. That is just a mischaracterization. They do not look to the "supernatural"--why should they? They don't see it as necessary, they use Occam's razor and go onto more probable explanations. I myself do not believe in the magical supernatural--there is such a thing, to me, as supernature, that is higher nature that we're not entirely aware of, but it is some aspect of nature--naturally! This doesn't mean there's no miraculous. If we go with the Gurdjieffian notion that the miraculous is the working of a higher law unknown to us in an unknown place, then the miraculous, so called, need not be unscientific. I like Needleman's approach (in a general way), in his book "What Is God?"--at least, it involves some effort at scientifically methodological confirmation.

When it comes to the universe's meaning--teleology etc--again, it's a question of, what do you mean by meaning (as it were) ...teleology in the metaphysical sense, yeah they dismiss that...it seems like a distraction to look for it. Stephen Hawking, as to the "beginning" of things, says, Where's the beginning of a sphere?
• Life is, similarly, an epiphenomenon of matter. Thus there is no life after death.
• Paranormal phenomena, such as psi effects, evidence of life after death, and so on, are illusory. They have been experimentally proved to have no substance. They can be explained, or rather dismissed, solely as the results of illusions and wishful thinking.
• The only forces that affect us are those that are directly and quantitatively measurable by science. There are no unseen forces, no unseen agencies or beings.
• The universe has no teleology. It does not exist for any reason or purpose.
• While future scientific discoveries may enlarge and change our view of the universe — in astonishing and unforeseen ways — they will not significantly alter the view of reality held by present-day materialism.

- John Shirley

Dec 15, 2015 10:36 AM EST

It is the case that science per se limits itself to its findings and does not permit itself metaphysical speculation.

But the thrust of scientific discussion--and the effect it has on the public mind--is quite different. There is a frequent winking and nodding to the effect that "we know this stuff is ridiculous, but we just can't say so." This is what I call scientism.


Usually this is called being "agnostic"--one of the most consistently dishonest terms ever coined in the English language.


You can assert that consciousness is an epiphenomenon of matter, but this remains unproved and is no less an axiomatic statement than a statement to the contrary.


As I believe the post indicates, what scientists "see" is as that which is perceivable by the five senses, as well as by instruments designed to enhance that perception. In that sense the Higgs boson, although invisible, is not "unseen."

- Richard Smoley

Dec 15, 2015 2:17 PM EST

The major unspoken assumption is that philosophy's mind-body problem is resolved in favor of the body. Given that, all problems and their solutions are materialistic. Yes, scientism is a bastardization of science, but it leads to an unappealing smugness, as well as demands that are analogous to proving the existence of a sphere in a flatland.

One can approach the hypothesis of the resolution of the mind-body problem in favor of mind and be just as scientific--including comparing the results of your research with others.

Further, it may be the case that resolving the problem in favor of mind actually adds to the explanatory power of the hypothesis, while resolving it in favor of body (or material) explains less about our experience--which is a common claim within the "perennial philosophy."

For completeness, I'll add that these experiments have been performed since the time of the Vedas and Upanishads, at least, and have been refined and confirmed since then. Likewise, the tradition holds that the same results will apply to everyone who makes the experiments properly, and that results may be made evident in the physical world.

It seems premature for people who have not made the experiments to deny the results others have achieved simply because they claim they are impossible, based on an unjustified assertion of one solution to a problem philosophy leaves open.

- Tom Hutcheson

Dec 17, 2015 10:44 AM EST

Re-reading my previous comment just now I was amused to see I wrote bosun instead of boson. This is a result of recently re-reading Patrick O'Brian's (recommended!) novels of the Royal Navy... Your remark, 'But the thrust of scientific discussion--and the effect it has on the public mind--is quite different. There is a frequent winking and nodding to the effect that "we know this stuff is ridiculous, but we just can't say so." This is what I call scientism.' Well that is a subjective call, this business of winking and nodding and, apparently, patronizing attitude etc...What I think is happening is more like someone who's busy with a task and someone else brings in the irrelevant--the busy person, working on a problem with the method they find confirmable and useful, doesn't like to be impolite, and just dismissive, so they end up winking and nodding in some way, because they don't see any other polite way of dealing with what is to them a baffling irrelevancy. Scientists do work with the invisible all the time--they can to some extent see some things, like X Rays, normally invisible to us, but other things they must infer. But in their process of inference they see no reason to resort to what, to them, is merely magical thinking which, as you know, is not thinking about magic, but making false comparisons leading to "perceiving" magic...eg, if my cow dies and a neighbor had looked at my cow frowning, therefore my cow died because of the "evil look"-- to them, jumping to "a divine force must have caused this since we're not sure of all the causative factors" is generally the same as the evil eye killing the cow. As in, "Why jump to that conclusion when there are more probable explanations?"

While I haven't seen any substantive solid evidence for life after death, and I feel scientists are right that NDEs are not proof, I do not dismiss the possibility of survival; perhaps it can be found to be congruent with known and unknown inherent laws...and, as per Stuart Hameroff and Roger Penrose, I think it just might be congruent. But I have no proof of it...as yet.

- John Shirley

Dec 19, 2015 10:06 AM EST

I agree with you, Tom, that there is an enormous propensity to deny other people's findings in the scientific community simply because they go against current preconceptions.

To argue the contrary would be to pretend that scientists are any different from what they have ever been in terms on mindset. And I see no evidence of that at all.

John, as for "magical thinking," don't believe that it's quite as different from causation as conventionally understood as scientists like to pretend. As Bertrand Russell observed, the concept of causation in philosophy was like the British monarchy--it was permitted to survive because it was erroneously believed to do no harm.

But I think you've read The Dice Game of Shiva, which goes into this argument in much more detail.

- Richard Smoley