NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #3/NN_1993_3.iso/spool/alt/conscio/941

Text File | 1993-01-21 | 3.7 KB | 76 lines

Newsgroups: alt.consciousness
Path: sparky!uunet!munnari.oz.au!metro!brutus!hughg
From: [e-mail] (Hugh Garsden)
Subject: Re: Science Superior to Mysticism
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: hughg@brutus (Hugh Garsden)
Nntp-Posting-Host: brutus.ee.su.oz.au
Organization: University of Sydney, EE Dept.
References:  <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 03:06:09 GMT
Lines: 63


Science is not a religion. It is a method created by human beings to find
things out, as best as one can. It can be applied to anything.

Scientism is a religion. It is a dogma which states that it is the one true
way (to know the truth). That all other ways are invalid. It has its fanatics,
missionaries, and inquisitors; but it also has many tolerant people. It
inherits its dogma from science, but restricts it to the material world and
material observation, an arbitrary limit imposed by human beings on their own
creation. The followers of scientism submit themselves to their dogma, the
more fanatical ones elevating it to the level of a universal law, like that of
gravitational attraction. This is also arbitrary. There is no way I can avoid
the law of gravity, but no creation of the human mind has the same status.

Scientism can prove its own dogma, but it does this according to its dogma.
Any religion can do that. Nevertheless, I think all scientists accept the
things that scientism has found, because science transcends, and is superior,
to scientism. But science does not deny what scientism denies; its
investigations reach beyond scientism's boundaries.

I try to be a scientist. This means that I try to find out about consciousness
by making observations, building theories, testing them, making other
observations, and so on. But I have no concern about materiality.  I have no
concern for boundaries. If I observe something repeatably, and I talk to
others who have done the same, then the things that we observe exist.  That is
how we define existence; there is no other way. And, on the basis of
experience, I am confident that anyone else who attempts the observations and
experiments will find the same. But scientismists, who must belong to their
religion, do not do this; just as people of one religion refuse to try the
ideas of another, they are afraid of what they may find.

There is something that I find very sad about the development of scientism.
When science first appeared, the most radical and extraordinary idea that it
brought to human beings was this - "if you want to find something out, you
_look_". But over the years, as scientism developed, this most important
injunction became - "if you want to find something out, you look _here_". And
so they lost it. Such a pity, but that is the fate of all religions.

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] writes:
|> The mystic, being unable to verify their 'knowledge', is
|> doomed to waste years or even centuries investigating absurd
|> notions -

Naturally, in science no theory is ever perfect, and a lot of time may need
to be spent building better theories. And, yes, mistakes may be made.  But we
must accept this. Scientism cannot claim any better.

|> Given time, will science eventually cover the same
|> territory and questions which the mystics claim as their private
|> preserve ? If so, the detailed methodology of science will
|> yeild a superior picture of this territory. IMHO, of course.

I mainly agree. Science has already made considerable progress in this area,
but I don't know that it's picture can be called superior. It is based on what
the mystics have already found, but more refined. Scientism, of course, has a
different picture, but that is a different matter.

--
Hugh Garsden
University of Sydney
[e-mail]