Why is science demonized in people's minds?

Post Reply New Topic

Science points out the objectivity of the universe, how mechanical and natural it is. And for someone who is comforted by fairy dust and deities science can be quite a threat to that.
Especially when it comes to anyone involving humans, people are more freaked out by the study of a human brain for example because they don't like to be objectified.

This doesn't seem peculiar to science - What about the arts, social actions, political movements, and -yes- even certain strains of religion?

If we measure the universe or reality by complexity rather than by the dimensions of distance and time, then the cliche about humans being small and insignificant becomes less pertinent, particularly given the apparent likelihood that relatively few environments out there are likely to sustain intelligent life. True, much of our own human complexity, as revealed by science, lies outside 'our own little world' in that we're unaware of it, but atleast we can take ownership of it and investigate how it connects with the aspects of life that science as it stands can't fully explain, such as social interaction.



All well and good, but after all the shock horror about the bare facts -the correspondence of brain signals to thoughts for example- the fact that certain assumptions of physicalism -and logical positivism I think- are impossible AT A LOGICAL LEVEL for many people to believe in wholeheartedly remains.

Take the position of Daniel Dennett (a philosopher rather than a scientist - atleast he's honest about what he does!) that consciousness doesn't exist: There's no way to prove that consciousness doesn't exist, however much evidence there may be to suggest it doesn't exist in the way we might think it does. At the same time, the argument is absurd a priori, as we clearly are conscious in some way for much of the time atleast. As it cannot be falsified, however, it stands, given that the evidence appears to point in its direction at the moment. The wider 'argument' that there are no minds -only brains- strikes the same note, again appealing to authority and belief (in the absence of any conceivable material evidence that might contradict it) in order to to do its 'unnerving'.

Susan Blackmore's refinement of that argument -the idea that we are only conscious when we assert the philosophical principle that consciousness exists- sounds fishy, especially when one hears of meditators who report (with the enhanced brain signals to prove it) a near-constant feedback loop of the awareness of being aware (latin: sapiens sapiens) and yet remain clearly mortal - even human. It also seems unduly dismissive of the minds of children, as well as non-human animals (though not us auties) who -with their simpler brains- experience life without necessarily reflecting on their experience at all.

A word-game, or a simple misunderstanding of the use of certain terms outside the laboratory, sometimes seems to be going on here on closer investigation, as well as the geek's con trick I described in reference to Daniel Dennett: In particular, given the outward focus of western civilisation to date, terms such as 'consciousness' and 'reflexive awareness' can still be used interchangeably despite the distinct meanings that can be given them, the word 'consciousness' in particular being in need of an agreed and precise definition to begin with.

Moving on to free will, it's evidence of the ability of emotion to cloud logic that no-one tends to remember how our choices are merely guided by habits and preferences that we never chose, atleast not at the origins of the chain reactions that led to their being made. It's always in our power -atleast in youth while the personality is still malleable- to overrule the easier choice in favour of a more rewarding, harder one.



Scientific discoveries have merely suggested those issues. Remember the early (16'th-to-18'th-century) scientists were christians.



There's a lot of philosophy in certain scienTISTS, normally popular science writers given the fat that strongly-held views tend to be more entertaining than strongly consistent data. As far as I understand, though, science gets by on a minimum of philosophical principles that everyone can hopefully agree on. The belief that science can explain everything, on the other hand, clearly depends on a lot of philosophical assumptions.

Science is based on reason. The other fields are not

Art is emotionallyt based. Politics and social actions are exercises in power and therefore corrupt.

ruveyn

When religion came into existince so did non theists so they go hand and hand with each other. I do not have anything agianst science I view sicience as a good thing I use it too most of my fellow methodist do not like it though I do not care my faith will not be shaken by science but I still use science in my life.

I love biology chemistry but mostly physics.

Reason and emotion are both mental processes that 'enable us to think outside of our own little world', since much NT and -occasionally- autistic thinking is emotionally-based, social interaction being based on a form of cognition in which emotional impressions form the building blocks. And in order to work, 'high' art typically resorts to reason - in place of the inspiration that might allow social interaction to provide a full template for creative achievement. I feel that religion -with its beautiful mishmash of logic and histrionics- functions in this way if its truth claims are first dismissed.

I included political movements in the list, as followers are more numerous than leaders and appear more likely to seek, think through, and ofcourse feel a sense of belonging to a greater purpose.