But I think we need both: we need people who say “This is the bottom” and work from there and we ALSO need people poking to see if there is anything deeper as well.

Oh there could be, absolutely. Is there *always* a deeper level? I don’t know. But I think we need both: we need people who say “This is the bottom” and work from there and we ALSO need people poking to see if there is anything deeper as well.

==

But that’s their job. The people who want to search deeper will continue to search regardless of stifling efforts.

Analogy: farming.

Some people are farming. Some other people are looking for water sources while the farmers are watering from above.

The farm needs to continue operations and sometimes the people looking for water sources that could eliminate the need for watering from above get in the way.

Why? The farming can continue without searching for new water sources and be extremely productive.

There’s a chance that the person searching for deeper water sources to eliminate the need to water from above will be wasting everybody’s time and getting in the way of work getting done.

But they COULD ALSO be revolutionary and turn a desert farm into an oasis.

So, you need both, each pursuing their tasks even if they bump into each other.

==

Scientism is something I try to watch out for in myself. I love Science as it is practical and pragmatic but I also unfortunately know that what they taught me about the scientific method in school isn’t really the reality.

Yet, I’m ok with that. A lot can be accomplished with imperfect systems.

==

Scientism is a real thing. I’m not criticizing: among the plethora of potential ideologies one might choose to follow for their own belief systems, scientism certainly isn’t the worst out there.

==

he rhetoric you were using to convince me of the purity of the scientific process is that of scientism. Consider that you aren’t using science to convince me of the need for “no dogma” in science: you are using rhetoric. Convincing words. The ideology of these convincing words is within the spectrum of scientism. It’s not a criticism: I’m just noticing.

==

Well, we could switch to a discussion of power differentials between the Elite and the lone investigative scientist, struggling against the oppressive regime of Dogmatic fundamentalism embedded within the societies of the sciences, stifling the voices of truth to keep their own paychecks flowing and to cater to the whims of the political elite.

But that’s mythology. Campbellian. Or in modern terms, victim/oppressor narrative.

==

I think some dude in the 19th century talked about it too. Marx or something. Never got into philosophy or polysci though. I REALLY tried though.

==

Within the purity of science rhetoric, Tesla usually comes up in the conversation along with a lot of praise.

==

 

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


four × = 12

Leave a Reply