If you were restructuring society from a blank slate and no history, that would make sense. Blank paper. Empty breadboard. New Document. But that’s not what we have. “Substituting similar systems” sounds reasonable and in theory I can see it. In fact, I’d say that’s what’s been happening already: a cult of science and math worship of (the Universe is Math stuff) that grew from the early 00s to the early 10s, although seems to have stagnated lately. It has many of the earmarks of a new religion and honestly, I’m fine with it as a modern substitute: The “Wow Universe” vs “Wow God” thing is fine. I’m also fine with attacking quackery from any realm. (quack religion, quack pseudo-science, etc). But it’s when the reasonable moderate groups get attacked that it bothers me.

If you were restructuring society from a blank slate and no history, that would make sense. Blank paper. Empty breadboard. New Document.

But that’s not what we have.

“Substituting similar systems” sounds reasonable and in theory I can see it. In fact, I’d say that’s what’s been happening already: a cult of science and math worship of (the Universe is Math stuff) that grew from the early 00s to the early 10s, although seems to have stagnated lately.

It has many of the earmarks of a new religion and honestly, I’m fine with it as a modern substitute: The “Wow Universe” vs “Wow God” thing is fine.

I’m also fine with attacking quackery from any realm. (quack religion, quack pseudo-science, etc).

But it’s when the reasonable moderate groups get attacked that it bothers me.

there’s sparse representation of new atheist on this group — and I used to hang around the new atheist crowd for debate a couple of years ago — so I was doing a whistle to see who was who xD

==

Within religions you have extreme groups and you also have moderate, mostly humanist groups. Think Pope John Paul, Dalai Lama, Episcopal, American Islam, Unitarian church ethos. It’s generally liberal, holds that science has the answers “but maybe not all of them”, and is more or less indistinguishable from a basic secular on the street.

They should be seen as partners against extremes but instead they get painted with the same brush as the radical.

—-

He and a few others suffers from “I can’t say ‘I don’t know”‘ syndrome.

Sadly – and that’s a BIG missing piece (among a few others) of the rhetoric.

It pisses me off because I *do* love the sciences, it’s more than just physics… and it DOESN’T need to try to replace philosophy and other things. Its only enemies should be within itself, correcting issues, pursuing as best they can with the tools they have.

He has a right to his personal opinions, but the dividing line should be sharp and clear.

oh god that’s a cringey answer he gave the boy… he’s mushing science engineering and math together…. oh i hate that.

====

“Art is all aesthetic.. BUT science = engineering = math = reason… … and all science is a form of physics ” is a related thing that gets my goat…

My n HATES “STEM”. He’s 12 + he knew the difference when he was 10 and ranted to me about teachers saying “STEM” when it’s clearly technology, or STEM when it’s clearly Math… etc. Now he’s all about memes but when he still rants about teacher stupidities.

====

same – and it’s because I care about the sciences and I care about music and art that their easy dismissal of critical things drives me batty

===

They parade science around like it’s “one thing” and that it’s on this noble quest to destroy philosophy and destroy religion and they can’t see that all of these things are an integral part of being human. You don’t remove religion unless you have substitutes that are also religions just under other names.

===

They need an immersive course in Systems Thinking.

===

 

Leave a comment

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


6 − = three

Leave a Reply