Back in the UK and just time for a quick demolition of Vlad’s various ludicrousnesses…
Religion, well certain religions have given rise to the finest psychologies and anthropologies and sociologies which have proved to be extremely predictive. Hence their continued success. Religion also Birthed science and some of the great philosophies.
Except these disciplines were all “birthed” by the
rejection of religious superstition that was the Enlightenment – religion can no more take credit for them than studying chicken entrails can take credit for modern weather forecasting.
Religion is not science but there are areas in which science works less successfully like psychology and anthropology and sociology;
Presumably by “less successfully” he actually means “less precisely” or “less reliably”, but that’s a function of the greater complexity that minds have than, say, metals used in mechanical engineering. Better though I’d have thought the partial successes that eg psychiatry gives us than the “that’ll be demons that need casting out then” that religion would offer instead.
Suffice it to say that when you, Ippy and The Side guff on about any short comings of religion and elevate science into scientism the only real argument you ever have is science is not religion....well, so what?
First, let’s not forget that Vladdo uses his own personal re-definitions of “scientism” so there’s no telling what he might mean by it this time.
Second though, what bluehillside at least
actually says is that science produces solutions that demonstrably work, whereas religious just makes guesses about stuff. Ask Vlad to explain in what way religious claims can be distinguished from guessing and he will of course invariably head for the door.
Funny that.
Than itself in areas such Physics, chemistry and biology. The roots of psychology, sociology and anthropology are found in religion.
He asserted with no supporting logic or evidence whatever…
Still, at least he’s retrenched a bit from the even more outlandish “birthed by”, which must be progress of some sort I guess.
What interest ultimately have for something (defined by a supposed adherence to science) like the self or the personality that it considers an illusion or at best an organ infected with memes?
I’ve seen bowls of spilled alphabet soup that are more coherent that that.
The answer is none and if relied on 100% would likely result in neglect as opposed to the fairy, dairy science utopia proposed by Humanists UK.
And now he’s playing with the bits of spaghetti and sauce that are all over the table. Weird.
These are studies of human nature and self knowledge gained by introspection of the self.
Not really. What they’re actually gained by is as rigorous analysis of the facts and evidence as are available, tested with real life subject experience, and used to develop theories and practical intervention techniques.
Since the self does not exist in science and science can only probe the psyche, society and humanity so far it provides neither the historical basis or the fundemental raison d'etre for these 'ologies'.
“The self does not exist in science” eh? WTF?
Tell it to Freud.
Scientism left unmoderated will possible lead to the extinction of these subjects infavour of things which fit the physicalism of modern scientists out for an easier ride namely Neuroscience and evolutionary psychology.
Utterly bonkers. Areas in which we don’t have any or complete answers are what
inspire the various scientific disciplines to find out more, not to eliminate them at all.
Absolutely. Scientism threatens to drive out the humane aspects of psychology and sociology leaving those in mental or social anguish with an effective 'pull your self together' or worse, therapy designed to make people atheist and accepting of what Dawkins might refer to as the cold truths of the human condition. Such therapy would I imagine be on such a wide and peer pressured scale that it would make things like gay therapy seem like a private do.
That’s a grotesque misrepresentation. What “science” – ie, relevant scientific enquiry into the causes of and possible cures for “mental or social anguish”
actually does is to try to ameliorate or even remove them. What would the religious approach be instead – self-flagellation to show “god” they were sorry? Starvation to drive out the demons perhaps? A thorough course of praying perhaps (don’t forget to complete the course though – very important that)? The selling of indulgencies maybe?
There is a danger that because the self doesn't exist the individual becomes a totally corporate commodity with psychology geared towards productivity rather than the self which doesn't exist anyway.
A false conclusion built on an initial lie. Who says “the self” doesn’t exist?
Do we have current figures? Apparently we are now a majority non religious society and mental anguish has increased in the young thanks to new ways of inflicting and acquiring it electronically.
Oooh, “mental anguish” eh? How I wonder is Vlad defining this term, and how then is he measuring its supposed “increase”? Is this “anguish” greater in the young than oh, I dunno, most of them dying from various diseases, famine, natural disasters etc before the scientific method he so decries managed to reduce hugely the incidences of all of these things?
As I say a functional scientism based on everything being function is of no help to those peer pressured into considering their function.
Yes, he does indeed say gibberish of this kind. No idea why though.
I would beg to disagree therefore since there is mental anguish a go go in our largely apatheist society.
And he finishes with an un-defined quantitative term (“a go go”), no argument and no evidence of any kind. The papers report
some young people suffering issues of alienation,
possibly connected with the excessive uses of their X-boxes and that’s enough for Vladdo to draw a daft generalisation.
Desperate stuff indeed.
