Formerly the Thinking Catholic Strategic Center
This is written in partial response to perceived threat of the Redirection previously discussed in the American Redirection article. This article treats only the SANE-supplied vision of the Science-Scientism contention only; another article will speak to the Democracy/Open Society part of it.
There is much said these days about the word Scientism being a purely rhetorical term invented by Creationists as a straw-man villain, of use in opposing the supposedly scientific theory of Darwinism, or, Darwin’s conjectures - guesses - regarding speciation. We are told by experts that there really is no such thing as scientism, and I suppose that’s true enough. Obviously, it’s a purely rhetorical term, just like the term homophobia. However, Scientism remains a useful term, and Creationists are not the only ones who use it. In fact, probably most of us who use it may not be described as Creationists, or even as people who hold to any alternative theory at all regarding how the species came to be. Having a hard and fast “scientific” theory regarding speciation is of much greater importance to devout atheists and other forms of fundamentalists than it is to me; I don’t really worry too much about how the species came about.
The uncritical embracing of theories quite obviously without scientific foundation raises questions regarding the professional and/or scientific qualifications of majority membership in such diverse fields as archeology, medicine, psychoanalysis, education, biology and many others. The list today is almost endless. How many, in each of these fields and in many others, reveal in their daily language and terminology how they casually embrace such notions as
and on, and on, and on. None of these notions are scientific. They are Scientistic.
You can see some of these topics in more depth at the various links below:
Now, the opponents of the term scientism generally wind up reducing the meaning of “science” to being delimited by the boundaries of the so-called hard sciences, such as mathematics, physics, chemistry, and “mathematical physics,” whatever that is. The interesting thing is that these fields and their practitioners are the least likely to ever be rhetorically associated with the term scientism, by those of us who use the term, or even those who may injudiciously throw the term about. No one in his right mind would call an Archimedes or a Newton or an Einstein unscientific, and that is precisely what the purely rhetorical term scientism is intended to do.
Is medicine a science? Is an MD a scientist? Many of them seem to think so, and the image their professional organizations portray is, predominantly, scientific. Free commerce knows this image, and that’s why whenever you see a commercial hawking a pill or treatment or health aid, the guy on the screen will be wearing a lab coat and have the obligatory stethoscope badge of office hanging around his neck, laying over his shoulder or generously protruding from a lab coat pocket. Image is everything.
Like I said, I don’t worry too much about the mechanics of how the various species came to be; but that cannot be said of the fiercest opponents of the term Scientism. Indeed, many of them will defend, virtually to the death, Darwin’s silly notions as being not only somehow scientific, but as comprising an actual scientific theory. Which calls into question the scientific qualifications of whole “scientific” fields, such as biological evolution, paleontology and archeology. It’s interesting that these giant “scientific” fields of study exist and thrive everywhere today despite the simple fact that, in all of recorded history, no solid empirical evidence has ever been produced to support Darwin’s theory.Darwin’s so-called scientific theory says that, GESGOEAEOT2 , tiny mutations occur, those for the better survive, others do not, and, eventually, GESGOEAEOT2 , a new mutant strain may still reproduce itself but can no longer reproduce with the parent species from which it mutated. Poof. A new species.
What the massive, huge, colossal fossil record shows is something else: the term for it is Stasis, and it means, the species do not change. Everywhere you look in the fossil record, you find stasis, stasis, stasis. Darwin said that failure and/or intermediary species absolutely must outnumber successful species. The fossil record shows no failure and no intermediary species. Stasis, stasis, stasis. The species do not change. Completely and fully formed species suddenly appear in the record, live their millions of years absolutely unchanged, and then disappear.
(Do you remember the movie Jaws? The "scientist" describing the Great White Shark told us that the Great White had "achieved evolutionary perfection" 100 million years ago and stopped evolving. Well, no poop. That same statement could be correctly made about every species of life known to man.)
Natural Selection is supposed to be the tool of evolution by which only the best suited to the environment and the most capable of reproduction survive to pass on their characteristics to future generations. Survival of the fittest. But the sole evidence of this piece of the theory is the tautological or circular argument that says
Mutations invariably demonstrate less, not more, genetic material than the parent sets, which means a lower and more limited future possibility of future variation. Devolution rather than evolution. From the more complex to the more simple, and never, ever, the other way around.Practitioners of scientism who, on seeing the clear fossil record of stasis regarding the species, and reject the GESGOEAEOT2 “fundamentalist” Darwinian theory in favor of the newer PEWAG3 Darwinian theory are similarly undone by the fossil record. Species just appear, fully formed, with nothing in the fossil record for them to have mass-mutated from. We’re not talking about something that just appears here and there in the fossil record; we’re talking about every single case, with no exceptions.
The same is true of parts or portions of beings, meaning structures or organs such as hands or wings or eyes or sex organs or claws or lungs. In every case, they appear fully formed and fully functional. Using the Nautilus as an example, it suddenly appears in the fossil record with a fully formed set of eyeballs, fully formed tentacles, fully formed everything, lives its millions of years absolutely unchanged, and then goes extinct. Just like everything else in the fossil record. No one has ever seen any “light sensitive spot” or “pre-eyeball” any more than anyone has ever seen a “sex sensitive spot” or pre-sex organ, male or female.The theoretical light sensitive spot, just like every other aspect of Darwinian speciation dogma, was hypothesized and guessed into being, never verified, never even observed, but immediately embraced by all of TTRSTF4 in a completely unscientific way, by immediate knee-jerk consensus.
Which is the whole of how practitioners of Scientism do what they pretend is science today. How do we know that the globe is warming, and that that warming is due to human activity? By poll. Proponents can say, often truthfully, that there are more of TTRSTF4 who agree with that Scientisic notion than disagree with it. It’s seen to be Democracy in action, even though it does not even involve a legal ballot yet, but only a purely unscientific poll. It’s how we know that the perfectly harmless HIV retrovirus is able to morph or “evolve” into AIDS, and how it miraculously rapidly “evolves” new defenses against ever increasingly expensive serums and vaccines.
By poll. By consensus. That’s it.
And what is popularly accepted is pure hypothesis and nothing else. No observation. No experiment. No independent verification. All peer review of published theory strictly limited to subjective agreement with hypothesis. No application of Popper’s rule of Falsifiability. Nothing but a pure conjecture and subjective opinion. Note well that it is Darwin’s unproven theory that is legally mandated to be taught in the same government schools in which all competing theories are legally censored. If what I am saying here is wrong, I challenge you to prove it by producing any empirical evidence at all supporting Darwin’s theory on speciation. If you cannot do that, then your inability to do so proves conclusively that Darwin’s theory on speciation is false, and deserves no consideration as a viable hypothesis, let alone scientific theory. Right?Yet the preponderance of Scientistic heads continue to bobble in idiotic unison, and just about all of academia, and all of the SLIMC1 , and most of the rest of show-biz, can be expected to bobble and nod in lockstep with all the rest of the bobble-headed idiots promoting this crap. They are exactly and precisely as scientific as are any other bobble-headed dolls you can find anywhere.
Yes, my dear reader, there is indeed such a thing as Scientism.
Sarcastic Acronym Hover-Link Footnotes: For the convenience of those readers using devices that lack a mouse, these footnotes are provided for all webpages, in case any webpage contains any hover-links. (If you don't have a mouse, you can't "hover" it over a link without clicking just to see the simple acronym interpretation. Click any footnote link to see the acronym and a detailed explanation.)SLIMC1 Secularist Liberal Intellectual Media Complex
The Brilliantly Conceived Organization of the USA; Vic Biorseth
Return to the BLOG page
Return to the HOME PAGE
Subscribe to our Free E-Zine News Letter
Respond to This Article Below The Last Comment
Date: Thu Jun 28 12:20:51 2012
From: Dov Henis
Location: Hod-HaSharon, Israel
Decide Humanity: Scientism, Or Natural Selection http://universe-life.com/2012/05/19/decide-humanity-scientism-or-natural-selectio/ Humanity Must Decide: Scientism Or Natural Selection http://www.sciencemag.org/site/special/conflict/index.xhtml http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2012/05/roots-of-racism.html?ref=em Scientism: A doctrine and method characteristic of scientists, and the proposition that scientific doctrine and methods of studying natural sciences should be used in all areas of investigation and in conduct of politics-social-cultural-civil affairs in pursuit of an efficient practical, as fair as possible, civics framework. Natural Selection: All mass formats, inanimate and animate, follow natural selection, i.e. intake of energy or their energy taken in by other mass formats. All politics, local, national and international, are about evolutionary biology, about Darwinian evolution, about survival, about obtaining and maintaining and distributing energy. Religion: is a virtual factor-component in human’s natural selection. Its target-function is to preserve-proliferate specific cultural phenotypes. Natural selection-religion are compatible with technology-capitalism but are obviously incompatible with science-scientism, that targets preservation-proliferation of the genotype. Science-scientism is an obvious threat to the survival of a cultural phenotype. Dov Henis (comments from 22nd century) Universe-Energy-Mass-Life Compilation http://universe-life.com/2012/02/03/universe-energy-mass-life-compilation/ For A Scientism Culture http://universe-life.com/2011/06/11/for-a-scientism-culture/
Date: Fri Jun 29 06:01:34 2012
From: Vic Biorseth
Frankly, I’m not too impressed with either approach. Your scientism has nothing behind it, and your natural selection is all based on unproven hypothesis, which is to say, conjecture. And conjecture – no matter how well it is wrapped in super-sophisticated, high-sounding, high-falutin language – never rises above the level of being a guess.
What is the morality or moral code behind any system of thought from which God has been divorced?
The ends justify the means?
You can’t make an omelet without breaking eggs?
Shut up and get on the cattle car?
Just wondering …
Wednesday, February 20,
Converted Page to SBI! Release 3.0 BB 2.0.
Date: Mon Sep 15 2014
From: Vic Biorseth
Changes pursuant to changing the website URL
and name from
Thinking Catholic Strategic Center to
Catholic American Thinker.
Pulled the trigger on the 301 MOVE IT option June 1, 2014. Working my way through all the webpages. .
Date: Mon Nov 25 15:23:30 2019
The threat of pseudo-science has never been more real. And nothing helps pseudo-science more then the lack of criticism towards, frankly, unscientific and unethical practices - as well as utterly asinine theories/dogmas. Kinsey's "studies" are but a shining example of this in the soft science of psychology - through, it's more on the obvious side of things. The real extent of the rot has got to be in the quantum physics department - that field was transformed from science to a publicity stunt and a goddamn joke. The worst part is that it's so complex that ordinary folks can't understand the extent of the damage - unlike in prior ages, intelligent generalists aren't going to be getting into this that easily... Darwinism may be the eternal black mark on biology, but, in quantum physics... If you want to see just how science can be perverted by politics and lack of experimental rigor, look no further then the "standard model" of quantum physics. Ever since the Second World War, experimentation in that field as we know it has been all but abandoned (unless it's to pre-confirm an existing "theory" - with a heavy dose of data manipulation, of course). The scope and irrationality of the errors within the "Standard Model" make Kinsey's blunder of a study look normal in comparison - the greatest standing error there has got to be that mess with the cosmological constant... The discrepancy between theory and observed data is 138 orders of magnitude - through, it's censored the best as it can by our resident physics publications. As for the culprit... Behold the mathematical magic - the ever-popular "Big Bang" (the premise of which violates thermodynamics and, frankly, basic logic - and the "defense" against that is "the laws of physics break down at such temperatures"), the "borrowing from the vacuum" (which is everywhere in "weak force" theory - one of the core postulates in physics (it's main rules) is that you cannot assign a force, extension, energy or anything else to vacuum, making this a cheat at the axiomatic level), "virtual particles" and the other sorts of lies that permeate the field of quantum physics. Most of them claim that they are stalwart champions of reason - through, I fear, they prefer it's opposite instead. And that's without delving into the almost-complete crackpottery that is String "theory"... Personally, I blame modernism for this - it's signature trait always was it's love of "new" ideas, may reality be damned...
Never be lukewarm.
Life itself demands passion.
He who is indifferent to God has already forfeited his soul.
He who is indifferent to politics has already forfeited his liberty.
In America, religion is not mere window dressing and citizenship is not a spectator sport.
Do not allow our common destiny as a whole people to just happen without your input.
Seek the Truth; find the Way; live the Life; please God, and live forever.
Catholic American Thinker
Free E-zine Subscription
You will receive immediate email newsletters with links to new articles as they are published here. Your email is perfectly secure here; we use it only to send you the
Catholic American Thinker
and absolutely nothing else.
Enter ye in at the narrow gate: for wide is the gate, and
broad is the way that leadeth to destruction, and many there are who go in
thereat. How narrow is the gate, and strait is the way that leadeth to life:
and few there are that find it! Beware of false prophets, who come to you in
the clothing of sheep, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
Jesus Christ; Matt 7:13-15
The Purpose of this grouping of links is to highlight pseudo-science topics with nothing behind them other than broad consensus, described by F. A. Hayek as Scientism.
The Scientism Pages.
Describing the abandonment of the scientific method in favor of "Democracy in Science", meaning, science done by gathering of popular consensus among "scientists". Old-Boy's-Club science, with awards, congratulations, drinks and cigars all around. (My list of scientists is longer than your list of scientists, therefore my opinion is scientific, and yours is not.)
The Scientism Pages highlight Democratic Group Think in Material Science. The Scientism Pages identify Popular Ideas touted as Scientific by silly, sophmoric "Scientists".
Refuting Scientism, the term coined by F. A. Hayek for modern pseudo-science. Refuting Scientism is another ho-hum, heavy-sigh, here-we-go-again effort to return to truth, common sense and sanity.
The Modernist Heresy: Western Man's Descent from Philosophy into Modernism. Modernism is the heresy of heresies, because it carries within it all previous heresies, being as it is a direct, frontal assault upon faith and all doctrine and dogma.
The Population Problem: A Real Problem, or a typical Scientistic Myth? If England has a higher population density than China, and Hong Kong's is higher than Bangladesh, then maybe the real problems are not related to any over - population problem.
The Enlightenment and Scientism advance at the expense of Western Civilization. From Voltaire to Enlightenment and Scientism to Modernism, the ill-informed cheer the process along even as it destroys Western Culture.
"There is no such thing as Scientism" say those who practice it. If Scientism is a false term, then by what title to we refer to "Scientific Theory Established By Vote"?
Eco-Nazi -ism: global problems demanding global solutions, and, global mastery. The Eco-Nazi movement actually describes two movements: those who say "it's the economy, stupid" and those who say "it's the ecology, stupid."
Global warming is outed as another global consensual fraud. So what else is new? As a global consensual fraud, global warming is not the biggest, the oldest, the longest running, or the most expensive. It’s just the latest one.
Well, is it Global Cooling, or is it Global Warming? Is there any consensus? What is needed is some real Scientistic Consensus on whether we should all be screaming "Global Cooling!" or "Global Warming!" as we all run about, on queue, mindlessly waving our arms in terror.
This ain’t Health Care. It’s all a giant pile of lies. No, it isn’t really Health Care. Nothing in Obamunism is what it appears to be.
The HIV=AIDS=DEATH myth has cost many human lives and untold billions of dollars. The HIV to AIDS Myth may be the greatest and most massive international hoax since Piltdown Man. HIV=AIDS=DEATH is the formula, but where, pray tell, is there any empirical evidence at all supporting it?
A fatal false premise is a deadly logical trap for the mal-educated person. A Fatal false premise with broad general consensus will always trump reason, evidence and critical thinking.
Against the great Communist Lie; the old, current and newer forms. Our argument: The whole “Communist Dream” is a lie; the history of “Communist Revolution” is a lie; virtually everything about Communism is just a big elaborate flagrant categorical lie.
Silly premises built on crumbling foundations: Global Villageism & Evolutionism. The Dem Global-Villagers insist the US Constitution was written to cover all citizens of Earth; Disciples of Scientism and Evolutionism all genuflect before their high priest, Richard Dawkins.
The Galileo Inquisition: Contemporary Icon for the Enlightenment and Scientism. The Galileo Inquisition was no small affair at the time, but over the centuries it has grown and become a club with which to beat the Church, and to promote the myth of the "Dark" ages.
"We belong to the Church militant; and She is militant because on earth the powers of darkness are ever restless to encompass Her destruction. Not only in the far-off centuries of the early Church, but down through the ages and in this our day, the enemies of God and Christian civilization make bold to attack the Creator’s supreme dominion and sacrosanct human rights.”--Pope Pius XII
"It is not lawful to take the things of others to give to the poor. It is a sin worthy of punishment, not an act deserving a reward, to give away what belongs to others."--St. Francis of Assisi
Truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is.—Winston Churchill
The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities.—Ayn Rand
If you can't find the page you're looking for, try the