Tuesday, April 1, 2014

Scientism is the New Religion (What to look for when navigating the internet)

Analytic philosopher Susan Haack lists what she considers six signs of scientism:

1. Using the words “science,” “scientific,” “scientifically,” “scientist,” etc., honorifically, as generic terms of epistemic praise. (you'll see this all over TV, Neil D. Tyson does this a lot!)

2. Adopting the manners, the trappings, the technical terminology, etc., of the sciences, irrespective of their real usefulness. (writing papers full of lingo and no real meaning, in other words, when simple language can explain results but they choose not to use it to make the paper sound "technical")

3. A preoccupation with demarcation, i.e., with drawing a sharp line between genuine science, the real thing, and “pseudo-scientific” imposters. (This is all over the place, like the site dealingwithcreationisminastronomy.com, and rationalwiki.org  where dishonorable anonymous trolls vilify real people.)

4. A corresponding preoccupation with identifying the “scientific method,” presumed to explain how the sciences have been so successful. (this is all over the place too, people have to learn how to spot it out, a big thing is the difference between technology and science itself, the two are not the same, a technological discovery is not necessarily a scientific one, think language)

5. Looking to the sciences for answers to questions beyond their scope. (ALL over the place)

6. Denying or denigrating the legitimacy or the worth of other kinds of inquiry besides the scientific, or the value of human activities other than inquiry, such as poetry or art. (or even a human being's intuition, which isn't recognized by the new religion)

And I have a #7 from my own experience:

7. When there is only one interpretation for a given phenomenon. (when there is only one theory for a given natural phenomenon, we can guarantee only one ideology is being pushed, in other words, the others are being censored for the sake of the prescribed belief)

I have extensive experience with #7. The reader should be made aware there is only one "accepted model" for star evolution. You know why this is now. The current model for star evolution is a belief system. It is scientism in its raw form. Stars ARE fusion reactors. Stars' life spans can ONLY be determined by their mass. Stars can NEVER solidify into condensed matter. Stars can NEVER be made of gaseous matter.

With my new theory I break the chains of establishment stellar scientism. Read it if you want.

stellar metamorphosis

No comments:

Post a Comment

Helpful comments will be appreciated, but if the user does not want to address the issues being presented they will be ignored. This is a blog dedicated to trying to explain how to make sense of the discovery that planet formation is star evolution itself, not a blog for false mainstream beliefs.