The scientific dictatorship

Hey all,

Just a thought, I was thinking about how much prestige the scientific community has gained recently and how much more influencing its becoming in the way we think... it is the number one cause of people questioning religious beliefs (not a bad thing though mostly lol). But I also feel like the scientific community has embraced a metaphysical belief system (materialism) and this worldview is being promoted in our academic institutions and by the scientific elite. These are some of things that that academic community implicitly and explicitly promotes as gospel by in my opinion are questionable and some are most likely just outright false

Nature is purposeless
consciousness is a product of the brain
psi is not real
psychics are fake
there are no grand conspiracies
alternative medicine is all bogus
Humans have only been around for 40 to 100 thousand years ( I am thinking of forbidden archaeology (Cremo) and other anomalies found by archaeologist)
we have never been visited by other intelligent beings

I am just thinking about how when one group claims to have an outright claim to knowledge... how it can form into some sort of knowledge cartel or dictatorship... when people just accept any consensus that is formed by the scientific community without question.. and people who question it are ridiculed and suppressed... as the scientific community becomes more and more influential in promoting the materialist worldview.... I think its going to start functioning sort of like a knowledge cartel... churches are replaced with universities and schools and priests are replaced with scientists.

I feel like this because I feel like western society is getting more totalitarian in its outlook and conformity is valued over free thought in all aspects of life.
 
Well I know that Stuart Hameroff has said that many mainstream scientists have become the high priests of their religion, unwilling to share the authority of knowledge. I myself have always noticed a striking similarity between ignorant scientists and ignorant priests.
 
Well I know that Stuart Hameroff has said that many mainstream scientists have become the high priests of their religion, unwilling to share the authority of knowledge. I myself have always noticed a striking similarity between ignorant scientists and ignorant priests.
I see the opposite. Peculiar ain't it.
 
I see the opposite. Peculiar ain't it.
Not really, no; I would say expected. Seriously though, you see ignorant scientists claiming they know the answers as somehow different than ignorant priests claiming they know the answers? You put the lab coat on one and the robe on the other, and you wouldn't be able to tell the difference.
 
Well my experience is that most scientists are pretty chill about religion and inclined to not take a polarized view on materialism or spiritualism either way. They understand that science doesn't know everything. If anything, they understand the weaknesses of science because they see it in all its ugly gory detail.

However there are always people who seem to want to polarize everything. They always claim to speak for the majority, whatever they think it is and they're not open to the idea that they're not right. You can find them in science and religion.

They make a lot of noise.
 
However there are always people who seem to want to polarize everything. They always claim to speak for the majority, whatever they think it is and they're not open to the idea that they're not right. You can find them in science and religion.

They make a lot of noise.
Exactly, I am referring to the noisemakers.
 
Last edited:
Interesting about the Forbidden Archeology (Cremo) thing. I wasn't aware of that and found a couple of fascinating resources:

http://www.mcremo.com/YASBLT_forbiddenarchaeology.pdf


I tend to agree with Craig: many scientists are probably more open minded than they're given credit for; that said, the ones who aren't are vociferous and influential, while the others just want an uneventful life, and not unnaturally, don't want to threaten their livelihoods. It's possibly much the same in other spheres, too. The ones with the loudest voices and the most bigoted opinions generally get to rule the roost.
 
No, it does not. The post is reflecting a perception created by fanatical skeptics who are willing to lie and misdirect in order to preserve their beliefs.

Wait, so the fanatical skeptics have convinced Buggy that scientists have gained undue prestige and are unduly influencing the way we think but really they are not? And these same fanatical skeptics have lied and misdirected causing Buggy to believe that western society is getting more totalitarian in its outlook and conformity is valued over free thought in all aspects of life?
 
Hey all,

Just a thought, I was thinking about how much prestige the scientific community has gained recently and how much more influencing its becoming in the way we think...

1). Nature is purposeless
2). consciousness is a product of the brain
3).psi is not real
4).psychics are fake
5).there are no grand conspiracies
6).alternative medicine is all bogus
7).Humans have only been around for 40 to 100 thousand years ( I am thinking of forbidden archaeology (Cremo) and other anomalies found by archaeologist)
8).we have never been visited by other intelligent beings


.
Broad statements. Forget about what you think scientists have said. What answers, that are not opinions are there for any of the above listed statements?
1). What is the purpose of nature?
2). Can it be definitively proven it's not?
3). Can a true psychic be found? Meaning one that shows clear evidentiary evidence of being psychic by any person looking at their case file.
4). Before you answer. What grand CT did you have in mind?
6). Before you answer. What alternative medicine did you have in mind?
7). Show the evidence this is true. What is cremo?
8). Where's the evidence we have ever been visited?
 
Wait, so the fanatical skeptics have convinced Buggy that scientists have gained undue prestige and are unduly influencing the way we think but really they are not? And these same fanatical skeptics have lied and misdirected causing Buggy to believe that western society is getting more totalitarian in its outlook and conformity is valued over free thought in all aspects of life?


Ask Buggy.
 
Seriously though- how much influence do the skeptical groups actually have? Before coming across skeptical podcasts which lead me to their sites I'd never heard of James Randi or any organised skeptical group - and that's after having attended 8 years of post-secondary education. Now I know that people from these groups regularly end up as pundits on news programs but so do others on the other side. The media seems filled with both pro-psi and anti-psi messages. Reality paranormal programming is hugely popular, the alt-med industry is booming and atheists - while growing in number - are still a pretty small percentage of the population. As I've pointed out in the past, at my university, in both my history/polisci degree and my law degree my university required students to look at topics from multiple angles and would have marked down anyone who refused to analyse multiple angles to a problem (asterisk being that my experience was in the social sciences - I don't know whether the same open-minded approach applied to the hard sciences taught at my university.)

When you spend a lot of time on a forum such as Skeptiko - which deals with topics that are a focus for organised skepticsm and thus come up time and again I think it may lead one to attribute exagerated influence to the skeptical groups. Sort of a correlation/causation type of thing. My perception seems to be that for people not focussed on these issues skeptical groups - or even scientists in general - don't occupy too much of their attention.

But that's just my perception. I'm honestly not quite sure how to figure out the answer to this. Does anyone know if this has been studied in any formal fashion?
 
Seriously though- how much influence do the skeptical groups actually have? Before coming across skeptical podcasts which lead me to their sites I'd never heard of James Randi or any organised skeptical group - and that's after having attended 8 years of post-secondary education. Now I know that people from these groups regularly end up as pundits on news programs but so do others on the other side. The media seems filled with both pro-psi and anti-psi messages. Reality paranormal programming is hugely popular, the alt-med industry is booming and atheists - while growing in number - are still a pretty small percentage of the population. As I've pointed out in the past, at my university, in both my history/polisci degree and my law degree my university required students to look at topics from multiple angles and would have marked down anyone who refused to analyse multiple angles to a problem (asterisk being that my experience was in the social sciences - I don't know whether the same open-minded approach applied to the hard sciences taught at my university.)

When you spend a lot of time on a forum such as Skeptiko - which deals with topics that are a focus for organised skepticsm and thus come up time and again I think it may lead one to attribute exagerated influence to the skeptical groups. Sort of a correlation/causation type of thing. My perception seems to be that for people not focussed on these issues skeptical groups - or even scientists in general - don't occupy too much of their attention.

But that's just my perception. I'm honestly not quite sure how to figure out the answer to this. Does anyone know if this has been studied in any formal fashion?

If you're just into ghosts and goblins and reality TV, then yes, there are psi friendly messages out there. But the minute you start talking real science, it is an entirely different situation. Skeptics get overwhelmingly more press. More importantly, the skeptics don't have to be scientists to get their views published, whereas on the psi friendly side, even the scientists have a hard time getting published and everyone else is left entirely outside of mainstream media. Randi can get on Larry King purporting to speak for science.
 
Back
Top