Scientism

by zone Sun Mar 11, 2012 6:51 pm

Science and Scientism in Nineteenth-Century Europe

Exploring the natural scientific foundations of far-reaching social ideologies

The nineteenth century produced scientific and cultural revolutions that forever transformed modern European life. Although these critical developments are often studied independently, Richard G. Olson's Science and Scientism in Nineteenth-Century Europe provides an integrated account of the history of science and its impact on intellectual and social trends of the day. Focusing on the natural scientific foundations underlying liberalism, socialism, positivism, communism, and social Darwinism, Olson explores how these movements employed science to clarify their own understanding of Enlightenment ideals, as well as their understanding of progress, religion, industry, imperialism, and racism. Starting with the impact of the French Revolution on scientific thought, Olson engages with key texts from J. B. Say, Henri Saint-Simon, Auguste Comte, Immanuel Kant, Wolfgang Goethe, Karl Marx, Charles Darwin, Walter Bagehot, and Edward Bellamy to demonstrate the complex set of forces that shaped nineteenth-century thinking.

http://www.press.uillinois.edu/books/catalog/52syr4gb9780252031885.html

by zone Sun Mar 11, 2012 6:54 pm

Scientism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

For the concept in the Foundation series, see Scientism (Foundation).
Scientism refers to a belief in the universal applicability of the scientific method and approach, and the view that empirical science constitutes the most authoritative worldview or most valuable part of human learning to the exclusion of other viewpoints.^[1] The term frequently implies a critique of the more extreme expressions of logical positivism^[2]^[3] and has been used by social scientists such as Friedrich Hayek,^[4] philosophers of science such as Karl Popper,^[5] and philosophers such as Hilary Putnam^[6] to describe the dogmatic endorsement of scientific methodology and the reduction of all knowledge to only that which is measurable.^[7]

Scientism may refer to science applied "in excess." The term scientism can apply in either of two equally pejorative senses:^[8]^[9]^[10]

To indicate the improper usage of science or scientific claims.^[11] This usage applies equally in contexts where science might not apply,^[12] such as when the topic is perceived to be beyond the scope of scientific inquiry, and in contexts where there is insufficient empirical evidence to justify a scientific conclusion. It includes an excessive deference to claims made by scientists or an uncritical eagerness to accept any result described as scientific. In this case, the term is a counterargument to appeals to scientific authority.
To refer to "the belief that the methods of natural science, or the categories and things recognized in natural science, form the only proper elements in any philosophical or other inquiry,"^[10] or that "science, and only science, describes the world as it is in itself, independent of perspective"^[6] with a concomitant "elimination of the psychological dimensions of experience."^[13]^[14]

The term is also used to highlight the possible dangers of lapses towards excessive reductionism in all fields of human knowledge.^[15]^[16]^[17]

For sociologists in the tradition of Max Weber, such as Jürgen Habermas, the concept of scientism relates significantly to the philosophy of positivism, but also to the cultural rationalization of the modern West.^[7]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism

by zone Sun Mar 11, 2012 6:57 pm

Blinded by Scientism

by Edward Feser
March 9, 2010

The problem with scientism is that it is either self-defeating or trivially true. F.A. Hayek helps us to see why. The first article in a two-part series.

Scientism is the view that all real knowledge is scientific knowledge—that there is no rational, objective form of inquiry that is not a branch of science. There is at least a whiff of scientism in the thinking of those who dismiss ethical objections to cloning or embryonic stem cell research as inherently “anti-science.” There is considerably more than a whiff of it in the work of New Atheist writers like Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens, who allege that because religion has no scientific foundation (or so they claim) it “therefore” has no rational foundation at all. It is evident even in secular conservative writers like John Derbyshire and Heather MacDonald, whose criticisms of their religious fellow right-wingers are only slightly less condescending than those of Dawkins and co. Indeed, the culture at large seems beholden to an inchoate scientism—“faith” is often pitted against “science” (even by those friendly to the former) as if “science” were synonymous with “reason.”

http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2010/03/1174

by zone Sun Mar 11, 2012 7:04 pm

Image Credit HTTP://BLOG.CASTLEINTHEAIR.BIZ/

Tikkun Magazine, November/December 2010

A Spiritual Approach to Evolution

by Michael Lerner

Don't worry, we are not about to join the creationists with their rejection of evolution and insistence that God planted all those dinosaur bones to test your faith. The set of articles you are about to read are written by people who accept the notion that the earth evolved in the past five billion years in roughly the ways that current evolutionary biologists describe it, but some of them argue that the force driving evolution is not adequately described within the terms of contemporary scientism.

We don't expect that reading these essays is going to be easy on you. The fact is that most liberals and progressives, in fact, most people who have completed high school, have been heavily indoctrinated into the dominant religion of this historical period, the religion of scientism, and as can be expected, will feel deeply uneasy -- if not feeling that they are outright disloyal -- if they consider the possibility that another worldview is not only possible but plausible.

from:

TIKKUN: TO HEAL, REPAIR AND TRANSFORM THE WORLD

http://www.tikkun.org/nextgen/a-spiritual-approach-to-evolution-2

by zone Tue May 08, 2012 1:51 pm

Panetta: Climate change a national security threat

by Joel Gehrke Commentary Staff Writer

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta declared global warming a national security threat yesterday during a speech before an environmentalist group in Washington, D.C.

"The area of climate change has a dramatic impact on national security," Panetta told the Environmental Defense Fund last night. "Rising sea levels, severe droughts, the melting of the polar caps, the more frequent and devastating natural disasters all raise demand for humanitarian assistance and disaster relief."

The Defense Secretary must have missed Examiner Columnist Mona Charen's recent piece on how symbols of global warming aren't working out the way environmentalists predicted.

For instance, The United Nations climate change panel "admitted that the melting Himalayas prediction was not based on science but on a 1999 media interview given by one scientist," Charen observed. "They said they regretted the error. Now, a study in nature, based on satellite imagery, has shown that some melting of lower altitude glaciers is taking place but that higher glaciers have been adding ice."

With reference to the story of an apparently-marooned polar bear floating on an ice floe -- puzzling, as polar bears can swim for hundreds of miles -- Charen cited a new Canadian study showing that the polar bear population is on the rise.

"Oh, and the scientist for the Department of the Interior whose 2004 work on drowning polar bears inspired Al Gore and others has been placed on administrative leave for unspecified wrongdoing," she added.

http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/panetta-climate-change-national-security-threat/518336

...

by **strangelove** Tue May 08, 2012 4:06 pm

by zone Wed May 09, 2012 12:00 pm

Barnett, J. and W. Adger (2007). "Climate change, human security and violent conflict."

Political Geography 26: 639-655 DOI: 10.1016/j.polgeo.2007.03.003
Available at: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S096262980700039X

Climate change is increasingly been called a ‘security’ problem, and there has been speculation that climate change may increase the risk of violent conflict.

This paper integrates three disparate but well- founded bodies of research e on the vulnerability of local places and social groups to climate change, on livelihoods and violent conflict, and the role of the state in development and peacemaking, to offer new insights into the relationships between climate change, human security, and violent conflict. It explains that climate change increasingly undermines human security in the present day, and will increas- ingly do so in the future, by reducing access to, and the quality of, natural resources that are important to sustain livelihoods.

Climate change is also likely to undermine the capacity of states to provide the oppor- tunities and services that help people to sustain their livelihoods. We argue that in certain circumstances these direct and indirect impacts of climate change on human security may in turn increase the risk of violent conflict.

The paper then outlines the broad contours of a research programme to guide empirical investigations into the risks climate change poses to human security and peace.

http://www.cbd.int/climate/doc/geoengineering-impacts-bibliography-updated-en.doc

...

The Club of Rome is a global think tank that deals with a variety of international political issues. Founded in 1968 at Accademia dei Lincei in Rome, Italy, the CoR describes itself as "a group of world citizens, sharing a common concern for the future of humanity." It consists of current and former Heads of State, UN bureaucrats, high-level politicians and government officials, diplomats, scientists, economists, and business leaders from around the globe.[1] It raised considerable public attention in 1972 with its report The Limits to Growth. The club states that its mission is "to act as a global catalyst for change through the identification and analysis of the crucial problems facing humanity and the communication of such problems to the most important public and private decision makers as well as to the general public."[2] Since 1 July 2008, the organization has its headquarters in Winterthur, Switzerland.

In 1993, the Club published The First Global Revolution.[5] According to this book, divided nations require common enemies to unite them, "either a real one or else one invented for the purpose."[6] Because of the sudden absence of traditional enemies, "new enemies must be identified."[6] "In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill....All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself."[7]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Club_of_Rome

...

by **strangelove** Sat Feb 09, 2013 3:31 am

Relativism says "There is no absolute truth".

That statement is either true or false.

If it's true then Relativism is nonsense and self implodes.

If it's false then we need not listen to anything Relativists say.

by **strangelove** Sat Feb 09, 2013 4:14 am

"We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.

It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."

- Richard Lewontin, 'Billions and billions of demons' (review of The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark by Carl Sagan, 1997), The New York Review, p. 31, 9 January 1997.

by **strangelove** Fri Jun 28, 2013 4:57 am

Ban Creationism and Intelligent Design in the science classroom as federal law.

Since Darwin's groundbreaking theory of Evolution by Natural Selection, scientists all around the world have found monumental amounts of evidence in favor of the theory, now treated as scientific fact by 99.9% of all scientists.

However, even after 150 years after the establishment of evolution, some schools across the US are "teaching the controversy," including Creationism and Intelligent Design. Both of these so-called "theories" have no basis in scientific fact, and have absolutely zero evidence pointing towards these conjectures. These types of loopholes in our education are partially to blame for our dangerously low student performances in math and science.

Therefore, we petition the Obama Adminstration to ban the teachings of these conjectures that contradict Evolution.

LINK: The White House - Petition

by Grandpa Sat Jun 29, 2013 3:39 am

For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.

Rober Jastrow - Astronomer, physicist and cosmologist

I got this from wikiquote. This guy is agnostic but I thought it was pretty funny in light of the topic...

by zone Thu Jul 04, 2013 1:19 pm

that's AWESOME gramps!!! Very Happy

by **strangelove** Fri Aug 09, 2013 3:04 am

"Willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to the understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural"

- Richard Lewontin, 'Billions and Billions of Demons'

by **strangelove** Thu Dec 12, 2013 2:28 pm

“Less than 50 years after the birth of what we are pleased to call ‘modern cosmology,’ when so few empirical facts are passably well established, when so many different over-simplified models of the universe are still competing for attention, is it, may we ask, really credible to claim, or even reasonable to hope, that we are presently close to a definitive solution of the cosmological problem?…Unfortunately, a study of the history of cosmology reveals disturbing parallelisms between modern cosmology and medieval scholasticism; often the borderline between sophistication and sophistry, between numeration and numerology, seems very precarious indeed. Above all I am concerned by an apparent loss of contact withempirical evidence and observational facts, and, worse, by a deliberate refusal on the part of some theorists to accept such results when they appear to be in conflict with some of the present oversimplified and therefore intellectually appealing theories of the universe…doctrines that frequently seem to be more concerned with the fictitious properties of ideal (and therefore nonexistent) universes than with the actual world revealed by observations.”

- Gerard de Vaucouleurs, University of Texas, formulater of de Vaucouleurs modified Hubble sequence, awarded the Henry Norris Russell Lectureship by the American Astronomical Society in 1988. He was awarded the Prix Jules Janssen of the French Astronomical Society in the same year.

by **strangelove** Thu Dec 12, 2013 2:39 pm

"In my scientific activity, I am always hampered by the same mathematical difficulties, which make it impossible for me to confirm or refute my general relativist field theory."

- Einstein, Letter to Maurice Solovine, November 25, 1948).

"I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based on the field concept, i.e., continuous structures. In that case, nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitation theory included, [and of] the rest of modern physics"

- Subtle is the Lord: The Science and the Life of Albert Einstein, 1982, 2005, p. 467

"You imagine that I regard my life’s work with calm satisfaction. But a close look yields a completely different picture. I am not convinced of the certainty of a simple [single] concept, and I am uncertain as to whether I was both a heretic and reactionary who has, so to speak, survived himself"

- Einstein, Letters to Solovine, 1987, p. 111.

by **strangelove** Fri Dec 13, 2013 12:14 am

"But among all the discoveries and corrections probably none has resulted in a deeper influence on the human spirit than the doctrine of Copernicus…. Possibly mankind has never been demanded to do more, for considering all that went up in smoke as a result of realizing this change: a second Paradise, a world of innocence, poetry and piety: the witness of the senses, the conviction of a poetical and religious faith. No wonder his contemporaries did not wish to let all this go and offered every possible resistance to a doctrine which in its converts authorized and demanded a freedom of view and greatness of thought so far unknown indeed not even dreamed of.”

- Johann von Goethe, Zur Farbenlehre, Materialien zur Geschichte der Farbenlehre, Frankfurt am Main, 1991, Seite 666.

[The Copernican Revolution] "..outshines everything since the rise of Christianity and reduces the Renaissance and Reformation to the rank of mere episodes, mere internal displacements, within the system of medieval Christendom. Since it changed the character of men’s habitual mental operations even in the conduct of the nonmaterial sciences, while transforming the whole diagram of the physical universe and the very texture of human life itself, it looms so large as the real origin both of the modern world and of the modern mentality, that our customary periodisation of European history has become an anachronism and an encumbrance."

- Herbert Butterfield, The Origins of Modern Science: 1300-1800, 1957, pp. 7-8.

by **strangelove** Fri Dec 13, 2013 12:41 am

"Copernicus studied in Bologna under the Platonist Novara; and Copernicus’ idea of placing the sun rather than the earth in the center of the universe was not the result of new observations but of a new interpretation of old and well-known facts in the light of semi-religious Platonic and Neo-Platonic ideas. The crucial idea can be traced back to the sixth book of Plato’s Republic, where we can read that the sun plays the same role in the realm of visible things as does the idea of the good in the realm of ideas. Now the idea of the good is the highest in the hierarchy of Platonic ideas. Accordingly the sun, which endows visible things with their visibility, vitality, growth and progress, is the highest in the hierarchy of the visible things in nature…Now if the sun was to be given pride of place, if the sun merited a divine status…then it was hardly possible for it to revolve about the earth. The only fitting place for so exalted a star was the center of the universe. So the earth was bound to revolve about the sun. This Platonic idea, then, forms the historical background of the Copernican revolution. It does not start with observations, but with a religious or mythological idea."

- Karl Popper, Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge, p. 187

by **strangelove** Fri Dec 13, 2013 12:42 am

"…in the Renaissance movement championed by Marsiglio Ficino, the doctrine came alive again, but in a somewhat altered form; one might say that what Ficino instituted was indeed a religion, a kind of neo-paganism. Copernicus himself was profoundly influenced by this movement, as can be clearly seen from numerous passages in the De Revolutionibus."

- Wolfgang Smith, The Wisdom of Ancient Cosmology, p. 174).

"In the middle of all sits Sun enthroned. In this most beautiful temple could we place this luminary in any better position from which he can illuminate the whole at once? He is rightly called the Lamp, the Mind, the Ruler of the Universe: Hermes Trismegistus names him the Visible God, Sophocles’ Electra calls him the All-seeing. So the Sun sits as upon a royal throne ruling his children the planets which circle round him. The Earth has the Moon at her service. As Aristotle says, in his On Animals, the Moon has the closest relationship with the Earth. Meanwhile the Earth conceives by the Sun, and becomes pregnant with an annual rebirth."

- Nicolaus Copernicus , De Revolutionibus, Of the Order of the Heavenly Bodies 10.

by **strangelove** Fri Dec 13, 2013 12:42 am

“[Copernicus’] reasons for his revolutionary change were essentially philosophic and aesthetic,” and in a later edition he is more convinced that the “reasons were mystical rather than scientific”

- J. D. Bernal, Science in History, 1st edition, London, Watts, 1954; 2nd edition, 1965).

by **strangelove** Fri Dec 13, 2013 12:42 am

“Who [the sun] alone appears, by virtue of his dignity and power, suited…and worthy to become the home of God himself, not to say the first mover”

- Johannes Kepler, On the Motion of Mars, Prague, 1609, Chapter 4).

"Kepler knew that in Tycho’s possession were the raw observations that he, as “architect,” longed to assemble into a coherent picture of planetary motion. And Tycho knew that the gifted Kepler had the mathematical wherewithal to prove the validity of the Tychonic [geocentric] system of the heavens. But Kepler was a confirmed Copernican; Tycho’s model had no appeal to him, and he had no intention of polishing this flawed edifice to the great man’s ego."

- Alan W. Hirshfeld, Parallax: The Race to Measure the Universe, New York: W. H. Freeman and Co, 2001, pp. 92-93).

Interesting looking book here folks:

Scientism Heavenly-Intrigue-9780385508445

Joshua Gilder and Anne-Lee Gilder, "Heavenly Intrigue: Johannes Kepler, Tycho Brahe, and the Murder Behind one of History’s Greatest Scientific Discoveries", New York: Doubleday, 2004

"Let all keep silence and hark to Tycho who has devoted thirty-five years to his observations… For Tycho alone do I wait; he shall explain to me the order and arrangement of the orbits… Then I hope I shall one day, if God keeps me alive, erect a wonderful edifice.....

Brahe may discourage me from Copernicus (or even from the five perfect solids) but rather I think about striking Tycho himself with a sword…I think thus about Tycho: he abounds in riches, which like most rich people he does not rightly use. Therefore great effort has to be given that we may wrest his riches away from him. We will have to go begging, of course, so that he may sincerely spread his observations around”

- Kepler, Letter to Michael Maestlin, February 16 1599, Gesammelte Werke, vol. xiii, p. 289

by **strangelove** Fri Dec 13, 2013 12:43 am

“I confess that when Tycho died, I quickly took advantage of the absence, or lack of circumspection, of the heirs, by taking the observations under my care, or perhaps usurping them…”

- Kepler as quoted by Stephen Hawking (2004). The Illustrated On the Shoulders of Giants: The Great Works of Physics and Astronomy. Philadelphia: Running Press. p. 108

by **strangelove** Fri Dec 13, 2013 12:43 am

"The personality of Galileo, as it emerges from works of popular science, has even less relation to historic fact than Canon Koppernigk’s…[H]e appears…in rationalist mythography as the Maid of Orleans of Science, the St. George who slew the dragon of the Inquisition. It is, therefore, hardly surprising that the fame of this outstanding genius rests mostly on discoveries he never made, and on feats he never performed. Contrary to statements in even recent outlines of science, Galileo did not invent the telescope; nor the microscope; nor the thermometer; nor the pendulum clock. He did not discover the law of inertia; nor the parallelogram of forces or motions; not the sun spots. He made no contribution to theoretical astronomy; he did not throw down weights from the leaning tower of Pisa and did not prove the truth of the Copernican system. He was not tortured by the Inquisition, did not languish in its dungeons, did not say ‘eppur si muove’; and he was not a martyr of science "

- Arthur Koestler, The Sleepwalkers, p. 358.

by **strangelove** Fri Dec 13, 2013 12:48 am

‘They defend the old theories by complicating things to the point of incomprehensibility.’ - Fred Hoyle

by **strangelove** Thu Jan 02, 2014 12:42 am

Have you not heard of that madman who lit a lantern in the bright morning hours, ran to the market place, and cried incessantly: "I seek God! I seek God!"---As many of those who did not believe in God were standing around just then, he provoked much laughter. Has he got lost? asked one. Did he lose his way like a child? asked another. Or is he hiding? Is he afraid of us? Has he gone on a voyage? emigrated?---Thus they yelled and laughed

The madman jumped into their midst and pierced them with his eyes. "Whither is God?" he cried; "I will tell you. We have killed him---you and I. All of us are his murderers. But how did we do this? How could we drink up the sea? Who gave us the sponge to wipe away the entire horizon? What were we doing when we unchained this earth from its sun? Whither is it moving now? Whither are we moving? Away from all suns? Are we not plunging continually? Backward, sideward, forward, in all directions? Is there still any up or down? Are we not straying, as through an infinite nothing? Do we not feel the breath of empty space? Has it not become colder? Is not night continually closing in on us? Do we not need to light lanterns in the morning? Do we hear nothing as yet of the noise of the gravediggers who are burying God? Do we smell nothing as yet of the divine decomposition? Gods, too, decompose. God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him.

"How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers? What was holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet owned has bled to death under our knives: who will wipe this blood off us? What water is there for us to clean ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we have to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we ourselves not become gods simply to appear worthy of it? There has never been a greater deed; and whoever is born after us---for the sake of this deed he will belong to a higher history than all history hitherto."

Here the madman fell silent and looked again at his listeners; and they, too, were silent and stared at him in astonishment. At last he threw his lantern on the ground, and it broke into pieces and went out. "I have come too early," he said then; "my time is not yet. This tremendous event is still on its way, still wandering; it has not yet reached the ears of men. Lightning and thunder require time; the light of the stars requires time; deeds, though done, still require time to be seen and heard. This deed is still more distant from them than most distant stars---and yet they have done it themselves.

It has been related further that on the same day the madman forced his way into several churches and there struck up his requiem aeternam deo. Led out and called to account, he is said always to have replied nothing but: "What after all are these churches now if they are not the tombs and sepulchers of God?"

- Friedrich Nietzsche, The Gay Science (1882, 1887) para. 125; Walter Kaufmann ed. (New York: Vintage, 1974), pp.181-82.]

by **strangelove** Fri Jan 03, 2014 2:09 am

“Evolution itself is accepted by zoologists not because it has been observed to occur or is supported by logically coherent arguments, but because it does fit all the facts of taxonomy, of pakeontology (sic), and of geographical distribution, and because no alternative explanation is credible. Whilst the fact of evolution is accepted by every biologist, the mode in which it has occurred and the mechanism by which it has been brought about are still disputable. ... The extreme difficulty of obtaining the necessary data for any quantitative estimation of the efficiency of natural selection makes it seem probable that this theory will be re-established, if it be so, by the collapse of alternative explanations which are more easily attacked by observation and experiment. If so, it will present the parallel to the Theory of Evolution itself, theory universally accepted, not because it can be proved by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible.”

- D.M.S. Watson (August 10, 1929). Adaptation 231 – 234. Nature. DOI:10.1038/124231a0

by **strangelove** Tue Mar 18, 2014 2:21 am

"Nowadays the majority of physicists accept Einstein’s theories as correct. We show this is untenable and present an alternative theory which is much clearer and more reasonable than the previous ones. We know that these are strong statements, but we are sure that anyone with a basic understanding of physics will accept this fact after reading this book with impartiality and without prejudice. With an understanding of relational mechanics, we enter a new world, viewing the same phenomena with different eyes and from a new perspective. It is a change of paradigm, considering this word with the meaning given to it by Kuhn in his important work.5 This new formulation will help put physics on new rational foundations, moving it away from the mystifications of this century."

- "Relational Mechanics and Implementation of Mach’s Principle with Weber’s Gravitational Force". Andre Koch Torres Assis. pp 20.

Free ebook available here:

http://www.ifi.unicamp.br/~assis/Relational-Mechanics-Mach-Weber.pdf

by **strangelove** Thu Jul 17, 2014 3:24 pm

by **strangelove** Thu Nov 19, 2015 5:06 pm

Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality. The scientists from Franklin to Morse were clear thinkers and did not produce erroneous theories. The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.

- Nikola Tesla, "Radio Power Will Revolutionize the World". Modern Mechanics and Inventions. July, 1934.

by **strangelove** Thu Nov 19, 2015 5:10 pm

"As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality."

- Albert Einstein "Geometry and Experience", 27 January 1921 at the Prussian Academy of Sciences in Berlin

by **strangelove** Thu Aug 18, 2016 12:47 am

"Physicists Claim that Consciousness Lives in Quantum State After Death

Testimonials from prominent physics researchers from institutions such as Cambridge University, Princeton University, and the Max Planck Institute for Physics in Munich claim that quantum mechanics predicts some version of “life after death.”

- http://globalnetwork.info/2016/08/09/physicists-claim-consciousness-lives-quantum-state-death/

by Sponsored content

Scientism

Scientism

Re: Scientism

Re: Scientism

Re: Scientism

Panetta: Climate change a national security threat

Re: Scientism

Re: Scientism

Re: Scientism

Re: Scientism

Re: Scientism

Re: Scientism

Re: Scientism

Re: Scientism

Re: Scientism

Re: Scientism

Re: Scientism

Re: Scientism

Re: Scientism

Re: Scientism

Re: Scientism

Re: Scientism

Re: Scientism

Re: Scientism

Re: Scientism

Re: Scientism

Re: Scientism

Re: Scientism

Re: Scientism

Re: Scientism

Re: Scientism

Re: Scientism

Geocentricity - Ordered Quotes