Why do people glorify science & intellect?

[hellas1]

Hey all,

I was musing upon 2 pretty interesting topics:

I. The deification, more or less, by certain or many academic types/personalities of scientific methodologies.

And........

II. The glorification and placing of the intellect on a golden pedestal.

Why have people put so much emphasis upon these two matters of fact?
Why have people not put more effort into sympathetic, mutual understanding, along with altruism, compassion, etc.?

It seems to me that people have put such a trust in the fallible and incomplete modern scientific methodology along with an imperfect tool called the intellect that they think these two tools are god or will ever take the place of a transcendent being.

This in no way is meant to infer that science or intellect are "bad" or wrong or useless. It IS meant to properly place science & human intellect in their proper place, which is actually miniscule.

Comments
hellas1

[Chaigidel]

because these are without a doubt the most holy things humanity can pursue, they are not glorified enough, they are not lifted up high enough.

science is the greatest thing humanity has ever done, athletes and business men are kept on much higher pedestals than science, rather inappropriately.

[Heinz Guderian]

I guess it depends where you apply that science and reason. For example, applying it to the concept "love" leaves these tools redundant to a large degree. But for me, applying it to religion is important. I prefer to apply these two often indispensible tools to belief systems rather than leave it to "gut feeling" or emotion because since my emotions change, my religion and belief may change constantly thereby negating true investigation.

[Sidmen]

Why have people put so much emphasis upon these two matters of fact?

Because they are just as you said, fact. Science is an attempt to explain our world without making things up - its only natural that people like to understand how the world works.

Why have people not put more effort into sympathetic, mutual understanding, along with altruism, compassion, etc.?

Sympathy has time and time again lead to trouble. People prey on compassion and sympathy, doing harm to the people who express these emotions.

[Spiff]

I think its a human tendency, something which we have more than most animals. Science betters us all, it gives us medicine, technology, architecture, and so on. It is rightly appreciated in those who further this end.

Dogmatic religion i view as the opposite to this natural human curiosity, and something we would all be better off without. Science isnt really trying to replace god, its trying to show us why we don't need primitive unfounded mythologies to explain the universe.

Also, compassion, altruism; these are not religious inventions, they're natural products of evolution.

[Tiwaz]

Let me ask you one thing hellas...

Which benefits sick person more...

Being all compassionate and holding their hand. Maybe doing couple prayers too.

Or figuring out a way to heal that person.

Science offers the second option. It does not bother itself with mythology, offer prayer which generally fails more often than works.
Science offers understanding, knowledge. Solutions that work.

Science, intellect and knowledge. These should be leading lights of humanity, slightly moderated with humanism of course to make sure some more horrid practices are avoided.

[Richard]

Oh I totally agree, science and intellect are of miniscule importance in the spectrum of all humanity's activities. We should, without a doubt, be back in Africa hunting rodents with our bare hands and suffering from rabies.

[Irishman]

Because philosophy and the scientific method are the highest achievements of mankind.

Reason (the scientific method is simply the practical application of the rules of reason) is the best way to attain knowledge we humans have developed, which is why most learned people abhor when it is not used.

It seems to me that people have put such a trust in the fallible and incomplete modern scientific methodology along with an imperfect tool called the intellect that they think these two tools are god or will ever take the place of a transcendent being.

Intellect and reason are meant to help us learn. They will not hold the hand of a sick person, because they are tools. They are the best tools we have at understanding our universe.

[Cleisthenes]

II. The glorification and placing of the intellect on a golden pedestal.

Cogito ergo sum. -- Descartes

I think, therefore I am.

Et sequitur, in quantum magis altero cogito, in tantum magis vere sum. -- Me

And it follows, by how much more than another I think, by that much more truly I do exist.

Sympathy has time and time again lead to trouble. People prey on compassion and sympathy, doing harm to the people who express these emotions.

Many predators and scammers out there. Others, while not actively preying upon others, are simply stunted in their potential by too much sympathy. Sink or swim is a good teacher. You should have seen how fast welfare recipients found gainful employment when welfare reform was enacted!

Intellect and reason are meant to help us learn. They will not hold the hand of a sick person, because they are tools. They are the best tools we have at understanding our universe.

I'd disagree there. I think intelligent people actually live more. Intellect is not a tool for a person. It is the person.

[Dayman]

Because without it we'd still be throwing are crap at each other in the jungles of Africa.

[Richard]

Because without it we'd still be throwing are crap at each other in the jungles of Africa.

Oh hey cmon stop stealing my thunder, I TOTALLY just said that a few posts ago.

Except my example was better, because in mine we hadn't even advanced enough to figure out how to throw crap.

ant to help us learn. They will not hold the hand of a sick person, because they are tools. They are the best tools we have at understanding our universe.

What? That is the role of the Good Book! HERETIC!

[Captain Arrrgh!]

Rather than put science and intellect on a golden pedestal, I'd like to toss amongst them a golden apple.
.....As in 'kallisti'.......

[Dayman]

Oh hey cmon stop stealing my thunder, I TOTALLY just said that a few posts ago.

Except my example was better, because in mine we hadn't even advanced enough to figure out how to throw crap.

Sorry I hadn't read it. Consider it a tribute.

[Archaalen]

I personally believe that any issue should be examined thoroughly and considered before being adopted, and I am always willing to admit my own errors. These two tenets are necessary to the scientific method, and so I guess you could say that I support it. I have difficulty with anything that claims to be the "revealed truth". Intellect is ineffective at dealing with all situations, but at least in matters of alleviating suffering through disease, deprivation, or famine, science has proven itself quite effective at doing what millenia of prayers could not. This to me makes scientific advancement an unequivocal good, but not the fountainhead of existence.

[Irishman]

I'd disagree there. I think intelligent people actually live more. Intellect is not a tool for a person. It is the person.

I was speaking more about reason as a development rather than intellect in an abstract form is it is rather difficult to define.

[chriscase]

Hey all,

I was musing upon 2 pretty interesting topics:

I. The deification, more or less, by certain or many academic types/personalities of scientific methodologies.

And........

II. The glorification and placing of the intellect on a golden pedestal.

Why have people put so much emphasis upon these two matters of fact?
Why have people not put more effort into sympathetic, mutual understanding, along with altruism, compassion, etc.?

It seems to me that people have put such a trust in the fallible and incomplete modern scientific methodology along with an imperfect tool called the intellect that they think these two tools are god or will ever take the place of a transcendent being.

This in no way is meant to infer that science or intellect are "bad" or wrong or useless. It IS meant to properly place science & human intellect in their proper place, which is actually miniscule.

Comments
hellas1

I think you are putting the cart before the horse.

Properly:
1. The glorification and placing of the intellect on a golden pedestal.

You are touching on one of the cornerstones of Western thought.

Socrates states in the Apology:
"...the greatest good of man is daily to converse about virtue, and all that concerning which you hear me examining myself and others, and that the life which is unexamined is not worth living..."

This is the manifesto of rational philosophy which I expect most of us remember from Western Civ courses. It might be interesting to try to challenge this basic assumption, but you have the immediate problem of what you would substitute for reasoned argument.

2. The deification, more or less, by certain or many academic types/personalities of scientific methodologies.

Scientific "types" do not, as far as I know, "deify" science whatsoever. The problem comes when observers (such as you) are unable to distinguish science from magic. This is a perception and education problem.

And yes, I think scientists need to devote attention to explaining science in a way that shows it is not magic. On the other hand, there are many accomplished scientists like Richard Dawkins who expend considerable effort doing just that. And look at the thanks he gets from the "magical thinking" crowd. So there is work to be done there, as your opening post shows.

However, education requires effort not only from the educator, but from the student. You should really try to learn enough about science so it no longer looks like magic to you. I would call that a true "minimum requirement" for a basic education.

[Bokks]

I was going to respond, but those who have preceeded me have done a wonderful job at that.

And frankly, now that I think of it, it seems pointless. Someone who would ever ask this question shows an incomprehendible lack of experiance in the outside world, and will not be swayed by a discussion. I only hope you come to realize that--spurn it as you will--you are incredibly gifted and lucky to live in a society where we do think scientifically, not a place where women are stoned to death should they attract a government official so that they have sexual dreams and desires for them, "clearly" put under some spell because of their own desires... not some society where sickness is seen as an affliction of the soul, and treated by arcane acts and exorcisms. Lucky to live in a scientific society where, despite how much science may disprove institutions of faith and belief, the faiths are allowed to live and grow, not where the government decrees that all science and religion must be destroyed, and in doing so the pragmatic and the bespecticled alike are taken to high schools where they are tortured, raped and shot, publically hanged and used to fertilize the soil that everyone else who was not purged must till from sunrise to sunset, never learn to read, never hope to flourish.

You, all of you here, depend on science much more than some of you--obviously--know, and I'm just glad you are given the freedom to do so despite the will that those of you foster to eradicate that which does not threaten you aside from its own attraction. Perhaps the days of the "Heccubi" and "Succubi" are not gone after all...

[Stalins Ghost]

It seems to me that people have put such a trust in the fallible and incomplete modern scientific methodology along with an imperfect tool called the intellect that they think these two tools are god or will ever take the place of a transcendent being.

This is the major problem I have. I actually couldn't give a damn if a transcendent being was responsible for things science attempts to explain. Such a being would simply be part of the same universe as us, as fellow beings, and thus has the same physical laws applied to it, and therefore is quite open to the same kinds of skepticism I probe any theory or belief with.

[hellas1]

Hey all,

Thanks for your comments.

@Chris "mental" Case,

I can differentiate between science & magic pal.

You also are an "observer" and are quick to point this out to others.

I'd like to point out the obvious to you:
You've constantly overstepped your boundaries in assuming what I know and what I don't know.

You read a post and ASS-ume that you've figured out what an individual is trying to convey in this measly forum, which indulges in conceptualization, without the benefit of clarification.

Try this: Don't assume! Ask questions before you attack people.
It seems to be the only thing you're good at and try starting to understand.

Your arrogance seeps through into your writing.
I will not respond any longer to your idiocy.
hellas1

[chriscase]

@Chris "mental" Case,

Ahh, the good old days! High school! Or maybe it was junior high. Thanks for the memories!

I can differentiate between science & magic pal.

Based on your original post, you don't appear to. Not that I imagine you have some silly confusion that scientists cast spells or anything as ridiculous as that. But your insistence that science is a "faith" indicates a profound misunderstanding of what science is.

You also are an "observer" and are quick to point this out to others.

This is obvious, but I don't see what it has to do with anything.

I'd like to point out the obvious to you:
You've constantly overstepped your boundaries in assuming what I know and what I don't know.

You read a post and ASS-ume that you've figured out what an individual is trying to convey in this measly forum, which indulges in conceptualization, without the benefit of clarification.

Try this: Don't assume! Ask questions before you attack people.
It seems to be the only thing you're good at and try starting to understand.

Your arrogance seeps through into your writing.
I will not respond any longer to your idiocy.
hellas1

It is difficult to have any kind of conversation without making some assumptions. I prefer to move forward and attempt to converse honestly. This does mean making some - possibly incorrect - assumptions. In good faith, I would expect anyone else who wished to act as a dialectical partner to clarify any incorrect assumptions without excess rancor or petulance.

As to your disdain for this forum, I have to say I do not agree. I find this forum a beneficial place to exchange ideas - especially with those who can disagree intelligently.

I don't really know what to make of your promise to ignore me. I suppose it's for the best, although I can honestly say that was not my intent.