Science and Spirit

I think the article starts from a failed premise.

The opening sentence, "If science saves us from religion gone bad, who or what will save us from science gone bad?", implicitly takes the stance that religion is healthy and good, but sometimes goes bad, requiring an external "cure", and that the point of science is to provide that cure.

I'd say that religion is neither healthy nor good. Nor is science intended to be any kind of cure for it.

Science is nothing more than trying to figure out how the world works. The only aspect of religion that "cures" is the ignorance and superstition. Admittedly, those are big parts, but hardly relevant to the notions put forward in the article.

Instead, the article harps on the idea that material things don't guarantee happiness, and then accuses science, in its discovery of technology, with bringing about global warming. The conclusion we're supposed to take away is that a return to "spirituality" will save us from the evils of science.

Bullshit. On several counts.

First, this is so completely a neo-Luddite approach. The whole "get back to nature" thing is a sentimental, revisionist, nostalgic fantasy, completely out of touch with reality. It's a new verse in the old song that technological progress leads to the decay of social values. Boo freakin' hoo.

The simple fact is that almost nobody (including these neo-Luddites) really wants to go back to the days when we didn't have indoor plumbing, electricity, heat and air conditioning, refrigeration, medicine, and all these other horrible, evil products of technology.

There's no going back.

Second, the article tosses up another time worn whine about science - that "scientism" (what an idiotic word) is some form of religion. The article offers up this definition: "Science is value neutral. Scientism ascribes value to some kinds of knowledge and activity, and withholds legitimacy from other kinds: it is the functional equivalent of a religion, telling us what is and is not sacred." A complete load of crap.

The real underlying complaint that these "anti-scientism" whiners have is that scientists don't take "revealed wisdom" as having any value. That's the knowledge and activity from which science - all of it - "withholds legitimacy".

These people want to distinguish the "good science" - science that "knows its place" and that accords the proper deference to "spiritual leaders" - from "bad science" - science that only cares about finding the truth. Sorry, but they've got the adjectives backwards.

The article reports on a series of "roundtable" sessions between these anti-scientism fools and some legitimate scientists. I wonder if those scientists think their opinions were given fair coverage in the article - I doubt it. The article takes a wholly biased position that the scientists are completely wrong somehow just don't "get it". From their comments, I'd say the scientists got it just fine - they just think it's bullshit.

Here's the ultimate answer to the question that the article poses at the very beginning. Who or what will save us from science gone bad? Good science. Science that seeks the truth without deference to outdated and useless epistemological and ontological views.

Lame article.