The Tribe of Science

This is an expanded and improved version of my comment to the article There is only one dogma of science: truth is better than fantasy. The term “tribe of science” is taken from that blog’s author reply to my comment, as I found his term to be more descriptive and poetic than my original term.

johanson-chris-1968-usa-i-am-a-scientist-2438287

Science exists in two forms. There is the concept of science itself, and there is science as a group belief – the tribe of science. Like one has Christianity as in the bible, and Christianity as a group belief that often has little relation to the bible. There is science as a method or idea, and science as a symbol; a group ideal that one feels connected to.

There are Christians who react with violence to “heathen” behaviour, though the new testament  never allows violence, not even as a reaction to violence – one should turn the other cheek! This is Christianity as the group symbol – the reaction does not stem from the belief in Christ, but from the group attachment. Similarly, there are scientists and “Believers in Science” who not only discard but ridicule statements, ideas, experiences and thoughts without as much as considering the possibility of their “truth”, much less trying to disprove them. This is far from how conclusions are reached by scientific means, exactly like the violence and warmongering of many christian groups is far from the teachings of Jesus. There are also those who seem to deny the possibility that current scientific theories may have overlooked/misunderstood something – who in words may say that “according to current knowledge there is no indication that…” while obviously believing and behaving as “there is no possibility that…”.

The kind of behaviour as described above explains why some call atheism and “science” for beliefs: many who profess their conviction in either of these (usually both) display the same type of behaviour, reasoning and closed-mindedness that is often, especially by these people themselves, connected to religiousness. Religious people’s behaviour towards their religion does not, in general, come from the fact that they believe in a God, but because the religion is, as I have called it here, the group ideal. This type of behaviour and attitude comes from humans group behaviour – our tribal nature -, and it is only natural (and reasonable) that such behaviour should occur within “science” as well when it becomes a group ideal. (To be fair though, some concepts/ideals/beliefs are more easily abused by our tribal nature than others).

Religions and political movements have wrongfully been blamed for actions that are generally thought of as a result of the content of a religious/political belief itself, or the nature of religious beliefs. The true culprit is the tribal nature of humans. As discussed in Categorizing Beliefs, if one is concerned about people’s behaviour, beliefs should be classified according to the relevant properties – making the psychological attachment more important than philosophical content. According to internal, psychological criteria, “science” or “evolution” can be a belief equally well as Islam.

Reason: Personal Excuse or Social guidance

This article is a follow-up to the article Weighing Without a Scale: Duty, Honour and Dignity, and though this article stands on its own it is recommended to read the linked article first. Here we attempt taking a step down on the abstractness scale and discuss more concretely the problems connected to duty raised in the above mentioned article in the context of modern society. We ask the question: is it reasonable to think that uniform social norms can be arrived at and obeyed by appealing solely to the individual’s reason?Quotation-George-Bernard-Shaw-funny-people-Meetville-Quotes-34937 Continue reading

The Essence of Society

Certificate of “Truth”

When you smile at someone they smile back: Society is a house of mirrors. Our psyche has a mirror nature, which determines education, morality and culture. We copy when we learn, we copy what we like, we copy as we see – and, in order to save energy, our mind leaves it all behind the limit of our consciousness. Whoever we meet, all we can see in others are our own traits: exaggerated, fascinating and sometimes similar. Whatever we see we are only aware of the properties we have already saw: the reflections of previous experience. Whatever we do was already done by someone else in a similar way: the new is transcendental to human society. The mirror nature is our gift and our curse. Here is the source of society and  its boundary.

Continue reading

Social Mythology

Why does there not exist individuals who deeply believes in certain Gods, with a complete mythology around it about creation, traits, morality and so on, that is completely detached from the beliefs of any other person on earth? Religion does not exist without society.

Viewing religion only as the belief in a supernatural being begs the question why all religions say something about why’s and what’s. Christianity is not the belief “God exists and Jesus is his son”, and Islam is much more than “There is only one God, and Muhammed is his prophet”; they are ways of life and ways of thinking; they are law, philosophy and community.

Continue reading

Love Thyself or Anthropodicy

Self – is the answer for all questions.

Maybe The Socratic Turn was too intensive and came back into initial position after running through all the 360 degrees?

Unlike the sociocentric people of Africa and Asia we, westerners, live in individualistic societies, but for some mysterious reason, beyond all the human rights and freedoms, we have almost lost the meaning of the individual. Continue reading

The Dazzle of Convictions

Philosophy, psychology and the social sciences in general have been seen as a contrast to the ”hard” sciences, the natural sciences, in that they rely only in a very small part on empiricism, and even this small empiricism can be dependent on perception. For this, it is even made a mockery of them: the theories, in particular in philosophy, cannot be tested, and as such their truth may never be known. The mockery is of course made with certain silly theories and thoughts in mind – silly because they are perceived as obviously false! – but this perception is not from the corporeal senses, and herein lies the difference.

Continue reading

Believers in Science

Believers in Science

Science is often held up as the counterpart to religion, as if to imply that religion is for those “too stupid” to understand or accept science. It is a favoured hobby of the atheists (ah, generalizations: it makes critique so much easier!) to point to the overwhelming atheism amongst highly educated people and scientists, and conversely the theists reply by mentioning great scientists that were/are religious, to show that there is no contradiction in “believing” in both science and religion. The conclusion is readily apparent, of course: there are contradictions, but inconsistency of belief, thoughts and emotions is a prominent feature of man.

Continue reading