mozzaok wrote on Aug 8^th, 2008 at 12:23pm:


http://www.sixteensmallstones.org/c-s-lewis-on-scientific-fact-versus-scientific-theory

In our age I think it would be fair to say that the ease with which a scientific theory assumes the dignity and rigidity of fact varies inversely with the individual's scientific education. In discussion with wholly uneducated audiences I have sometimes found matter which real scientists would regard as highly speculative more firmly believed than many things within our real knowledge. The _imago_ of the Cave Man ranked as hard fact, and the life of Caesar or Napoleon as doubtful rumour. We must not, however, hastily assume that the situation was quite the same in the Middle Ages. The mass media which have in our time created a popular scientism, a caricature of the true sciences, did not then exist. The ignorant were more aware of their ignorance then than now.

---

Some interesting quotes from Dawkins:

http://www.lewissociety.org/scientism.php

Let me attempt to give just a flavor of Dawkins' worldview. For example, he describes love as "a product of highly complicated... nervous equipment or computing equipment of some sort."  Free advice to young people: this is not likely to be an effective way to win the heart of that person with whom you are infatuated.  If you do feel that way about your sweetheart, it may be better to keep the conviction to yourself.  When asked if such a worldview is depressing, Dawkins responds "I don't feel depressed about it.  But if somebody does, that's their problem.  Maybe the logic is deeply pessimistic, the universe is bleak, cold and empty.  But so what?"

---

Scientism

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

The term scientism can be used as a neutral term to describe the view that natural science has authority over all other interpretations of life, such as philosophical, religious, mythical, spiritual, or humanistic explanations, and over other fields of inquiry, such as the social sciences. It also can imply a criticism of an actual or perceived misapplication or misuse of the authority of science in either of two directions:

The term is often used as a pejorative[1][2] to indicate the improper usage of science or scientific claims.[3] In this sense, the charge of scientism often is used as a counter-argument to appeals to scientific authority in contexts where science might not apply,[4] such as when the topic is perceived to be beyond the scope of scientific inquiry.
The term is also used to pejoratively 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,"[2] with a concomitant "elimination of the psychological dimensions of experience".[5][6] It thus expresses a position critical of (at least the more extreme expressions of) positivism.[7][8]