Ancient Myth Articles
- General
Science of Comparative Myth
Myth Reconstruction Rules
Avoiding Reductionism
The Importance of Myth
Plausibility of Myth
Reliability of Myth as Witness
Myth as Foundation
The Meaning of Myth
From Myth to Model
Logic of Historical Evidence
Cosmic Symbol Development
Conjunction Themes
Memory of Planetary Upheaval
Natural References of Myth
Myth Memory Patterns
A case for Atlantis
- Specific
Jupiter Worship Beginning
Saturn Worship Beginning
The Serpents of Creation
Mercury Mythology
Saturnian
The One Ancient Story
The Golden Age Myth
The Golden Age
Golden Age Interview
The Central Sun
Revolving Crescent on Saturn
The World Mountain
Variations on a Theme
Saturn-Venus Discussion
Miscellaneous
Localizing the Warrior-Hero
Heroes of the Iliad
Sacrifice & Amnesia
Labyrinth & Fortress Themes
Male Gods in Myth
Mars Rocks & Myth
Catastrophism Pioneers
Names of Suns & Planets
The White Crown
A Unified Mythology Theory
The Velikovsky Affair Journals
Thunderbolt
Thunderbolts-Myth & Symbol
The Polar Thunderbolt
Thundergods Celestial Marvels
Thunderbolts of the Gods
Saturn-Jupiter Myth
Introductory Material
Ancient Saturn Worship
The Golden Age
The Saturn Myth
The Universal Monarch
Velikovsky Articles
Jupiter Worship Beginning
Saturn Worship Beginning
Central Polar Sun
The Central, Polar Sun I
The Central, Polar Sun II
The Central, Polar Sun III
The Central, Polar Sun IV
Saturn Theory Series
The Saturn Theory I
The Saturn Theory II
The Saturn Theory III
The Saturn Theory IV
The Saturn Theory V
Cardona Articles
Saturn Theory Demands
World with One Season-I
World with One Season-II
Saturn Capture Question
Miscellaneous
Reconstruct Saturn Model
Saturn in Genesis
Saturn, Sun of Night
Ultimate Polar Argument
By Jove
Venus-Mars MythThe Star of Dawn
Velikovsky & Catastrophe
The Comet Venus
Velikovsky's Comet-1
Velikovsky's Comet-2
Velikovsky's Comet-3
Velikovsky's Comet-4
Velikovsky's Comet-5
Velikovsky's Comet-6
Velikovsky's Comet-7
Velikovsky's Comet-8
Velikovsky's Comet-9
Velikovsky's Comet-10
Velikovsky's Comet-11
Velikovsky's Comet-12
Velikovsky's Comet-13
Velikovsky's Comet-14
Terrifying Glory of Venus
The Warrior Athena
Introduction Material
Introduction Articles
Word Definitions
Human Condition
Christianity Material
Bible/Canon Issues
Christendom Analyzed
Jesus Material
Jesus' Teachings
Aspects of Jesus
5 Gospels Canon
Philosophy Material
Paradigm Material
Philosophical Issues
Psychological Issues
Sociological Material
Theological Issues
Cosmology, Creation,
Geophysical Material
Cosmology Material
Creation Issues
Geophysical Material
Reconstruction &
Mythology Material
Archeology-Material
Chronology Revision
Language-Development
Misc Ancient Myth Material
Modern
Mythology Material
Psycho-Catastrophe Articles
Saturn-Jupiter Material
Symbol Development
Venus-Mars Material
1994 Velikovsky Symposium
Miscellaneous Material
Book Critiques Links
Misc Biology Links
Misc Issues/Conclusions
Poetry & Fun Material
PDF Download Files
Lecture & Video Links
Spiritual Products online store
|
Whereas science is positive, contenting itself with reporting what
it discovers, scientism is negative. It goes beyond the actual
findings of science to deny that other approaches to knowledge are
valid and other truths true. In doing so it deserts science in
favor of metaphysics–bad metaphysics, as it happens, for as the
contention that there are no truths save those of science is not
itself a scientific truth, in affirming it, scientism contradicts
itself. It also carries marks of a religion–a secular religion,
resulting from over-extrapolation from science, that has seldom
numbered great scientists among its votaries. - Huston Smith,
Forgotten Truth: The Primordial Tradition, (Harper &
Row, 1976), pp. 16-17.
Science versus Scientism
Updated:
02/14/2020
"At the beginning of the seventeenth
century no one could foresee the triumphs which science was one day to
achieve. It was not, therefore, a foreknowledge of these triumphs that
encouraged innumerable men to persevere in almost incredibly detailed
inquiries concerning the laws of nature, in a corporate effort shared by
all parts of the civilized world and extending over many generations.
The will to pursue those inquiries was not based on any conception of
their future outcome, but it was based on something: it was based on the
belief that nature is a single system of laws. In adopting this idea,
civilized man was setting aside his immemorial belief in demonic
agencies, magical influences, and the inscrutable caprices of individual
things, and accepting a new view of the world, not received on faith,
and not arrived at by scientific induction, but thought out and stated
in a systematic form by the philosophers of the sixteenth century.
"The notion of a uniformly law-abiding
natural world is so familiar to ourselves that we are apt to forget how
recent a thing it is in the history of thought, how hardly it was won by
Renaissance thinkers–for example, with what difficulty
sixteenth-century thought gave up Aristotle's doctrine that the law of
gravitation holds good only in the sublunary sphere–and how dramatic
was its verification by one scientific discovery after another. This
philosophical conception of nature has played the part, in relation to
scientific research, of a constant stimulus to effort, a reasoned
refutation of defeatism, a promise that all scientific problems are in
principle soluable. - R. G. Collingwood, "The Present Need of a
Philosophy", 1934.
True science leaves behind the automatic acceptance of truth that comes from
tradition, myth, merely creative and/or “god-inspired” sources. It
embarks with the critical human faculties of rationality and logic on a
pathway to lead us out of old superstitions and away to new truth, both
physical and psychological (the word “psychology” means “soul science”).
None of my colleagues would fail to join in with the sentiment, “Long live
science”, and the author of this site will defend the scientific method to the end.
". . .
establishment science itself has become a church, with its own dogmas,
hierarchies, and heresies. It has its popes and cardinals, and the
power to excommunicate. This power has been used to pillory scientists
who challenged prevailing scientific orthodoxy....
Smart scientists are usually agnostics, dumb ones
dogmatic and religious about science itself. Science is a powerfully
revealing mode of thought. It has proved so powerful in explaining so
many things that seemed "mystical" or "miraculous" at one time that many
people treat science itself as though it were a religion. Pretty soon
the adherents of this religion say that if a phenomenon does not lend
itself to analysis by the approved methods of the church, it does not
exist..." - Alvin Toffler, "Interview," OMNI, November 1978, p. 134.
However, there is a growing awareness in our day and age that much of what has come to be
accepted as science has morphed into what is usually known as
"institutionalized religion", which has abandoned the true scientific
method. Indeed, Bryan Appleyard, in his excellent book Understanding
the Present has indicted this “scientism” as detrimental to both
science and religion. It now involves an uncritical acceptance of many
popular hypotheses that have been taken to the level of approved
theory–all but dogma in scientific parlance–and the institutionalized
version of these. Whole generations have been “educated” by teachers who
themselves are unaware of anomalies, deal-killer findings,
questions and viable alternatives for these sacred cows, these
shibboleths of scientism. They are also largely unaware of significant
changes and disconfirmations that have taken place since they became
credentialed. Appleyard, while decrying the dominance of scientism as it
marginalizes “belief” and all other belief systems or religions,
rightly identifies it as the de facto religion of civilized society.
". . .The point,
in the view of the behavioral scientists, is that the
physical scientists sanctimoniously lay claim to an objectivity
that they do not demonstrate in reality. - Charles H. MacNamara,
"The Persecution and Character Assassination of Immanuel Velikovsky as
performed by the Inmates of the Scientific Establishment,"
Philadelphia Magazine, April 1968, p. 64.
As long as this religion can
masquerade as science why shouldn't it? Science is supposed to be backed
by hard-nosed reality checks made by sober-minded, critical-thinking,
well-schooled men who hold the truth to be nothing short of sacred.
These men of stalwart integrity have set up a multifaceted discipline
with safeguards to keep things on the up and up: double–blind studies, duplicate observations and
duplicate experiments with tests performed and results obtained by
independent scientists, etc. Throw in "peer review" for good measure.
By the way, whoever heard of Christian theologians submitting their concepts of
god to Islamic, Hindu, and Jewish scholars for peer review or vice versa?
"Since Jefferson's day
mankind everywhere in the world has come more and
more to bet its life on the powers of science and the ways of
democracy. There is a widespread and dangerous disposition to
consider science as in some sense holy, and to attribute to it
that assurance of salvation greater than any other which defines
the supernatural. In the life of the mind the communicants of
such a religion of science figure as so many more dogmatists of another
intolerant cult, with observatories or laboratories for churches and
with their formulas as infallible revelations ordaining the rites
and liturgies of their respective specialties. Such religions
of science insist on their own orthodoxies, exercise their own
censorship, maintain their own Index. and impose their own Imprimatur." -
Horace M. Kallen, "Democracy's True Religion,"
Saturday Review of Literature, July 28, 195 1, p. 7.
Religions, in contrast, are generally founded upon ancient "sacred writings"
(admittedly subject to re-translation and reinterpretation) and/or
ancient dispensations of authority. Each major religion usually
considers each ancient source other than its own to be fictitious at
best, and at worst, an evil-minded and cunningly devised counterfeit to
the truth. Scientism marching in the guise of science gets almost a free
pass from most of the public, and gets hailed as man’s salvation from
“darkness”–superstition and religious nonsense–by its zealots.
Science now answers questions as if it were a
religion and its obvious effectiveness means that these answers
are believed to be the Truth–again as if
it were a religion. But it confronts none of the spiritual
issues of purpose and meaning. And meanwhile, its growing power
enables it to drive the very systems that did confront those
issues to the margins of our concern and, ultimately, out
of existence. As I have said before, our science, whatever it
may pretend, is incapable of coexistence. - Bryan Appleyard,
Understanding The Present, Anchor Books, 1540 Broadway, New
York, NY. 10036, 1992, p. 214
Our glittering age of technologism is also a glittering age of scientism.
Science is a blessing, but scientism is a curse. Science...is acutely and
admirably aware of its limits, but scientism is dogmatic, and peddles
certainties. It is always at the ready with the solution to every problem,
because it believes that the solution to every problems is a scientific
one...But even the question of the place of science in human existence is
not a scientific question. It is a philosophical , which is to say, a
humanistic, question. - Leon Wieseltier, "Perhaps Culture is Now the
Counterculture": A defense of the humanities,
https://newrepublic.com/article/113299/leon-wieseltier-commencement-speech-brandeis-university-2013
Because science has become so confused with scientism and has adopted the uncritical
attitudes of religion, the fundamental/taken-for-granted assumptions
must be examined anew. See for example, The
Origins of Modern Geological Theory.
Let us, for the moment, define religious doctrine as a system of
belief concerning such issues as the nature of the Ultimate
Being, the essential meaning of human life, the origin of
the universe, the destiny of the individual following death,
and the means to salvation. Viewed in such terms, it
becomes immediately apparent that contemporary science is
thoroughly suffused with religious doctrine. That doctrine
may vary anywhere from agnosticism to unequivocal atheism.
In this sense, twentieth-century physics is as profoundly
influenced by metaphysics and religion as it was during the
time of Newton. Scientist cannot really choose whether they
will be free of such influences, for scientific thinking
does not occur independently from the rest of our
thinking. Those who are affected by science can choose
only whether they will consciously, intelligently reflect
upon its historical development and metaphysical
foundations. p. 68,69 Choosing Reality, B. Alan Wallace
Increasingly, the scientistic world is resorting to the following public
propaganda ploy steps:
1. Our theory excludes or doesn't have room for this phenomena.
2. Aren't the surprises in science wonderful? We found or observed this
phenomena in the real world.
3.. The proper (our) interpretation of the phenomena further confirms our
overall theory and paradigm.
There is a growing movement that is mounting a very broad, almost comprehensive challenge
to what can be called “the modern mythology”, a product of scientism.
This challenge is built on the shoulders of major catastrophe scientists
and scholars, primarily on the methods and some of the conclusions of Immanuel
Velikovsky, although his reconstructions have been greatly modified. It
has had a focus on cosmology and astrophysics because, as compelling as
Velikovsky’s historical syntheses of solar system rearrangements may
have been, given the current gravity-based cosmology they were dismissed
as not being scientifically possible. Velikovsky is widely held in the
halls of science to have been completely and irrevocably debunked as a
creative crackpot, but in the long-term picture this is little more than
whistling past the graveyard. He and his followers have sown the seeds
for the destruction of this current modern mythology.
“The progress of
physics is unsystematic…The result is that physics sometimes passes on
to new territory before sufficiently consolidating territory already
entered; it assumes sometimes too easily that results are secure and
bases further advance on them, thereby laying itself open to further
possible retreat. This is easy to understand in a subject in which
development of the great fundamental concepts is often slow; a new
generation appears before the concept has been really salted down, and
assumes in the uncritical enthusiasm of youth that everything taught in
school is gospel truth and forgets the doubts and tentative gropings of the
great founders in its eagerness to make applications of the concepts and
pass on to the next triumph…But each new young physicist…is in danger of
forgetting all the past rumination and present uncertainty, and of starting
with an uncritical acceptance of the concepts in the stage of development in
which he finds them.” - Percy W. Bridgman (1961), Nobel Laureate in Physics (1946)
This challenge focuses on the problems with, and alternatives to, such “accepted as
fact” theories as Einsteinian Relativity, the Big Bang and the gravity-structured expanding
universe, red-shift equals cosmological distance, black holes, dark matter and energy, the
nuclear furnace sun and stars, “millions and billions” of years,
accidental beginning of life, the “selfish gene, and evolutionism where
humans are emergent property meatsticks. It
moves on to include most of the branches of science: geology,
paleontology, chronology dating methodology, archeology, biology,
psychology, etc., including an interdisciplinary reconstruction of what
probably happened in the ancient times. Of course, science orthodoxy
cannot leave this challenge alone to grow and develop; there are people
that must neutralize it by any means short of criminal activity.
Now, we are all familiar with the more egregious religious zealots and rabid defenders
of "the faith", some shouting on street corners, some preaching with
passion in the pulpit–often spreading fear and hatred–, some even
crucifying themselves or self-immolating, and some busy conditioning
young lost souls to martyr themselves by becoming human bombs on suicide
missions, killing themselves and as many others as they are able.
Self Appointed Guerilla-Warrior Defenders
But now, in this micro-electronic-telecosmic age, comes a new breed of “virtual”
warriors, eager to give their lives meaning by defending the “truth”,
eager to embark on a crusade that will worry and defeat those “deluded”
people that challenge their religion of scientism. Just as battlefield
warriors are not usually the brightest candles in the cathedral, these
seem to lack good judgment and critical thinking ability, but they can
be cunning and contentious. Many times these have no substantive or
formal standing in institutionalized science, and more sensible
people–even if they agree with them–rather quickly identify them as too
troubled, too much of being a loose cannon. Indeed, these marginalized
souls have nothing to lose. They are not coordinated military pieces
operating in a disciplined fighting force, but they can be agile
guerilla warriors, picking and sniping from the outside.
They do not join in conversation with openness to exploring common ground. Concessions
are not granted, rebuttals to their points are not acknowledged; the
only objective is to hurt, maim, sow confusion, and destroy. Ridicule,
invective, insults, name-calling and general derogation are not just
resorted to in frustration after more friendly discourse; these are
often weapons of first choice used in opening salvos. Some of these
wannabe warriors mount mailing or
email campaigns to help prevent the spread of heresy to those
“weak-minded” individuals who have somehow identified themselves a being
open to or interested in the troublesome challenges.
Credentialed Defenders
In contrast to the undisciplined and often unprincipled intellectual terrorists dealt with
in the previous section, we have the Brahmins, the heavy-weight
defenders of scientism. These are the people who by some combination of
merit, political and/or publishing skill, ambition, strategy, etc., have
become authorities in their field. They generally are in the business of
defending and promoting their particular expertise instead of doing real
science. When approached by science editors who have the cheekiness to
ask about the merits of the new paradigm challenges, these exalted
“experts” merely snort, “Cobblers, balderdash, complete utter nonsense”.
The unspoken message is immediately understood: go there again and you
lose access to my offerings.
Let’s start by putting the magnifying glass on the nature and substance of the
“rebuttals” and dismissals themselves, for that is where the ultimate
crux of matters lies, regardless of the agendas and tactics of the
“defenders”. Cannot they be easily and legitimately characterized as:
- Being demeaning
- Relying upon invalid argument techniques
- Lacking in substantive facts or information
- Resorting to snide innuendo
- Dependent on unsubstantiated claims
- Appealing to authority versus reason
- Unnecessarily Vitriolic
- Almost totally devoid of any concessions
- Guilty of personal credibility assassination
- Lacking acknowledgement of significant problems with prevailing theory
The scientismic loathing and fear of the despicable, quixotic, perverse,
religious-sacred-literature god of power, control, and
mismanagement, the unreasonable king of paradox and incompatible
non-logic, along with Biblical creationism and its blind followers, is so
profound that most of these scientists and their acolytes cannot think
straight. All I can say is that as right as it is to run away from
error, it is not the same thing as moving toward the truth.
Our purpose here is not just to rail with polemic against scientism apologists, be they
merely guerillas or of Brahmin class. The practical issue is to point
out the situation and suggest there is help for the interested lay
person to sort things out. |