Re: Signs of Scientism

I propose that one of the signs of a "mild" form of scientism, if there
is such a thing, is the association of the word 'progress' with
science. That word has become a kind of axiomatic equivalent for
ultimate good. Yes, there will be setbacks and failures in our
investigations, theories, and technological applications, but these have
the potential to leave us smarter than we were before and so we have a
faith that progress is a good thing and that science is pretty much
synonymous with progress. Now I'm not trying to promote an eternal
'pessimism' as an alternative, but I'm just making a guess that our
society's staunch faith in scientific progress could be a more unifying
common denominator than any other religion has ever been. Even in this
forum, it would be interesting to see which net would include the
greatest percentage of us: those who adhere to some form of
Christianity (which would probably include all but a few), or those
who are committed to a human investment in science and technology as a
positive and effective way to approach the future. All bet that latter
category caught 100% since anybody who would question such investment in
any general sense is berated as a Luddite. Before you all jump down my
throat, let me just clarify that I'm not suggesting we burn all our
science texts and go join an Amish colony. I just find it interesting
to surmise that science could well be a more unifying principle than
even our Christianity. And it would be interesting to see if science
could keep delivering in as convincing a way over the next several
centuries as it has over the past few.

Our popular science fiction (I'm thinking of Star Trek) shows our
optimistic faith that science will deliver (yes, there was world war
three and the eugenics wars -- but eventually Archer, Kirk, et all, can
boast that poverty and war were eradicated.) There are some lesser
read fictions (actually I can only think of one at the moment) that are
compelling in their own way. "Canticle for Leibowitz" by Walter Miller
is also set in that same 'Trekian' era -- only there are no space ships,
no warp drives, no federation of anybody. Instead it is a virtual stone
age that has turned its back on its intellectual past as mobs burned
texts and killed anybody associated with education or learning in a
frenzied reactionary vengeance for having made possible the nuclear
inferno that caused so much suffering. Technology was blamed and
several generations later nobody among scattered tribes remembered what
a university was except ... some monks.... (well -- you should read
the book). Anyway, this kind of future seems just as likely to me
(probably even more likely) as the utopian Trek dream now etched into
our consciences. I think W. Miller portrayed much more stunning
insight into human nature than what most science fiction offers.

I know that 'nobody can stand in the way of progress' or so we chant the
self-fulfilling mantra, but I am inclined to think that centuries from
now, some may look back at our era (if they can) and wonder how we could
have been so enthusiastic & brilliant on technology and science and so
naive about human nature.

--merv
Received on Tue Jan 17 23:50:43 2006