Science and Materialism

For the past decades it became very popular that we all try to explain and determine things to the very last detail of it. It’s obvious how we try to limit everything to such a simple form that anyone can recognize it. Scientists are definitely the leaders of that idea. In order for scientists to bring their work to a result they determine things to such an extend that nobody is thinking whether there isn’t another truth of what they were given.
I ask a friend the other day, how much 1 + 1 is.He said 11, since of his artistic nature and thinking, I guess. For me 1 + 1 represents the duality of the world and everything. Yet again everything is one. An elementary school`s math teacher would imediately reply 2 and so on.
I ask myself , what’s causing all those different answers, if things could be determined, so I come up with that – no matter what facts you show up and what ideas you are trying to prove , whether you will have tons of papers and all the evidences showing how right your idea is , it all comes to faith. Even the greatest theory or scientist needs faith to prove his point or idea (and yes the best scientists we know were quite spiritually developed beings). Yet again scientists, most like the majority of us, put faith aside and seek facts. We’ve forgot that in the end what matter is how comfortable you feel with certain ideas and beliefs you are about to obtain, rather than how silly it may sound or how many people agree with it. I can’t possibly not think how our materliastic views over the world are but to be blamed for that. It is obvious that our spirituality is somewhat lost and should be regained. Science may provide a clear vision over things but that’s at the cost of how far we we are capable of seeing.

We’ve forgot that in the end what matter is how comfortable you feel with certain ideas and beliefs you are about to obtain, rather than how silly it may sound or how many people agree with it.

Hi encyclopedia,

I do not understand what you are talking about. As I see it, science is rather not about "feeling comfortable" with an idea but about getting your paper into a peer-reviewed journal. Because if you do not manage to do that, you will not complete the next step of qualification and you will lose your job at the university. This is why you need people to agree with your ideas. It is not necessary that there are a lot of people agreeing with you, but they should be the right people: that is, the important people in your field of investigation, the well-known professors and of course the reviewers of the journal you want to get your paper in.
Tell me if I am thinking to practical for you.

With kind regards
philohof

I ask myself , what’s causing all those different answers, if things could be determined, so I come up with that – no matter what facts you show up and what ideas you are trying to prove , whether you will have tons of papers and all the evidences showing how right your idea is , it all comes to faith.
Even the greatest theory or scientist needs faith to prove his point or idea (and yes the best scientists we know were quite spiritually developed beings).
Yet again scientists, most like the majority of us, put faith aside and seek facts.

Faith =
1.confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.
2. belief that is not based on proof.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/faith

Faith comes in degrees and I am sure scientists would have relied on some degrees of faith in their job.
However, the degree of faith exercised by scientists in practicing their sciences are very insignificant.

One of the main pillar of science is facts that are empirical, testable and which can be repeatedly verified by anyone within the scientific framework.
As such the expectation of science is to increase testable facts and minimize faith to the barest minimum.

Since the requirement of fact is already predefined in science, you cannot expect scientists to exercise the higher degrees of faith that is practiced in spiritualities and religions.

There is a lot of dangers in relying on a great degree of faith as in the Abrahmic religions. Note the millions of people killed the past and present in the name of god based on faith.

Philohof,
I agree with you on the point of peer-review and consensus as the most critical element to determine the qualification as to what is termed scientific.
If one can get enough consensus (note possible corruption, collusion, etc.), then it is termed scientific, till someone ever retest it and find it is wrong.
There is a problem on peer-review at present as there are too many scientific paper emerging with limited amount of peers to review them. As such, many scientific theories are of shoddy and of low quality.
Fortunately that is only confined to scientific activities on the fringes, but any potential revolutionary theory would be subjected to much peer-reviews.

Philohof,
I agree with you on the point of peer-review and consensus as the most critical element to determine the qualification as to what is termed scientific.
If one can get enough consensus (note possible corruption, collusion, etc.), then it is termed scientific, till someone ever retest it and find it is wrong.
There is a problem on peer-review at present as there are too many scientific paper emerging with limited amount of peers to review them. As such, many scientific theories are of shoddy and of low quality.
Fortunately that is only confined to scientific activities on the fringes, but any potential revolutionary theory would be subjected to much peer-reviews.

Hi Spectrum,

I wonder if this is not a misunderstanding. I was not criticizing the peer review-process, at least not here in this commentary. What I wanted to say was that the young scientist is working in an institutional framework which has the effect that neither questions of truth nor such of faith are any longer of much importance to him (or to her). Instead of that the young scientist asks himself (or herself): What do I have to do to keep my job?

Hi Spectrum,
I wonder if this is not a misunderstanding. I was not criticizing the peer review-process, at least not here in this commentary. What I wanted to say was that the young scientist is working in an institutional framework which has the effect that neither questions of truth nor such of faith are any longer of much importance to him (or to her). Instead of that the young scientist asks himself (or herself): What do I have to do to keep my job?

I understand you were not criticizing the peer-review process.

As I had stated, the peer-review is a critical process to consumate what is scientific and in addition, to 'keep my job'.

I unilaterally on my own, added the additional points on the recent weakening of peer review for infomation sake.
I have read about it from various sources, e.g.

The Peer Review "Fig Leaf": Vera Hassner Sharav

I unilaterally on my own, added the additional points on the recent weakening of peer review for infomation sake.
I have read about it from various sources, e.g.

The Peer Review "Fig Leaf": Vera Hassner Sharav

Hi Spectrum,

your link is very interesting. I discussed the article with my boss, he is a medical doctor, a surgeon - but he believes that voices like that of Vera Hassner Sharav are not heard in the public.

So, I would like to ask you: You wrote about "various sources" - could you give me some more links to interesting articles on that topic of peer reviews?

Thank you!
philohof