Here’s why I don’t believe in science
Or, who wears it best: scientists, Scientologists, or the scientistic?
First, some definitions (as told to me by Google).
Scientist: a person who is studying or has expert knowledge of one or more of the natural or physical sciences.
Scientologist: a person who believes that human beings are immortal, that a person’s life experience transcends a single lifetime, and that human beings possess infinite capabilities [1].
Scientistic: a person with excessive belief in the power of scientific knowledge and techniques.
While a person is quite capable of being a scientist and a serial killer, let’s suppose for the sake of argument we are talking about people that can be defined by only one of these traits. Or, to put it another way, suppose you were offered the following choice. You may enter one of three rooms, each of which has another person whom you must spend an hour talking to. The only information you have to go by is that each is accurately described by only one of the above traits.
In my mind, the choice is glaringly obvious — you want to chat with the scientist. They are going to know all sorts of interesting facts, for one. But they are also likely able to carry on a conversation about things you might be interested in outside of their field of study. The conversation will be deep — exploring ideas from multiple angles and identifying gaps in your collective understanding.
I feel like chatting with a Scientologist would be miserable. But that’s just my uninformed opinion because nothing beyond the definition of Scientology above will ever get past my spam filter.
Definitely, the worst option is the scientistic person. Don’t know a follower of scientism? Count your blessings from Xenu. A scientistic person is someone who has not had a critical thought pass through their mind but gleefully shares Elon Musk and Richard Dawkins memes on Facebook. A scientistic person is someone who calls a creationist a moron but couldn’t tell you one accurate fact about evolutionary biology. A scientistic person’s YouTube watch history is full of videos of scientists “owning” people in cherry-picked clips from debates and interviews. Be wary of those that use the label science and the veil of skepticism disingenuously.
I know what drives a person to science — a thirst for knowledge and truth. In a sense, we are born scientists with a genetic makeup urging us to explore the world and test our hypotheses. What forces push a person to scientism? That I don’t know. But I’m starting to suspect scientists themselves are at least partly to blame. You see, the definitions above are not mutually exclusive. A person can be a scientist and a Scientologist or worse, a scientistic scientist. Don’t mistake enthusiasm for unchecked conviction.
The definition of Scientologist and scientistic center on what a person believes. To be a scientist doesn’t require you to believe in any particular thing. In fact, it requires you to constantly evaluate the beliefs you do have in light of new arguments and evidence. So, come, sit on the fence with me. The grass looks equally green in all directions.
