When and why did Scientism become the de facto state religion of the West?

Do you go outside? Ever?

>So literally no-one?
The legions of sciencefags eating up that shit. Look at bill nye and his brain dead supporters at huffpost.

Other than rejection of creationism and assertions that global warming is a thing what are the beliefs of this "scientism"

reddit is not outside user

>creationism
Something so limited in scope that it's insignificant.

Because its actually useful for other things besides starting a cult.

Significant enough for its adherents to make up a meme against those who speak against it.

Circa 2035, two years after WW3

youtube.com/watch?v=1vkb45mn-5Q
Gender is on a spectrum, apparently.

Science should be left at the lab and workplace. It has no place in normal daily life.

muh peer reviews

Care to explain how's that "scientism"?

Wow, you're like those daily beast writers who sincerely spend their time complaining about how bisexual women are treated on TV

Such a sheltered existence

Bill Nye is one of their prophets. What he says is law.

So you are just pretending to be retarded, right?

>questing scientist dogma
Off to gulag.

>When and why did Scientism become the de facto state religion of the West?
It didn't.

The de facto state religion of the West is "Progress". You can trace this back through historical/intellectual turns like the industrial revolution, modernism, the theory of evolution, as well as eugenics. You can see it everywhere in the West: from politics to economics to marketing to society to technology.

You can also better explain the appeal of ""scientism"" by understanding it in the context of broader/complementary cultural beliefs in progress - rather than asserting out of the blue that it is some sort of religion.

Out of all places to make a shitty strawman, you somehow decided that Veeky Forums would be the place to do it at. Not /b/, not /pol/, but Veeky Forums. Why? What's your endgame?

Scientism is a belief that the scientific method is not only the best way of reaching truth, but the *only* way of reaching truth.

Scientism extends itself in the form of political advocacy that stresses management informed exclusively by scientific data, ignoring the fact that very few scientific theories are universally concluded upon. It's evidenced by the fact that Bill Nye's newest Netflix 'science advocacy' special actually displays very little scientific content. It's just some ghoul telling you, "You're wrong, because this guy said so and vaguely referred to a scientific study without discussing it's actual process or findings."

>Scientism is a belief that the scientific method is not only the best way of reaching truth, but the *only* way of reaching truth.

So they ignore your feelings, IOW?

>this is strawman the fawning idiots in Bill Nye's audience actually cling to
Bazinga!

>haha I'll just start calling things straw man too

>Something so limited in scope that it's insignificant.

If 40% of voters literally believe the biblical end times are imminent, that's not insignificant for anyone.

Who the fuck cares about Bill Nye?

>Bill Nye has a show so that means my made up ideology exists

you know Bill Nye had a show before right?

>belief that the scientific method is not only the best way of reaching truth, but the *only* way of reaching truth.
Wait, I thought you types hated postmodern thought and the idea that truth was subjective. Are you now rejecting that because you don't like that mainstream science disagrees with your politics?

>It's evidenced by the fact that Bill Nye's newest Netflix 'science advocacy' special actually displays very little scientific content
No, that just means Nye's newest show is badly made entertainment that was poorly thought out. It doesn't mean anything except that Netflix should have hired better writers. If you seriously think a straight to Netflix show hosted by a guy best known for a public access children's TV show from 20 years is good evidence of some kind of social process, you're grasping at straws.

What is the reason you're being so vague about what "other ways of finding truth" you recommend and what "scientismist" policy positions you object to? Is it because you actually have nothing?

When the fuck did Science get an ism attached to it?

Is that where society's at now?

pretty much
only downhill from here

When people became upset that science doesn't agree with their religious beliefs, they labeled it a religion to drag it down to their level.

>When the fuck did Science get an ism attached to it?
When people started treating a methodology as an ideology.

Science is useful stuff like trying to explain how the physical world functions, creating tools to rationalize it, building theories to try and explain how Life works.

Scientism is raising it as a religion and actually greatly limiting your knowledge of science by constantly masturbating yourself on a few very narrow things, usually Maths, Darwin's Theory of Evolution, Newton and Gravity (only one out of these 3)
Usually goes with constant shit-flinging at christianity (Which is why the science fanatic is easily countered by mentioning Newton's theology works, or many other great scientists that had a full clerical education, but that they most likely don't know about)

The reason I'm being vague is because the problem with scientism can't be assessed through the scientific method. Politics isn't science and vice versa. When people conflate the two, it's neither science, nor is it politics.

So you're really still not going to give an example?

The way that transgender ideologists use rigorously selected "scientific" studies to indicate the existence of "brain sex" in the face of evidence in opposition to those claims. The scientific process doesn't matter to those who seek to use it for ideological aims. People use the spectrum of scientific findings as a buffet to pick and choose how they can reinforce metaphyaical conclusions they have already reached. People who believe in science should be afraid of this.

When Bill Nye showed us the truth of sex junk. Because it is right.

t. Brainlet

>anti-evolutionfags are angry because they don't want to be told they share a common ancestor with apes (read: niggers)
>anti-"scientism"fags are angry because they don't want to be told their gender is on a spectrum and that they might "slip" into the gay

Scientism hasn't become the state religion, but it's become increasingly clear that the political Left is also antiscience just like the Right is if their beliefs are challenged.

I mean, the political Right might deny climate change or evolution, but the Left denies IQ and that group difference in race is real because it obviously violates their core Lockean axiom that all humans are tabula rasas.

The saddest thing is that there is excellent criticism of "scientism" and the scientific-method-as-practiced (from people like Bruno Latour for example, or Ioannidis and the whole replication crisis debate), but plebs focus on bullshit strawmen like Bill Nye, Tyson or the LGBTBBQ lobby

Creationism and global warming denial are outright bullshit. Nobody in geology takes either of them seriously and they're an excellent example of how think tanks with scientific names can generate manufactroversies to sway public opinion after being roundly refuted in academia, where they play the persecution game to cover their lack of real evidence or arguments.

>it's another butthurt retarded humanities graduate thread

This isn't even scientism, you're just some butthurt right winger without any education conflating STEM with liberalism in modern humanities.
Genders outside the binary male/female have been documented in cultures all across the world. This isn't some newfangled "sjw" thing, you're just incapable of distinguishing a nominalist view of gender as cultural artifacts associated with sex from your own POV of retarded genitalia platonism.

>I don't know who Hegel is
>Surely snidely mocking the concept of progress will discredit the changes I hate in modern society

In the older days priests, herbalists, shamans etc were the equivalent of scientists.

>Scientism is a belief that the scientific method is not only the best way of reaching truth, but the *only* way of reaching truth.
That'd be a very anti-scientific belief.

Science always dictates that some things are forever outside its privy. Whole swaths of rather fundamental things at that. (Such as the very axioms you use to determine what to use science for.)

And science doesn't do "truth", only what hasn't been refuted yet.

If you were describing Objectivism, you might have something.

Otherwise I think you're just trying to burn your own scarecrow.

Why is Hegel important?

This. Science has legit epistemological underpinnings where serious doubts can be raised, but entry level fags only know pop scientists like Nye, Dawkins, Hawking, Tyson etc. Sam Harris is a real life example of "scientism" as in an empirical methodology totally overstepping its boundaries as the answer to everything.

Because he pretty much ignited the idea of historical progress you dumb cunt. It seems obvious today because we're swimming in it but history was not always depicted as a narrative of struggle with triumphs and defeat adding to some ongoing cause. Fascists, Marxists, Liberals and Anarchists were all influenced by him to an immeasurable extent. I can't believe you're retarded enough to even ask that question and think you can meaningfully comment on the idea of progress at all.

What the fuck does he have to do with what's being discussed in this thread?

>poster says scientism is a consequence of the idea of progress
>hurrr how could Hegel possibly be related

>anyone who touched on the idea of progress must be related

Is this your brain after a lobotomy?

>evopsych is any more scientific than tabula rasa

Shiggy diggy do. Maybe your caveman ancestors acted in [insert unfalsifiable conjecture here] way that causes your highly modular brain to make that statement.

>a real life example of "scientism" as in an empirical methodology totally overstepping its boundaries as the answer to everything.
It's using reason to defend a position, and backing it with reproducible studies.

Which you could just as easily do for the opposite position.

Saying "science" is bad, when you really mean "left wing politics is bad", that's dangerous, as you're basically saying "thinking is bad". Anti-intellectualism is a poor response to an intellectual argument.

Science is merely a tool, to be used for whatever purpose. When someone takes down your favorite painting with a screwdriver - you don't blame the screwdriver.

>The de facto state religion of the West is "Progress".
Not him, but maybe you should trace that conversation back a bit further before you reply to it.

>touched the idea of progress

That's a nice way of downplaying his influence while backpedaling on your own bullshit. I guess Ayn Rand just "touched" objectivism and Joseph Smith just "touched" Mormonism, too. Well guess what? I touched your mom's tits, faggot. Haw haw haw.

Is this supposed to be an argument against what I said?

What? I'm not criticizing the left, and I consider Sam "preemptive nuclear strike" Harris more neocon than leftist anyway. You must have me confused with another poster.

He doesn't just use evidence to defend his positions, he claims science can define morality and tries to sneak in utilitarian axioms basedbon hedonist assertions which in and of themselves can't be scientifically proven.

Is asking a rhetorical questions supposed to discredit genuine concerns with unfalsifiability phrased in a jesterly way? Because that's not an argument either, mister rational centrist of centrifugal centrism.

>/pol/ christian larper makes an asshurt thread
lol

>genuine concerns with unfalsifiability

What the fuck are you talking about?

>he can't read
"Race realism" is based on evolutionary psychology.

The idea that science should be the basis for government policy goes back as far as early 1800's.

>>gender is on a spectrum
Gender is a nonsense term made up by twisted pervert who sexually abused two boys in the name of his "research". You actually are referring to sex here, and yes, humans only have two sexes by default, male and female. Anyone who claims anything else are both deluded and confusing genetic freaks of nature and the mentally ill with functional adults.

The etymology of "gender" goes back to the 1300s. This is a pseudo etymology, just like the neo Nazi myth that Trotsky invented the word "racism" or that "Slav" meant slave.
Even if a pedophile invented that concept, dismissing it for that reason would just be ad hominem and the genetic fallacy. I guess if John Wayne Gacy said gravity is real, it must be false, because much feels.
Regardless of this, nonbinary genders are not a recent western invention. They have a historical precedent.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hijra_(South_Asia)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kathoey
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_in_Bugis_society
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-Spirit
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muxe
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Māhū

Even in traditional western cultures, eunuchs were not really regarded as "men" and sometimes had separate roles or places forbidden from them. Your argument isn't even coherent on a biological level - intersex people exist, even if they're outliers, and sex was a term that existed long before anyone knew what allosomes were.

You're in denial. The majority literally worships science. Doesn't matter if the minority can tell the difference. Thanks carl sagan!

>listening to a tech engineer when it comes to biology

Science is a cult now. It doesn't matter to your average brainwashed pleb that mechanical engineers know nothing about biology. Being a high priest of the cult of science is enough to get unquestioned approval from the unwashed masses.

>unwashed masses.

It is because of science that the "unwashed masses" no longer exist. Nearly everybody bathes on a regular basis nowadays. That wasn't always the case. Simple things like running water for showers used to be luxury items that few could afford. There was even a time when surgeons would perform operations without even bothering to wash their hands first. Thanks to science, that is no longer the case.

What traditional western cultures had eunuchs?

Greece and Rome, as well as medieval Christendom. It's literally a Greek word, you philistine.

Byzantine Empire, medieval & early modern Catholic Europe

Oh look, wikipedia links, how cute.
Sadly for your particular type of bullshit, asia and the americas having homosexual prostitutes doesn't mean transgenderism is anything other then nonsensical horseshit advanced by tiresome leftwing ideologues such as yourself.

>>Even in traditional western cultures, eunuchs were not really regarded as "men" and sometimes had separate roles or places forbidden from them.
Yeah so? They had their balls cut off which makes them mutilated men. Which is precisely what the average tranny becomes when he chooses to invert his cock like a sock in the laundry.

>>intersex people exist
Yes and they are freaks of nature that should be either pitied or laughed at depending on how obnoxious they are.

Byzantines, Hellenistic Kingdoms and Italic tribes.

Romans also considered enuchs something like "not mentally, no women" without really giving them a term, for what it is worth.

Castrato singers could count, even if they were deemed men.

>You're in denial. The majority literally worships science.
In what reality do you live, and how do I build a slider gate to get there?

Scientifically speaking, I agree with you.

Socially speaking, I don't really give a shit, save that some of the young ones are quite annoying by constantly throwing their "sexual identity" into the conversation every three seconds.

But I kinda get it... If no one gave a shit, I suspect that wouldn't be happening.

>Gender is a nonsense term made up
Why you're right. Gender is a social construct. And there are only two biological sexes (ignoring the various different sex-related abnormalities like XXY and hermaphrodites and whatnot). Nobody beyond walking strawmen are arguing otherwise.

But gender, being a social construct, isn't as black and white as sex, and actually is a spectrum.

When did shitposting become your religion, user? Was it divinely revealed to you?

>If no one gave a shit, I suspect that wouldn't be happening.
Exactly. The flamboyant gays really wouldn't be a problem for anyone if people would just shut the fuck up about it. But when people try to make it so who you're fucking has a serious impact on how you can live your life, it's hard to not get all uppity about things.

>When did shitposting become your religion, user?
I bet he's an Australian. It's their state religion.

This whole thread is like going onto a fundamental christian forum and asking why they believe that shit.

What did you hope to accomplish?

Veeky Forums isn't your enlightened bastion of intellectualism faggot. Veeky Forums isn't even intellectual for God's sake, they make posts about wanting to be a baby tampon boy
Go back to /r/askhistorians if you want to be gay

>It's using reason to defend a position, and backing it with reproducible studies.
>Which you could just as easily do for the opposite position.
>Saying "science" is bad, when you really mean "left wing politics is bad", that's dangerous, as you're basically saying "thinking is bad". Anti-intellectualism is a poor response to an intellectual argument.
>Science is merely a tool, to be used for whatever purpose. When someone takes down your favorite painting with a screwdriver - you don't blame the screwdriver.

shut the fuck up you fucking nerd