It was also the heyday of Marxism, evolutionism, and atheism.
I used to wonder why scientism arrived in the US a hundred years after it wreaked havoc in Europe. My best guess is that Christianity was much more alive in the US when scientism came in about 30 years ago, but scientism cannot win, unless Christianity is eliminated.
"...but scientism cannot win, unless Christianity is eliminated."
Buckle up. They're definitely going to give it a try.
At the end of his book "Atheist Delusions" written a decade ago, David Bentley Hart peers down the road a bit and sees America wholeheartedly embracing a militant form of atheism. His prediction seems to be coming true, with the assistance of many nominally Christian churches attacking orthodox beliefs.
Christ was a rebel against scientism, or rather, hierarchy and all its rules.
Modern Christians don't follow Christ, which is normal as the hierarchy always finds a way to corrupt organizations that would oppose it (them at the top siphoning the surpluses of humanity).
The central problem is scientism's default position of top-down centralization rather than locally evolved context specific solutions. But where does it get that from?
Why is the expert presumed to know more than the local, when we can presume that the local's observations, although perhaps not formally organised and recorded, are broader and deeper? To me, the problem with much of Science and the modern world boils down to an obsession with epistemology. The idea that I cannot know a thing unless I can articulate good grounds on which I know it. The centering of epistomology and communication does not select for those who have the most knowledge or the most correct knowledge but for those who are most argumentative, most concerned not with truth but with proving their own rightness(among which I number myself).
Isn't this where the gynocracy originated? For generations, men have been trained that we can only know things if we can demonstrate the derivation of that knowledge. Women, conversely, were allowed to know things intuitively, a way of thought that was formerly at least as much the province of the male of the species. But being allowed to know things intuitively is a huge advantage and inevitably led to the ascent of the group that possessed it.
For those of us who submitted to the discipline of science, we must regain the power to think outside of its framework, or we will forever be cripples.
Interesting take. And now, of course, females are incorporating feelings into science. Which attacks it from the other side.
Whether the male-female difference in epistemology is right, it is surely right the local has more important knowledge than the Expert in implementing the Expert's ideas. But, of course, Experts can't abide that.
💬 the rule of managers as described by inter alia...
Michael McConkey’s The Managerial Class on Trial (must read!™ 😁) springs to mind and refuses to leave.
[Managerial Revolution and] Circulation of Elites 👌 --> thecirculationofelites.substack.com
🗨 The bureaucratic state is a fourth branch of government, when there are supposed to be only three.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
And a branch in which there is little turnover and zero accountability...wait, that’s all of them.
Spot on.
Good stuff.
Let me add that scientism started out after Taine's positivist philosophy gained space in the second half of the 19th century:
https://yatesub.medium.com/positivism-and-hippolyte-taine-834ad900c23f
It was also the heyday of Marxism, evolutionism, and atheism.
I used to wonder why scientism arrived in the US a hundred years after it wreaked havoc in Europe. My best guess is that Christianity was much more alive in the US when scientism came in about 30 years ago, but scientism cannot win, unless Christianity is eliminated.
"...but scientism cannot win, unless Christianity is eliminated."
Buckle up. They're definitely going to give it a try.
At the end of his book "Atheist Delusions" written a decade ago, David Bentley Hart peers down the road a bit and sees America wholeheartedly embracing a militant form of atheism. His prediction seems to be coming true, with the assistance of many nominally Christian churches attacking orthodox beliefs.
We’re halfway down the road towards militant atheism already. Religion is constantly attacked and vilified and people just shrug and move on.
Christ was a rebel against scientism, or rather, hierarchy and all its rules.
Modern Christians don't follow Christ, which is normal as the hierarchy always finds a way to corrupt organizations that would oppose it (them at the top siphoning the surpluses of humanity).
"Science" cannot address the most important questions in life.
This reply wasn't insightful.
Thanks for that link.
The central problem is scientism's default position of top-down centralization rather than locally evolved context specific solutions. But where does it get that from?
Why is the expert presumed to know more than the local, when we can presume that the local's observations, although perhaps not formally organised and recorded, are broader and deeper? To me, the problem with much of Science and the modern world boils down to an obsession with epistemology. The idea that I cannot know a thing unless I can articulate good grounds on which I know it. The centering of epistomology and communication does not select for those who have the most knowledge or the most correct knowledge but for those who are most argumentative, most concerned not with truth but with proving their own rightness(among which I number myself).
Isn't this where the gynocracy originated? For generations, men have been trained that we can only know things if we can demonstrate the derivation of that knowledge. Women, conversely, were allowed to know things intuitively, a way of thought that was formerly at least as much the province of the male of the species. But being allowed to know things intuitively is a huge advantage and inevitably led to the ascent of the group that possessed it.
For those of us who submitted to the discipline of science, we must regain the power to think outside of its framework, or we will forever be cripples.
Interesting take. And now, of course, females are incorporating feelings into science. Which attacks it from the other side.
Whether the male-female difference in epistemology is right, it is surely right the local has more important knowledge than the Expert in implementing the Expert's ideas. But, of course, Experts can't abide that.