By: Translated by Paul Kurtz1
: MA Paz y Miño
There was a conflict that has prevailed for a long time in the history of culture between science and religion, reason and passion. Theologians have argued incessantly that there are "limits" for scientific research and it can not penetrate "the transcendental realm" poets have rejected deductive logic and experimental method, which hold removed at the experiences of their sensory qualities. The current controversy between the two cultures of science and the humanities is so familiar.
Although the classical tradition, the scientific enterprise has been significant progress in the past three centuries, solving problems that were allegedly beyond the scope of their methodology, and the scientific revolution that began first in the natural sciences, has extended to biological, social and behavioral, with huge benefits for the achievement of universal education will eventually succeed the scientific view and emancipate humanity from superstition. It was thought that progress was correlated with the growth of science.
confidence in science, however, has been badly shaken in recent years. Even the supposedly advanced societies are flooded by the cults of unreason and other forms of foolishness. At the beginning of this century witnessed the rise of religious ideological fanatics such as Nazism and Stalinism.
Currently, Western democratic societies are being swept away by other forms of irrationalism, often unscientific and pseudoscientific markedly in character. There are several manifestations of this new assault on reason.
A good illustration of this trend is the rise of astrology, but only the tip of the iceberg. Because if you do surveys on the current state of beliefs, one finds that many people seem ready to believe in a wide variety of things, even heinous, without sufficient evidence. Even a random list of some of the bizarre cults and gurus illustrate the point: the consciousness of Krishna, the Maharaj Ji, Aikido, Maharishi Mahesh Yogi and diverse forms of Transcendental Meditation, the Unification Church, the Process, the Gurjievianos, Zen, Arica, the Sons of God and the I-Ching. From the standpoint of the skeptic humanistic and scientific, these cults are not more irrational than the orthodox religious groups. Why are the preaching of the latest gurus, more foolish than a dead and resurrected god, the visit of the angel Gabriel to Muhammad, Joseph Smith and his Western trip, Mary Baker Eddy and Christian Science, Theosophy, Rosicrucianism , or the canonization of saints called miracles? Traditional religions violate the credulity even more than the newer and exotic imported religions of Asia, but the former have been around longer and are considered part of the established social system. What is apparent is the stubborn resistance of irrational beliefs through history to the present day, despite the scientific revolution.
Take the phenomenon of "new witches," as Marcello Truzzi has called them, and the revival of interest in exorcism. Only a few years ago would have been strange to have found a college student who believed in witches. Even today, the belief in a multitude of witches and demons, even the devil, it has become fashionable in some circles. This is the era of monsters in Frankenstein, Dracula, werewolves became real to impressionable minds. The novel and film The Exorcist encouraged the belief in exorcism, and some people was unable to distinguish truth from fiction. So we are confronted by a plethora of myths blooming, grown by a publishing industry and media who seek profit.
All this is symptomatic of the current rejection of reason and objectivity. While a decade ago there was a general consensus that at least some rules of evidence existed, today the vast existence of objective criteria for judging true statements is seriously questioned. One hears again and again that "a belief is as good as the next" and that there is a kind of "subjective truth" immune from criticism or rational evidence. One still finds proponents of forms of subjectivity among philosophers science, which argues that the historical or psychological factors are quite responsible for the revolutions in scientific thought.
The reaction against the high standards took another form in the 1960 assault on the New Left and the counterculture to the intellect. The current growth of the cults of unreason is perhaps only a consequence of this phenomenon. We said then we needed to break the laxity of the demands of logic and evidence, and "expand our consciousness" through drugs and other methods. Theodore Roszak said such a position widely read books in their construction of the Counter-Culture (In English Making of a Counter-Culture. New York: Doubleday, 1969) and The Unfinished Animal: The border of Aquarius and the Evolution of Consciousness (The Aquarium Frontier and the Evolution of Consciousness. New York: Harper & Row, 1975).
The counter-culture stressed that objectivity was impossible either because of class prejudice, professional, or because we were locked into the categories of our scientific worldview. You do not hear much criticism of Marxism [when it was fashionable] but one hears that the existing scientific vision is confining. And so there is an attempt to escape through new forms of experience, of which cults are just one part: Mantras, meditation, bioenergetics, yoga, organic gardening, photography kirliana, and extrasensory perception.
This exists alongside other provision is obviously to increase today, an aversion to the technological culture itself. Science and technology are often indiscriminately blamed the current global situation. We hear everywhere about the dangers of technology, destroying the natural ecology, pollution, resource depletion, the misuses of power, the threat of nuclear power plants, etc. Many of these interests are legitimate, however, the critical stance is simply not against technology but against science and scientific research. There are those of the fundamentalist right who still vehemently opposed on ethical or religious grounds, to the teaching of the theory of evolution, Comparative courses in social studies, and sex education. In addition, the scientist is often seen by some on the left as a kind of devil-if it deals with human experimentation or modification of behavior, or participate in genetic research or want to test the genetic basis of CI [Ratio intellectual property]. And increasingly there are those who think and see doctors and psychiatrists as high priests or men wicked voodoo.
We are confronted today with a form of moral righteousness and anti-intellectualism, often bordering on hysteria, which prosecutes science as dehumanizing, brutalized, destructive of liberty and human value. This attitude is paradoxical, because it seems to occur more virulently in affluent societies, where they have made the greatest advances in scientific research and technology.
Should we assume that the scientific revolution, starting in the sixteenth century, is continuous Or is oppressed by the forces of unreason? However, the picture I am painting should not be overestimated. Along with the critics of science are its defenders. And vast resources are spent on education, research organizations and scientific publications. The science is still fairly considered by many people.
Certainly the fact that science is critical to our technological civilization is well recognized by some of the critics of science that leads me to another dimension even growth of irrationality: the proliferation of pseudoscience. Those who are not tempted by the occult can always find ships of the gods, UFOs, the Bermuda triangle or lost continents seduction. The new prophets seek to have their speculative theories concealed by the cloak of scientific legitimacy, including von Däniken and those associated with the dienética, Scientology, and recent efforts to develop a "scientific astrology."
growth of pseudoscience can be seen in many other areas. There are, for example, an effort to explore the so-called parapsychological realm. Psychic phenomena, which were carefully studied in the nineteenth century by the Society for Psychical Research in England and parapsychology, which was investigated for years by JB Rhine at Duke University, have become fashionable. Uri Geller has been examined by "scientific experts" and has been found that possesses amazing "psychic powers", but his prowess can be easily duplicated by magicians such as James Randi using traditional magic tricks. Students and teachers also announced a further investigation of clairvoyance, precognition, telepathy, dreams, disembodied experience, reincarnation, communication with spirits of the dead, psychic healing, poltergeists, and auras.
Some enthusiasts claim to have discovered "the cracks in the realm of the transcendental" and new dimensions of reality. The enemy is always the "behaviorist", the "experimental" or "mechanistic" who supposedly close to such research. We are, some argue, in a revolutionary stage in the history of science, which has seen the emergence of new explanatory paradigms. Critics insist that our usual scientific categories and methods are too narrow and limiting.
I am not denying the continuing need to examine the evidence and keep an open mind. Certainly insist that scientists want to investigate the claims of new phenomena. Science can not be judgmental and intolerant, nor depart from the new discoveries to make judgments that precede the investigation. Extreme forms of scientism can be as dogmatic as the subjectivism. However, there is a difference between the careful use of research methods on the one hand, and the tendency to hasty generalizations based on insufficient evidence on the other. Unfortunately, there are also too often a tendency for the gullible to trust the insufficient data and develop vast assumptions, or insist that his speculations have been confirmed conclusively, when they have not been.
serious questions can be raised about the current scene. Is it the higher the level of irrationality or lower the level of irrationality in earlier times, or the level of foolishness has remained fairly constant in the human attitude and only took on different forms? Why irrationality persists even in advanced societies?
No doubt many sociological and cultural assumptions can explain the growth of irrational beliefs. In recent years the media have grown in influence. The image of the scientist is often outlined by journalists, novelists and playwrights, not always by the same scientists and what science is or does evil has sometimes been developed and has been given a bad name. Or again, it is estimated that half of all the world's support for scientific research is for weapons development, and most of the rest is for industrial purposes and pragmatic. Scientific research has also often been controlled by private interests for profit or government for indoctrination and control. The free and creative research scientist often has to rely on the power structure for their financial support, and what happens to the fruits of their work is beyond their work.
These explanations are certainly valid. But there, in my opinion, deep psychological factors at work, and there is much confusion about the meaning of science itself. The persistence of irrationality in modern culture says something about the peculiar nature of the human species. There is a tendency in the human animal to the credulity-that is, a psychological facility to accept unproven beliefs, being credulous in assent. This trend appears to be deeply ingrained in human behavior that few are without some degree. We are tempted to swallow as gospel truth that others offer us. I'm not just talking about stupidity and ignorance but uncritical naivete about certain subjects.
Undoubtedly there are individuals who specialize in deceiving others, providing false gods and service gaps, but there is certainly also true believers who delude themselves that they want to believe in ideas without adequate evidence, and seek to convert others to their misconceptions. What is at work here is not conscious fraud but self-deception. The curious thing is that sometimes if a psychotic repeats itself often enough, while others come to believe and follow Him. Also, if a lie is sufficiently exaggerated, some people are more apt to believe it. Further, the heretic always risk being burned at the stake, especially after the new mythology becomes institutionalized as the official doctrine.
There, I think, yet another trend in human behavior that stimulates the credulity: the fascination with the mystery and drama. Life for many people is pointless and boring. Defeated by anomie and the tyranny of the trivial, may seek to escape this world using drugs and alcohol, dulling or removing their consciences. Nothing is abandoned to its purpose.
Another fun method is to search for hedonistic pleasures and strong emotions. Yet another is the use of imagination. Literary and dramatic arts provide freedom to the creative imagination, as does religion. Is difficult for some people to distinguish truth from falsehood, fiction and reality. The cults of unreason and the paranormal attract and fascinate. Enable anyone to skirt the limits of the unknown. For ordinary people, is the everyday world and the possibility of escape to another. And look for another place, another universe, another reality.
Therefore there is a search that is fundamental to our being: the conquest of the meaning. The human mind has a genuine desire to plumb the depths of the ineffable, to find a deeper meaning and truth, to reach another realm of existence. Life has no meaning for many, especially the poor, the sick, the homeless, and those who have failed or have little hope. Imagination offers salvation to the trials and tribulations found in this life. So believe in reincarnation or personal survival, even if it is proved a comfort to individuals who face tragedy death and the existence of evil. For ideological reasons, the means of salvation is the utopian vision of a perfect society in the future. The soul is weeping for something much further, deeper, more durable and more perfect than our fleeting world of experience.
Accordingly, the persistence of faith can be explained in part by features within our nature: the credulity, the seduction of the mystery, the search for meaning. People will take the slightest shred of evidence and build a mythological system. Perverted logic and leave your senses, all for the Promised Land. Some willingly change their liberty more authoritarian systems, for comfort and safety. The cults of unreason promise comfort, seek to invest the solitary individual, who often feel strange and alone, an important role in the universe.
What science can say about those human needs? Have we abandoned perhaps all fields of science and moved to the philosophy? Science should have a say, because what is at stake is the nature of science itself.
There are many meanings for the word "science." Some who talk about science relate to the specialty in a specific field, such as endocrinology, microbiology or econometrics. Others talk about science have in mind the technological and experimental applications of scientific theories to practical problems. However, these views of science are too narrow, because it is possible for a society to achieve massive progress in certain technological fields narrow, however, miss the point total of the scientific enterprise. Totalitarian societies in our time invested sums of money in rough technical research and achieved a high level of scientific expertise in certain fields, but the scientific view did not prevail in them. Not enough new people training to become scientists. A culture can be fraught with technical, scientific, however, remain dominated by the irrational. We must distinguish science as a technical company close of the scientific attitude. I think here we have not established an important purpose. Unfortunately, to have scientific credentials field does not mean that a person will incorporate a scientific approach to some parts of your life.
The best therapy for the rampant credulity and imagination is the development of scientific attitude, as it applies not only to a specialized field of expertise but also to broader issues of life itself. But we failed in our society to develop and expand the scientific attitude. It is clear that one can be a scientific specialist but a cultural barbarian, a technology expert in a particular field but ignorant beyond.
If we are to meet the growth of irrationality, we need to develop an appreciation for the scientific attitude as part of the culture. We should clarify that the main methodological principle of science is not justified in holding a true statement unless you can support it by evidence or reason. It is not enough to be convinced of the truth inside one's beliefs. Must at some point, be objectively verifiable by impartial investigators. A belief is it is not guaranteed because it is "subjectively true", as Kierkegaard thought, if true it is because it has been confirmed by a research community. Legitimately believe that something is true is to relate one's beliefs to rational justification, is to make a statement about the world, regardless of one's desires.
Although the specific criteria to prove a belief depend on the subject under consideration, there are certain general criteria. We need to examine the evidence. Here I am referring to the observation data that are reproducible by independent observers and can be tested experimentally in test cases. This is called familiarly empirical or experimental approach. A belief is true if and only if, it has been confirmed, directly or indirectly, by reference to observable evidence. A belief is also validated by offering reasons to support it. Here are a logical considerations that are relevant.
A belief is invalid if it contradicts other beliefs very well supported within a structure. We also estimated our beliefs in part by its consequences observed in practice because of its effect on behavior. This is the utilitarian or pragmatic approach: the usefulness of a belief is judged by reference to its function and value. However, one can not claim that a belief is true simply because it has utility, the independent evidence and rational considerations are essential. However, the reference to the results of a belief, particularly those of a normative belief is important.
These general criteria are, of course, familiar in logic and philosophy of science. I'm talking about the hypothetical-deductive method of testing hypotheses. But this method should not be built closely, because the scientific method uses common sense is no esoteric art available only to initiates. Science uses the same methods of critical intelligence that the ordinary man uses to formulate beliefs about their physical world and is the method that must be used, to some extent, if you will live and work, make plans and choices. Deviate from the objective thinking is out of touch with reality cognitive, and we can not avoid using it if we are to handle the specific problems found in the world.
The paradox is that many people want to leave her practical intelligence when they enter the fields of religion or ethics or throw caution to the wind when you flirt with the so-called transcendental matters.
In any case there is a need to develop a general scientific attitude for all or most areas of life, using as much as possible, our critical intelligence evaluate beliefs, and insist they are based on clear grounds. The main corollary of this is the approach where we do not have enough evidence, we should suspend the trial. Our beliefs should be considered tentative hypotheses based on degrees of probability. Should not be considered absolute or final. We must be committed to the principle of fallibilism, which believes that our beliefs can be wrong. We must be willing to revise them, if need be in the light of new evidence and new theories.
scientific attitude so do not prejudge a priori grounds the examination of claims about the transcendent. Is committed to research free and open. You can not refuse to engage in research, for example of paranormal phenomena. But do not hold the right to ask that such research can be conducted responsibly and carefully, the evidence is not undone by the conjecture, and conclusions based on the will to believe.
The basic question is: How can we cultivate the scientific attitude? The most vital institution in society to develop an appreciation for the scientific attitude is the school. It is not enough, however, for schools simply to inform young people of the facts and disseminate a body of knowledge. The education of such kind can be nothing more que aprendizaje rutinario o adoctrinación. Más bien, un propósito principal de la educación deberá ser desarrollar dentro de los individuos el uso de la inteligencia crítica y el escepticismo. No es suficiente hacer que los estudiantes memoricen una materia, amasen hechos, pasen exámenes o aún dominen una especialidad o profesión o sean entrenados como ciudadanos. Si hacemos eso y nada más, no hemos educado completamente; la teoría central es cultivar la habilidad de verificar experiencias, evaluar las hipótesis, evaluar los argumentos -en resumen- desarrollar una actitud de objetividad e imparcialidad. La tremenda explosión informativa de hoy nos ha bombardeado compiten con afirmaciones verdaderas. Es vital que individuals to develop some understanding of effective criteria for judging these claims. I refer not only to our ability to examine claims of knowledge about the world but also our ability to develop certain characteristics in assessing value judgments and ethical principles. The goal of education should be to develop thoughtful people, skeptical but receptive to new ideas, always willing to consider further deviations of thought, while insisting that they are tested before being accepted.
education is not performed when transmitting a finite field or discipline students: only when we stimulate an active search process. This meta es apreciada actualmente en algunas instituciones educativas que intentan cultivar la inteligencia reflexiva. Pero la educación no está completa a menos que podamos extender nuestro interés a otras instituciones educativas de la sociedad. Si vamos a cultivar el nivel de la inteligencia crítica y promover la actitud científica, es importante que nos interesemos con los medios de comunicación masiva. Un problema especialmente serio con los medios electrónicos es que emplean las imágenes visuales más que los símbolos escritos, diseminan impresiones inmediatas en vez de análisis sustentados. ¿Cómo podemos estimular la crítica reflexiva en el público dando este tipo de información?
No tengo an easy solution to offer. What I want to suggest is that we should not assume, simply because ours is a scientific and advanced technological society that irrational thinking will be defeated. The evidence suggests that this is far from the case. Certainly, there is always the danger that science itself can be absorbed by the forces of unreason.
If we are to manage the problem, what we need, at least, is to be clear about the nature of the scientific enterprise itself and recognize that it presupposes a basic attitude about the obvious criteria. Unless we can teach through educational institutions of society make sense of the skeptical approach to life, and therapeutic and corrective-then I am afraid we are constantly confronted by new forms of know-nadismo. "
If we are to progress to overcome the irrationality, however, we must go further. Perhaps we should try to meet the need for mystery and drama and longing for meaning. The development of education and science in the modern world is a marvel to hold, and we should do anything to promote their development. But we have learned that an increase in the sum of knowledge by itself does not necessarily knock the superstition, dogma, and guilt, because they are nourished by other sources in the human psyche.
A point often overlooked in meeting our fascination with the mystery and drama is the possible role of imagination in science. Science can only proceed by being open to creative exploration of thought. The complete breaks in science are staggering, and will continue as long as we search beyond the microworld of matter and life and the universe in general. The space age is the beginning of a new era for humanity, just as we leave our solar system and explore the universe to search for extraterrestrial life. We need to spread an appreciation for the adventure of the scientific enterprise. Unfortunately, for some, science fiction is a substitute for science. The religion of the future can be a religion of the space age in which new prophets are not scientists, but the writers of science fiction.
Science has therefore a dual focus: objectivity and creativity. The arts are essential to keep alive the dramatic qualities of experience, poetry, music, literature and express our passionate nature. Man does not live by reason alone, and science is often viewed by critics as cold and rational. People crave something else. Our aesthetic impulses and our delight in the beauty need to be cultivated. The arts are the deepest expression of our spiritual interests, but we need to distinguish between art and truth.
In any case, we need to satisfy the search for meaning. It is this longing for the ethereal meaning, I think, leads to psychotic confusion found in cults of unreason. "Follow me," say the cult of irrationality. "I am the light, truth, and the road." And people are willing to abandon all critical thinking patterns in the process.
I wish to clarify that there is a need now to develop alternative regulatory institutions. Suggest that this program does not build systems that are patently false beliefs or irrational or violates the evidence of science; however, seek to address other dimensions of human experience, and give the arts, philosophy and ethics powerful roles to help meet human needs.
Note:
[1] Paul Kurtz is professor emeritus of philosophy at the State University of New York at Buffalo, is the founder of the Council for Secular Humanism and editor in chief of Free Inquiry magazine skeptical. Kurtz has written several books including "Defending the Reason" Tests of secular humanism and skepticism, Living Without religion - Eupraxophy, The new skepticism, Skeptical Odysseys, The fruit phohibido - the ethics of humanism. Taken
Kurtz, Paul: Defending Reason: Tests for Secular Humanism and Skepticism. Lima: AERPFA, 2002. Translated by MA Paz y Miño same author's article "The Scientific Attitude versus Antiscience and Pseudoscience" letter based on speech at the founding congress of the Committee on the scientific investigation of claims of the paranormal [CSICOP], published in English in The Humanist, July-August 1976, appeared later in Kurtz, Paul: In Defense of Secular Humanism. Buffalo: Prometheus Books, 1983.
Although the classical tradition, the scientific enterprise has been significant progress in the past three centuries, solving problems that were allegedly beyond the scope of their methodology, and the scientific revolution that began first in the natural sciences, has extended to biological, social and behavioral, with huge benefits for the achievement of universal education will eventually succeed the scientific view and emancipate humanity from superstition. It was thought that progress was correlated with the growth of science.
confidence in science, however, has been badly shaken in recent years. Even the supposedly advanced societies are flooded by the cults of unreason and other forms of foolishness. At the beginning of this century witnessed the rise of religious ideological fanatics such as Nazism and Stalinism.
Currently, Western democratic societies are being swept away by other forms of irrationalism, often unscientific and pseudoscientific markedly in character. There are several manifestations of this new assault on reason.
A good illustration of this trend is the rise of astrology, but only the tip of the iceberg. Because if you do surveys on the current state of beliefs, one finds that many people seem ready to believe in a wide variety of things, even heinous, without sufficient evidence. Even a random list of some of the bizarre cults and gurus illustrate the point: the consciousness of Krishna, the Maharaj Ji, Aikido, Maharishi Mahesh Yogi and diverse forms of Transcendental Meditation, the Unification Church, the Process, the Gurjievianos, Zen, Arica, the Sons of God and the I-Ching. From the standpoint of the skeptic humanistic and scientific, these cults are not more irrational than the orthodox religious groups. Why are the preaching of the latest gurus, more foolish than a dead and resurrected god, the visit of the angel Gabriel to Muhammad, Joseph Smith and his Western trip, Mary Baker Eddy and Christian Science, Theosophy, Rosicrucianism , or the canonization of saints called miracles? Traditional religions violate the credulity even more than the newer and exotic imported religions of Asia, but the former have been around longer and are considered part of the established social system. What is apparent is the stubborn resistance of irrational beliefs through history to the present day, despite the scientific revolution.
Take the phenomenon of "new witches," as Marcello Truzzi has called them, and the revival of interest in exorcism. Only a few years ago would have been strange to have found a college student who believed in witches. Even today, the belief in a multitude of witches and demons, even the devil, it has become fashionable in some circles. This is the era of monsters in Frankenstein, Dracula, werewolves became real to impressionable minds. The novel and film The Exorcist encouraged the belief in exorcism, and some people was unable to distinguish truth from fiction. So we are confronted by a plethora of myths blooming, grown by a publishing industry and media who seek profit.
All this is symptomatic of the current rejection of reason and objectivity. While a decade ago there was a general consensus that at least some rules of evidence existed, today the vast existence of objective criteria for judging true statements is seriously questioned. One hears again and again that "a belief is as good as the next" and that there is a kind of "subjective truth" immune from criticism or rational evidence. One still finds proponents of forms of subjectivity among philosophers science, which argues that the historical or psychological factors are quite responsible for the revolutions in scientific thought.
The reaction against the high standards took another form in the 1960 assault on the New Left and the counterculture to the intellect. The current growth of the cults of unreason is perhaps only a consequence of this phenomenon. We said then we needed to break the laxity of the demands of logic and evidence, and "expand our consciousness" through drugs and other methods. Theodore Roszak said such a position widely read books in their construction of the Counter-Culture (In English Making of a Counter-Culture. New York: Doubleday, 1969) and The Unfinished Animal: The border of Aquarius and the Evolution of Consciousness (The Aquarium Frontier and the Evolution of Consciousness. New York: Harper & Row, 1975).
The counter-culture stressed that objectivity was impossible either because of class prejudice, professional, or because we were locked into the categories of our scientific worldview. You do not hear much criticism of Marxism [when it was fashionable] but one hears that the existing scientific vision is confining. And so there is an attempt to escape through new forms of experience, of which cults are just one part: Mantras, meditation, bioenergetics, yoga, organic gardening, photography kirliana, and extrasensory perception.
This exists alongside other provision is obviously to increase today, an aversion to the technological culture itself. Science and technology are often indiscriminately blamed the current global situation. We hear everywhere about the dangers of technology, destroying the natural ecology, pollution, resource depletion, the misuses of power, the threat of nuclear power plants, etc. Many of these interests are legitimate, however, the critical stance is simply not against technology but against science and scientific research. There are those of the fundamentalist right who still vehemently opposed on ethical or religious grounds, to the teaching of the theory of evolution, Comparative courses in social studies, and sex education. In addition, the scientist is often seen by some on the left as a kind of devil-if it deals with human experimentation or modification of behavior, or participate in genetic research or want to test the genetic basis of CI [Ratio intellectual property]. And increasingly there are those who think and see doctors and psychiatrists as high priests or men wicked voodoo.
We are confronted today with a form of moral righteousness and anti-intellectualism, often bordering on hysteria, which prosecutes science as dehumanizing, brutalized, destructive of liberty and human value. This attitude is paradoxical, because it seems to occur more virulently in affluent societies, where they have made the greatest advances in scientific research and technology.
Should we assume that the scientific revolution, starting in the sixteenth century, is continuous Or is oppressed by the forces of unreason? However, the picture I am painting should not be overestimated. Along with the critics of science are its defenders. And vast resources are spent on education, research organizations and scientific publications. The science is still fairly considered by many people.
Certainly the fact that science is critical to our technological civilization is well recognized by some of the critics of science that leads me to another dimension even growth of irrationality: the proliferation of pseudoscience. Those who are not tempted by the occult can always find ships of the gods, UFOs, the Bermuda triangle or lost continents seduction. The new prophets seek to have their speculative theories concealed by the cloak of scientific legitimacy, including von Däniken and those associated with the dienética, Scientology, and recent efforts to develop a "scientific astrology."
growth of pseudoscience can be seen in many other areas. There are, for example, an effort to explore the so-called parapsychological realm. Psychic phenomena, which were carefully studied in the nineteenth century by the Society for Psychical Research in England and parapsychology, which was investigated for years by JB Rhine at Duke University, have become fashionable. Uri Geller has been examined by "scientific experts" and has been found that possesses amazing "psychic powers", but his prowess can be easily duplicated by magicians such as James Randi using traditional magic tricks. Students and teachers also announced a further investigation of clairvoyance, precognition, telepathy, dreams, disembodied experience, reincarnation, communication with spirits of the dead, psychic healing, poltergeists, and auras.
Some enthusiasts claim to have discovered "the cracks in the realm of the transcendental" and new dimensions of reality. The enemy is always the "behaviorist", the "experimental" or "mechanistic" who supposedly close to such research. We are, some argue, in a revolutionary stage in the history of science, which has seen the emergence of new explanatory paradigms. Critics insist that our usual scientific categories and methods are too narrow and limiting.
I am not denying the continuing need to examine the evidence and keep an open mind. Certainly insist that scientists want to investigate the claims of new phenomena. Science can not be judgmental and intolerant, nor depart from the new discoveries to make judgments that precede the investigation. Extreme forms of scientism can be as dogmatic as the subjectivism. However, there is a difference between the careful use of research methods on the one hand, and the tendency to hasty generalizations based on insufficient evidence on the other. Unfortunately, there are also too often a tendency for the gullible to trust the insufficient data and develop vast assumptions, or insist that his speculations have been confirmed conclusively, when they have not been.
serious questions can be raised about the current scene. Is it the higher the level of irrationality or lower the level of irrationality in earlier times, or the level of foolishness has remained fairly constant in the human attitude and only took on different forms? Why irrationality persists even in advanced societies?
No doubt many sociological and cultural assumptions can explain the growth of irrational beliefs. In recent years the media have grown in influence. The image of the scientist is often outlined by journalists, novelists and playwrights, not always by the same scientists and what science is or does evil has sometimes been developed and has been given a bad name. Or again, it is estimated that half of all the world's support for scientific research is for weapons development, and most of the rest is for industrial purposes and pragmatic. Scientific research has also often been controlled by private interests for profit or government for indoctrination and control. The free and creative research scientist often has to rely on the power structure for their financial support, and what happens to the fruits of their work is beyond their work.
These explanations are certainly valid. But there, in my opinion, deep psychological factors at work, and there is much confusion about the meaning of science itself. The persistence of irrationality in modern culture says something about the peculiar nature of the human species. There is a tendency in the human animal to the credulity-that is, a psychological facility to accept unproven beliefs, being credulous in assent. This trend appears to be deeply ingrained in human behavior that few are without some degree. We are tempted to swallow as gospel truth that others offer us. I'm not just talking about stupidity and ignorance but uncritical naivete about certain subjects.
Undoubtedly there are individuals who specialize in deceiving others, providing false gods and service gaps, but there is certainly also true believers who delude themselves that they want to believe in ideas without adequate evidence, and seek to convert others to their misconceptions. What is at work here is not conscious fraud but self-deception. The curious thing is that sometimes if a psychotic repeats itself often enough, while others come to believe and follow Him. Also, if a lie is sufficiently exaggerated, some people are more apt to believe it. Further, the heretic always risk being burned at the stake, especially after the new mythology becomes institutionalized as the official doctrine.
There, I think, yet another trend in human behavior that stimulates the credulity: the fascination with the mystery and drama. Life for many people is pointless and boring. Defeated by anomie and the tyranny of the trivial, may seek to escape this world using drugs and alcohol, dulling or removing their consciences. Nothing is abandoned to its purpose.
Another fun method is to search for hedonistic pleasures and strong emotions. Yet another is the use of imagination. Literary and dramatic arts provide freedom to the creative imagination, as does religion. Is difficult for some people to distinguish truth from falsehood, fiction and reality. The cults of unreason and the paranormal attract and fascinate. Enable anyone to skirt the limits of the unknown. For ordinary people, is the everyday world and the possibility of escape to another. And look for another place, another universe, another reality.
Therefore there is a search that is fundamental to our being: the conquest of the meaning. The human mind has a genuine desire to plumb the depths of the ineffable, to find a deeper meaning and truth, to reach another realm of existence. Life has no meaning for many, especially the poor, the sick, the homeless, and those who have failed or have little hope. Imagination offers salvation to the trials and tribulations found in this life. So believe in reincarnation or personal survival, even if it is proved a comfort to individuals who face tragedy death and the existence of evil. For ideological reasons, the means of salvation is the utopian vision of a perfect society in the future. The soul is weeping for something much further, deeper, more durable and more perfect than our fleeting world of experience.
Accordingly, the persistence of faith can be explained in part by features within our nature: the credulity, the seduction of the mystery, the search for meaning. People will take the slightest shred of evidence and build a mythological system. Perverted logic and leave your senses, all for the Promised Land. Some willingly change their liberty more authoritarian systems, for comfort and safety. The cults of unreason promise comfort, seek to invest the solitary individual, who often feel strange and alone, an important role in the universe.
What science can say about those human needs? Have we abandoned perhaps all fields of science and moved to the philosophy? Science should have a say, because what is at stake is the nature of science itself.
There are many meanings for the word "science." Some who talk about science relate to the specialty in a specific field, such as endocrinology, microbiology or econometrics. Others talk about science have in mind the technological and experimental applications of scientific theories to practical problems. However, these views of science are too narrow, because it is possible for a society to achieve massive progress in certain technological fields narrow, however, miss the point total of the scientific enterprise. Totalitarian societies in our time invested sums of money in rough technical research and achieved a high level of scientific expertise in certain fields, but the scientific view did not prevail in them. Not enough new people training to become scientists. A culture can be fraught with technical, scientific, however, remain dominated by the irrational. We must distinguish science as a technical company close of the scientific attitude. I think here we have not established an important purpose. Unfortunately, to have scientific credentials field does not mean that a person will incorporate a scientific approach to some parts of your life.
The best therapy for the rampant credulity and imagination is the development of scientific attitude, as it applies not only to a specialized field of expertise but also to broader issues of life itself. But we failed in our society to develop and expand the scientific attitude. It is clear that one can be a scientific specialist but a cultural barbarian, a technology expert in a particular field but ignorant beyond.
If we are to meet the growth of irrationality, we need to develop an appreciation for the scientific attitude as part of the culture. We should clarify that the main methodological principle of science is not justified in holding a true statement unless you can support it by evidence or reason. It is not enough to be convinced of the truth inside one's beliefs. Must at some point, be objectively verifiable by impartial investigators. A belief is it is not guaranteed because it is "subjectively true", as Kierkegaard thought, if true it is because it has been confirmed by a research community. Legitimately believe that something is true is to relate one's beliefs to rational justification, is to make a statement about the world, regardless of one's desires.
Although the specific criteria to prove a belief depend on the subject under consideration, there are certain general criteria. We need to examine the evidence. Here I am referring to the observation data that are reproducible by independent observers and can be tested experimentally in test cases. This is called familiarly empirical or experimental approach. A belief is true if and only if, it has been confirmed, directly or indirectly, by reference to observable evidence. A belief is also validated by offering reasons to support it. Here are a logical considerations that are relevant.
A belief is invalid if it contradicts other beliefs very well supported within a structure. We also estimated our beliefs in part by its consequences observed in practice because of its effect on behavior. This is the utilitarian or pragmatic approach: the usefulness of a belief is judged by reference to its function and value. However, one can not claim that a belief is true simply because it has utility, the independent evidence and rational considerations are essential. However, the reference to the results of a belief, particularly those of a normative belief is important.
These general criteria are, of course, familiar in logic and philosophy of science. I'm talking about the hypothetical-deductive method of testing hypotheses. But this method should not be built closely, because the scientific method uses common sense is no esoteric art available only to initiates. Science uses the same methods of critical intelligence that the ordinary man uses to formulate beliefs about their physical world and is the method that must be used, to some extent, if you will live and work, make plans and choices. Deviate from the objective thinking is out of touch with reality cognitive, and we can not avoid using it if we are to handle the specific problems found in the world.
The paradox is that many people want to leave her practical intelligence when they enter the fields of religion or ethics or throw caution to the wind when you flirt with the so-called transcendental matters.
In any case there is a need to develop a general scientific attitude for all or most areas of life, using as much as possible, our critical intelligence evaluate beliefs, and insist they are based on clear grounds. The main corollary of this is the approach where we do not have enough evidence, we should suspend the trial. Our beliefs should be considered tentative hypotheses based on degrees of probability. Should not be considered absolute or final. We must be committed to the principle of fallibilism, which believes that our beliefs can be wrong. We must be willing to revise them, if need be in the light of new evidence and new theories.
scientific attitude so do not prejudge a priori grounds the examination of claims about the transcendent. Is committed to research free and open. You can not refuse to engage in research, for example of paranormal phenomena. But do not hold the right to ask that such research can be conducted responsibly and carefully, the evidence is not undone by the conjecture, and conclusions based on the will to believe.
The basic question is: How can we cultivate the scientific attitude? The most vital institution in society to develop an appreciation for the scientific attitude is the school. It is not enough, however, for schools simply to inform young people of the facts and disseminate a body of knowledge. The education of such kind can be nothing more que aprendizaje rutinario o adoctrinación. Más bien, un propósito principal de la educación deberá ser desarrollar dentro de los individuos el uso de la inteligencia crítica y el escepticismo. No es suficiente hacer que los estudiantes memoricen una materia, amasen hechos, pasen exámenes o aún dominen una especialidad o profesión o sean entrenados como ciudadanos. Si hacemos eso y nada más, no hemos educado completamente; la teoría central es cultivar la habilidad de verificar experiencias, evaluar las hipótesis, evaluar los argumentos -en resumen- desarrollar una actitud de objetividad e imparcialidad. La tremenda explosión informativa de hoy nos ha bombardeado compiten con afirmaciones verdaderas. Es vital que individuals to develop some understanding of effective criteria for judging these claims. I refer not only to our ability to examine claims of knowledge about the world but also our ability to develop certain characteristics in assessing value judgments and ethical principles. The goal of education should be to develop thoughtful people, skeptical but receptive to new ideas, always willing to consider further deviations of thought, while insisting that they are tested before being accepted.
education is not performed when transmitting a finite field or discipline students: only when we stimulate an active search process. This meta es apreciada actualmente en algunas instituciones educativas que intentan cultivar la inteligencia reflexiva. Pero la educación no está completa a menos que podamos extender nuestro interés a otras instituciones educativas de la sociedad. Si vamos a cultivar el nivel de la inteligencia crítica y promover la actitud científica, es importante que nos interesemos con los medios de comunicación masiva. Un problema especialmente serio con los medios electrónicos es que emplean las imágenes visuales más que los símbolos escritos, diseminan impresiones inmediatas en vez de análisis sustentados. ¿Cómo podemos estimular la crítica reflexiva en el público dando este tipo de información?
No tengo an easy solution to offer. What I want to suggest is that we should not assume, simply because ours is a scientific and advanced technological society that irrational thinking will be defeated. The evidence suggests that this is far from the case. Certainly, there is always the danger that science itself can be absorbed by the forces of unreason.
If we are to manage the problem, what we need, at least, is to be clear about the nature of the scientific enterprise itself and recognize that it presupposes a basic attitude about the obvious criteria. Unless we can teach through educational institutions of society make sense of the skeptical approach to life, and therapeutic and corrective-then I am afraid we are constantly confronted by new forms of know-nadismo. "
If we are to progress to overcome the irrationality, however, we must go further. Perhaps we should try to meet the need for mystery and drama and longing for meaning. The development of education and science in the modern world is a marvel to hold, and we should do anything to promote their development. But we have learned that an increase in the sum of knowledge by itself does not necessarily knock the superstition, dogma, and guilt, because they are nourished by other sources in the human psyche.
A point often overlooked in meeting our fascination with the mystery and drama is the possible role of imagination in science. Science can only proceed by being open to creative exploration of thought. The complete breaks in science are staggering, and will continue as long as we search beyond the microworld of matter and life and the universe in general. The space age is the beginning of a new era for humanity, just as we leave our solar system and explore the universe to search for extraterrestrial life. We need to spread an appreciation for the adventure of the scientific enterprise. Unfortunately, for some, science fiction is a substitute for science. The religion of the future can be a religion of the space age in which new prophets are not scientists, but the writers of science fiction.
Science has therefore a dual focus: objectivity and creativity. The arts are essential to keep alive the dramatic qualities of experience, poetry, music, literature and express our passionate nature. Man does not live by reason alone, and science is often viewed by critics as cold and rational. People crave something else. Our aesthetic impulses and our delight in the beauty need to be cultivated. The arts are the deepest expression of our spiritual interests, but we need to distinguish between art and truth.
In any case, we need to satisfy the search for meaning. It is this longing for the ethereal meaning, I think, leads to psychotic confusion found in cults of unreason. "Follow me," say the cult of irrationality. "I am the light, truth, and the road." And people are willing to abandon all critical thinking patterns in the process.
I wish to clarify that there is a need now to develop alternative regulatory institutions. Suggest that this program does not build systems that are patently false beliefs or irrational or violates the evidence of science; however, seek to address other dimensions of human experience, and give the arts, philosophy and ethics powerful roles to help meet human needs.
Note:
[1] Paul Kurtz is professor emeritus of philosophy at the State University of New York at Buffalo, is the founder of the Council for Secular Humanism and editor in chief of Free Inquiry magazine skeptical. Kurtz has written several books including "Defending the Reason" Tests of secular humanism and skepticism, Living Without religion - Eupraxophy, The new skepticism, Skeptical Odysseys, The fruit phohibido - the ethics of humanism. Taken
Kurtz, Paul: Defending Reason: Tests for Secular Humanism and Skepticism. Lima: AERPFA, 2002. Translated by MA Paz y Miño same author's article "The Scientific Attitude versus Antiscience and Pseudoscience" letter based on speech at the founding congress of the Committee on the scientific investigation of claims of the paranormal [CSICOP], published in English in The Humanist, July-August 1976, appeared later in Kurtz, Paul: In Defense of Secular Humanism. Buffalo: Prometheus Books, 1983.
Sindioses.org
0 comments:
Post a Comment