[metaphorm]

I think it's a serious comment lamenting the rise of "scientism" which is a dogmatic belief in the supremacy of rationalism and materialism.

it's possible to be very opposed to scientism while also being very supportive of good science.

[thr0waway1239]

The dogmatic belief also has side effects. If you have ever been with someone you considered generally wise but also held on to some non-scientific belief, you know two things.

1. Taking away the non-scientific belief will cause a genuine vacuum in their life, and what comes in to fill it usually takes away the happiness they had earlier

2. The dogmatic folks don't put any/much importance on what a moving target science is, and how badly it conflicts with normal folks need for permanence. Some of them will scoff at this as "unwillingness to change", but realistically speaking no one likes change just for the heck of change unless it is an actual improvement of some aspect of their life. Society has "changed" towards embracing more materialism, but its side effect of less human connection is not an improvement that most people actually desire.

So do you wish to be happy and contented? Don't expect science to give you an answer.

If there is something that science cannot provide, then it is just another tool in your toolkit and will continue to co-exist with other things which can make you happier, no matter how "unscientific" those things are.

[joefourier]

What's the alternative to rationalism and materialism? How can good science be practiced without rational reasoning and physical (i.e. material) evidence?

[metaphorm]

you missed something important

> dogmatic belief in the supremacy of rationalism and materialism

good science absolutely must take a rationalist and materialist view. however, the needs of good science are not necessarily the supreme values which to make any and all decisions.

[michaelmrose]

What else do you base decisions on?

[throwanem]

Lots of things! Because I'm not actually a practicing researcher. And the set of practicing researchers I've known is, perhaps not so oddly, disjoint with the set of dogmatic scientific positivists I've known. No one has a better grasp of the vast difference between ideal science and real science than someone who actually does science for a living.

[michaelmrose]

Can you name some of those lots of things?

[pjc50]

Science can tell you how things work and how to achieve particular results. It can't tell you what is important, because that's fundamentally a question of human values.