I must admit, I'm guilty of collusion in twisting the word from it's true meaning - using it as a description of literalism.
I should be saying "literalist"
Fundamentalist Scientist
by Satanus 21 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
Satanus
Apaduan
The english language is dynamic, evolving continuously. Examples of other words that evolved similarly are bourgeois:
Bourgeois, Louise. Born 1911.
- French-born American sculptor whose often erotic sculptures are characterized by elongated figures and abstract shapes. http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=bourgeois
and luddite:
Any of a group of British workers who between 1811 and 1816 rioted and destroyed laborsaving textile machinery in the belief that such machinery would diminish employment. http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=luddite
So, don't feel bad about using fundamentalist out of it's original box 90 yrs ago.
SS
-
jst2laws
Well Saint,
The english language is dynamic, evolving continuously.
I don't think it has evolved to the point you could refer to a person as a fundamentalist and people will think of an intolerant scientist.
To most who speak English they will think of a religionist, who takes the Bible literally, who feels they are in a battle agains evil forces of this world of which their clear enemy in the flesh is secularist.
Yes, this includes, not just Christendoms conservatives, but also Judaism's extremists as well as the Islamic extremists causing the world so much difficulty. There are even fundys among Eastern religions according to Karen Armstrong (History of God).
One of the few things they all have in common is their fear of and opposition to scientific rationalism, and secularism.
If you mention in public a fundamentalist they are going to assume you are talking about the type people in Georgia trying to remove the word "evolution" from use in the school ciriculum.
Just the way the word is used so far.
Steve
-
gaiagirl
As I understand the meanings of 'fundamentalist' and 'scientist', the terms are almost mutually exclusive.
A fundamentalist believes what they have been taught, and their mind isn't open to any discussion of new ideas, even if new evidence comes to light.
A scientist believes what the available evidence indicates. If new evidence is provided, then a scientist examines that evidence to determine how it applies. This may include modification of, or even rejection of, ideas which were previously held to be true. Or it may result in even firmer support for those ideas.
If a fundamentalist is presented with new evidence which contradicts their preconceived ideas, they will reject the evidence, rather than adjust their thinking. For example, fundamentalists do not accept radiometric dating, because it completely disproves their teachings regarding the appearance of various life forms, including humans. Fundamentalists do not accept evolution, despite geologic, biologic and genetic proof of relationships between various species, on the grounds that evolutionary teaching does not agree with their own accounts of the origin of life forms.
Fundamentalists don't really think and draw conclusions for themselves, rather they are told what to think and what conclusions they should be drawing. If they do attempt to draw a different conclusion, those in positions of authority over them will take steps to 'adjust' their thinking.
One bumper sticker I saw presents an accurate case when it states:
"Fundamentalism Stops A Thinking Mind".
-
Sirona
SS
Whilst I'm not sure that "fundamentalist" is the right word, I do agree with you that some scientists can show the same closed-minded attitude that we sometimes see in fundamentalist religionists.
A scientist who simply will not accept anything at all without a properly documented, impervious to critisism, duplicated to buggery laboratory experiment - isn't living in the real world. Moreover these are the people who scornfully laugh at anyone who does consider that other things outside the lab might exist. (hello, there is a universe out there and not everything can fit inside a test tube)
So they are fundamentalist in their attitude and outlook. If that sort of person considers any options, its all in the paradigm of "things we can prove in an experiment" and everything else, sadly, isn't part of their world.
Sirona
-
Sirona
Oops sorry, I think I killed this thread.
Sirona
-
Abaddon
Fundamentalism is indeed "a movement or attitude stressing strict and literal adherence to a set of basic principles" (Merriam-Websters).
Now if you ignore that it uses a different paradigm and 'experimental methodology' to 'science', you can make a good case that 'scientific' behaviour ('of, relating to, or exhibiting the methods or principles of science', science is 'a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study' (Merriam-Websters)) can be in someway synomonous with fundamentalism.
But only by ignoring that it uses a different paradigm and 'experimental methodology' to 'science', as the use of 'systemised knowledge' in the above definition indicates.
Now, personally I don't compare apples (evidentary paradigms) with oranges (revelatory paradigms). You can but I won't agree.
Of course there are incompetant, corrupt, ignorant and stubborn scientists BUT their behaviour is AGAINST the paradigm they follow, whereas a fundamentalist following a revelatory paradigm is inescapably stubborn, as no evidence is going to change their beliefs and this is because they are FOLLOWING their paradigm.
That is a huge difference.
By all means criticise bad science, but don't use bad arguments to do so.
Whilst I'm not sure that "fundamentalist" is the right word, I do agree with you that some scientists can show the same closed-minded attitude that we sometimes see in fundamentalist religionists.
A scientist who simply will not accept anything at all without a properly documented, impervious to critisism, duplicated to buggery laboratory experiment - isn't living in the real world.
Sirona, the bit you underlined is awfully vauge; I would also suggest that 'laborsuggest
So they are fundamentalist in their attitude and outlook. If that sort of person considers any options, its all in the paradigm of "things we can prove in an experiment" and everything else, sadly, isn't part of their world.
-
-
Satanus
You have a good memory, unc.
S
-
HintOfLime
An unconvincing attempt to dilute the negative stigma of faith being blind by shouting 'the other guys do it too'.
It reminds me of the JW who tries to refute the notion that JW's are a cult with "If I read it broadly enough, all religions are a cult!" Interpret a word broadly enough, and it applies to everyone. But such misinterpretations of reality are irrelevant. "Fundamentalist Scientists" aren't trying to crash planes into buildings, or dumb-down science education in the classroom so that a story about a man living inside a fish for three days is 'scientific'.
- Lime.