A fine choice for the House Committee for Science, Space, and Technology

[Goofball]

You have to be crapping me. Not only does this mental-case have such overwhelming voter support in his riding that the dems don't even bother fielding a candidate in opposition, but he manages to get himself appointed to a committee that he believes represents nothing but Satan's lies. What the hell is happening, Americans?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...l-8202896.html

[Vladimir]

You have to be crapping me. Not only does this mental-case have such overwhelming voter support in his riding that the dems don't even bother fielding a candidate in opposition, but he manages to get himself appointed to a committee that he believes represents nothing but Satan's lies. What the hell is happening, Americans?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...l-8202896.html

Meh. Show me a country without crazy politicians, or worse, soulless ones who pander to their constituency.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I don't even understand why there is a Committee for science, space and technology when the majority of politicians are lawyers who have no idea what the experts tell them. If they don't already shut themselves in their bible to begin with.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

In my experience the people who really care about religious non-evolutionists etc are those who don't realize how dumb most "pro-science" politicians are. Between "skeptic" and credulous/utopian I'll take "skeptic".

[Strike For The South]

In my experience the people who really care about religious non-evolutionists etc are those who don't realize how dumb most "pro-science" politicians are. Between "skeptic" and credulous/utopian I'll take "skeptic".

See: New Atheism

I am a big fan of Goulds NOMA, even if I am irreligious. People who tend to use science as the be all end all are generally 20 year old white suburbanites who use the words science and belief interchangeably/

[Sasaki Kojiro]

See: New Atheism

I am a big fan of Goulds NOMA, even if I am irreligious. People who tend to use science as the be all end all are generally 20 year old white suburbanites who use the words science and belief interchangeably/

Or worse

[Goofball]

In my experience the people who really care about religious non-evolutionists etc are those who don't realize how dumb most "pro-science" politicians are. Between "skeptic" and credulous/utopian I'll take "skeptic".

I find it amusing that you call a guy who, when it comes to explaining the mysteries of the cosmos, has chosen to wholeheartedly believe in a bunch of stories written by guys who would have had heart attacks if they had ever seen an electric train set a "skeptic."

[Sasaki Kojiro]

I find it amusing that you call a guy who, when it comes to explaining the mysteries of the cosmos, has chosen to wholeheartedly believe in a bunch of stories written by guys who would have had heart attacks if they had ever seen an electric train set a "skeptic."

I didn't call him a skeptic.

[a completely inoffensive name]

In my experience the people who really care about religious non-evolutionists etc are those who don't realize how dumb most "pro-science" politicians are. Between "skeptic" and credulous/utopian I'll take "skeptic".

Which is why I don't understand why there is a committee at all. Politicians with a background in law in general shouldn't be making decisions about science and engineering.

[Goofball]

I didn't call him a skeptic.

Sorry. I guess I don't understand your post.

[Kralizec]

In my experience the people who really care about religious non-evolutionists etc are those who don't realize how dumb most "pro-science" politicians are. Between "skeptic" and credulous/utopian I'll take "skeptic".

If it were a non-science post, I would prefer a politician who is smart and denies evolution over a dumb politician who toes the line.

This guy occupies a science related post and speaks at an event with (presumably) a large amount of people where he denounces the prevailing scientific view as "lies from hell". Big surprise, it leaks to the public. From the looks of it he's an idiot, so he's doubly handicapped for his position.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

If it were a non-science post, I would prefer a politician who is smart and denies evolution over a dumb politician who toes the line.

This guy occupies a science related post and speaks at an event with (presumably) a large amount of people where he denounces the prevailing scientific view as "lies from hell". Big surprise, it leaks to the public. From the looks of it he's an idiot, so he's doubly handicapped for his position.

Obviously we'd all prefer smart politicians but we have to work with humanity here. What kind of politicians would be good at this post? Who knows. But I think the worst are the credulous ones who are overly pro-science. Creationists are mostly harmless. They would only be terrible if they were holding us back from these amazing scientific breakthroughs we could be making if only we funded such and such that would change the world, or something utopian like that. Scientists have been pulling the wool over the eyes of other people to get funding and support for ages.

It's a mistake to think that believing in evolution makes a politician significantly more competent at judging science stuff than this guy is. There are many ways in which people are dumb about science that have nothing to do with religion.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Obviously we'd all prefer smart politicians but we have to work with humanity here. What kind of politicians would be good at this post? Who knows. But I think the worst are the credulous ones who are overly pro-science. Creationists are mostly harmless. They would only be terrible if they were holding us back from these amazing scientific breakthroughs we could be making if only we funded such and such that would change the world, or something utopian like that. Scientists have been pulling the wool over the eyes of other people to get funding and support for ages.

It's a mistake to think that believing in evolution makes a politician significantly more competent at judging science stuff than this guy is. There are many ways in which people are dumb about science that have nothing to do with religion.

What world are you living in? There are school boards with majority creationist members that actively attempt to dismantle science classes by forcing their religious doctrine into the textbooks. Fundamentalists do try to rewrite history textbooks as well with revisionist history of their own. "mostly harmless" my ass.

"Pulling the wool over the eyes of other people" yeah, because the spin off technologies from NASA totally would be around today if we had not sunk millions into our space program....

[HoreTore]

Obviously we'd all prefer smart politicians but we have to work with humanity here. What kind of politicians would be good at this post? Who knows. But I think the worst are the credulous ones who are overly pro-science. Creationists are mostly harmless. They would only be terrible if they were holding us back from these amazing scientific breakthroughs we could be making if only we funded such and such that would change the world, or something utopian like that. Scientists have been pulling the wool over the eyes of other people to get funding and support for ages.

It's a mistake to think that believing in evolution makes a politician significantly more competent at judging science stuff than this guy is. There are many ways in which people are dumb about science that have nothing to do with religion.

You don't "believe" in evolution. You only accept the fact that there are no competing theories as good as evolution.

"Believing" in other theories should get you rightfully branded as the village idiot, not be allowed to make important state decisions. Creationism is a very serious contender for "biggest pile of crap on the planet"-prize. It is idiotic almost beyond compare.

When confronted by the fact that such people are elected representatives in the US, I have to close my eyes and repeat "Silicon Valley and Harvard" over and over to avoid seeing the entire coutry as primitive savages.

[drone]

As a GT grad, I am highly amused that this man's district contains the University [sic] of Georgia.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

What world are you living in? There are school boards with majority creationist members that actively attempt to dismantle science classes by forcing their religious doctrine into the textbooks. Fundamentalists do try to rewrite history textbooks as well with revisionist history of their own. "mostly harmless" my ass.

You think creationism is the worst thing we could put in our textbooks? You think it wouldn't be drowned in the mountains of trash that are already there? Do you know how many different groups are at work putting BS into textbooks?

History textbooks will never be good because you cannot teach history from a textbook. History classes will never be good because there is no way on earth to get enough competent teachers. All you can teach is facts and a simplified story. You can't bring together a committee of leading historians and have them put out a good history textbook, if only the fundamentalists are excluded, it doesn't work like that.

"Pulling the wool over the eyes of other people" yeah, because the spin off technologies from NASA totally would be around today if we had not sunk millions into our space program....

NASA is just fine as far as I know. But there is a ton of bad science.

The prestige of science and the false authority that results from it is a bigger problem than fundamentalists denying things so they feel happier in their faith.

[HoreTore]

A "perfect history textbook" is easy to make, and completely uncontroversial. Why? Because the book doesn't have to include any history at all, so there's nothing for people to fight about.

All history will be coloured by the writer. The aim of the history class is not to learn about historical events, but rather how one learns about historical events.

In the days before mass media, having a class where you learn about events in history was needed. Today that's irrelevant, and what you need to learn is hoe to interpret history.

A biased textbook is actually very good for that purpose. Personally, I mostly use the Vietnam section of the textbooks. They've attempted to ensure that it's objective, so it's coloured by all kinds of different subjective nonsense. It's great!

[a completely inoffensive name]

You think creationism is the worst thing we could put in our textbooks? You think it wouldn't be drowned in the mountains of trash that are already there? Do you know how many different groups are at work putting BS into textbooks?

The only issues with math and science textbooks are the over simplified way that concepts are presented and the badly constructed way questions are written. The actual content is not garbage unless you start injecting evidence-lacking religious doctrine into it.

History textbooks will never be good because you cannot teach history from a textbook. History classes will never be good because there is no way on earth to get enough competent teachers. All you can teach is facts and a simplified story. You can't bring together a committee of leading historians and have them put out a good history textbook, if only the fundamentalists are excluded, it doesn't work like that.

I would prefer history classes to be taught without a textbook, like the world history class I am taking right now in uni. However, you do the best with what you have. You can't simply let it all go to hell because having a textbook is flawed in the first place, either move away from a standard textbook or try your best to minimize the problems. And that means no fundamentalists.

NASA is just fine as far as I know. But there is a ton of bad science.

The prestige of science and the false authority that results from it is a bigger problem than fundamentalists denying things so they feel happier in their faith.

The undeserved promotion of science is worse than the undeserved restriction of X from fundies? I would rather have a world where there is too much of something than not enough.

[Goofball]

You think creationism is the worst thing we could put in our textbooks?

In science textbooks?

Yes. I emphatically think that creationism is the worst thing that you could put in them.

[Major Robert Dump]

We need people like this in office to even out the funk. If it were not for US Congress, the internet tubes would have been clogged a long time ago, this capsizing Guam. Thanks to God that didn't happen

[Sasaki Kojiro]

The only issues with math and science textbooks are the over simplified way that concepts are presented and the badly constructed way questions are written. The actual content is not garbage unless you start injecting evidence-lacking religious doctrine into it.

I doubt there's many controversial math textbooks, yes. I was talking about history textbooks.

But some textbooks that teach evolution do teach it badly. When science moves away from the basics it runs into the same problems regular textbooks have, of which christian influence is only one small part. Scientists often bring philosophy into it.

Creationism in school books is mostly harmless because in general it's an insignificant area, comparable to astronomy. The only use of it is to keep bad theories out. But getting some basic facts right that fundamentalists get wrong doesn't mean you don't have a bad theory. Do you know how many people use and have used evolutionary theory to argue for despicable things?

I would prefer history classes to be taught without a textbook, like the world history class I am taking right now in uni. However, you do the best with what you have. You can't simply let it all go to hell because having a textbook is flawed in the first place, either move away from a standard textbook or try your best to minimize the problems. And that means no fundamentalists.

In a schoolroom environment (grade&high school) they do one of two things. A list of facts and information that people forget, because they have context, or don't know what to do with, because they have no context. Or they teach a simplified story along with the facts and info, and people end up believing they have solid reason to believe in that simplified story. This is many times worse than not teaching it at all.

It would be best if they merely tried to get students interested (for the young ones) and had them read primary sources, chronicles, journals, literature from the time etc (for high school). A heavy dose of that can make it a decent class with even the worst teacher. But it's one of the least teachable subjects. We usually don't have philosophy classes in high school, maybe we shouldn't have history classes either. Usually it's just someone who isn't truly qualified, teaching a simplified version of history that tells a message they believe in. In many countries this is a rabidly nationalist message.

The undeserved promotion of science is worse than the undeserved restriction of X from fundies? I would rather have a world where there is too much of something than not enough.

Would you rather have too much fundamentalism than not enough?

Fundamentalists are a known quantity. They probably aren't going to change much. We have experience with the role of religion in political life.

Overvaluing science is as bad as promoting the idea that you should look for answers in religious doctrine. It's a way to not think. The fact that the government funds as much psychology as it does, and that people treat it as credulously as they do, is many times worse than having some congressman who is a creationist. They are directly comparable. If you believe that there is a scientific method for getting at important human truths then you think you can just read the results and know the truths. It's just like listening to a preacher or looking something up in the bible. The people who think otherwise believe, on some level, in a pro-science ideology and have a bias.

[Montmorency]

Scientists often bring philosophy into it.

That's the idea.

Do you know how many people use and have used evolutionary theory to argue for despicable things?

AFAIK, no one. Many have been influenced by it, though.

Note: there isn't really such a thing as "simplified" history.

Or they teach a simplified story along with the facts and info, and people end up believing they have solid reason to believe in that simplified story. This is many times worse than not teaching it at all.

It would be best if they merely tried to get students interested (for the young ones) and had them read primary sources, chronicles, journals, literature from the time etc (for high school). A heavy dose of that can make it a decent class with even the worst teacher.

So the students would learn this "simplified" history independently? Are you sure you'd like that? What's the use, besides to sideline the educational establishment?

Overvaluing science is as bad as promoting the idea that you should look for answers in religious doctrine. It's a way to not think. The fact that the government funds as much psychology as it does, and that people treat it as credulously as they do, is many times worse than having some congressman who is a creationist. They are directly comparable. If you believe that there is a scientific method for getting at important human truths then you think you can just read the results and know the truths. It's just like listening to a preacher or looking something up in the bible. The people who think otherwise believe, on some level, in a pro-science ideology and have a bias.

Please list the harms you believe come from both. I'd be interested in hearing that.

The people who think otherwise believe, on some level, in a pro-science ideology and have a bias.

Bias against them all makes you no less credulous than others.

[rvg]

What the hell is happening, Americans?

It's Georgia. That's one mitigating circumstance. If a congressman from say, New Hampshire publicly said something like that, he's probably lose the re-election. People in the South have a much higher tolerance for nonsense compared to us yankees.

[a completely inoffensive name]

But some textbooks that teach evolution do teach it badly.

How so?

Creationism in school books is mostly harmless because in general it's an insignificant area, comparable to astronomy. The only use of it is to keep bad theories out. But getting some basic facts right that fundamentalists get wrong doesn't mean you don't have a bad theory. Do you know how many people use and have used evolutionary theory to argue for despicable things?

I know of instances it was used to justify terrible things, but the issue is not with the theory but with the people who wield it. You can't claim modern evolutionary theory is bad because people use it for justifying bad conclusions. We would all condemn organized religion if that was the case. But we shouldn't. Hence, why I complain about the fundamentalists as opposed to Christianity.

In a schoolroom environment (grade&high school) they do one of two things. A list of facts and information that people forget, because they have context, or don't know what to do with, because they have no context. Or they teach a simplified story along with the facts and info, and people end up believing they have solid reason to believe in that simplified story. This is many times worse than not teaching it at all.

Interesting. This might cause you distress, but my uni world history class has us reading a book called "Maps of Time" by David Christian. The purpose of the book is to combine the various sciences and social sciences together to make a coherent "Big History" of humanity, starting from the origin of the universe. A modern, scientific creation-myth story he semi-jokingly calls it in the intro.

It would be best if they merely tried to get students interested (for the young ones) and had them read primary sources, chronicles, journals, literature from the time etc (for high school). A heavy dose of that can make it a decent class with even the worst teacher. But it's one of the least teachable subjects. We usually don't have philosophy classes in high school, maybe we shouldn't have history classes either. Usually it's just someone who isn't truly qualified, teaching a simplified version of history that tells a message they believe in. In many countries this is a rabidly nationalist message.

Interesting idea. One I would entertain, but there are concerns I have. I guess that topic requires it's own thread.

Would you rather have too much fundamentalism than not enough?

Fundamentalists are a known quantity. They probably aren't going to change much. We have experience with the role of religion in political life.

Overvaluing science is as bad as promoting the idea that you should look for answers in religious doctrine. It's a way to not think. The fact that the government funds as much psychology as it does, and that people treat it as credulously as they do, is many times worse than having some congressman who is a creationist. They are directly comparable. If you believe that there is a scientific method for getting at important human truths then you think you can just read the results and know the truths. It's just like listening to a preacher or looking something up in the bible. The people who think otherwise believe, on some level, in a pro-science ideology and have a bias.

On some level, people don't want to think. OR at least, they do the bare minimum in order to survive. Whether it is at uni, or in their daily lives. What I want to know is why you are so concerned about the overzealous science supporters who demand money for ventures that at least have the benefit of giving us cool new stuff to play with and yet write off the fundamentalists who actively attempt at dictating people's lives and the information they do/do not get?

[Kralizec]

Your views seem pretty strange to me. I don't mean that in a bad way; I'm genuinely puzzled.

Science is supposed to reflect our knowledge of the universe and everything in it, including ourselves. Science researchers are supposed to advance our knowledge. An "intelligent design" supporter would argue that evolution is a bad theory, or at least a questionable one. He would not question the concept of "science" as such, just the prevailing view on this particular subject.

The odd part is that while layman supporters of the evolution theory would characterise creationists/ID supporters as anti-science as name calling, you seem to accept the label as a legitimate position.

But I think the worst are the credulous ones who are overly pro-science.

That a person accepts the evolution theory tells us nothing about his intelligence. Undoubtedly there are many politicians, and people in general, who accept the evolution theory without trying to understand it, or the evidence in favour of it. How are they worse than the credulous ones who started taking the bible literally at some point and never questioned it since?

[Sasaki Kojiro]

That's the idea.

They suck at it. "Oh, when you look at the universe, you see how small and insignificant you are", etc.

AFAIK, no one. Many have been influenced by it, though.

Note: there isn't really such a thing as "simplified" history.

strange semantics

So the students would learn this "simplified" history independently? Are you sure you'd like that? What's the use, besides to sideline the educational establishment?

What makes you think they would? The fewer people using a dumb historical theory as a crutch the better.

Please list the harms you believe come from both. I'd be interested in hearing that.

No. I've already spilled an inappropriate amount of ink. I could have left it at the Dawkin's tweet.

Bias against them all makes you no less credulous than others.

I'm not biased against them, I care more because it's the mainstream among powerful people. If creationism was then I would care more about it.

I know of instances it was used to justify terrible things, but the issue is not with the theory but with the people who wield it. You can't claim modern evolutionary theory is bad because people use it for justifying bad conclusions. We would all condemn organized religion if that was the case. But we shouldn't. Hence, why I complain about the fundamentalists as opposed to Christianity.

If people are wielding things, it matters what they are wielding. In our culture at this time religion is not a very dangerous thing to wield. Scientism is. Notice I made the same kind of distinction you are making between fundamentalists and christians, except with science...I specifically said "credulous/utopian".

Interesting. This might cause you distress, but my uni world history class has us reading a book called "Maps of Time" by David Christian. The purpose of the book is to combine the various sciences and social sciences together to make a coherent "Big History" of humanity, starting from the origin of the universe. A modern, scientific creation-myth story he semi-jokingly calls it in the intro.

You're being ripped off. Did the professor assign his own book or something?

On some level, people don't want to think. OR at least, they do the bare minimum in order to survive. Whether it is at uni, or in their daily lives. What I want to know is why you are so concerned about the overzealous science supporters who demand money for ventures that at least have the benefit of giving us cool new stuff to play with and yet write off the fundamentalists who actively attempt at dictating people's lives and the information they do/do not get?

I don't care about the money or the new stuff. Look below:

Science is supposed to reflect our knowledge of the universe and everything in it, including ourselves. Science researchers are supposed to advance our knowledge. An "intelligent design" supporter would argue that evolution is a bad theory, or at least a questionable one. He would not question the concept of "science" as such, just the prevailing view on this particular subject.

The odd part is that while layman supporters of the evolution theory would characterise creationists/ID supporters as anti-science as name calling, you seem to accept the label as a legitimate position.

Science is for studying the physical and natural world. The humanities are the study of people. In science its often very difficult to find something out, but when you find it out you can show it objectively. In the humanities many things are very easy to see, but it's often hard to convince anyone, let alone prove anything. So, if you want to convince someone of something, what do you do? You can argue, write history, use art or literature or storytelling, etc, religion usually uses all of those. There's nothing wrong with that as a method, it just ossifies over time and people rely on doctrine. Priests are recognized as people who have special insight through some trait of theirs or through intensive study, so people take their word for it. Today science takes that role for many people.

Science is an inappropriate tool for studying the humanities, but it has so much prestige in our time because of the technology it has created, and because people imagine that it overthrew religion (not true). So you have:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_racism

And the counterreaction in our own century has been bad as well--behaviorism, blank slate theory. You think we are past that and that modern psychology (of the kind that tries to answer humanities questions) is better?

[ICantSpellDawg]

Broun is insane. Young earthers are insane. People who believe that science comes from the devil to trick us are insane. I am seriously concerned with the ability of people who think this way to hold office. I hope they eject this man out of office as soon as possible.

I'm not saying that this physician/national level politician/Christian is a stupid man, I'm concerned about his mental health and I hope he gets better soon.

http://www.catholic.com/tracts/creation-and-genesis

The Catechism of the Catholic Church states, "[M]any scientific studies . . . have splendidly enriched our knowledge of the age and dimensions of the cosmos, the development of life forms, and the appearance of man. These studies invite us to even greater admiration for the greatness of the Creator" (CCC 283). Still, science has its limits (CCC 284, 2293–4). The following quotations from the Fathers show how widely divergent early Christian views were.

Men like this are the seeds of an American Taliban. Akin spouted 1 verifiably false assertion that caused people to cringe. This guy has separated himself from basic reality. I can defend a gap of knowledge on a specific topic, we all have them - but I can't defend detachment from reality or this man sitting on the science and technology committee.

Here is the full madness

BTW. I am a "Creationist" as it is loosely understood. I believe that we exist, have not always existed and were therefore created in some way. I've always like the watchmaker deistic understanding of creation. The one that uses revealed and discovered scientific theories to explain the mechanism of that creation. I understand that Genesis is a revealed truth, but that; as it is a book with a few pages containing an image of creation that doesn't mean that we were created in a book. It is a nearly infinite process, condensed into a book, it is clearly an abbreviated understanding of the larger idea. As I've said before, creationism is not a scientific concept and does not belong in the science classroom. Science follows a verification schema and anything that fails that test should not be taught as science. It could have a place in an ethics class, or in literature, or in philosophy. I believe that the Bible has a place in everyones life, but the entire idea of classifying knowledge into different categories precludes it from being part of scientific curriculum.


Either way, I am not surprised that some people "think" in this way, unfortunately. Southern Baptists have been an excellent source of votes for my causes and many of them have been very kind to me, but at some point the mongoose that you enlist to kill the snakes become a more potent and intractable pest. Boot the guy from office and put almost anyone else in there.

[Ironside]

Science is for studying the physical and natural world. The humanities are the study of people. In science its often very difficult to find something out, but when you find it out you can show it objectively. In the humanities many things are very easy to see, but it's often hard to convince anyone, let alone prove anything. So, if you want to convince someone of something, what do you do? You can argue, write history, use art or literature or storytelling, etc, religion usually uses all of those. There's nothing wrong with that as a method, it just ossifies over time and people rely on doctrine. Priests are recognized as people who have special insight through some trait of theirs or through intensive study, so people take their word for it. Today science takes that role for many people.

Science is an inappropriate tool for studying the humanities, but it has so much prestige in our time because of the technology it has created, and because people imagine that it overthrew religion (not true). So you have:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_racism

And the counterreaction in our own century has been bad as well--behaviorism, blank slate theory. You think we are past that and that modern psychology (of the kind that tries to answer humanities questions) is better?

And the alternative method is?...
If a flawed method still gives benficial results (and it does, otherwise you wouldn't even be able to detect the previous mistakes), then a proper alternative needs to be discovered before abandoning the old method.
Besides, the real problem is keeping proper critical thinking, which are more or less an impossible goal, but one important goal to strive for.

And that's what is horribly lacking when it comes to creationists. Their answer is already written in stone, no matter contradicting information and logical consequences such assumptions has with already established facts.

[HoreTore]

The problem with religion interfering is not what kind of theories they have, nor how whacky those theories are. The problem arises when they try to displace scientific theories with their own theories, which they believe are just as plausible.

For example, I have no problem with people who believe that (a) god(s) created humanity. Teach it in schools too, I don't care all that much(just don't ask me to do it). The problem arises if they want to take out evolution, for example. That's completely unacceptable. That's child abuse.

[Montmorency]

They suck at it. "Oh, when you look at the universe, you see how small and insignificant you are", etc.

That's not the idea.

strange semantics

What makes you think they would? The fewer people using a dumb historical theory as a crutch the better.

You're asking pre-adolescents to teach themselves historical analysis. Without any concept...

As for "dumb theory", that's personal preference on the teacher's part.

No. I've already spilled an inappropriate amount of ink. I could have left it at the Dawkin's tweet.

"Scientism" can only cause damage through a misapprehension of the capacities of science in terms of ways and means.

That, or technological apotheosis in the hands of the state.

I'm not biased against them

You mean you aren't opposed to them? But you've stated that you are, in so many words.

If people are wielding things, it matters what they are wielding. In our culture at this time religion is not a very dangerous thing to wield. Scientism is. Notice I made the same kind of distinction you are making between fundamentalists and christians, except with science...I specifically said "credulous/utopian".

I get the feeling that you see "scientism" as so dangerous that religious fundamentalism is necessary today to counteract it. That's silly.

Science is for studying the physical and natural world. The humanities are the study of people.

What if through science the people are changed? Would the humanities in their current form not become irrelevant?