Is scientism inherent in the human brain?
Information introduced externally to that which we process can generate a different value in the human mind. To be more specific, everything that is learned as a ready-made and assimilable notion, or that is placed in a dimension outside our sensorial sphere (or that is not completely understood even when connected to it), can lead to skipping the verification step in the comparisons with this one. In order for this to happen, it is sufficient that the information itself is subject to specific in-depth analysis, or that there is a desire to investigate it. The phenomenon that is generated is learning by postulates, that is, in most cases it is taken for granted that what is studied, for the sole reason of containing greater descriptive information than that which is stored in our information entropy (i.e. has a connotation of a different matrix compared to the information initially generated by our synaptic processing), does not require verification. This process actually leads to a type of syllogism according to which anything that possesses this characteristic can satisfy the learning requirements mentioned above and can actually generate a phenomenon that can be defined as "Addiction by postulates".
This event, if applied to people can generate a concept of admiration or adulation, if applied to science it can in turn acquire the definition of "dogmatic scientism" or an intellectual attitude related to total trust in the concepts exposed by such people to the point of attributing them a presumed superiority over the same benefit of the doubt in questioning them. Positivism is therefore created that an innate scientific truth is present in such concepts, without the need for verification.
A reality that has become historical, established since the dawn of civilizations. Wanting to give some examples both in the political and religious fields, what is said by a member of a clerical community is considered good and right for her proselytes, what is uttered by a head of a government is considered implicitly true for the his supporters, as what the pharaoh said was a divine word in ancient Egypt.
Well, we shouldn't be too surprised by this behavior, as it is typical of man. In fact, the lack of direct sensory verification or personal scientific verification can influence the perception and acceptance of information, especially when this information is in line with the subject's pre-existing expectations or beliefs.
Although there is still debate about a clear scientific confirmation that could encompass the previously asserted statements, numerous studies have nevertheless been carried out in this regard. For example, we cite the study conducted by psychologists Lepper, Greene, and Nisbett which in 1973 showed how individuals tend to believe more easily information that supports their pre-existing beliefs, even if this information is not based on concrete or verifiable evidence. In other words, the human brain is predisposed to seek confirmation of what it already believes, rather than to question its own beliefs. Phenomenon accentuated when such information is provided to us from the outside.
In detail, this research aimed to explore how pre-existing expectations can influence the perception of information and how the lack of direct sensory verification can increase people's suggestiveness.
To achieve these objectives, the authors conducted an experiment divided into three parts:
In the first part of the experiment, participants were asked to evaluate designs of a series of beverage containers. In particular, some drawings were created to represent glasses which, due to their shape and color, usually contain cold drinks (for example, lemonade) while other drawings represented cups or cups which, due to their shape and color, usually contain hot drinks (for example, coffee) . However, no drawing showed the contents or drinks inside: in fact all the figures were represented empty.
In the second part of the experiment, the participants were divided into two groups. The first group was informed that the drawings of the containers actually represented containers for cold or hot drinks as suggested by subjective experience, while the second group was informed that the drawings only represented generic containers whose drink could be either hot or cold, that is, images without any connection to subjective reality. Subsequently, participants were asked to taste drinks (all served at the same room temperature) and to evaluate whether it was hot or cold. The results demonstrated that the participants who had received the information of the drawings of the cups corresponding to the subjective experience, believed that the drink offered was of a hotter or colder temperature depending on the container, while those who had received the information that in the images as previously communicated information (i.e. that both hot and cold drinks could be served in such containers), they were more likely to say that they were the same temperature.
The third part of the experiment confirmed these results, showing that individuals' suggestion increases when they are unable to sensorially verify the information they receive. In particular, a visual evaluation of the texture of a fabric (without being able to touch it) was requested, i.e. whether it was smooth (for example silk) or rough (for example cotton). Verbal information was then provided that contrasted with what the participants had said (i.e. smooth if assumed rough or rough if assumed smooth). Well, whatever fabric design was shown afterwards, the percentage of a response corresponding to the induced verbal information was higher than the participants' original one, regardless of the fabrics shown.
Furthermore, it has been shown that the lack of direct sensory verification can increase suggestiveness, or the tendency to believe in things that are not based on concrete or real facts. For example, individuals may be influenced by optical illusions or false information provided by unreliable sources.
Therefore, although it is easy to cite dogmatic examples in the religious field in such contexts, where any desire for proof is excluded a priori, it is not so rare to find examples in different fields: fundamentally incorrect phrases or concepts have in fact always generated the belief among the masses of their existence, assumed as postulates to the point of not even being able to question their empirical existence.
Brief examples can be cited, both on a philosophical and scientific level:
Plato's immortality of the soul, which argued that the human mind is separate from the body and continues to exist after bodily death.
Atomism, which argued that the entire material world can be reduced to indivisible particles called atoms (current experimental evidence demonstrates a divisibility for which neither a term nor a universal model has yet been found that can completely reconcile classical physics with the quantum one of particles).
Descartes' dualism, according to which the body and mind are two distinct, separate and independent entities that interact with each other.
Berkeley's objective idealism, which held that only minds exist and that the external world exists only as the object of our perceptions.
Jung's collective unconscious, which argued for the physical existence of an unconscious archetype shared by all of humanity, which forms the basis of human experience.
The phlogiston theory, which held that everything contained a substance called phlogiston, which was released during combustion.
The humoral theory of medicine, which held that health depended on a balance between the four body fluids: blood, phlegm, yellow bile and black bile.
Jean-Baptiste Lamarck's theory of evolution, which argued that organisms evolve through their willingness to acquire heritable characteristics during life.
Edward Suess's theory of the species abyss, which argued that mountains were formed due to the collapse of the thinnest parts of the earth's crust within an abyss that surrounded the globe (when instead modern geology has shown that they form due to plate collisions, volcanic activity, erosion or sediments).
The theory of vitalism, which argued that the life of an organism depends on a vital force or a creative principle that cannot be explained by physical laws, combined with the theory of spontaneous generation, which argued that bacteria, animals and plants can generate themselves spontaneously from inanimate matter, (both theories denied by modern chemical, biological and genetic evidence).
It is important to note that these assumptions were not initially presented as dogmas, but simple opinions, as they are an application of human heuristics towards phenomena for which one cannot have a verifiable direct sensorial experience. The reason why this conversion took place instead can be found in the great entropic-informative force mentioned above, loaded with the ability to explain the world in an abstract and theoretical way, which put the question of a scientific verification in the listeners on a secondary level and negligible. An informative syllogism which therefore not only led to the concept of "axiomatically valid", but also gave such ideas the power to remain standing for centuries.
In today's world, where modern popularizers of the masses are YouTubers and influencers, as well as people who are calculated by "likes", theories such as flat earthism, earthcavism, kingdom of Agartha, moon of Nibiru, Annunaki, Raelians and the like can actually carry out this induction by postulates, but also in the political sphere there is a tendency all too often to consider every state action as objectively valid in principle, even if the promulgating administrators of the relevant ministries may not have sufficient or appropriate knowledge. We therefore speak of political scientism. A dangerous phenomenon, as the use of technologies is often justified regardless of its social, environmental and ethical consequences. Technological progress is considered positive in itself, without a real evaluation of its consequences. This attitude can lead to a technological utopia in which everything is allowed, even at the cost of sacrificing the rights of people, communities and the environment.
In a world where technology has reached very advanced levels, it is therefore important to consider the social and ethical implications of what is produced, often used for personal and economic interests.
But how then to implement a course of action in all this? Where is the middle boundary of each discipline that determines its positive or negative meaning? The verification of the information itself could be the correct answer, that is, an accurate analysis of each subvariable that could include the totality of information units or the percentage necessary to proceed towards a better humanity that can live in harmony with itself and with the its natural environment in which it is framed? An answer that is not easy to implement, since just analyzing an information unit, every concept, every piece in the progress, leads to a myriad of subsets such that the processing capacity that can satisfy the comparison of all the variables and subvariables is increasingly complex. This is for the simple reason that the tools we use are faster than our own ability to adapt or regulate the products that arise from them. This is primarily because in fact, since the dawn of time, legislating or politicizing has always been a task entrusted to human intellect alone, that is, particular machines or advanced mathematics have never been used in these disciplines. There are several reasons why technological sciences have not been applied to such disciplines or powers. One of the main ones is that these are essentially humanities disciplines, which have always required in-depth understanding, but limited to history, culture and sociology. In fact, political or legal decisions often depend on interpretations of facts and rules which require a subjective evaluation of the situation, which until now has been attributed inexorably to man. The spontaneous response could be precisely to use technological tools that can satisfy the humanistic requirements required to fill the gap created. An impossible idea, until recently, but which today is increasingly advanced: the introduction of the figure of the "digital supervisor" also called "AI advisor" is increasingly under study; this is nothing more than an artificial intelligence system that could help man make decisions with a more informed verification of them. These "figures" could play an important role in supporting human decisions, offering recommendations based on analyzed data and advanced algorithms. By correlating the present with what has already happened in the past, these humanistic disciplines could also help, effectively creating a historical awareness and a subsequent harmonious conjugation with everything in which every single choice must interface.
In fact, systems are already currently being tested and are no longer science fiction: in fact, legal risk analysis software already exists that uses advanced algorithms to help lawyers identify the legal risks associated with business decisions. This type of software can analyze large amounts of data and provide recommendations to make more informed decisions regarding the law. Other examples of "digital supervisor" include so-called "legal chatbots", such as "DoNotPay" or "Lawbot", which offer automated legal assistance to consumers, the contract and legal document management platform Legisway and natural language analysis software used to interpret legal documents and court decisions.
But as said in the incipit, it is necessary that even these technologies do not fall into addictive scientism, therefore a more than complete understanding of their functioning by users is more than necessary.