19 replies to this topic

[TheFountain]

We all agree on the importance of science in the modern world. It is one of the things that holds it together and keeps it evolving forward. But when it comes to how we treat one another as individuals, is this perspective a dangerous one to hold on to?

Here is a quote by Jung that should get us all thinking, and hopefully, discussing.

"What is more, most of the natural sciences try to represent the results of their investigations as though these had come into existence without mans intervention, in such a way that the collaboration of the psyche-an indispensable factor-remains invisible. (An exception to this is modern physics, which recognizes that the observed is not independent of the observer). So, in this respect as well, science conveys a picture of the world from which a real human psyche appears to be excluded-the very antithesis of the "humanities"."

[corb]

I will only give you a short answer.
Yes it's a danger to humanism, because science in it's purest state is posthumanism.

[TheFountain]

corb, on 15 August 2012 - 09:10 PM, said:

I will only give you a short answer.
Yes it's a danger to humanism, because science in it's purest state is posthumanism.

But does "posthumanism" necessitate a state of selfish lack of compassion and total objective consumption?

At some point the subject and the object must intersect. Perhaps this is the point known as synchronicity. Perhaps it exists as a implicate potential of a holographic universe.


Whatever the case may be it seems backward to me that lack of compassion for "fellow beings" would be a post human quality, rather than vice versa because as it stands there are not a whole lot of people who empathize truly with their fellow humans or fellow earth dwellers.

Unless of course what is meant here is that when there is a state of total objectivism we would essentially be "one mind". Then I can understand why compassion would not be necessitated, because we would already 'know', we wouldn't require compassion to do so.

Edited by TheFountain, 17 August 2012 - 08:17 PM.

[TheFountain]

My question was not pertaining to a post-human world. It was pertaining to the one we still live in, in which a lot of people still require compassion (which essentially means "to suffer with in understanding".) in order to be helped by other's.

[Elus]

I would argue that a scientific viewpoint is based on logical thinking and evidence. So, does such a system promote the health and happiness of people? Indirectly, it does. Logical thinking and evidence-based inquiry allows us to move past established prejudices and outdated ways of thinking. It also helps spur solutions to the problems that we face in our society.

Could I envision a scenario where a scientific viewpoint would be detrimental? No. Scientific thinking alone does not lead to catastrophes. I would argue that it is greed, fear, and ignorance stemming from lack of scientific thinking, that harm humanitarianism. People who are greedy, ignorant, or fearful often abuse the tools of science for their own nefarious purposes. This doesn't mean that scientists are somehow responsible for the actions of those individuals. For instance, I think Curie's discovery of radioactivity does not burden her with the deaths of the people killed by the atomic bomb.

Since the dawn of time, we've faced the double-edged sword that comes with new knowledge. From the moment we created fire, we knew we could use it to kindle life or burn down a village. Those who discover tools should not be blamed for the misuses of those tools.

EDIT: Actually, I suppose one scenario does come to mind that could present a danger to humanitarianism. That would be the creation of AI. It wouldn't take a greedy person to endanger society - just a case of faulty programming. I think that's a special case, though.

Edited by Elus, 17 August 2012 - 10:58 PM.

[TheFountain]

Elus, on 17 August 2012 - 10:43 PM, said:

I would argue that a scientific viewpoint is based on logical thinking and evidence. So, does such a system promote the health and happiness of people? Indirectly, it does. Logical thinking and evidence-based inquiry allows us to move past established prejudices and outdated ways of thinking. It also helps spur solutions to the problems that we face in our society.

Could I envision a scenario where a scientific viewpoint would be detrimental? No. Scientific thinking alone does not lead to catastrophes. I would argue that it is greed, fear, and ignorance stemming from lack of scientific thinking, that harm humanitarianism. People who are greedy, ignorant, or fearful often abuse the tools of science for their own nefarious purposes. This doesn't mean that scientists are somehow responsible for the actions of those individuals. For instance, I think Curie's discovery of radioactivity does not burden her with the deaths of the people killed by the atomic bomb.

Since the dawn of time, we've faced the double-edged sword that comes with new knowledge. From the moment we created fire, we knew we could use it to kindle life or burn down a village. Those who discover tools should not be blamed for the misuses of those tools.

EDIT: Actually, I suppose one scenario does come to mind that could present a danger to humanitarianism. That would be the creation of AI. It wouldn't take a greedy person to endanger society - just a case of faulty programming. I think that's a special case, though.

I am not assigning blame or accusing primarily scientific thinkers of nefarious acts. I am asking the question of whether or not too much objective scientific perspective cuts one off from compassion in the human spectrum.

As Jung himself premeditated on this several times, I find it a very fruitful question to ponder. What Jung (an amazing thinker himself) suggested was that too much object oriented thinking leads one astray from the foundation of such things as compassion, empathy and understanding, because the deep well that these qualities rise from is "the subjective factor" as he termed it.

I also find his preponderance of the question "where is the psyche in this objective view" quite pertinent. Don't you? Where exactly is the psyche?

You see in his growing perspective Jung came to the conclusion that you cannot assess an individual based on statistics. And he is very right. Because "the human unit" is the exception to the rule, if we are to assign significance to its individual uniqueness. For how else could we have an individual identity if we did not differ enough from one another?

Again, in the objective world view of science, where is the psyche?

Everyone has neurons, everyone has synapses, everyone has matter called a brain, but does everyone think the same? No, and THIS is the mystery that science CANNOT explain. Despite its attempts.

Whether or not science can explain this great mystery some distant day is only a matter of speculation at this time. But one thing is absolutely clear. You don't get to know a person via EEG charts of their brain functions. You get to know them on a very unique individual basis.

Again, where is the psyche in the objectivists world view?

[Elus]

TheFountain, on 18 August 2012 - 01:30 AM, said:

I am not assigning blame or accusing primarily scientific thinkers of nefarious acts. I am asking the question of whether or not too much objective scientific perspective cuts one off from compassion in the human spectrum.

As Jung himself premeditated on this several times, I find it a very fruitful question to ponder. What Jung (an amazing thinker himself) suggested was that too much object oriented thinking leads one astray from the foundation of such things as compassion, empathy and understanding, because the deep well that these qualities rise from is "the subjective factor" as he termed it.

I also find his preponderance of the question "where is the psyche in this objective view" quite pertinent. Don't you? Where exactly is the psyche?

You see in his growing perspective Jung came to the conclusion that you cannot assess an individual based on statistics. And he is very right. Because "the human unit" is the exception to the rule, if we are to assign significance to its individual uniqueness. For how else could we have an individual identity if we did not differ enough from one another?

Again, in the objective world view of science, where is the psyche?

Everyone has neurons, everyone has synapses, everyone has matter called a brain, but does everyone think the same? No, and THIS is the mystery that science CANNOT explain. Despite its attempts.

Whether or not science can explain this great mystery some distant day is only a matter of speculation at this time. But one thing is absolutely clear. You don't get to know a person via EEG charts of their brain functions. You get to know them on a very unique individual basis.

Again, where is the psyche in the objectivists world view?

I'm not sure that I understand the connection between scientific thinking and lack of compassion. One can think very scientifically and still be a compassionate being. Are you implying that they are somehow mutually exclusive?

To think scientifically entails using logic and evidence to evaluate the world. I would say that this makes us far more able to think compassionately. Thinking irrationally often leads to lack of compassion, as history is able to tell us.

I'm also not sure I agree that a person can't be evaluated using statistics. For now, yes. But ultimately, we are all patterns of information inhabiting physical bodies. Therefore, we are susceptible to physical analysis, and could in theory be described and modeled on computers as statistics. Some people may perceive this as cold, but I do not think the universe owes us anything. Some truths are difficult to accept, and I certainly think that one of those truths is that the human being is a statistical pattern of information.

Edited by Elus, 18 August 2012 - 01:50 AM.

[TheFountain]

Elus, on 18 August 2012 - 01:47 AM, said:

Are you implying that they are somehow mutually exclusive?

No, I am not implying that scientific thinking and compassion are mutually exclusive. That is why I used the words "overly scientific" in my heading. I am thinking an "overly scientific perspective" might stunt ones ability to be empathetic toward other's. I might have even witnessed it.

Elus, on 18 August 2012 - 01:47 AM, said:

To think scientifically entails using logic and evidence to evaluate the world. I would say that this makes us far more able to think compassionately.

Can matters of the heart really be logically deduced? I question this intensely.

Elus, on 18 August 2012 - 01:47 AM, said:

Thinking irrationally often leads to lack of compassion, as history is able to tell us.

I'm not sure if it is thinking irrationally or perhaps reacting irrationally to ones natural instincts or feelings that would result in lack of compassion. But take for example art. To create art one must, from time to time, be overcome with irrational thought processes. Thoughts that are not necessarily from the tippy top of the mountain of consciousness, so to speak. I am something of an artist myself, and there are times when I have set out to create things, had a logical thought process that "this is what I want to create" and created something entirely different without expecting it. I imagine this is sometimes true of scientific discoveries as well. Think of all the discoveries that were happened upon accidentally. If the psyche was not interacting with that process, we would not know it. The psyche is capable of both rationality and irrationality. Arguable equally necessary.

Elus, on 18 August 2012 - 01:47 AM, said:

I'm also not sure I agree that a person can't be evaluated using statistics. For now, yes. But ultimately, we are all patterns of information inhabiting physical bodies.

How can one account for dissimilarities in thinking then? Environment? What then of two children who grew up in the exact same environment, one becomes a pillar of society, the other a black sheep philosopher? How to account for this using statistics? Furthermore what if these 'exceptions of the rule" actually turn out to be the rule?

Elus, on 18 August 2012 - 01:47 AM, said:

Therefore, we are susceptible to physical analysis, and could in theory be described and modeled on computers as statistics.

Except that computer programs are indeed programmed to lack dissimilarity. The human mind apparently is not. There are commonalities, yes. But there are a vast number of dissimilarities that make the world we live in interesting. If it was a matter if repeated patterning, our world would likely be governed by sentinels, such as the ones in the matrix. See, the point of that film even was that we AREN'T all the same, even if we come from the same stuff. And that is okay.

Elus, on 18 August 2012 - 01:47 AM, said:

Some people may perceive this as cold, but I do not think the universe owes us anything. Some truths are difficult to accept, and I certainly think that one of those truths is that the human being is a statistical pattern of information.

The universe also does not owe you that truth simply because you say it is so. You are of course entitled to your opinion though, which I appreciate.

[AgeVivo]

Viewpoint: inequalities:
- In countries where education is low, you have impressive disparities. Uneducated populations might look happy, but they are very constrained and die early
- Education and science leads to population equalities. Populations then argue more, because they see what they can obtain. They might look less happy, but they envoy healthy long lives, social systems and leisures
- In betwen the transition can be more or less smooth: some might think it is better to stay at the original stage, some not.

Viewpoint: Growing disruptive technologies
- A knife can be used to cut a rose for a person or to kill someone
- Nuclear physics can be used to provide the required energy for people or to create [intentional or not] bombs.
-  Good or bad?

=> When is science "good" or "bad" for humanity?
It seems to me we are globally heading the right way, but our decidors should much more orient focus (money) on well-being, medicine, long-term health and longevity
This is underestimated today, and it seems far more "good" than finance, law or military industries for example. Today, does biomedical research attracts talents as finance does?

Edited by AgeVivo, 18 August 2012 - 11:13 AM.

[TheFountain]

AgeVivo, on 18 August 2012 - 11:09 AM, said:

Viewpoint: inequalities:
- In countries where education is low, you have impressive disparities. Uneducated populations might look happy, but they are very constrained and die early
- Education and science leads to population equalities. Populations then argue more, because they see what they can obtain. They might look less happy, but they envoy healthy long lives, social systems and leisures
- In betwen the transition can be more or less smooth: some might think it is better to stay at the original stage, some not.

Viewpoint: Growing disruptive technologies
- A knife can be used to cut a rose for a person or to kill someone
- Nuclear physics can be used to provide the required energy for people or to create [intentional or not] bombs.
-  Good or bad?

=> When is science "good" or "bad" for humanity?
It seems to me we are globally heading the right way, but our decidors should much more orient focus (money) on well-being, medicine, long-term health and longevity
This is underestimated today, and it seems far more "good" than finance, law or military industries for example. Today, does biomedical research attracts talents as finance does?

Where is the psyche in any of this estimation? What importance does it hold? Is the importance an assumed one? Do we assume the health of the psyche based on the growing trends of technology and scientific advances? What of countries with extreme economic divide?

Here is an example. You move to a university town in the mid-western U.S. You have two sides of said town, west and east. On the east side of said town you have the 'locals' who tend to live that typical "white trash" lifestyle. On this side of the town you have a lot of run down old buildings, which house people on welfare who are "prone to" criminal behavior. Many of them lurch about day in and day out. smoking, drinking and pretty much not growing as individuals. Despite this many of these people still seem to have access to technologies such as computers and cell phones.

On the west side of this town you have pretty much "the foreigners". These people are educated, they are polite, they are kind, they are considerate. The buildings are kept clean, updated and modernized. The streets are free of lurkers and alcoholics for the most part, besides the occasional homeless person here and there. These people have access to technologies such as computers and cell phones.

So from this we can see that there is educational disparity, but no disparity regarding who has access to technology.

Now does this mean that one group is more or less in touch with the psyche than the other? Not necessarily.

Because both are encapsulated within an external, objective diagram, but in a different way.

In no way does education exempt one from overly objective thinking in which the psyche can become alienated. It simply provides an avenue upon which one can base their lot of external, objective estimations. This may result in more politeness but it does not necessarily result in more compassion.

As a purely anecdotal example of the above, I have personally met people if both university level education and low income, low education settings who equally lacked compassion and understanding for fellow human beings.

On the other hand I have met examples from both who did not lack this compassion and understanding. So the so called statistical correlation does not seem to depend on education and/or economical setting. And politicians are the perfect example of this.

Therefor it is likely that the human being cannot be simply rendered as a statistical unit of insignificant measurement.

To know a human, you must first locate their psyche.

[Connor MacLeod]

TheFountain, on 12 August 2012 - 06:41 AM, said:

We all agree on the importance of science in the modern world. It is one of the things that holds it together and keeps it evolving forward. But when it comes to how we treat one another as individuals, is this perspective a dangerous one to hold on to?

Your question reminded me of the following quote of Whittaker Chambers (of the Hiss-Chambers trial fame):

Quote

…[T]he torrent that swept through me in 1937 and the first months of 1938 swept my spirit clear to discern one truth: “Man without mysticism is a monster.” I do not mean, of course, that I denied the usefulness of reason and knowledge. What I grasped was that religion begins at the point where reason and knowledge are powerless and forever fail—the point at which man senses the mystery of his good and evil, his suffering and his destiny as a soul in search of God. Thus, in pain, I learned the distinction between wisdom and knowledge—knowledge, which however exalted, is seldom more than the making of careful measurements, and wisdom, which includes knowledge, but also includes man’s mystery.

[shadowhawk]

Connor MacLeod, on 20 August 2012 - 03:47 AM, said:

TheFountain, on 12 August 2012 - 06:41 AM, said:

We all agree on the importance of science in the modern world. It is one of the things that holds it together and keeps it evolving forward. But when it comes to how we treat one another as individuals, is this perspective a dangerous one to hold on to?

Your question reminded me of the following quote of Whittaker Chambers (of the Hiss-Chambers trial fame):

Quote

…[T]he torrent that swept through me in 1937 and the first months of 1938 swept my spirit clear to discern one truth: “Man without mysticism is a monster.” I do not mean, of course, that I denied the usefulness of reason and knowledge. What I grasped was that religion begins at the point where reason and knowledge are powerless and forever fail—the point at which man senses the mystery of his good and evil, his suffering and his destiny as a soul in search of God. Thus, in pain, I learned the distinction between wisdom and knowledge—knowledge, which however exalted, is seldom more than the making of careful measurements, and wisdom, which includes knowledge, but also includes man’s mystery.

What a guy Chambers was.  Love him.

[johnross47]

"To know a human, you must first locate their psyche."


The issue here seems to me to boil down to whether you think dualism is a defensible point of view. I am a trained practising artist but I don't think that the objects I produce are the result of activities outside of my physical body. I don't feel the need to use an imagined soul or psyche to explain their origin. If you reflect or contemplate carefully you can easily understand that the key phenomenon in consciousness is salience and that your thoughts only become available to you as they emerge into salience. They don't come from outside. There is no ghost operating the machine through spooky connections, there is only enormous complexity which produces the illusion of a separate ethereal you watching the physical you. If that was how people worked you might expect to see all of the mental processes that lead up to a thought, but you can't because they are subconscious and not available to you until the process reaches the level of salience or consciousness. The connections in the brain accesible to consciousness are above the low level processing that generates the final thoughts The illusion described as the "psyche" is not much more than a generalised awareness of things like personality and a summation of a person's actions.

[TheFountain]

johnross47, on 29 August 2012 - 02:43 PM, said:

I don't feel the need to use an imagined soul or psyche

An 'imagined' psyche? I don't get this perspective at all. If the psyche is 'imagined' then the body must be operated by someone else entirely.

johnross47, on 29 August 2012 - 02:43 PM, said:

If you reflect or contemplate carefully you can easily understand that the key phenomenon in consciousness is salience and that your thoughts only become available to you as they emerge into salience.

Key word in both instances here is 'you'. What are 'you' a product of if not a mind set, or 'psyche' of some sort?

johnross47, on 29 August 2012 - 02:43 PM, said:

They don't come from outside. There is no ghost operating the machine through spooky connections, there is only enormous complexity which produces the illusion of a separate ethereal you watching the physical you.

I think you are manipulating words to make it seem like my original argument is the concrete scientific one. Not so. I am arguing in favor of question marks, not against them. And certainly not saying I or any one of us has all the answers with regard to the origin of human consciousness. And I most definitely did not say the psyche is outside of us. I do not ascribe to that objectivist position.

johnross47, on 29 August 2012 - 02:43 PM, said:

If that was how people worked you might expect to see all of the mental processes that lead up to a thought, but you can't because they are subconscious and not available to you until the process reaches the level of salience or consciousness.

Which sort of proves my point all the more. Thank you.

johnross47, on 29 August 2012 - 02:43 PM, said:

The connections in the brain accesible to consciousness are above the low level processing that generates the final thoughts The illusion described as the "psyche" is not much more than a generalised awareness of things like personality and a summation of a person's actions.

Without this 'illusion' you wouldn't have said any of what you just said. Not sure why you think you know this stuff but I urge you to retrospectively view the way you portray things in the context of this conversation. Your view is not harmonious with what life tells us. It basically seeks to the contrarion position for no reason other than to be that. And that's fine, but please see the broader context.

But with this said, what about the original question?

Edited by TheFountain, 30 August 2012 - 03:06 AM.

[johnross47]

This may just be a confusion of what people mean by psyche. In much of the discussion above it feels like it is being used in a dualistic, soul, spirit kind of way, which is what I'm arguing against. If you are just using it as a variant on personality, in a very broad sense, then I have no problem with that.

As  to the original question, I can only answer from a personal viewpoint. For a long time I worried that analysing art and what I do personally in art, would somehow kill it. This is quite a common theme in art and literature and, I would guess, a widespread general belief. I got nowhere. In more recent times I have examined what it is all about in great detail, specifically using what I learned in my second degree, in psychology and philosophy, and have now started to produce ceramics and paintings far more freely and effectively. I now feel that I understand far more what the value is, of art and the art making process, and how it fits into life in general and adds value to one's experience of the world. All of this I see in terms of explicable physical events in the brain. By this I don't mean that in practise I could give a detailed blow by blow account of the chemical events, but just that they are the type of event that is describable in theory even though their enormous quantity and complexity precludes an actualised description. A very scientific viewpoint saved me from pointlessness and allowed to produce work that elicits positive responses from other people.

[TheFountain]

johnross47, on 30 August 2012 - 08:53 AM, said:

This may just be a confusion of what people mean by psyche. In much of the discussion above it feels like it is being used in a dualistic, soul, spirit kind of way, which is what I'm arguing against.

No, it's being used in a "I don't know what the fuck this is" sort of way. Metaphysics does not make motions toward duality, concrete thinking does. I am not promoting concrete thinking here, but open minded questioning.

johnross47, on 30 August 2012 - 08:53 AM, said:

If you are just using it as a variant on personality, in a very broad sense, then I have no problem with that.

Maybe 'essence'? But then, I am not sure.

johnross47, on 30 August 2012 - 08:53 AM, said:

As  to the original question, I can only answer from a personal viewpoint. For a long time I worried that analysing art and what I do personally in art, would somehow kill it. This is quite a common theme in art and literature and, I would guess, a widespread general belief.

What is the difference between reflecting and analyzing?

johnross47, on 30 August 2012 - 08:53 AM, said:

I got nowhere.

As in the fourth dimension? Is that not where 'nowhere' is? Oh wait, you were referring to the concrete version of nowhere. Gotcha.

johnross47, on 30 August 2012 - 08:53 AM, said:

In more recent times I have examined what it is all about in great detail, specifically using what I learned in my second degree, in psychology and philosophy, and have now started to produce ceramics and paintings far more freely and effectively. I now feel that I understand far more what the value is, of art and the art making process, and how it fits into life in general and adds value to one's experience of the world.

This reminds me of the point of the indian sandsculptures. Process over product. But how does this relate to the initial question? I think because indians had compassion for the land, its creatures and everything else. Their view truly was non-dualistic, non-objectivist and more in keeping with unity and interrelatedness of all things.

johnross47, on 30 August 2012 - 08:53 AM, said:

All of this I see in terms of explicable physical events in the brain. By this I don't mean that in practise I could give a detailed blow by blow account of the chemical events, but just that they are the type of event that is describable in theory even though their enormous quantity and complexity precludes an actualised description. A very scientific viewpoint saved me from pointlessness and allowed to produce work that elicits positive responses from other people.

It sounds more like you just got in touch with your emotions. I don't attribute this to scientific thinking so much as the question mark of 'what is our purpose of being here" if not to be compassionate and empathetic toward other's? Empathy seems to preclude objectivity since the subjective factor is what determines it. Or maybe empathy is the line where subject and object cross? Either way it is definitely not a primarily objective phenomenon.

Edited by TheFountain, 01 September 2012 - 04:22 AM.

[johnross47]

I don't think we have a purpose here. Purpose presumes a purposer. Nobody put us here for a reason; we are just an accident. Any purpose we might find for our lives is purely personal and evolved out of our own experience of the world. Our reactions to artifacts are similarly personal and some of us, who find such reactions rewarding may choose to try producing rewarding artifacts, or increase our interaction with them. Some of us may find ways of communicating with others via such artifacts; by producing them or by sharing reactions and interactions. I didn't get in touch with my emotions; I got out from under them. When I said "I got nowhere" it was a simple colloquial expression meaning my actions were unproductive. Studying psychology and philosophy allowed me to see how other people could have a different point of view, even if that point of view was still often not readily understandable. It allowed me to see that what was being valued in art, apart from skill, was expression from a personal viewpoint and that it it was ok for me work the same way. From an autistic point of view doing things correctly is essential. Knowing that just making the marks and objects I want to make is the right thing to do allows me to make them. Without that understanding I was unable to produce.

[fogisa]

i think the question is kind of vague but then im not taking the time look up the definition of humanitarianism, only guessing. as well, my brain is damaged for communication and comprehension.

"overly scientific" now, does that involve any empathy?  

if you have a stillness of mind, you can incorporate science and vast/open consciousness, awareness as a whole, there's no delineation, which i would think would be a preferable approach than approaching the world as lab specimens to be examined.  how well can you really control an environment, what about the unseen and un-namable and never conceived of.  what about the fluid, changing nature, interracting with things unknown, unrecognized?  

...off the top of my head or maybe not. or maybe i didn't even address the question...did i?

[johnross47]

fogisa, on 06 September 2012 - 09:38 PM, said:

i think the question is kind of vague but then im not taking the time look up the definition of humanitarianism, only guessing. as well, my brain is damaged for communication and comprehension.

"overly scientific" now, does that involve any empathy?  

if you have a stillness of mind, you can incorporate science and vast/open consciousness, awareness as a whole, there's no delineation, which i would think would be a preferable approach than approaching the world as lab specimens to be examined.  how well can you really control an environment, what about the unseen and un-namable and never conceived of.  what about the fluid, changing nature, interracting with things unknown, unrecognized?  

...off the top of my head or maybe not. or maybe i didn't even address the question...did i?

There's an interesting question there....."overly scientific". Exactly what does that mean? It has the appearance of a pejorative label. It prejudges the question.If you ask any question in the form of "Is too much of x a bad thing?" you are pretty much answering the question. Too much of anything is a bad thing by definition, and "overly scientific" is effectively the same as "too much scientific". The question needs to be rewritten in a way that does not presume an answer. The definition of humanitarianism given in Wiki is;

" humanitarianism is an ethic of kindness, benevolence and sympathy extended universally and impartially to all human beings. Humanitarianism has been an evolving concept historically but universality is a common element in its evolution. No distinction is to be made in the face of suffering or abuse on grounds of gender, sexual orientation, race, tribe, caste, age, religion, or nationality.
Humanitarianism can also be described as the acceptance of every human being for plainly just being another human, ignoring and abolishing biased social or cultural views, prejudice, and racism in the process, if utilized individually as a practiced viewpoint, or mindset."

I really can't see any way in which a scientific  viewpoint is in conflict with this. Historically this position has gained a lot from science. Obviously pseudoscience such as Darwinian Determinism has been used to oppose such a view but the important bit of that is "pseudo". As further comment on what I posted earlier, it was scientific analysis that allowed me to arrive at a humanitarian way of being. Could an excessively scientific viewpoint have damaged that?; I can't begin to imagine what such a viewpoint might be.

[TheFountain]

^^^ You're over-analyzing it. I was really just typing my stream of consciousness feelings at that moment when I came up with the title. And the title and question both stick and are both relevant. Trying to make it about a linguistic argument is not going to lead anywhere.