"Scientism" on Wikipedia ...

[RestlessSoul]

You will have to show me. I am unable in all
that to detect any sign of an RF poster
who in any way matches the op screediption.

I would have bet good money on you not paying up.

 

[Sheldon]

Well, there's philosophy, art, and religion; all of which are endeavoring to better understand the nature of existence and the human experience of it. And all of which employ their own methodologies for doing that, and that are not particularly 'scientific'. And frankly, each of which have contributed far more to the sum of human knowledge and wisdom than science ever has IMO.

Your opinion expressed on the internet, using a computer, powered by electricity, now was it art, religion, or philosophy that enabled that technology? This is where mikkel accuses ME of hypocrisy again, pretty ironic.

 

[Sheldon]

What if they answered, "faith"? Isn't faith good enough, or does faith require evidence?

What if someone claims they use faith to believe you are wrong? can you point to any belief that cannot be held on faith alone? If not then faith is pretty useless.

And if it has evidence, then is it actually faith anymore? If you could see a god, like King Kong hanging off the Empire State Building, no faith is involved at all.

As a hypothetical yes, but only as a hypothetical.

Also, what if they said, "experience"? Isn't that actually evidence, beyond simply having faith? If that is what they said they experienced, that is the basis for their belief. Isn't it?

Wet feet is evidence it might be raining, is it compelling evidence, or are you standing in a puddle?

Well, apologetics are silly. They are attempts to make the transcendent and ineffable, something tangible like arguing for evidence that ETs or Bigfoots are real.

Interesting comparison, one unevidenced and unfalsifiable idea is much the same as another I think.

I'm with you in rebuffing most of those. But what do you do with those who claim personal experience?

So if someone makes a bare claim to have personally experienced bigfoot or ET this becomes evidence? I have to disagree.

when it comes to God, or even the majority of human experiences, like love, values, hopes, desires, concepts, beliefs, faith, etc, those are not physical in nature,

They are imagined ideas, and bare claims for personal experience usually. Have you even one example of such claims originating without a functioning physical human brain? I can imagine an invisible unicorn, this does not make it real. Nor can you disprove what I have imagined.

the tools of empiric sciences are not equipped to understand the true nature of such things. Those must be understood using different tools, such as introspection, hermeneutics, meditation, etc..

Well the scientific method can't examine invisible unicorns either, does this lend some credence to the concept?

So is it right to say, "show me evidence God exists", when they aren't talking about a creature like bigfoot or and ET?

Except they are similar concepts precisely because no objective evidence can be demonstrated to support them. It is the one thing such concepts have in common.

Can we reduce approaching such knowledge to weights and measurements, when we are talking about something non-material?

Knowledge? What knowledge, all I see are bare subjective claims? I have no problem with anyone believing anything, even if they have zero objective evidence to support the belief, but I reserve the right to disbelieve such claim.

I think the question is, do you dismiss anything that can't be reduced down to what the empiric sciences can make a pronouncement about? If so, why?

Well it depends what is being claimed, and of course what baggage the claim tries to insist is justified. Not all theistic beliefs are innocuous. What I believe is what can be supported by sufficient objective evidence, but I also can wave that if the claim isn't important. If theists stopped at what they believed, and didn't try to claim their morals and ideas were not theirs but were divine diktat, then I might just ignore theism.

I think asking for evidence is fine, when you're dealing with something like a bridge. But do you say to your lover, "I hear you say you love me, but where's your evidence that love actually even exists? Show me what this "love" is you speak of.

Well you sound like my ex wife, but it might have been prudent for me to ask just those sorts of questions, given she took every penny of savings I had, just as I was about to retire, and after living off me for twenty years.

But you did just give a very specific idea of what you think God is. That's nothing I'd call God.

I don't have any idea of "what any deity is", because I'm an atheist see. That concept of a deity came form theists I have encountered.

"Scientific evidence" is irrelevant when it comes to these areas of human experience,

Well that's an unevidenced claim, however I would point out that science cannot examine what does not exists, however this is not a limitation of the method necessarily. So if you are claiming something exists beyond what science can examine, then again you would need to demonstrate sufficient objective evidence for this claim, before I would give it any credence.

other than to note faith and mystical experiences are fields of study themselves, which are objective and measurable.

I have heard this claim many times, and I am very dubious, but please demonstrate some of this objective measurable evidence. Only it never ever materialises.

But the nature of the experiences themselves, are subjectively understood. You can read about the taste of an orange, but to understand the taste of an orange, you have to experience it directly yourself. Make sense?

Well I've tasted an orange, seen oranges, can see them grown, can even see the science that enables the propagation of the best strains, I just don't see what that has to do with bare subjective claims for personal experience of a deity.

Why does this deity need theists of wildly different deities to approach me with cryptic arguments, claiming that it can only reveal itself through navel gazing? Especially when they claim to be adherents of religions that claim this deity has revealed itself to other evolved mammals?

 

[Audie]

I would have bet good money on you not paying up.

Nobody thinks you got a winner.
I wont call you a fake, dont call me a cheat

 

[Sheldon]

@Audie , we have a winning post: This man understands the scientism label and embraces it. Please donate dem dollars to your nearest homeless shelter. The Sally Ann would be good if you have one near you, but I'll let you choose.

Paragraph 2 btw, is textbook use of inductive reasoning as per the OP.

Regards

So PureX Googled scientism, started this thread, and accused "many atheists" of adhering to that version of scientism, and your defence is a single post has embraced it after the fact?

 

[Sheldon]

Nobody thinks you got a winner.
I wont call you a fake, dont call me a cheat

I did caution you to be prepared to be underwhelmed, when the "examples" of many atheists using scientism, eventually were offered. So far they seem to be one of my posts, and one post by another atheist (see the definition of many atheists?), both posted after PureX started his latest atheist bashing thread, and made his accusation. Post ad hoc rationalisations anyone...get them while they're fresh..

 

[Sheldon]

But he say he can because he only accepts objective evidence.

Not true...you're misrepresenting what I said.

He even confuses the act of owning a dog with objective evidence.

Nonsense, not even remotely close to anything I have said.

The markers are there. Only accepts objective evidence even for owning a dog and claims that the universe is material physical.

The only thing I see there is your sophistry, again are you claiming the universe is not physical?

From the OP:
"the dogmatic endorsement of scientific methodology and the reduction of all knowledge to only that which is measured or confirmatory.

Look up dogmatic... How many times on this forum have I explained the scientific method requires that all ideas and facts remain tentative and open to revision in the light of new evidence? So falsely labelling my acceptance of scientific facts as dogmatic, is a grossly dishonest misrepresentation of my position, yet again.

 

[Audie]

I did caution you to be prepared to be underwhelmed, when the "examples" of many atheists using scientism, eventually were offered. So far they seem to be one of my posts, and one post by another atheist (see the definition of many atheists?), both posted after PureX started his latest atheist bashing thread, and made his accusation. Post ad hoc rationalisations anyone...get them while they're fresh..

Hey, if there is even ona atheist here who actually
says- does- thinks-as described in op. I may resign my commission and become a seeker, I cant be associated so, as a atheist.

Ate you one such?

But I will pay up. In HK dollars, or course

 

[Sheldon]

Hey, if there is even ona atheist here who actually
says- does- thinks-as described in op. I may resign my commission and become a seeker, I cant be associated so, as a atheist.

Ate you one such?

But I will pay up. In HK dollars, or course

You can relax, my post was not scientism, PureX just got a bit over exited because I made a disparaging post about a particular line in religious apologetics, in response to a post portraying the atheists propensity to disbelieve unevidenced claims, as arrogance. I offered a counter point, and the histrionics hit a new level.

He is still mulling over the fact my post was made after his claim that many atheists on here endorse scientism, so citing it as an example seems a little dubious, but I'm sure many other examples are on the way.

 

[Audie]

You can relax, my post was not scientism, PureX just got a bit over exited because I made a disparaging post about a particular line in religious apologetics, in response to a post portraying the atheists propensity to disbelieve unevidenced claims, as arrogance. I offered a counter point, and the histrionics hit a new level.

He is still mulling over the fact my post was made after his claim that many atheists on here endorse scientism, so citing it as an example seems a little dubious, but I'm sure many other examples are on the way.

Ha. I sure didnt see any scientism.

I will pay up even though nobody is gonna win but me.

A Hong Kong dollar is worth $.13 USD, so I could comfortably round up.

Of course I already give more to charity by far than a likely salary for a philosopher, I dont need to switch to HKD.

Notice I didnt ask the losers to toss a dime in the kettle at Wally World.

 

[Kooky]

the reduction of all knowledge to only that which is measured or confirmatory.

Which has nothing to do with requiring evidentual support for claims to objectivity, let alone the nonsense claim that art or religion confer a higher form of wisdom.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

No idea what you're asking sorry?

What does it mean that the universe is material physical?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Which is not the same as only accepting objective evidence from others.

So give 2 examples, one for each.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Which has nothing to do with requiring evidentual support for claims to objectivity, let alone the nonsense claim that art or religion confer a higher form of wisdom.

Yeah, evidence in this case is not your strong side.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Not true...you're misrepresenting what I said.



Nonsense, not even remotely close to anything I have said.



The only thing I see there is your sophistry, again are you claiming the universe is not physical?



Look up dogmatic... How many times on this forum have I explained the scientific method requires that all ideas and facts remain tentative and open to revision in the light of new evidence? So falsely labelling my acceptance of scientific facts as dogmatic, is a grossly dishonest misrepresentation of my position, yet again.

So what kind of evidence do you accept.

As for what the universe is, how about a skeptic's answer? What could that be, Sheldon? Don't you know?

As for dogmatic. If you only accept a certain kind of evidence and are not willing to change how you think, you are dogmatic.

So let me try to explain it for you. If you are a skeptic, you will accept the answer - I don't know. In regards to Karl Popper and falsifiable one of the requirement is that you actually accept the false result, if it happens.
So for the question what is the universe? If after checking and double checking and you get the result - I don't know, then can that be a correct answer.

 

[RestlessSoul]

So PureX Googled scientism, started this thread, and accused "many atheists" of adhering to that version of scientism, and your defence is a single post has embraced it after the fact?

A single post was all that was supposedly required for @Audie to release her charity donation.

I'm not trawling through the site dredging up all the many, many examples which imo clearly illustrate the OPs point. The choice is yours; either open your eyes, your mind and your heart, and take in the light, or remain in darkness.

 

[Sheldon]

A single post was all that was supposedly required for @Audie to release her charity donation.

I'm not trawling through the site dredging up all the many, many examples which imo clearly illustrate the OPs point. The choice is yours; either open your eyes, your mind and your heart, and take in the light, or remain in darkness.

Oh I think melodrama isn't going to do here, and since you continue to cite "many examples", I'd need you to produce a few, before I'd accept your claim. The choice is yours as you say, though I shan't indulge the melodramatic metaphors, and no true Scotsman fallacy. Like PureX you seem happy to ingore that my post didn't exist when you and he made your claim, it is of course just one post not many examples, and best of all it clearly isn't scientism. The real irony is neither of addressing the post honestly in the context it was offered.

As for dogma, describing someone as blind, ignorant, arrogant, closed minded and in darkness etc etc etc just because they don't share a belief that no one can demonstrate anything beyond bare subjective claims for, is also pretty ironic.

 

[Sheldon]

So what kind of evidence do you accept.

As for what the universe is, how about a skeptic's answer? What could that be, Sheldon? Don't you know?

As for dogmatic. If you only accept a certain kind of evidence and are not willing to change how you think, you are dogmatic.

So let me try to explain it for you. If you are a skeptic, you will accept the answer - I don't know. In regards to Karl Popper and falsifiable one of the requirement is that you actually accept the false result, if it happens.
So for the question what is the universe? If after checking and double checking and you get the result - I don't know, then can that be a correct answer.

What kind of evidence do I accept for what? I still have no idea what you're asking me about the universe. As for dogmatic what principles I have laid down as "undeniably" true, what claims even? I have gone to a great deal of trouble to explain I don't believe anything can ever be undeniably true, only that something can be an objective fact if enough objective evidence exists so that there is no rational or reasonable reason to deny it. Clearly there is a difference, it seems this is a blind spot for you still.

 

[PureX]

How is the number 53 subjective?

That you had to ask. It's meaningless until it's given a context, by us.

No, we can rely on instruments to make measurements which do not rely on our subjective experience.

We make the instruments. They are simply extensions of us. We make them based on our subjective experience, so as to enhance that experience.

Sure we develop a concept of reality but don't have to rely on our own subject experience in order to validate those concepts.

It's all we have. Reality, for us, is just a conceptual extrapolation derived from our limited personal and collective experiences, using our limited intellectual capacity. We have no other means of 'knowing' reality.

Sure, our experience is the result of a physical process. I don't think anyone is disagreeing with that. Subjective only means that these physical process different from individual to individual because of the differing physical constructs of our brain. Your experience is the result of a different physical process than my. Of course there are many similarities as well but our brains differ enough to allow these differences in what we experience.

The term "subjective" means 'subject to'. Everything we think we know is subject to who and what we are, both collectively and individually. There is no escaping this through the mythical ideal of "objectivity". It's probably true that reality extends far beyond what we can know of it. But we can only know what we can know of it. So we can never gain access to the "objective reality" beyond our own subjective experience and understanding. Because that exists (if it exists), by definition, beyond the reach of ourselves. Because human cognition is always going to be subject to the human cognating. It's always going to be subjective. Pretending that we have access to "objective reality" through science is much like pretending that we have access to God through religion. All we ever have access to are our own limited experiences and conceptions of those experiences. And labeling them "objective" or "God", doesn't overcome that.

Faith is belief without physical evidence.

Let's be very clear, here. Faith is trust without surety.

There exists plenty of physical evidence to support the existence of reality.

Evidence is subjective. Pretending that it provides some magical pathway to understanding "objective reality" is no different than pretending that religion provides some magical pathway to knowing the mind or will of God.

It seem you are trying to discredit our knowledge of reality down to the same level as supernatural belief.

I am trying to point out the irrationality of believing that we can know what we can't.

The difference being though that we have lot of physical evidence for reality.

All "evidence" is subjective. And so is the imagined "objective reality" that we presume to exist based on it. We cannot escape the innate bias and ignorance that accompanies who and what we are. Not with science, and not with religion, either.

The only way you can really claim reality as mythical is by discounting all physical evidence that is available.

Reality is what it is. What is mythical is what we think reality is based on our very limited and subjective "evidence".

If there was physical evidence for the supernatural, well it'd no longer be supernatural, but I wouldn't discount it.

How could there possibly be physical evidence for "the supernatural". And even if there were, how could you possibly verify it as physical evidence of the supernatural? That isn't even a logical expectation. So why are you proposing it, and maintaining it as such?

 

[Audie]

A single post was all that was supposedly required for @Audie to release her charity donation.

I'm not trawling through the site dredging up all the many, many examples which imo clearly illustrate the OPs point. The choice is yours; either open your eyes, your mind and your heart, and take in the light, or remain in darkness.

Your failure was not my fault.
There is no " scientism" there, and you
sure cannot demonstrate it. Phony claim.

And its not your job to dredge, the person
who made the original claim has his chance
to prove his case
The purpose of the bet
was put up or shut up.
Of course he will do neither.
Figure in all this who is acting in good faith and who is not.