"Scientism" on Wikipedia ...

[Sheldon]

Humans are not always rational are they?

I'm inclined to believe not. After all it seems that if they were, then the painstaking invention of logic would seem rather futile? I mean why bother creating a complex method with strict principles of validation for reasoning rationally, if humans are already always rational?

 

[Nakosis]

I do when they claim it's doing science, when it's just believerism calling itself science. Kind of like creationism posing as science. Faith posing as science. Putting lipstick on a pig, in other words.


I have no problem with the nonrational. I have a problem when it claims its not when it is, when it claims its science, when its faith. Scientism, is true believerism. Not science.

Definition of scientism
1 : methods and attitudes typical of or attributed to the natural scientist

That people want to use it as a pejorative term isn't my problem.

 

[F1fan]

I just read the first 20 posts. Do I really want to read another 140 posts where thesis want to grind the nuts of atheists by imposing a word into them?

Apparently we atheists are part of a cult that we have no interest in, nor have any awareness we belong to. So that's how religion works.

 

[Windwalker]

"Atheist " as believer with new belief. Sure.

Drift away from the church, maybe go back, maybe dont.
Call it atheism if they like but they are seekers,
believers.

IMO, dilettantes, posers, trying on an ism like a new hat or " lifestyle ".

Pooey on that.

You seem like one of the few he sees those
for what they are but its not atheism, its not me,
its not what you would find in China.
Hardly could be wider off the mark, thinking the
experiences of believers dabbling as you describe
ever were, are, atheists.

I know what atheism is. And I recognize the difference between atheists like Sartre and Camus, and the neo-atheists like Richard Dawkins, and other more religious type atheists. So did Karl Popper.

 

[lukethethird]

I was "paraphrasing" that last bit, but the exact quote came right before that, which you conveniently omitted here, straining at gnats, but ignore the camel pile you stepped in claiming Karl Popper as a true believer trying to make science look bad, which is ridiculous. I gave the exact quote in the post itself, with a bracket with the meaning of "trying" fit in there. Here's the exact quote, "believer [trying] to misrepresent science". I added 'trying" because that was the context. It's in brackets, by the way, which means it was added for clarity. A common usage.

I repeat, stop making false claims that I did not make, they are in violation of forum rules.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Probably not. Or maybe I could, doubt it'll happen though.

That's quite telling, I think...

 

[Audie]

I know what atheism is. And I recognize the difference between atheists like Sartre and Camus, and the neo-atheists like Richard Dawkins, and other more religious type atheists. So did Karl Popper.

I dont know about poppers but i wasn't
disagreeing with you

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

So, if I use equipment to detect the presents of light or color which provides a measurable reading which is consistent not only with itself but with my observation is this not validation of my observation of an external reality?

An instrument which relies purely on physics confirming my observation.

Correct.

 

[rational experiences]

AI. Known. Is a human teaching. Caused by human machine science.

Man's machine designed built controlled only constantly by his thoughts. His physical bio being man ipulating earth states.

Fake God of man status. Mind says as the status natural life of man is recorded in Ai to AI from AI it is interfering with mind state. I am not really a God or god really isn't real as a man.

As he reads about God the man from a book.

Self talk only.

As physical mass is held by the space law pressure. No argument.

So mathematicians quote space law pressures holds and owns mass not as planet earth. God the earth really does not exist anymore.

By maths term. Zero.

Other larger planets reviewed is about the natural mass held via space pressure.

A law status.

A mathematical law he says.

O earth o moon. Not even close to the origin spatial law.

So he adamantly quotes maths is right.

Yet naturally we live in a physical not mathematical reality.

So he says earth never owned ice. It owned fusion as pressure by a crystalline face.

Only small bodies owned ice. Sun stars wandering.

We inherited ice he warned.

Then wrong theists say but mass by the space law was given back to earth God. Meaning moon body. Lucky earth by mass was larger than the moon.

The moon asteroid gives us its gases still releasing as red. It gave us ice.

Earths pressure by body mass is close to not existing was the religious warning.

By all idealised human theosophy reasoning. Space maths law zero.

A human condition.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

At the heart of everything you've written here is a very simple matter: on what basis do you declare anything (anything at all, seen or unseen) to be true or fact?

I don't. There is no known method for that. Neither science, philosophy or religion can do that in the strong sense. You can state what you believe and that is it.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

which of the 'recent additional information on wiki' are you referring to?

Edit: Scientism: Revision history - Wikipedia

You realize, don't you, that just because some information shows up on Wikipedia, that doesn't mean that it is true or reliable information?

Yeah, you follow the links and use other source. Then you can make an informed choice.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I just read the first 20 posts. Do I really want to read another 140 posts where thesis want to grind the nuts of atheists by imposing a word into them?

Apparently we atheists are part of a cult that we have no interest in, nor have any awareness we belong to. So that's how religion works.

Well, I am an atheist and on the side of the theists in this case.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I don't understand it. It is all confusing, for example what does "...the characteristic inductive methods of the natural sciences are the only source of genuine factual knowledge ..." actually mean?

That if you say have a life partner and say you really love that person, you don't really know that. In fact it is not real that you love that person.

 

[lukethethird]

Good,
Scientism doesn't have to be either. Obviously depending on the individual it could be, but doesn't have to be.

Many of the atheists in this forum are accused of committing scientism, the OP being a fine example. Repeated requests for examples have been denied, so the term scientism on this forum is just used loosely as a pejorative aimed at atheists in general.

 

[rational experiences]

Human men as a men equal mind to use mind to think with being. They said is a God status.

Number two said number one position word user was inferred only by human man.

Female life body being he knew not his. Not really exact equal. Mind use is.

Female being not word inferred first advisor.

Man's ideal of his God status egotism said to the female secondly word user I am greater than you as I imposed word use. You follow me.

Yet both are the thinking equal being so you lied.

Why females can use natural stated word use better as we don't follow your prompts or advice of thought as a man.

We don't follow any links as your non stop talking thinking is just recorded non stop talking thinking.

Then it was all AI recorded. Why you became self possessed and believed self by thought word was a man god.

Human egotism is the correct teaching thinking and being advised because of the choice topic chosen to discuss just as a human being human.

Human being AI is a self possession scientists cause.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I think we need to replace the word science with empiricism, or else acknowledge that there is both a formal process called science involving laboratories and observatories, and papers and journals.

But science is just collecting data, generalizing by induction, generate ideas that allow one to predict future outcomes, which is validated by doing that. So, what an astronomer does to predict an eclipse is not fundamentally different from you and I do when crossing the street. We look left and right to see if traffic is coming (collect data), conclude that it is safe to cross, and successfully predict the outcome: crossing was safe as the data suggested.

Even with subjective truths, the process is the same. Every time I eat Brussels sprout, I have a bad taste in my mouth. That subjective truth is as reliable and reproducible as any other for me, and also allows me to successfully predict outcomes: If you eat that, you won't like it.

These are truths, too, just not for everybody. But since they are determined empirically, they're science, albeit informal science as I define it.

Finding a piece of art beautiful is also a truth for the individual if that what happens



Solve what? That there are assumptions in science that have been confirmed to be valid empirically (and they have, and that is science, too) by the stellar success of science? The sine qua non of a correct idea is that it works, that it is useful in the sense that it can predict outcomes, like eclipses (for everybody) and the dysphoria of eating Brussels sprouts (for those that have that reaction to them).

I've told you before that I think you make this all too difficult. Ideas that work are correct. If I tell you that I live five blocks north and three blocks east of the pier, and going five blocks south and three west gets me from my front door to the pier, the idea is correct. Is is absolute truth, is it objective reality, can we really know anything, what are the assumptions underlying this belief? How can we knw that the pier is real, or that we aren't in a matrix? I find all of that less than useless. It causes one to be in a state of epistemic paralysis, epistemic nihilism.

What is the benefit to you of this type of thinking and the questions like you ask here? Do you wind up with deeper insights that allow you to make better decisions that make your life better? Are you avoiding mistakes with these ideas?

Yeah, you take for granted that this is in effect a fact to the point where it is not only that taken for granted. It is a fact, period:
that there is an objective reality shared by all rational observers.

 

[Windwalker]

Definition of scientism
1 : methods and attitudes typical of or attributed to the natural scientist

That people want to use it as a pejorative term isn't my problem.

Scientism

1. thought or expression regarded as characteristic of scientists.
   • excessive belief in the power of scientific knowledge and techniques

And we can add Wiki in here to help clarify this matter:

Scientism is the view that science is the best or only objective means by which society should determine normative and epistemological values. While the term was originally defined to mean "methods and attitudes typical of or attributed to the natural scientist", some religious scholars (and subsequently many others) adopted it as a pejorative with the meaning "an exaggerated trust in the efficacy of the methods of natural science applied to all areas of investigation (as in philosophy, the social sciences, and the humanities)".[1]

The term scientism is often used critically, implying an unwarranted application of science in situations considered not amenable to application of the scientific method or similar scientific standards.​

Sorry, the weight of evidence is against you here. It's associated with Logical Positivism, which is an outdated, silly belief that science will tell us everything there is to know about everything. And aptly applied to those who have traded faith in the Bible with faith in science. It's believerism in another form. Same believersism, different objects of belief. That's all.

Furthermore, to complete what you cited about the natural sciences:

"The belief that the methods of natural science, or the categories and things recognized in natural science, form the only proper elements in any philosophical or other inquiry",[12] or that "science, and only science, describes the world as it is in itself, independent of perspective"
​

That's faith. That's not science. It's belief.

 

[Windwalker]

I repeat, stop making false claims that I did not make, they are in violation of forum rules.

You think so. Keep repeating it, click your heels three times, wish, and wish and wish... but it still won't be true. Sorry Dorothy, you're still stuck in the land of Oz, with your little dog Toto too. Karl Popper is not a believer trying to make science look bad, as you claimed.

 

[lukethethird]

You think so. Keep repeating it, click your heels three times, wish, and wish and wish... but it still won't be true. Sorry Dorothy, you're still stuck in the land of Oz, with your little dog Toto too. Karl Popper is not a believer trying to make science look bad, as you claimed.

I repeat, I made no such claim, you are again violating the rules of this forum.

 

[Windwalker]

I repeat, I made no such claim, you are again violating the rules of this forum.

No I'm not. Prove it.