"Scientism" on Wikipedia ...

[lukethethird]

No I'm not. Prove it.

Forum Rules

3-2) Defamation, slander, or misrepresentation of a member's beliefs/arguments, or that of a particular group, culture, or religion. This includes altering the words of another member to change their meaning when using the quote feature.

You have gone beyond altering my words, you have totally made up arguments that I did not make. I am no longer engaging in your dishonest discussion.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Ok, I'm more interested in desensitizing the term.
Just not doing a very good job of it I guess.

The term doesn't bother me. Not really sure why it should bother anyone.

You seem to be one of the least doctrinaire atheist contributors to this forum. Which makes you difficult to label, yet here you are, relaxed about it. That's interesting, I think.

 

[PureX]

"Scientism" is a pejorative term used by believers to misrepresent science, and so it goes.

It's only "pejorative" because it's an ideology that can't even stand up by it's own criteria.

 

[PureX]

This seems to chime with much that I read on this forum.

Yes it does. And that's why I posted this information. Also, if we read the information being offered on the Wiki web site, we can see WHY "scientism" has been rejected by so many scientists, philosophers, and intelligent 'critical thinkers'. But most of those touting scientism will not read the whole Wiki page or look up any arguments against it ... even as they loudly proclaim how logical, skeptical, and empirical they are.

 

[PureX]

Ok, let's say I accept all of this. What is the problem?

Step two ... read the whole Wiki page. It will present to you WHY so many scientists, philosophers, and 'critical thinkers' have objected to 'scientism' as being logically unsustainable, even by it's own proposed criteria.

 

[Altfish]

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.

I'm coming to that conclusion. Mind, it's not much use if I don't know what it is, and when people can't explain the phrases in the so called explanation

 

[RestlessSoul]

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.

Committing scientism? It isn't a crime; it's a particularl mindset which has been identified as being prevalent in some quarters. If it doesn't apply to you, why concern yourself with it?

 

[Altfish]

You seem to be one of the least doctrinaire atheist contributors to this forum. Which makes you difficult to label, yet here you are, relaxed about it. That's interesting, I think.

Love the idea of an 'indoctrinated atheist' - I'm going to have a lie down and think about that.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Love the idea of an 'indoctrinated atheist' - I'm going to have a lie down and think about that.

Great. Let us know when you've finished thinking about it.

 

[Koldo]

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.

Do you perceive Dawkins as believing in scientism? If so, why?

 

[Sheldon]

lukethethird said: ↑
"Scientism" is a pejorative term used by believers to misrepresent science, and so it goes.

It's only "pejorative" because it's an ideology that can't even stand up by it's own criteria.

Scientism
noun

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

I think it is how the word is defined, and applied that determines whether it is a pejorative. Like referring to religion as a superstition, which many theists find offensive, but is only defined as an excessively credulous belief in and reverence for the supernatural. I guess whether one is offended would also depend on whether you think the word actually applies to you.

There are worse things than being accused of having a strong belief in the power of science, given what the method has achieved in a very short space of time.

 

[Sheldon]

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.

He also championed the principle of falsification, demarcating science from non-science. Which suggests that for a theory to be considered scientific it must be able to be tested and conceivably proven false.

 

[Sheldon]

Yes it does. And that's why I posted this information. Also, if we read the information being offered on the Wiki web site, we can see WHY "scientism" has been rejected by so many scientists, philosophers, and intelligent 'critical thinkers'. But most of those touting scientism will not read the whole Wiki page or look up any arguments against it ... even as they loudly proclaim how logical, skeptical, and empirical they are.

I must have missed my invite to your atheist gathering, where you gain these remarkable insights into what complete strangers on the internet think, often in stark contrast to what they seem to tell you they think.

It's a rare gift that.

 

[Sheldon]

Committing scientism? It isn't a crime; it's a particularl mindset which has been identified as being prevalent in some quarters. If it doesn't apply to you, why concern yourself with it?

Maybe because the thread author has form for telling atheists what they must think and believe, while ignoring what they are telling him? I feel another poll coming on.

 

[PureX]

Ok, let's say I accept all of this. What is the problem?

The problem is that reality cannot be objectively limited or defined. Subjective experience and cognition are real and are fundamental to our understanding of reality. Perception is, itself, a subjectively conceptual act. So is reasoning. And not even science can escape that fact.

Any theist or atheist is free to personally choose how they perceive their experience of reality in relation to the God ideal. The problem comes when they choose to believe that their perception of reality IS reality. And therefor anyone else's perception of it must be false. Not all theists do this, nor do all atheists. But a lot more atheists, here, are doing this than are willing to admit it. And they are hiding this obsession within and behind sceintism.

Some theists do this, too, and hide their irrational arrogance behind 'inerrant bibliolatry'. But this thread is for and about the atheists that have fallen into this kind of absurd and arrogantly presumptive thinking.

 

[Sheldon]

The problem is that reality cannot be objectively limited or defined. Subjective experience and cognition are real and are fundamental to our understanding of reality. Perception is, itself, a subjectively conceptual act. So is reasoning. And not even science can escape that fact.

Any theist or atheist is free to personally choose how they perceive their experience of reality in relation to the God ideal. The problem comes when they choose to believe that their perception of reality IS reality. And therefor anyone else's perception of it must be false. Not all theists do this, nor do all atheists. But a lot more atheists, here, are doing this than are willing to admit it. And they are hiding this obsession within and behind sceintism.

Some theists do this, too, and hide their irrational arrogance behind 'inerrant bibliolatry'. But this thread is for and about the atheists that have fallen into this kind of absurd and arrogantly presumptive thinking.

Is it an objective fact that the world is not flat?

 

[Sheldon]

this thread is for and about the atheists that have fallen into this kind of absurd and arrogantly presumptive thinking.

Would be possible to ask you to quote a few examples of what you are labelling "absurd and arrogant thinking" on here?

Only believing the entire universe, and every living thing was all created solely as a vehicle for humans to achieve an eternity of bliss after they die, had always struck me as absurd, and more than a little arrogant. Especially when you consider the fact humans only evolved about 200k years ago.

 

[RestlessSoul]

He also championed the principle of falsification, demarcating science from non-science. Which suggests that for a theory to be considered scientific it must be able to be tested and conceivably proven false.

Yeah, he did. I doubt he expected the idea to become such a gold standard of inflexible orthodoxy though. Every modality, every methodology, every philosophical paradigm, has it's limitations, including falsification. Popper knew this.

Scientism, as expressed in the OP, is a label for that inflexible thinking which, though manifested by supposedly rational atheists, bears a remarkable resemblance to religious fanaticism. Surely you can recognise that such a phenomenon exists, even if you don't acknowledge it in yourself?

 

[Sheldon]

Yeah, he did. I doubt he expected the idea to become such a gold standard of inflexible orthodoxy though. Every modality, every methodology, every philosophical paradigm, has it's limitations, including falsification. Popper knew this.

Scientism, as expressed in the OP, is a label for that inflexible thinking which, though manifested by supposedly rational atheists, bears a remarkable resemblance to religious fanaticism. Surely you can recognise that such a phenomenon exists, even if you don't acknowledge it in yourself?

Oh I'm familiar with the term, I just don't see it being true of "many atheists here" as the thread author has claimed. At least not in the pejorative sense he's using it.

Maybe some examples of this "inflexible thinking, manifested by supposedly rational atheists, and bearing a remarkable resemblance to religious fanaticism", by atheists on here?

 

[RestlessSoul]

Oh I'm familiar with the term, I just don't see it being true of "many atheists here" as the thread author has claimed. At least not in the pejorative sense he's using it.

Maybe some examples of this "inflexible thinking, manifested by supposedly rational atheists, and bearing a remarkable resemblance to religious fanaticism", by atheists on here?

It's only pejorative if you say it is. It's a broad brush label for a philosophical perspective.

I can't believe you need me to point you in the direction of the Atheist Inquisition on this site. Some things are impossible to miss, even for the wilfully blind.