"Scientism" on Wikipedia ...

[Sheldon]

No, that the universe is material physical, If you can show that, there is a Nobel Prize waiting for you.

You think the universe is non physical or immaterial?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

To even answer that one has to know what you mean by "science." What do you mean by it and how broad is it?

I come from a culture where we have 7 main branches and natural science is only one branch.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You think the universe is non physical or immaterial?

It doesn't matter what I think. It matters that you can show what you claim and not just claim it.
Again express your post in material physical terms and not everyday words.

 

[PureX]

Let me clarify this:

Saying that someone's beliefs count as absurd and arrogant thinking is not scientism.
Please, read again your very own OP.

Please stick to THIS conversation, or start another one on another point. This conversation was about my negative opinion regarding the behavior of the 'scientism' adherents. I pointed out some of this behavior because someone asked, using the person who asked as my example, and I'm not going to chase after this accusation any further.

I'm not here to attack or accuse individuals if it can be avoided.

 

[Sheldon]

Express all of your post in pure material physical terms and not everyday words.

I don't even know what you're asking, or why?

 

[Windwalker]

I don't, because I know that they won't have evidence of a deity. The best they'll do is point to a holy book or the revelation of some messenger, or the world around us, and say that that is their evidence for God. That's not evidence for a deity, since it doesn't make the god hypothesis more likely, nor its alternative, naturalistic explanations, less likely.

So in other words, since you believe they don't have scientific evidence, nothing they say will matter since only science can tell us what is true or not. Is that correct?

That is what we mean by scientism, the belief that only science can tell us what is true, and it is the only thing to be trusted.

Yes. My definition of truth is anchored in empiricism, which tethers it to physical reality. I don't consider anything truth that can't be demonstrated to be that.

Then yes, you subscribe to scientism. @Sheldon asked for an example of someone here who subscribes to this, and you are freely admitting that is your view of science here, which goes beyond doing science into faith in science as the sole source of all human truth. Karl Popper wouldn't agree with this view of science, BTW.

So, my truth is, "I believe it, and can demonstrate it to be the case."

Would you agree with this statement? "Science says it. I believe it. That settles it for me!"

If what you mean is "I just know it's true, but I can't show it to you," I translate that to mean "I believe it without sufficient evidence," which reduced the belief from justified belief to faith. Faith is not a path to truth. How can it be when it allows belief in wrong things?

Faith also believes things that are true, but we lack sufficient evidence for. That is what faith actually is. So yes, faith is a path to truth. All great discoveries of science were led by faith, believing something to be true before there was supporting evidence.

Why is the claim, "I just know there's a God" better than, "I just know that there is no God."

It's not. Both are equally statements of faith. So both the theist and the atheist are making claims based upon faith.

Presumably, at most one is correct, the other wrong.

Isn't it possible both could be correct? Or that neither are correct? Isn't it possible the question itself is misguided?

I can explain why the claim "I just know that the earth is roughly spherical" is correct, and saying it is flat is wrong, because there is evidence that makes one of those beliefs justified and the other wrong. With faith, you sidestep evidence and go right to belief, a logical error called non sequitur.

It's too bad reality cannot be reduced down to simple physical objects which are easily measured. Otherwise, scientism might have a leg to stand on. But reality is vastly more nuanced and complex than simply measuring circumferences.

What else is it if it can't be demonstrated to be more? You might call it fact or truth, but I wouldn't.

Experience. And yes, experience is truth, and it can be demonstrated. It can also be looked at objectively and analyzed. And that counts as not only subjective truth, but objective truth as well.

And yes, it doesn't count if by count you mean have persuasive power. It probably counts for you, but not the empiricist.

Empiricism relies on experience of the senses. So when someone says they experience God, aren't you being hypocritical to dismiss them?

No, although I would use the word empiricism rather than science, but I probably have a different definition of truth than you do.

As above. Empiricism accepts experiences as evidence, and from an objective perspective, "God experiences" can be objectively observed. So then why do you dismiss them? Upon what basis do you choose to ignore or reject the evidence? What system of belief do you think is the sole measure of truth? Or do you accept approaches such as an epistimological pluralism to be more valid?

 

[Sheldon]

It doesn't matter what I think. It matters that you can show what you claim and not just claim it.

What are you saying I've claimed?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I don't even know what you're asking, or why?

The universe is material physical. Now express your post in these terms and not everyday words. E.g. what is "...why?" in material physical terms?

 

[Sheldon]

Please stick to THIS conversation, or start another one on another point. This conversation was about my negative opinion regarding the behavior of the 'scientism' adherents. I pointed out some of this behavior because someone asked, using the person who asked, and I'm not going to chase after this accusation any further.

I'm not here to attack or accuse individuals.

Yes I can see why you'd want to move on, but you made the accusation that many atheists on here were guilty of scientism, and you made it before I'd posted that. Also what I posted wasn't scientism, it was a contextual response to another post that you also omitted.

I'll have to read your many examples when I return anyway, as I'm off to the pub in a short while.

 

[Lain]

I come from a culture where we have 7 main branches and natural science is only one branch.

How does your culture divide them? I learned through my studies that what US folks usually call "science" is only one division (natural as you said), and that the term really goes to any systematic body of knowledge.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

What are you saying I've claimed?

That the universe is material physical. Now again, express your post in these terms and not everyday words. There is a Nobel Prize in it.

 

[Windwalker]

I do think science is the best means.
The rest just seems an attempt to conflate science and faith.

Best for certain things, yes. But best for all things in all areas of human life? That I can't accept. That's an overreach of science. That's faith that it's like the mind of God, or something.

 

[Sheldon]

The universe is material physical.

Sorry you're saying the universe isn't material or physical? Do these words mean something different to you than me?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Yes I can see why you'd want to move on, but you made the accusation that many atheists on here were guilty of scientism, and you made it before I'd posted that. Also what I posted wasn't scientism, it was a contextual response to another post that you also omitted.

I'll have to read your many examples when I return anyway, as I'm off to the pub in a short while.

Yes and you are too. You only accept the material physical universe and evidence relating to that. Now again, express your post in material physical terms.

 

[Sheldon]

That the universe is material physical. Now again, express your post in these terms and not everyday words. There is a Nobel Prize in it.

A Nobel prize for posting in an internet forum, or showing that the physical and material universe exists? Are you quite alright?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Sorry you're saying the universe isn't material or physical? Do these words mean something different to you than me?

Just express your posts in material physical terms. That is what you claim you can do, as they are as a part of the universe and thus you can do it.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

A Nobel prize for posting in an internet forum, or showing that the physical and material universe exists? Are you quite alright?

No, that you show the meaning of your posts in physical and material terms.

 

[Sheldon]

Yes and you are too. You only accept the material physical universe and evidence relating to that. Now again, express your post in material physical terms.

Are you saying that the material physical world and universe don't exist? the last sentence makes no sense to me still, no matter how many ties you repeat it, I still have no idea what you're asking me to do?

 

[Sheldon]

Just express your posts in material physical terms.

Still don't know what you mean.

That is what you claim you can do, as they are as a part of the universe and thus you can do it.

Nope I've never remotely claimed anything like that, I don't even know what you're asking me to do.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

How does your culture divide them? I learned through my studies that what US folks usually call "science" is only one division (natural as you said), and that the term really goes to any systematic body of knowledge.

I will take a break from another poster.

Science is to explain how something works.
Natural, social, arts, existentially as a human, abstract thinking(logic and math), history and how something works, works (theory of science).

 

[Sheldon]

Pub for me, maybe mikkel can clarify what he means by posting in physical material terms? I'm hitting the keys on my keyboard, is that physical enough for you?