Who here believes in "Scientism"?

[Audie]

I would guess that it means 'It's something people see in you, not something that you choose to fight for.' Is that how you interpret it?

Y

 

[cladking]

Believers in science have all of the answers and none of the questions. Scientismists can lecture but don't know any of the questions.

 

[Misunderstood]

Within the last few months or so, it's been claimed that there are "many" here at RF who believe in and/or advocate for "scientism", i.e., the notion that science is the means to answer all questions, or at least is the means to answer all questions worth answering.

I've been a member here for quite some time, but I can't recall seeing anyone advocating such a view. So, to clear this up I'm starting this thread for all of you RF members who do. If you are an advocate for "scientism", please reply to this post with something like "Yes, I am an advocate for scientism as you have described it".

Also, let's keep this focused on the point of the thread, which means no debates about what is or isn't "scientism", whether gods exist, evolution/creationism, or anything else. The thread quite literally has a singular purpose and I'd like to keep it that way.

Not sure I understand the Definition, and it seems I can not ask to have it clarified.

But, yes, I feel science can explain most all questions.

 

[PureX]

The interesting thing about 'scientism' is that it's very akin to racism in that those who engage in it do not recognize it. The racist rarely is able to see himself as being racist because he believes his racial bigotry is simply the truth of reality. So he can't see it as being bigoted. To him, it's just truth.

And the same thing happens commonly with the 'scientism' crowd. They can't see themselves as being unrealistically enamored with science because they believe that what they believe about science is simply the truth of it. They have fallen for their own absurd bias to the point that they are unable to recognize it as being a bias.

And it's interesting how intractable and pervasive this kind of self-blinding bias really is ... to those who can see it. To those who have succumbed to it, it's invisible.

 

[PureX]

Believers in science have all of the answers and none of the questions. Scientismists can lecture but don't know any of the questions.

That's the appeal of scientism. It's the illusion of having no significant questions left outstanding because science has or will provide all the answers we need. And those it cannot provide, are related to questions that need not be asked. Scientism goes hand in hand with philosophical materialism.

 

[Jose Fly]

Not sure I understand the Definition, and it seems I can not ask to have it clarified.

But, yes, I feel science can explain most all questions.

That's okay, it's mostly just a means some folks use to bail out when it's shown that scientific conclusions contradict their beliefs. Something like....

I believe X is true, as described in God's Word.​

​

Actually, the science is pretty clear that X isn't true. ​

​

Well you just think science is infallible, don't you? I don't agree with your scientism!​

IOW, it's a type of insult used as an escape, barely above simply calling someone a poopyhead and running away.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The interesting thing about 'scientism' is that it's very akin to racism in that those who engage in it do not recognize it. The racist rarely is able to see himself as being racist because he believes his racial bigotry is simply the truth of reality. So he can't see it as being bigoted. To him, it's just truth.

And the same thing happens commonly with the 'scientism' crowd. They can't see themselves as being unrealistically enamored with science because they believe that what they believe about science is simply the truth of it. They have fallen for their own absurd bias to the point that they are unable to recognize it as being a bias.

And it's interesting how intractable and pervasive this kind of self-blinding bias really is ... to those who can see it. To those who have succumbed to it, it's invisible.

So really, you also could be a scientismist and not realize it?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

That's the appeal of scientism. It's the illusion of having no significant questions left outstanding because science has or will provide all the answers we need. And those it cannot provide, are related to questions that need not be asked. Scientism goes hand in hand with philosophical materialism.

In that case, I don't know of anyone who qualifies as a "scientismist".
I don't think I ever met someone who values science and also thinks there are no outstanding questions left.

 

[Audie]

So really, you also could be a scientismist and not realize it?

Further from reality than that.
The non existent scientism is being detected in people who do not themselves exist.

 

[Audie]

In that case, I don't know of anyone who qualifies as a "scientismist".
I don't think I ever met someone who values science and also thinks there are no outstanding questions left.

If anyone is actually that deranged they arr worse off cognitively than a flood - believer.

 

[wellwisher]

Pure Science is secondary to Applied Science. We still have to do experiments, to prove all science theory, with experiments requiring applied science; telescope is a product of applied science. The problem that pure science and maybe scientology have, is science often derives science from previous science theory, which is not always validated, with applied science. It is not validated with the best applied science, if we can use fuzzy dice curves, that have margins of error.

If you you look at applied science, such as the iPhone, there is nothing about the iPhone that defies the known laws of science derived from centuries of natural observations and experiments. However, the odds are nearly zero for nature to use these same natural laws to make the iPhone appear directly from nature; grow on trees or hatch from eggs. Yet we can manufacture millions of iPhones, even though it natural appearance, defies natural odds of existing science theory.

It more of a sure thing, which places it above many natural laws which uses or needs fuzzy dice. If you assume nature is based on statistical models, how do you explain the iPhone, which defies the odds of natural laws. It is more advanced than nature, since it is more like card counting in a casino based on odds. Consciousness evolved from nature, allowing the brain to defy the odds of nature; applied is gold standard of nature.

I can see how scientology may need to overcompensate, in terms of its sales pitch since science is secondary to another set of principles based on applied science, which can work with minimal need of odds. Genetic theory came about from applied science observations of DNA. They saw a definitive thing and not fuzzy dice, often that comes from science from science, skipping the gold standard, so it still has fuzzy dice odds.

The problem in science, is using established science, from applied science experiments, as the platform for new science; second string acting as it own primary foundation for further science. This results in a watered down version of applied science experiments, that do not require anything close to a sure thing. This is not applied science at its best; dumbed down.

Better science theory should be able to use applied science that is much tighter. Life sciences, climate science are not as advances as sold, since it is harder to get tight applied science to lead. It needs fuzzy dice applied science, which to me is a tell for the need to go back to the drawing board. Fuzzy dice data is missing something in theory; weak foundation.

I remember once assigned to a development project, connected to removing mercury in water lower than the BAT; best available technology, by an order of magnitude. It took to me two weeks, using science theory from middle age alchemy. How was it possible to outdo the then current state of the art in pure and applied science, with 500 year old pre-science logic, and still get an applied science approach that did not need statistical fudge to work?

Science theory does not lead, applied science. The science theory follows. My experiments and invention would improve the the state of the art science. But in terms of using Middle Ages science, it did not matter which science I had used, since that was secondary to something that would result and then lead.

There was something in my brain, that was triggered by the old ways of looking at mercury, that led to the idea. It was something simple. The I could reverse engineer freon the innovation and extend mercury water science based on the applied science results which defied the odds. I was given a statistician to follow me, but in the end, he was not needed since the best science forms of science do not need it. This is why good ideas can come from simple things. This is not fully understood by Scientology, but is often experienced by applied scientists. The ancients who built the pyramids, did not need modern science but had other triggers, so the final results could be used to start building a science foundation triggers.

 

[Audie]

Pure Science is secondary to Applied Science. We still have to do experiments, to prove all science theory, with experiments requiring applied science; telescope is a product of applied science. The problem that pure science and maybe scientology have, is science often derives science from previous science theory, which is not always validated, with applied science. It is not validated with the best applied science, if we can use fuzzy dice curves, that have margins of error.

If you you look at applied science, such as the iPhone, there is nothing about the iPhone that defies the known laws of science derived from centuries of natural observations and experiments. However, the odds are nearly zero for nature to use these same natural laws to make the iPhone appear directly from nature; grow on trees or hatch from eggs. Yet we can manufacture millions of iPhones, even though it natural appearance, defies natural odds of existing science theory.

It more of a sure thing, which places it above many natural laws which uses or needs fuzzy dice. If you assume nature is based on statistical models, how do you explain the iPhone, which defies the odds of natural laws. It is more advanced than nature, since it is more like card counting in a casino based on odds. Consciousness evolved from nature, allowing the brain to defy the odds of nature; applied is gold standard of nature.

I can see how scientology may need to overcompensate, in terms of its sales pitch since science is secondary to another set of principles based on applied science, which can work with minimal need of odds. Genetic theory came about from applied science observations of DNA. They saw a definitive thing and not fuzzy dice, often that comes from science from science, skipping the gold standard, so it still has fuzzy dice odds.

The problem in science, is using established science, from applied science experiments, as the platform for new science; second string acting as it own primary foundation for further science. This results in a watered down version of applied science experiments, that do not require anything close to a sure thing. This is not applied science at its best; dumbed down.

Better science theory should be able to use applied science that is much tighter. Life sciences, climate science are not as advances as sold, since it is harder to get tight applied science to lead. It needs fuzzy dice applied science, which to me is a tell for the need to go back to the drawing board. Fuzzy dice data is missing something in theory; weak foundation.

I remember once assigned to a development project, connected to removing mercury in water lower than the BAT; best available technology, by an order of magnitude. It took to me two weeks, using science theory from middle age alchemy. How was it possible to outdo the then current state of the art in pure and applied science, with 500 year old pre-science logic, and still get an applied science approach that did not need statistical fudge to work?

Science theory does not lead, applied science. The science theory follows. My experiments and invention would improve the the state of the art science. But in terms of using Middle Ages science, it did not matter which science I had used, since that was secondary to something that would result and then lead.

There was something in my brain, that was triggered by the old ways of looking at mercury, that led to the idea. It was something simple. The I could reverse engineer freon the innovation and extend mercury water science based on the applied science results which defied the odds. I was given a statistician to follow me, but in the end, he was not needed since the best science forms of science do not need it. This is why good ideas can come from simple things. This is not fully understood by Scientology, but is often experienced by applied scientists. The ancients who built the pyramids, did not need modern science but had other triggers, so the final results could be used to start building a science foundation triggers.

The trouble with your attempted
analysis is, you betray in the first lines, with " prove theories" that
you don't know what you are talking about, and pose to teach when you yourself refuse to learn.

Like how many times have we explained with varying degrees of patience, the impossibility of
proving a theory???

A glance at following text has something about scientology.

Scientology.

Good grief.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

So really, you also could be a scientismist and not realize it?

What I have seen is that the claim of scientism is leveled against anyone that holds a position based on evidence that disagrees with opinion based on belief. I don't recall anyone that supports science on here that fits the definition of scientism.

Of course, it could be that I just can't see it for my bias. Being a rabbit, even I don't want to go down that hole.

 

[Boris Norris]

I just defined it in the OP: "the notion that science is the means to answer all questions, or at least is the means to answer all questions worth answering."

If you don't believe in or advocate that, then this thread isn't for you.

I think you deliberately narrowed the thread down as a trap. I can see there is a punch line coming. Why not allow other topics similar be discussed?

 

[PureX]

The trouble with your attempted
analysis is, you betray in the first lines, with " prove theories" that
you don't know what you are talking about, and pose to teach when you yourself refuse to learn.

Like how many times have we explained with varying degrees of patience, the impossibility of
proving a theory???

And yet you scientism geniuses demand, ad nauseum, that the theists proove their theories of God. And not only that they prove it, but that they do so within the constraints of material science. Because, of course, all truth is defined and determined in your minds by the constraints of material science. Even as you vociferously deny that any of you believe it.

 

[Audie]

And yet you scientism geniuses demand, ad nauseum, that the theists proove their theories of God. And not only that they prove it, but that they do so within the constraints of material science. Because, of course, all truth is defined and determined in your minds by the constraints of material science. Even as you vociferously deny that any of you believe it.

Goofness. Do uou actually not understand why no scientific theory can be proved?
It has zero to do with religion, or God (s).
Do you need it explained?

One of my zoology profs at Uni was a lay Baptist
preacher, he was the one who first pointed it out that theories can't be proved to me. ( big omission of the autodidect and HK education!)

Labelling me as " scientism genius" , is of course just low garbage which I'd hope- wish- was unworthy of you. You ought to have more self respect.

in the event, swing and a miss- but if you actually believe it, its far worse than just that.

I've certainly never asked anyone to " prove their theory of God". I'm not sure I ever heard a
theory of God, or know what one could even be.

I do though question, like, "how do you justify" claims about the nature of God, or of things
claimed as acts of God. "Flood" , say.

The godism people explain everything with goddidit, "Bible says"!. Etc.
Perhaps that's where you get this " scientism" bit, a kind of projection.

Specimens of those with godism are thick like grapes in RF; your naming me is as close as you've gotten to showing scientism exists here.
But you have zero examples as there are none.
It's a vacuous claim.

Of course I deny your " all truth defined / constrained" fantasy. I tend to deny falsehoods said of me.
You of course have not one example of me or anyone making a statement of " all truth"; you just made it up.

For someone claiming to be concerned with what is true it is very peculiar behaviour.

I value my integrity, which is why I don't lie.
I sure don't understand your sense of values.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Goofness. Do uou actually not understand why no scientific theory can be proved?
It has zero to do with religion, or God (s).
Do you need it explained?

One of my zoology profs at Uni was a lay Baptist
preacher, he was the one who first pointed it out that theories can't be proved to me. ( big omission of the autodidect and HK education!)

Labelling me as " scientism genius" , is of course just low garbage which I'd hope- wish- was unworthy of you. You ought to have more self respect.

in the event, swing and a miss- but if you actually believe it, its far worse than just that.

I've certainly never asked anyone to " prove their theory of God". I'm not sure I ever heard a
theory of God, or know what one could even be.

I do though question, like, "how do you justify" claims about the nature of God, or of things
claimed as acts of God. "Flood" , say.

The godism people explain everything with goddidit, "Bible says"!. Etc.
Perhaps that's where you get this " scientism" bit, a kind of projection.

Specimens of those with godism are thick like grapes in RF; your naming me is as close as you've gotten to showing scientism exists here.
But you have zero examples as there are none.
It's a vacuous claim.

Of course I deny your " all truth defined / constrained" fantasy. I tend to deny falsehoods said of me.
You of course have not one example of me or anyone making a statement of " all truth"; you just made it up.

For someone claiming to be concerned with what is true it is very peculiar behaviour.

I value my integrity, which is why I don't lie.
I sure don't understand your sense of values.

Yeah, some use proof, others use truth and other evidence, when it comes to scientism. That is not the point alone. The point is in the end that they conflate science and philosophy and believe that science tells us what is the ontological/metaphysical status of the world.

Now that doesn't mean that you do scientism. But if you in any sense conflate science with the ontological/metaphysical status of the world, you do, do scientism. There are other versions of it though.

 

[Audie]

Yeah, some use proof, others use truth and other evidence, when it comes to scientism. That is not the point alone. The point is in the end that they conflate science and philosophy and believe that science tells us what is the ontological/metaphysical status of the world.

Now that doesn't mean that you do scientism. But if you in any sense conflate science with the ontological/metaphysical status of the world, you do, do scientism. There are other versions of it though.

Whatever you might mean by the above

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Whatever you might mean by the above

I am speak of the difference between methodological and philosophical naturalism in other words. Since you are a scientist you understand these concepts.

 

[Audie]

I am speak of the difference between methodological and philosophical naturalism in other words. Since you are a scientist you understand these concepts.

It's your prose I can't follow.