Who here believes in "Scientism"?

[blü 2]

To me the so-called supernatural is the natural not directly observable by our physical senses and instruments. Something can be real but outside the range of our senses. For example, the Higgs Boson was real but unknown a thousand years ago but outside the range of people's senses and instruments.

But the Higgs boson had a theoretical existence implied from the maths of the Standard Theory. And it was a very particular particle with clear qualities.

By contrast, there are countless versions of the supernatural, and great incompatibilities as to its nature, function and entities, so that the hypothesis seems reasonable that the supernatural was devised separately in many different human cultures around the world to account for, on the one hand natural phenomena like lightning, flood, drought, meteors, eclipses, plague, and psychological questions such as luck in fighting and war, hunting, love, childbirth, death and grieving, and so on, and as a resource against feelings of helplessness, and as part of a particular set of stories associated (like language and customs) with tribal identity.

But didn't the Higgs Boson exist a thousand years ago?

Yes, but there are no absolute truths in science, and each new discover only applies to the past in hindsight. Truth is retrospective, not absolute.

Yes, we should hope for science to tell us more. In the meantime, I will also use my reason to consider things from methods of investigation that are beyond physical science. I think that last sentence is what separates Scientism followers from non-followers.

As I said, good hunting!

 

[Misunderstood]

It's true that thoughts exist as physical brainstates. But that doesn't make the thing being thought of 'true' as I define that word.

For example, I can draw a unicorn on a sketchpad, but that won't make unicorns real. (Have you ever noticed how hard it is to keep unicorns out of conversations like this?) That has some parallels with my brain having the concept of a unicorn ─ or of Spiderman, Gandalf, the Screaming Skull and other entities that aren't found in the world external to the self. Which I say makes them unreal.

I think the problem we have is what you, and what I define as 'real'. But I feel that is where most arguments start, because someone makes a statement based on their definition, and someone else holds a different definition. I define real as anything that can be defined. I do feel that there are different states of real. You mention 'true', I feel 'real' and 'true' are two different things. A theory can be 'real', printed in a peer reviewed magazine and accepted as 'true' but later proven to be very 'wrong'.

I saw an article about AI being able to describe what you are looking at by reading a brain scan. If I look at a picture and think to myself 'that is pretty' the thought is real and can be physically measured. But I agree it is a different reality than the picture itself. Spiderman is a concept that has been drawn on paper and made into a comic book. The concept has been made into a picture, just like the picture I looked at and liked. So it is on a different reality than my thought of 'liking it'. But not on the same reality as a actual living person.

That is just my view, I understand and accept your view also. Just as long as I know what we define as 'real'. I just wounder what you consider something 'unreal' such as a though, picture or theory?

 

[Misunderstood]

Ethical values are not real. Cats are. Black is not real, but it is a way of categorizing real things. Blue is real, however, because it refers to photons travelling within a certain range of wavelengths. Blue is not a property, but instead refers to a specific kind of light.

I am a bit confused by the statement that 'Black is not real, but a way of categorizing real things. Blue is real, however....' I understand about categorizing things. We have black cats, white cats, yellow cats and many others.

What I don't understand is why black is not real, but blue is. I assume because blue reflects back the blue wavelength of light and black reflects nothing?

I do have to admit 'nothing' is the hardest thing for me to understand. I don't even know how or if 'absolutely nothing' can exist. In the case of light; if no visible light wavelengths are being returned from an object we see it as black. So even though it is black we can identify that object as non reflective of visible light.

Do you agree, or am I missing something?

 

[Ella S.]

I am a bit confused by the statement that 'Black is not real, but a way of categorizing real things. Blue is real, however....' I understand about categorizing things. We have black cats, white cats, yellow cats and many others.

What I don't understand is why black is not real, but blue is. I assume because blue reflects back the blue wavelength of light and black reflects nothing?

I do have to admit 'nothing' is the hardest thing for me to understand. I don't even know how or if 'absolutely nothing' can exist. In the case of light; if no visible light wavelengths are being returned from an object we see it as black. So even though it is black we can identify that object as non reflective of visible light.

Do you agree, or am I missing something?

Yes, with the nitpick that I would say that blue is not just the reflection of the blue wavelength, it is the blue wavelength. A photon that moves at that wavelength doesn't have the property of blue. It is one instance of the object "blue."

That's why black doesn't refer to a real thing. Black isn't an object. There is no specific photon that we can say is black in the same way we can point to a specific photon and call it blue or point to a particular atom and call it hydrogen. Instead, black refers to a specific relationship an object has with light, rather than the light itself as in the case of blue. That relationship is not a real object, but a construct of language we use in order to describe real objects in relation to one another.

This sort of gets into physicalism where I say that, on the macroscopic scale, only things like physical matter, energy, spacetime, and the physical forces are "real" and everything else is a convention of language. This is more of a definition for what I consider "real," but that definition is based on naturalism and trying to rigidly narrow down what objectively exists external to my subjective experience.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Yes, with the nitpick that I would say that blue is not just the reflection of the blue wavelength, it is the blue wavelength. A photon that moves at that wavelength doesn't have the property of blue. It is one instance of the object "blue."

That's why black doesn't refer to a real thing. Black isn't an object. There is no specific photon that we can say is black in the same way we can point to a specific photon and call it blue or point to a particular atom and call it hydrogen. Instead, black refers to a specific relationship an object has with light, rather than the light itself as in the case of blue. That relationship is not a real object, but a construct of language we use in order to describe real objects in relation to one another.

This sort of gets into physicalism where I say that, on the macroscopic scale, only things like physical matter, energy, spacetime, and the physical forces are "real" and everything else is a convention of language. This is more of a definition for what I consider "real," but that definition is based on naturalism and trying to rigidly narrow down what objectively exists external to my subjective experience.

Do you want to play Mary's room?
I get what you say about real and get how it matters. The problem that real is like black and not blue. There is no object "real".
But we have been over that before and I get how I am annoying.

 

[Ella S.]

Do you want to play Mary's room?
I get what you say about real and get how it matters. The problem that real is like black and not blue. There is no object "real".
But we have been over that before and I get how I am annoying.

I see what you mean. I think the issue I had with your example is that "real" is like black, but not like blue.

Both black and real can be understood as types, whereas blue is a discrete object. Interestingly, not all black things are real, and sometimes blue is black in the case of "cool black" objects which reflect a minimal amount of blue light.

So it gets a little complex, which I think makes the subject itself a little annoying, lol.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I see what you mean. I think the issue I had with your example is that "real" is like black, but not like blue.

Both black and real can be understood as types, whereas blue is a discrete object. Interestingly, not all black things are real, and sometimes blue is black in the case of "cool black" objects which reflect a minimal amount of blue light.

So it gets a little complex, which I think makes the subject itself a little annoying, lol.

Well, as long as we don't get into only that independent of the mind is real, I get you. We are "dancing" around the finer points about subjective and objective and I get how some variants of subjective are not real in a certain sense.

 

[Audie]

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.

Who? Short list: Popeye.

 

[paarsurrey]

"Who here believes in "Scientism"?"​

Sorry, I didn't read all the posts in the thread , please, did anybody claim to belong to " Scientism", please?
Right?

Regards

 

[Audie]

"Who here believes in "Scientism"?"​

Sorry, I didn't read all the posts in the thread , please, did anybody claim to belong to " Scientism", please?
Right?

Regards

Of course not.

If anyone anywhere does they are stupid.

Like the claim that there are such on RF

 

[paarsurrey]

paarsurrey said:

"Who here believes in "Scientism"?"​

Sorry, I didn't read all the posts in the thread , please, did anybody claim to belong to " Scientism", please?
Right?

Of course not.

If anyone anywhere does they are stupid.

Like the claim that there are such on RF

Could it be the Atheism people, all shades of them, who don't have any Methodology of their own so they hide behind science as cover, please, right??

Regards

 

[Subduction Zone]

paarsurrey said:

"Who here believes in "Scientism"?"​

Sorry, I didn't read all the posts in the thread , please, did anybody claim to belong to " Scientism", please?
Right?


Could it be the Atheism people, all shades of them, who don't have any Methodology of their own so they hide behind science as cover, please, right??

Regards

If you want an answer you should not use false accusations in your post.

 

[cladking]

Could it be the Atheism people, all shades of them, who don't have any Methodology of their own so they hide behind science as cover, please, right??

No. Some atheists understand science.

As a rule anyone who believes in science is an atheist and a scientismist. They believe everything that exists is known as well as everything that does not exist and almost every single one of them is holier than thou.

 

[Audie]

paarsurrey said:

"Who here believes in "Scientism"?"​

Sorry, I didn't read all the posts in the thread , please, did anybody claim to belong to " Scientism", please?
Right?


Could it be the Atheism people, all shades of them, who don't have any Methodology of their own so they hide behind science as cover, please, right??

Regards

What mean spirited nonsense.
You should be ashamed.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No. Some atheists understand science.

As a rule anyone who believes in science is an atheist and a scientismist. They believe everything that exists is known as well as everything that does not exist and almost every single one of them is holier than thou.

It only seems that way to you because you are constantly wrong. You seem to be ignoring the fact that some that correct you constantly are not atheists.

 

[QuestioningMind]

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.

I don't think that I've ever heard anyone claim that the scientific method can determine the the answer to ALL questions. For instance, no one that I'm aware of claims that this method can determine what ice cream the 'best' flavor. It's a purely subjective questions and is not the something that the scientific method can address. However, I do believe that up until this point is history that the scientific methods is BY FAR the best method we've discovered for determining the truth about how our physical universe functions. If anyone can provide a better method, I'd certainly like to hear about it.

 

[MikeF]

I don't think that I've ever heard anyone claim that the scientific method can determine the the answer to ALL questions. For instance, no one that I'm aware of claims that this method can determine what ice cream the 'best' flavor. It's a purely subjective questions and is not the something that the scientific method can address. However, I do believe that up until this point is history that the scientific methods is BY FAR the best method we've discovered for determining the truth about how our physical universe functions. If anyone can provide a better method, I'd certainly like to hear about it.

If the question is asked, "What ice cream flavor is the best", why can't science address it by saying that opinion on flavor are affected by many factors, from differences in taste buds, to flavors exposed to during childhood, or positive or negative experiences related to previous exposure to that particular flavor can have influence on what flavor an indivudal prefers. Science can also study what percentage of a given population prefers each of the flavor options to give and use that information to see if there are identifiable causes and to one flavor may be overwhelmingly preferred. Just as some can have color-blindness, perhaps there can be gaps in our standard flavor palette that can be honed in on by seeing the statistical pattern of preference.

Science can also address a question and determine that the question is either currently unanswerable, is non-answerable, or just plain silly.

All science is, in my view, is a declaration of the investigator that in tackling a question, active effort will be made in mitigating human error and bias in the investigative process. It isn't the subject matter that makes something a science problem, its the way the investiagion is handled that puts it under the banner of science.

 

[QuestioningMind]

If the question is asked, "What ice cream flavor is the best", why can't science address it by saying that opinion on flavor are affected by many factors, from differences in taste buds, to flavors exposed to during childhood, or positive or negative experiences related to previous exposure to that particular flavor can have influence on what flavor an indivudal prefers. Science can also study what percentage of a given population prefers each of the flavor options to give and use that information to see if there are identifiable causes and to one flavor may be overwhelmingly preferred. Just as some can have color-blindness, perhaps there can be gaps in our standard flavor palette that can be honed in on by seeing the statistical pattern of preference.

Science can also address a question and determine that the question is either currently unanswerable, is non-answerable, or just plain silly.

All science is, in my view, is a declaration of the investigator that in tackling a question, active effort will be made in mitigating human error and bias in the investigative process. It isn't the subject matter that makes something a science problem, its the way the investiagion is handled that puts it under the banner of science.

Science most certainly CAN investigate the ice cream preferences on the population, and the various reasons why individuals might decide that one particular flavor is the best. But none of that will ever determine what is the BEST flavor, since that is purely a subjective opinion. In this case expecting the scientific method to answer this question is just plain silly.

 

[MikeF]

Science most certainly CAN investigate the ice cream preferences on the population, and the various reasons why individuals might decide that one particular flavor is the best. But none of that will ever determine what is the BEST flavor, since that is purely a subjective opinion. In this case expecting the scientific method to answer this question is just plain silly.

I agree. Isn't it our scientific understanding that helps us make that determination? Isn't it our scientific understanding of how the world works that steers us clear of notions of ideal forms and universal standards of beauty?

 

[exchemist]

I agree. Isn't it our scientific understanding that helps us make that determination? Isn't it our scientific understanding of how the world works that steers us clear of notions of ideal forms and universal standards of beauty?

Almost certainly not, I'd have thought. My guess is the awareness of how pervasive subjectivity is in our appreciation of the world must have been a feature of philosophy for centuries, e.g. Protagoras: Protagoras - Wikipedia