Who here believes in "Scientism"?

[Dan From Smithville]

OK. I wasn't specific enough. I was thinking of a threat caused by science doing something wrong or losing its way. You've been arguing against science implying that its foundation is rocky, and you mentioned experiments revealing this. Now you're discussing public policy, governments, industry, etc.. Yes, they are creating problems with the fruits of science, the next looking like it will be what these people do with AI. But I don't see a problem for science there.

I wrote, "If you are correct, you can demonstrate that you are." Even a link to a prior demonstration would suffice. I'm looking for one of the foundational beliefs you say has been shown to be untrue by experiment. Do you think that you did that here? I don't, which is why I am still looking.

If by believers you mean empiricists, almost none say that. I've never seen it.

I find it puzzling that some claim to have demonstrated something dozens, hundreds or thousands of times, yet not one shred of evidence exists to support that claim.

Perhaps they do not understand what it means to demonstrate something. Or perhaps, as seems common among belief-based thinkers, they believe that any unsupported opinion or empty assertion they render is a demonstration of the fact of what is asserted.

 

[cladking]

There is a belief in human progress. There is a belief the intelligence fuels science. There is a belief that it's only natural that history starts 1000 years after writing was invented. There is a belief that we understand one another and that sentences have a single meaning. I could go on all day listing fundamental beliefs that are wrong and these beliefs often are involved with the definitions and axioms of science. "I think therefore I am" is the biggest load of twaddle ever.

Anywhere assumptions and definitions are wrong it can affect science. Anywhere there is no experiment, there is no science.

The truly puzzling thing is that you can answer the same question over and over and it is simply unseen and unchallenged.

No matter how many times you define a term it can be ignored.

"Metaphysics" means "basis of science".

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I could go on all day listing fundamental beliefs that are wrong

I wrote, "If you are correct [that foundational beliefs of science have been shown to be untrue by experiment], you can demonstrate that you are." You weren't asked to list the ideas you considered wrong. You were asked to demonstrate that they are. You were asked to produce the experiment and name the foundational belief it refuted. That's never going to happen, is it?

The problems are all caused by the ineffective and mean spirited way in which we practice and understand science. The wealthy buy whatever science is necessary to get what they want. When science and the desires of the few coincide which isn't really unusual, it is still used as a weapon.
But the real problem isn't our one party government (world) it is the simple fact that scientific knowledge has fractured into thousands of subsets; specialties. This creates enormous inefficiency as every organ of the state and business works against every other organ. You can't even call a company to complain any longer ands if you could they are deaf ears and no two departments can work together. The seriousness of this problem can not be overstated. There is no practical or applied science any longer.

I asked about, "a threat caused by science doing something wrong or losing its way." Where's the threat caused by a flaw in science in that answer and what's your recommendation for science correcting it going forward?

The truly puzzling thing is that you can answer the same question over and over and it is simply unseen and unchallenged. No matter how many times you define a term it can be ignored. "Metaphysics" means "basis of science".

Why are you puzzled? You've been told repeatedly that that comment has no specific meaning that can be comprehended and agreed with or not. I don't know what you mean. If somebody asked me what the basis of science is, I would answer ideas such as skepticism and empiricism (perception, reason). Falsifiability is a bedrock concept in science. Publication and peer review are essential elements of the larger scientific method. We might include reproducibility of results and methodological materialism.

But metaphysics? What are you claiming is true? We still don't know what that word means to you. "Basis of science" wouldn't define it even if it were one of the bases of science along with the others I enumerated. You won't get the level of engagement you seek until you communicate ideas clearly.

 

[cladking]

Why are you puzzled? You've been told repeatedly that that comment has no specific meaning that can be comprehended and agreed with or not. I don't know what you mean. If somebody asked me what the basis of science is, I would answer ideas such as skepticism and empiricism (perception, reason). Falsifiability is a bedrock concept in science. Publication and peer review are essential elements of the larger scientific method. We might include reproducibility of results and methodological materialism.

It might be impossible to explain any of this including which experiments prove foundational assumptions are wrong to anyone who doesn't understand how language is, how it works, or what meaning is intended by an author. If I say that metaphysics means the basis of science then there is no further conversation necessary or possible. It is on YOU to parse my sentences accordingly.

This isn't even relevant to this specific topic and I was merely trying to describe to readers what I'm up against. Most believers are just playing word games and intentionally failing to take my meaning. Communication is impossible when either party refuses to parse sentences as intended.

 

[cladking]

Where's the threat caused by a flaw in science in that answer and what's your recommendation for science correcting it going forward?

Extinction of the human race. Quit believing in science and start doing it right.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

If I say that metaphysics means the basis of science then there is no further conversation necessary or possible. It is on YOU to parse my sentences accordingly.

OK. I did that already and told you what those words mean to me: "that comment has no specific meaning that can be comprehended and agreed with or not. I don't know what you mean." Since you don't care to clarify, I guess I'll never know what you meant.

Extinction of the human race.

I asked you where the menace you keep warning others of in science was (not what), but I can see that you won't be giving me the answers I request there, either. You've communicated as much to me as you are willing or capable of communicating, so I guess we've reached the end of this discussion. You have a vague warning regarding some threat that is in some way caused by science that may lead to extinction of the human race. Thanks for that.

 

[cladking]

agreed with or not.

"Agreement" is irrelevant.

What in the hell is wrong here?

as you are willing or capable of communicating

Communication is by nature two way.

You have a vague warning regarding some threat that is in some way caused by science that may lead to extinction of the human race

I could elaborate, explain, or answer questions but until communication exists why bother.

People don't need to understand when I say belief lies outside of science and no science exists outside experiment because these are simple facts.

Believe what you want but NOTHING YOU BELIEVE is science. Belief is scientism.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

OK. I did that already and told you what those words mean to me: "that comment has no specific meaning that can be comprehended and agreed with or not. I don't know what you mean." Since you don't care to clarify, I guess I'll never know what you meant.

I asked you where the menace you keep warning others of in science was (not what), but I can see that you won't be giving me the answers I request there, either. You've communicated as much to me as you are willing or capable of communicating, so I guess we've reached the end of this discussion. You have a vague warning regarding some threat that is in some way caused by science that may lead to extinction of the human race. Thanks for that.

I think the lack of any evidence and the run around games speak for themselves. I don't think you can have a rational dialogue with certain types of belief-based thinkers that claim to know nothing, but present as if they are omniscient. I predict that continued words games, lame excuses and blame others for their failures is all you will get.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

OK. I did that already and told you what those words mean to me: "that comment has no specific meaning that can be comprehended and agreed with or not. I don't know what you mean." Since you don't care to clarify, I guess I'll never know what you meant.

I asked you where the menace you keep warning others of in science was (not what), but I can see that you won't be giving me the answers I request there, either. You've communicated as much to me as you are willing or capable of communicating, so I guess we've reached the end of this discussion. You have a vague warning regarding some threat that is in some way caused by science that may lead to extinction of the human race. Thanks for that.

Take this claim that there is no science without experiment. Patently incorrect, but certainly expressed as a belief system. No evidence or discussion ever presented. The fact that experiments are only one way to test hypotheses and generate data is never mentioned. The value of an experiment is in the ability to control for confounding variables, but it is not the sole means to carry out science. It is not some wizards magic brew as it is presented every time it is claimed to be the only path to science.

 

[blü 2]

Communication is by nature two way.

Like your definition of consciousness that means every living cell is conscious?

Yes, I understand what you mean. The problem is that what you mean is nonsense.

And invited, in effect, to offer a better definition of consciousness that avoided this problem you'd created for yourself, you've offered nothing.

I could elaborate, explain, or answer questions but until communication exists why bother.

As I just said, I have very clear grounds for being entirely skeptical about your claim to be able to answer questions, but I'll give you one more chance.

Your last definition failed as I've mentioned above. We agreed that it led to absurdity, trillions of consciousnesses in the human body, one per living cell.

So tell me ─ now that you've had the chance to reconsider, what is your non-absurd definition of 'consciousness'?

 

[cladking]

It seems people are so busy playing word games that they've forgotten the definition of "definition". The definition of the word "boat" for instance does not involve the technical specifications of the #3 bilge pump. Even my unabridged dictionary rarely has more than 300 words in a definition. Indeed, most words can be defined in just one, two, or a very few other words. To use the word "metaphysics" I don't need to know everything there is to know about science even though everything known about science is its definition. By the same token to provide a scientific definition for the word "consciousness" it is not necessary for me to know every single thing about every characteristic of consciousness and every one of its manifestations.

Why be familiar with a dictionary when there are words games to be played.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

As predicted.

 

[cladking]

Take this claim that there is no science without experiment.

I didn't really misspeak here but merely connected the dots. All theory is derived from experiment and all real science is theory. Obviously the inherent truth in all of these statements can be parsed right out of them.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I have seen no inherent truth in the empty and incorrect claims of those that deny science or invent some bizarre narrative based on fantasy.

 

[cladking]

I have seen no inherent truth in the empty and incorrect claims of those that deny science or invent some bizarre narrative based on fantasy.

I "deny no science". I deny "scientism" whose primary characteristic is belief in science.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Science is a method for learning about the world and not about a particular set of theories. Explanation is at its core.

Claiming that "true" science is only based on experiment is to confuse the general with the specific. Experiment is one way to test hypotheses, but it is not the only way.

Claiming to be able to see "true" science is a religious conviction that is not science and not an ability established in fact. Hypotheses can be tested by observation as well. Additionally, they can be tested by examination of their internal and external logic.

There is so much that the self-proclaimed omniscient don't know and this is why they refuse to provide direct answers and offer only smoke screens in response. Word games, blame others for their failure to respond or offering pretense that the answered and the answers cannot be seen. LOL! Good grief.

Science denial is pervasive and I wonder why. But clearly those in denial don't even know they are.

Accepting science is not scientism.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I predict that continued words games, lame excuses and blame others for their failures is all you will get.

That would be fine, too. I'm just trying to understand what motivates cladking. I can't shake the intuition that all of this fulfils some need. I assume it as a principle of neurology and psychology - that his mind like yours and mine operates according to some principles analogous to physical systems seeking lowest energy or maximal entropy.

I suppose that the intuition that thought and behavior are determined by physical processes comes from the determinist and materialist in me. I'm trying to understand what he gets out of this and thus what drives him to post this way. Ostensibly, he has a message he wants to communicate, which is why he has come to a message board to participate, but it seems like it must be something else given the resistance to clarification. So, what then? What propels this sky-is-falling posting absent any other message

"Agreement" is irrelevant.

Not to me. I read your words to decide which of your ideas I can agree with. One purpose of critical analysis is to bring sound reasoning to the arguments of others. It's also valuable to discover where we disagree and why.

Communication is by nature two way.

Information is only flowing one way - from me to you. which is why you haven't needed to ask me to clarify anything. You know what I mean because, like most posters here, I write in plain English. You might not agree with me, but there isn't one phrase there that you can't understand. I've communicated to you.

But you're not doing your part. Information isn't coming back. My questions and requests go unanswered.

I could elaborate, explain, or answer questions but until communication exists why bother.

Agreed. There needs to be another reason to continue. I know what mine is. Do you know yours?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

That would be fine, too. I'm just trying to understand what motivates cladking. I can't shake the intuition that all of this fulfils some need. I assume it as a principle of neurology and psychology - that his mind like yours and mine operates according to some principles analogous to physical systems seeking lowest energy or maximal entropy.

I suppose that the intuition that thought and behavior are determined by physical processes comes from the determinist and materialist in me. I'm trying to understand what he gets out of this and thus what drives him to post this way. Ostensibly, he has a message he wants to communicate, which is why he has come to a message board to participate, but it seems like it must be something else given the resistance to clarification. So, what then? What propels this sky-is-falling posting absent any other message

Not to me. I read your words to decide which of your ideas I can agree with. One purpose of critical analysis is to bring sound reasoning to the arguments of others. It's also valuable to discover where we disagree and why.

Information is only flowing one way - from me to you. which is why you haven't needed to ask me to clarify anything. You know what I mean because, like most posters here, I write in plain English. You might not agree with me, but there isn't one phrase there that you can't understand. I've communicated to you.

But you're not doing your part. Information isn't coming back. My questions and requests go unanswered.

Agreed. There needs to be another reason to continue. I know what mine is. Do you know yours?

Winner Frube!

 

[cladking]

Science is a method for learning about the world and not about a particular set of theories. Explanation is at its core.

I'm sorry but this appears to be mystical. Scientism. Certainly it is literally correct and perhaps even apt but it says nothing about science or how it works and what it means. Reality is far too complex to be "explained by science" so your words can lead one to believe it already is. Many physicists don't even believe in reality per se and every meaning of "explanation" implies a basis in reality. While it seeks to explain events and processes "about the world' it can do so theoretically. All "learning" about reality must be based on empirical knowledge as interpreted in terms of theory.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

That would be fine, too. I'm just trying to understand what motivates cladking. I can't shake the intuition that all of this fulfils some need. I assume it as a principle of neurology and psychology - that his mind like yours and mine operates according to some principles analogous to physical systems seeking lowest energy or maximal entropy.

I suppose that the intuition that thought and behavior are determined by physical processes comes from the determinist and materialist in me. I'm trying to understand what he gets out of this and thus what drives him to post this way. Ostensibly, he has a message he wants to communicate, which is why he has come to a message board to participate, but it seems like it must be something else given the resistance to clarification. So, what then? What propels this sky-is-falling posting absent any other message

Not to me. I read your words to decide which of your ideas I can agree with. One purpose of critical analysis is to bring sound reasoning to the arguments of others. It's also valuable to discover where we disagree and why.

Information is only flowing one way - from me to you. which is why you haven't needed to ask me to clarify anything. You know what I mean because, like most posters here, I write in plain English. You might not agree with me, but there isn't one phrase there that you can't understand. I've communicated to you.

But you're not doing your part. Information isn't coming back. My questions and requests go unanswered.

Agreed. There needs to be another reason to continue. I know what mine is. Do you know yours?

I find the inherent contradictions to be amusing. A claim that "true" science only comes from experiment rendered in concert with empty claims that have no evidence from experiment or even observation.

It is the attempts to deny this lack of experimental and observational evidence by claiming that it was offered, but is invisible to others, is most intriguing. Some sort of cognitive dissonance to stay in the conversation it seems.

There isn't even anything offered to form the basis of a suitable hypothesis to test.

Another source of personal amusement is the projection employed. Equally, another presentation of contradiction.