Who here believes in "Scientism"?

[cladking]

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.

Your point is valid but it allows poor perspectives on the nature of science. To some extent even controlled observation can take on characteristics of "experiment". These are just words we're working with here. If you can measure, predict, or control the unknown through observation than this is "experiment-like". There is no hard and fast definition for "experiment" or any other word whatsoever.

Things like computer modelling, statistics, and wind tunnels have aspects of "experiment" but they are still insufficient to fully support theory. I would call them supportive of theory rather than "theory". Again these are just words but your words reflect bad models and bad models lead to bad results.

 

[cladking]

Claiming to be able to see "true" science is a religious conviction that is not science and not an ability established in fact.

Exactly.

I know nothing but scientism has every answer.

 

[cladking]

Additionally, they can be tested by examination of their internal and external logic.

Patently false!!!

Certainly reality is logical which is why it can often be quantified mathematically but we are not able to grasp any logic whatsoever. All statements can be deconstructed to be true or false dependent on the whim of the reader. Deductive logic is a useful tool but it can never never have any effect on the nature of theory.

 

[cladking]

Accepting science is not scientism.

I don't know whether to laugh or run.

Mebbe believers should start getting in peoples' faces and handing out pamphlets in the airports.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

All I have observed are nebulous claims without any substance offered to support them. Personal opinions, and not even very good ones. I do think the very few examples I have seen attempting to pay lip service to requests for evidence, while laughable, indicate that the fact that the "evidence" offered is nonsensical isn't something internally unknown. For example, the existence of cheap bulk agar available from China offered as a reason to reject the findings of the Lenski experiment is too blatant and contrived a trivial effort to be accepted as a evidence of mere ignorance.

I used to fish a lot when I was younger. Occasionally, a fish would slip out of my hands and flop all over trying to hit water. Sometimes, not really knowing, they would flop away from the water. Just flopping head and tail trying to find water. Any water. I think I see that in some posts.

 

[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.

Looks like this remains unchallenged accept for weak attempts using personal opinion and not one bit of evidence from experiment or observation.

I think that anyone that claims they can see "true" science is a believer with a belief impenetrable to logic, reason or evidence.

I wonder what else I can debunk today?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It occurs to me that anyone claiming they know "true" science is in fact, embracing scientism.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Why would someone that accepts the germ theory of disease cause awkward laughter or frantic flight on fumbling feet in fear?

That is accepting science.

 

[cladking]

That is accepting science.

I don't "accept" the germ theory. Rather I see extensive evidence that many specific diseases have germs at their root. Indeed, I believe that most all diseases probably are associated with specific germs. I hypothesize that individuals acquire diseases based largely on genetic and environmental factors that have little to do with the germ that actually is associated with that specific disease. Stress appears to cause disease. Usually we will have just one disease at a time. Just as barren ground will soon be covered with various plants that cooperate to thrive so too will germs try to affect a healthy individual. But every individual animal already has many many different germs and even dangerous ones are very unlikely to make a young healthy active and stress free individual sick.

Once you accept something you are a 'believer".

This isn't intended as the sort of word game others are continually playing with me. I fully understand "accept" has many definitions. I was merely parsing your words as I believe they were intended.

I simply don't accept any theory at all. As believers are continually pointing out no theory is proven and no theory is ever the final word on any subject. believing that germs cause disease is probably impossibly simplistic and doesn't account for consciousness in either the individual or the agent. It doesn't account for all experiment or the tidal effects of Alpha Centauri. It sounds like something a mystic might say.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Based on what I have observed, I think scientism was invented by belief-based thinkers as a straw man to beat on for the successes that have resulted from the knowledge acquired through science and the successful application of that knowledge through technology.

Accepting and believing are not synonymous terms outside of scientism.

Accepting an explanation as the best available based on the evidence is not the same as believing without evidence or reason.

Scientismists may claim the terms are synonyms, but they are wrong. They make a lot of fantastical, baseless, almost mystical nonsense claims to spearhead their denial that science has any value.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Pretending to know what others think or claim to have provided explanations and evidence when it has not been provided is a game that some believers play, because I think they know they have nothing valid to say.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

If science is not a means to learn about the world then what is it? Why bother if there is nothing useful to be found employing it? The evidence supports that germs do cause disease and treatments and cures have been developed and used based on what we have learned following germ theory and other theories. We did not learn these things over the preceding history of humankind from wishing, believing, making up fantastical empty claims, pretending to answer questions we didn't, quote mining, praying, witchcraft, mysticism, logical fallacies or other baseless techniques.

You take what is known. You observe. You ask questions. You test questions through observation or experiment. You learn something. You tell others. They learn something or see the flaws and run their own tests. You both learn something. New ideas arise. New questions. New tests.

On the other hand, you pretend you know things like ancient advanced cultures or fish-eating beavers that have no evidence. You close your mind to science and learning. You preach about your mythical ancients in their flying pyramids powered by seltzer water. Nothing good happens.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The theories of science and the knowledge acquired by science are not inherently evil. A hammer can be used for good or ill and is not inherently evil demanding it be used on human heads rather than those of nails. Science is a tool. How we use it might be where philosophy is better employed than in a battle against a method that has successful results.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I find the inherent contradictions to be amusing.

My word is fascinating (apparently endlessly for me), fascination being a type of amusement, but yes, that's the appeal.

Based on what I have observed, I think scientism was invented by belief-based thinkers as a straw man to beat on for the successes that have resulted from the knowledge acquired through science and the successful application of that knowledge through technology.

The word is a bit like "woke" now. It means nothing when used to describe empiricists (see below).

I don't "accept" the germ theory. Rather I see extensive evidence that many specific diseases have germs at their root.

That's you accepting the theory right there. The theory is that there are diseases that are caused by microscopic living organisms invading and harming other living things. Imagine what it was like to be alive when that news came out - living things that can kill you are invisible and everywhere.

I'm sorry but this appears to be mystical. Scientism.

I've seen that word used two different ways, one derogatory as you are using it here, and one much less commonly, one non-judgmentally descriptive and essentially the same as philosophical naturalism ("empiricism is the only path to knowledge."). One cannot rely on empiricism too much, but one can rely on it too little.

Reality is far too complex to be "explained by science"

My world is not too complex for me to benefit from approaching it empirically.

All "learning" about reality must be based on empirical knowledge as interpreted in terms of theory.

Yes, knowledge follows from observation and successful induction, and only from these. That's what I call knowledge, and the acquisition of such ideas learning.

Are you turning to scientism now? Those advocating for faith as a path to knowledge would call you excessively reliant on empiricism for it.

To some extent even controlled observation can take on characteristics of "experiment".

Experiment is controlled observation assuming that you mean that what is being controlled is what is being observed rather than the means of observing it such as a telescope or a pair of eyeballs.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

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.

Well, you asked for a more reasoned challange.
Now remember I am not a metaphyiscal supernaturalist and all the rest. For the purpose of this, I am a skeptic.

The bold one is all I need, because in effect the question is if all learning about the world can be done objectively. That is where it ends in practice for actual scientism.
Now in my culture there are 7 variants of science and the hard one from your culture is not the only one.
In short there are your exchanges as you are engaged in them and then there are if science needs to be only about that which can be tested objectively, observed objectively and reasoned about objectively.
Or if you can include a limited version of subjectivity.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

My word is fascinating (apparently endlessly for me), fascination being a type of amusement, but yes, that's the appeal.

The word is a bit like "woke" now. It means nothing when used to describe empiricists (see below).

That's you accepting the theory right there. The theory is that there are diseases that are caused by microscopic living organisms invading and harming other living things. Imagine what it was like to be alive when that news came out - living things that can kill you are invisible and everywhere.

I've seen that word used two different ways, one derogatory as you are using it here, and one much less commonly, one non-judgmentally descriptive and essentially the same as philosophical naturalism ("empiricism is the only path to knowledge."). One cannot rely on empiricism too much, but one can rely on it too little.

My world is not too complex for me to benefit from approaching it empirically.

Yes, knowledge follows from observation and successful induction, and only from these. That's what I call knowledge, and the acquisition of such ideas learning.

Are you turning to scientism now? Those advocating for faith as a path to knowledge would call you excessively reliant on empiricism for it.

Experiment is controlled observation assuming that you mean that what is being controlled is what is being observed rather than the means of observing it such as a telescope or a pair of eyeballs.

I note with much amusement the claim not to accept any theory at all interlaced with the contradictory advice that learning must be based on the interpretation of experience in terms of theory.

How one can do the latter while holding the former view requires much explanation. Much too complex for any holder of such a view I fear.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Well, you asked for a more reasoned challange.
Now remember I am not a metaphyiscal supernaturalist and all the rest. For the purpose of this, I am a skeptic.

The bold one is all I need, because in effect the question is if all learning about the world can be done objectively. That is where it ends in practice for actual scientism.
Now in my culture there are 7 variants of science and the hard one from your culture is not the only one.
In short there are your exchanges as you are engaged in them and then there are if science needs to be only about that which can be tested objectively, observed objectively and reasoned about objectively.
Or if you can include a limited version of subjectivity.

I'm not sure what you are doing. Are you presenting this as an argument against the idea that science is a method to learn about the world around us?

I'm not claiming it is the only one or the best one, but I will note that we are able to communicate as a result of science applied and not out of any wishing at a distance on our parts.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I accept the possibility that Bigfoot exists. Accepting that possibility does not mean that I believe in Bigfoot.

Seems like I just debunked the claim that accepting something makes you a believer.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I'm not sure what you are doing. Are you presenting this as an argument against the idea that science is a method to learn about the world around us.

I'm not claiming it is the only one or the best one, but I will note that we are able to communicate as a result of science applied and not out of any wishing at a distance on our parts.

No, if science can only be done objectively. And thus is in effect the only form of knowledge we have.
We have at least one poster with that version of science and who is not a believer in the supernatural.

 

[Viker]

Based on what I have observed, I think scientism was invented by belief-based thinkers as a straw man to beat on for the successes that have resulted from the knowledge acquired through science and the successful application of that knowledge through technology.

Accepting and believing are not synonymous terms outside of scientism.

Accepting an explanation as the best available based on the evidence is not the same as believing without evidence or reason.

Scientismists may claim the terms are synonyms, but they are wrong. They make a lot of fantastical, baseless, almost mystical nonsense claims to spearhead their denial that science has any value.

Exactly!