Who here believes in "Scientism"?

[Dan From Smithville]

As predicted.

 

[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.

The revolution that was started by Bacon, Descartes and Galileo was for a new foundation for learning. It was very successful. I think that success threatens some people, especially those that want to believe certain things without challenge.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

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.

Hola from Mexico, amigo

I want to make a distinction between science and empiricism, not because I think you need it, but because I think looking at the distinction between them for a moment is helpful. Science is a formalized subset of empiricism, but you might agree that it is the same kind of learning we all do from birth as we experience and interact with the world. We are shaped by experience from the start. Effortlessly, our brains and minds generate inductions about what to expect in future similar situations - what makes Daddy angry, what tastes good, etc..

Is that science? Is the baby doing science? Not deliberately or knowingly, and not in a laboratory or observatory, but he's accumulating knowledge through experiencing reality and successfully generalizing about some limited aspect of it. And my point will be that that is the only way to learn correct ideas about how the world works and what to expect various choices to make follow.

No, I wouldn't call the baby a scientist, but he is an empiricist.

Regarding your comment - science is not the only or best way to learn about the world - I agree with that if by science you mean what scientists do and the knowledge they impart. Most useful information and correct belief comes directly from personal experience. You would probably agree that empiricism is the only path to understanding how the phenomenal world works, that is, what outcomes and subsequent experiences to expect under various circumstances.

Isn't all knowledge acquired this way by all of us and only this way? Can beliefs acquired nonempirically, that is, accepted uncritically and by faith - be called knowledge?

To clarify, my criterion for calling a particular belief knowledge is that it be demonstrably correct, that is, it successfully predicts outcomes in the world. The idea that I know from experience that I can get a good Italian meal about five miles away meets that criterion if when I go there, I find what I wanted and was expecting. Ideas that work reliably can be called knowledge and no other kind of belief ought to be called that. And learning is acquiring new knowledge, which is always empirically as knowledge is defined here.

You might disagree.

I like that phrase jackhammer. It is so fitting to the approach that one has to take in order to express themselves amid all this negative effort.

You're being heard. There's a contingent that resists you, but they're not your audience. There's a contingent reading along and agreeing that you don't hear from (until now). Recognizing who you are actually communicating with might change your perspective on this activity. It did mine.

Digression, also not directed at you in particular: As I experience it, this experience on RF is an education I can't get elsewhere. It comes from a few sources. I learn from the like-minded people with various expertises - people like you, the entomologist and what I call a theistic humanist. I call that the lecture section. I learn from observing the spectrum of believers and nonbelievers who participate here and generalizing about the effects of various religious beliefs - mostly Abrahamic or polytheistic=pagan, Dharmic - using the spectrum of unbelievers as a control. I call that the lab section. Where else can I read such words, words written over weeks to years between anonymous writers that appear nowhere else in our lives such as at work or the Thanksgiving table, where discussion is brief and often highly self-censored.

That's not all. Participating on a message board is a chance to hone up on critical thinking skills such as learning to identify and name logical fallacies. One gets a chance to refine his arguments over time. One gets practice writing. And it's entertaining.

accepting isn't necessarily believing. One needs no verifiable facts to believe something. One can accept possibilities without believing their likelihoods to be true.

The words are often used differently by different writers. I agree with you if you mean that accepting that something is possible is not the same as accepting that it is actual. To believe an idea is to consider it to be correct, and some people can do that without evidence ("verifiable facts"), but the critical thinker requires empirical confirmation that an idea is correct as I alluded above. He DOES need empirical verification that an idea is correct before believing it describes reality, but not to accept that an idea that is not yet shown to be impossible should be considered possible until it is shown to be impossible or actual.

Duct tape and spit. That's how I keep it all together.

There's an old joke that a poor man's tool kit contains only duct tape and a can of WD-40. The duct tape is for everything that moves but shouldn't, and the WD-40 is for everything that doesn't move but should.

Believers in science are the most mystical of all.

I'm going to challenge you about what the phrase "believer in science" means to you - another chance to explore language and communication. What's true in your opinion about a believer in science that allows you to distinguish him from whatever you consider an unbeliever in science? I ask because if you can't give a concrete answer, the term really refers to nothing specific. Are believers in science different from those that believe that science is a path to understanding? That latter phrase describes me, but I don't "believe in" anything, the phrase implying belief by faith to me.

My public persona rejects mysticism in its entirety and is strictly intuitive and empirical. But I certainly have some mystical traits and proclivities. I don't consider them relevant except in some interpersonal interactions. I suppose too there is some limited element of mysticism even in intuition.

That was in response to, "One cannot rely on empiricism too much, but one can rely on it too little," which you didn't address. One cannot rely too much on experience properly understood. That's never wrong. But one can rely on faith to one's peril, especially faith in ideas that are contradicted by existing evidence. This is often how people get defrauded and otherwise make poor choices in life (work, relationships). As I said, it is never wrong to examine evidence open-mindedly with the ability to go where the rules of reason take him and the willingness to be convinced by as compelling argument. That's empiricism. But it might be a mistake to believe ideas that don't pass that test. That's too little empiricism.

Induction is not a proper way for me to learn anything at all.

It's the only way I learn, or rather, an integral part of that. Experience -> tentative induction -> future situation -> deduction -> experience -> confirmation (or disconfirmation of the validity of the combined induction and deduction). Deduction is prediction. Successful prediction is confirmation. This is what learning is, and induction is a huge part of it. It's how we learn what works how and how to successfully predict the effects of causes including driving five miles to the Italian restaurant for a meal. Look at the steps above and see how they apply to acquiring and successfully applying knowledge about the restaurant.

Any learning derived from induction is always suspect and must be confirmed through other means.

Yes. We should test our hypothesis (induction) before relying on it. We shouldn't call it learning (or knowledge) until our inductions are confirmed empirically as just outlined. Being a correct idea means being demonstrably correct.

 

[RestlessSoul]

If my garden has become overrun with an insect pest, what is the best method for me to employ to find some positive resolution and save my crops?

Drown the crop in pesticides that kill all insects indiscriminately, and then get flushed into the nearest river, polluting the waterways?

 

[cladking]

There's an old joke that a poor man's tool kit contains only duct tape and a can of WD-40. The duct tape is for everything that moves but shouldn't, and the WD-40 is for everything that doesn't move but should.

I'm old school. It's baling wire for things that shouldn't move and a 12 lb sledge for things that should.

 

[cladking]

I'm going to challenge you about what the phrase "believer in science" means to you - another chance to explore language and communication. What's true in your opinion about a believer in science that allows you to distinguish him from whatever you consider an unbeliever in science? I ask because if you can't give a concrete answer, the term really refers to nothing specific. Are believers in science different from those that believe that science is a path to understanding? That latter phrase describes me, but I don't "believe in" anything, the phrase implying belief by faith to me.

A "believer" which is almost exactly the same thing as scientism, is an individual who doesn't understand why science works. The worst believe it's true because it's in a text and the best think it's true because science runs on genius and only Peers are geniuses. Science is based on definition and axioms and is interpreted by experiment. It changes in fits and starts because paradigms affects various parts of science. It's very difficult to see these shifts because they are quickly forgotten and everyone thinks science never changes but is only tweaked. It changes one funeral at a time because it is the nature of homo omnisciencis to not understand that we each perceive a separate reality based on our beliefs that usually last a lifetime.

We're all mystics but those who believe in science are not only the holiest of thous but also the most mystical.

Believers in science are constantly telling you what is what instead of trying to explain why what is. They are usually literally wrong because reality is always far too complex to put into a simple blurb. Even if you could summarize something into a blurb the fact is it still can't be true because everything has to be parsed and you can't force people to parse it correctly even if you define every damn term (metaphysics is the basis of science), because people are a product of what they believe.

A believer knows there is no God and that reality behaves natural laws which he can look up in a book if he doesn't already know. He knows nothing in science can be proven but his own beliefs are sacrosanct because Peers tell him so. Most call themselves "skeptics" but in point of fact they swallowed a bill of goods.

That was in response to, "One cannot rely on empiricism too much, but one can rely on it too little," which you didn't address.

Sure I did. I said I rely on it too much.

One cannot rely too much on experience properly understood.

All true knowledge is experiential.

But one can rely on faith to one's peril, especially faith in ideas that are contradicted by existing evidence.

Of course!

As I said, it is never wrong to examine evidence open-mindedly with the ability to go where the rules of reason take him and the willingness to be convinced by as compelling argument.

And I still disagree.

Most important things in life can not be addressed logically and scientifically. Having such a mindset is a great idea but we shouldn't delude ourselves into believing that most questions can be addressed in such manner.

It's the only way I learn, or rather, an integral part of that. Experience -> tentative induction -> future situation -> deduction -> experience -> confirmation (or disconfirmation of the validity of the combined induction and deduction). Deduction is prediction.

I understand that.

It still doesn't work for me. I must use logic and theory through deduction and almost always have. All of my conclusions are tentative.

Perhaps I do some induction for learning since taxonomies are a handy mnemonic and we all have to know what they mean to others. But I don't use it for modelling or thought.

Successful prediction is confirmation.

I'm actually extremely good at some types of prediction. But when it comes to something like picking a restaurant I'm more likely to go anywhere and asking the waitress what's good. I'm extremely weak in many areas especially where I'm not extremely strong.

Yes. We should test our hypothesis (induction) before relying on it. We shouldn't call it learning (or knowledge) until our inductions are confirmed empirically as just outlined. Being a correct idea means being demonstrably correct.

You might be getting into what I call 'anecdotal evidence". I'm a big believer in the efficacy and accuracy of anecdotal evidence when properly sampled. It's might be related to my mystical side which holds reality wants us each to succeed even on our worst days. Induction just has very limited use for me since I don't mind holding ideas with only a 5% probability of being true,. Sometimes 5% is as close as you can get.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Drown the crop in pesticides that kill all insects indiscriminately, and then get flushed into the nearest river, polluting the waterways?

Maybe that is the right thing to do, given that I can't know anything with absolute certainty and accepting any science saying that is dangerous to the environment is scientism and therefore wrong.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Hola from Mexico, amigo

I want to make a distinction between science and empiricism, not because I think you need it, but because I think looking at the distinction between them for a moment is helpful. Science is a formalized subset of empiricism, but you might agree that it is the same kind of learning we all do from birth as we experience and interact with the world. We are shaped by experience from the start. Effortlessly, our brains and minds generate inductions about what to expect in future similar situations - what makes Daddy angry, what tastes good, etc..

Is that science? Is the baby doing science? Not deliberately or knowingly, and not in a laboratory or observatory, but he's accumulating knowledge through experiencing reality and successfully generalizing about some limited aspect of it. And my point will be that that is the only way to learn correct ideas about how the world works and what to expect various choices to make follow.

No, I wouldn't call the baby a scientist, but he is an empiricist.

Regarding your comment - science is not the only or best way to learn about the world - I agree with that if by science you mean what scientists do and the knowledge they impart. Most useful information and correct belief comes directly from personal experience. You would probably agree that empiricism is the only path to understanding how the phenomenal world works, that is, what outcomes and subsequent experiences to expect under various circumstances.

Isn't all knowledge acquired this way by all of us and only this way? Can beliefs acquired nonempirically, that is, accepted uncritically and by faith - be called knowledge?

To clarify, my criterion for calling a particular belief knowledge is that it be demonstrably correct, that is, it successfully predicts outcomes in the world. The idea that I know from experience that I can get a good Italian meal about five miles away meets that criterion if when I go there, I find what I wanted and was expecting. Ideas that work reliably can be called knowledge and no other kind of belief ought to be called that. And learning is acquiring new knowledge, which is always empirically as knowledge is defined here.

You might disagree.

Not at all. I agree with your assessment. Examples of empiricism, especially to to the point that it might rightfully be referred to a proto-science exist in many facets of life. Technologically primitive groups can practice empiricism in how they carry out their daily lives and instances of this hav been documented and even used as examples of the development of science.

Empiricism and science are the best means I can think of to learn about the phenomenal world and that is by no means mysticism. I can't even imagine how one would come to such an obtuse idea.

You're being heard. There's a contingent that resists you, but they're not your audience. There's a contingent reading along and agreeing that you don't hear from (until now). Recognizing who you are actually communicating with might change your perspective on this activity. It did mine.

I find more and more that there are certain posters to which is of no benefit to try and reach. The frustration of trying to get them to learn and to recognize the flaws in their proclamations has grown beyond interest to wade through. What has been referred to as, and I think correctly, is a type of "faux stupidity" that obscures and harms discussion rather than facilitate it. The pattern appears to be asking questions, followed by many posts of the faux stupid sort, then a period of quiescence followed by a repetition of the questions that have already been answered many times, but are asked again as if they were brand new. It seems more of a tactic to keep the arguments going than to address anything and certainly not for learning, since most of those doing it seem to believe they know everything anyway.

Digression, also not directed at you in particular: As I experience it, this experience on RF is an education I can't get elsewhere. It comes from a few sources. I learn from the like-minded people with various expertises - people like you, the entomologist and what I call a theistic humanist. I call that the lecture section. I learn from observing the spectrum of believers and nonbelievers who participate here and generalizing about the effects of various religious beliefs - mostly Abrahamic or polytheistic=pagan, Dharmic - using the spectrum of unbelievers as a control. I call that the lab section. Where else can I read such words, words written over weeks to years between anonymous writers that appear nowhere else in our lives such as at work or the Thanksgiving table, where discussion is brief and often highly self-censored.

I have to remember the value of learning even from seemingly nonsensical sources and remind myself that is one of the key reasons for participating. The quality varies, but certainly not all of the posts here are nonsensical. Many of them are well worth the cost of admission.

That's not all. Participating on a message board is a chance to hone up on critical thinking skills such as learning to identify and name logical fallacies. One gets a chance to refine his arguments over time. One gets practice writing. And it's entertaining.

I agree completely. I will sometimes reverse engineer what has been posted by others and even by myself to recognize or remove those sorts of flaws. Sometimes, when you are responding in a hurry, errors will creep in more quickly and get passed filtering. It is definitely very fertile ground to test ideas, sharpen writing and arguing skills and experience different perspectives, knowledge and ideas.

The words are often used differently by different writers. I agree with you if you mean that accepting that something is possible is not the same as accepting that it is actual. To believe an idea is to consider it to be correct, and some people can do that without evidence ("verifiable facts"), but the critical thinker requires empirical confirmation that an idea is correct as I alluded above. He DOES need empirical verification that an idea is correct before believing it describes reality, but not to accept that an idea that is not yet shown to be impossible should be considered possible until it is shown to be impossible or actual.

Knowing that the functional definition many of use for the word accepting in this context has been defined and described so often, it seems to me that instances where it is seen as otherwise are purposefully contrived to create controversy. And this in a wider context that some claim they are fully versed in where that term is used as defined in these posts, seems to offer similar support of that idea.

There's an old joke that a poor man's tool kit contains only duct tape and a can of WD-40. The duct tape is for everything that moves but shouldn't, and the WD-40 is for everything that doesn't move but should.

There are a few pieces of minor, but key technology with broad application like duct tape and WD-40 that I continue find new uses for with imagination and growing experience.

I'm going to challenge you about what the phrase "believer in science" means to you - another chance to explore language and communication. What's true in your opinion about a believer in science that allows you to distinguish him from whatever you consider an unbeliever in science? I ask because if you can't give a concrete answer, the term really refers to nothing specific. Are believers in science different from those that believe that science is a path to understanding? That latter phrase describes me, but I don't "believe in" anything, the phrase implying belief by faith to me.

I see a lot of those phrases used as pejorative to replace cogent rebuttal that apparently cannot be mustered. I see it used as a means to demean other posters and their ideas when there is nothing substantial available accept what amounts to unacknowledged personal belief with no basis. The sky is falling crowd that has no specific idea to offer regarding what they mean. The don't understand speciation crowd that invents new taxonomy without any clear understanding of speciation or how existing taxa are defined.

That was in response to, "One cannot rely on empiricism too much, but one can rely on it too little," which you didn't address. One cannot rely too much on experience properly understood. That's never wrong. But one can rely on faith to one's peril, especially faith in ideas that are contradicted by existing evidence.

Or ideas that are contradicted by the person offering the ideas. To me that says a lot about how most of what they offer is grounded more in a belief basis than a fact/reason basis.

This is often how people get defrauded and otherwise make poor choices in life (work, relationships). As I said, it is never wrong to examine evidence open-mindedly with the ability to go where the rules of reason take him and the willingness to be convinced by as compelling argument. That's empiricism. But it might be a mistake to believe ideas that don't pass that test. That's too little empiricism.

Agreed.

It's the only way I learn, or rather, an integral part of that. Experience -> tentative induction -> future situation -> deduction -> experience -> confirmation (or disconfirmation of the validity of the combined induction and deduction). Deduction is prediction. Successful prediction is confirmation. This is what learning is, and induction is a huge part of it. It's how we learn what works how and how to successfully predict the effects of causes including driving five miles to the Italian restaurant for a meal. Look at the steps above and see how they apply to acquiring and successfully applying knowledge about the restaurant.

Certainly not mysticism. Experience and evaluation of that experience logically.

Yes. We should test our hypothesis (induction) before relying on it. We shouldn't call it learning (or knowledge) until our inductions are confirmed empirically as just outlined. Being a correct idea means being demonstrably correct.

Yes.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I'm going to challenge you about what the phrase "believer in science" means to you - another chance to explore language and communication. What's true in your opinion about a believer in science that allows you to distinguish him from whatever you consider an unbeliever in science? I ask because if you can't give a concrete answer, the term really refers to nothing specific. Are believers in science different from those that believe that science is a path to understanding? That latter phrase describes me, but I don't "believe in" anything, the phrase implying belief by faith to me.

I and others see what appears to be an application of the concept of projection many instances where terms like believer, Peer, and similar are used as pejoratives in lieu of valid rebuttal. Anyone supporting a scientific position with evidence or asking for evidence in support of another's claim often receive these from others that appear to be acting in full accordance with the pejoratives they hand out.

 

[YoursTrue]

Maybe that is the right thing to do, given that I can't know anything with absolute certainty and accepting any science saying that is dangerous to the environment is scientism and therefore wrong.

Ah, I was waiting for your answer. So you're not certain that pesticides are dangerous for the environment?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Ah, I was waiting for your answer. So you're not certain that pesticides are dangerous for the environment?

I would suggest that you reread things several times to make sure you comprehend what you are reading.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Maybe that is the right thing to do, given that I can't know anything with absolute certainty and accepting any science saying that is dangerous to the environment is scientism and therefore wrong.

We don’t need certainty, before making a decision. Usually it’s enough to search our consciences, and do what seems to us the next right thing.

 

[YoursTrue]

I would suggest that you reread things several times to make sure you comprehend what you are reading.

ok. I was just hearing an ad from a law firm saying that certain pesticides cause cancer. So maybe some people would think it's ok to use pesticides that cause cancer anyway.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

ok. I was just hearing an ad from a law firm saying that certain pesticides cause cancer. So maybe some people would think it's ok to use pesticides that cause cancer anyway.

That is in the end a value assesment in the following sense.
If the use of pestice* get us over time a net postive for how many more people we can feed then let us call the amount of more people X, then if X is greater that the number of people dying from cancer caused by that*, some people will then claim it is okay.
Do you understand that?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

We don’t need certainty, before making a decision. Usually it’s enough to search our consciences, and do what seems to us the next right thing.

I'm just reviewing the options open to me for learning and decision making, since accepting science is scientism and I don't want that.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

The pattern appears to be asking questions, followed by many posts of the faux stupid sort, then a period of quiescence followed by a repetition of the questions that have already been answered many times, but are asked again as if they were brand new.

Worlds combine on RF. People with little to no exposure to academic culture encounter those experienced at critical thinking and who have absorbed the university demeanor. So, maybe one hasn't been down that road but finds himself on RF in discussion with others who have. How do he handle that? He makes a faith-based claim and is met with a rebuttal, to which he is expected to offer counterargument if he disagrees, but he doesn't know about these rules, and so he handles it as he always has, using any manner of persuasion that he thinks will be effective.

If this is an evolution-creationism discussion, he'll handle it like the preacher would. He'll just disregard what he just heard or read, gird his loin with faith, perhaps utter a silent "get thee behind me, Satan," and repeat himself with more conviction. TV preachers and apologetics web site theologians make good models for this as well. Stubborn, often emotional insistence is presented as a virtue. This is also antithetical to academic culture.

A "believer" which is almost exactly the same thing as scientism, is an individual who doesn't understand why science works. The worst believe it's true because it's in a text and the best think it's true because science runs on genius and only Peers are geniuses.

Where do you encounter such people in such numbers that you see this as a problem worth commenting on repeatedly on a thread with nobody making those claims?

I don't mind holding ideas with only a 5% probability of being true

If you mean believing them, I wonder why not. My goal is to hold only correct beliefs, that is, those that accurately predict outcomes. I want no false beliefs, and no unfalsifiable (neither correct nor incorrect) beliefs.

 

[cladking]

If you mean believing them, I wonder why not. My goal is to hold only correct beliefs, that is, those that accurately predict outcomes. I want no false beliefs, and no unfalsifiable (neither correct nor incorrect) beliefs.

Belief is an integral part of the nature of our species. In order to have no false beliefs we must have no beliefs.

Our heads are crammed full of beliefs in order to learn language.

Where do you encounter such people in such numbers that you see this as a problem worth commenting on repeatedly on a thread with nobody making those claims?

Belief is an integral part of the nature of our species; homo omnisciencis.

Scientism is the holiest and most dangerous of all religions.

 

[cladking]

Worlds combine on RF. People with little to no exposure to academic culture encounter those experienced at critical thinking and who have absorbed the university demeanor. So, maybe one hasn't been down that road but finds himself on RF in discussion with others who have. How do he handle that? He makes a faith-based claim and is met with a rebuttal, to which he is expected to offer counterargument if he disagrees, but he doesn't know about these rules, and so he handles it as he always has, using any manner of persuasion that he thinks will be effective.

If this is an evolution-creationism discussion, he'll handle it like the preacher would. He'll just disregard what he just heard or read, gird his loin with faith, perhaps utter a silent "get thee behind me, Satan," and repeat himself with more conviction. TV preachers and apologetics web site theologians make good models for this as well. Stubborn, often emotional insistence is presented as a virtue. This is also antithetical to academic culture.

Where do you encounter such people in such numbers that you see this as a problem worth commenting on repeatedly on a thread with nobody making those claims?

If you mean believing them, I wonder why not. My goal is to hold only correct beliefs, that is, those that accurately predict outcomes. I want no false beliefs, and no unfalsifiable (neither correct nor incorrect) beliefs.

I think you might be forgetting that reason and knowledge are the only tools we have. Those who believe in science believe science is the only tool we have. Science seems to some people to lie outside reason but in reality it is merely another tool that can be used as an adjunct. It can guide our thinking but it is not suitable to guiding our lives. Nothing in science can be proven so it is not suitable as a belief system. People who don't understand the nature of science and the nature of thought are missing the point about science and scientific knowledge.

Science isn't about belief at all but we are. Belief is superstition and superstition kills. Science must be guided by experiment and we must be guided by reason.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

In order to have no false beliefs we must have no beliefs.

We have the ability to discern between ideas that correctly anticipate outcomes and those that don't, and to accumulate only the former.

Those who believe in science believe science is the only tool we have.

I'm not sure what you mean, but empiricism is the only path to knowledge about how the world works.

Scientism is the holiest and most dangerous of all religions.

There is no such thing as scientism - excessive reliance on empiricism. In my experience, nobody uses that word except people who object to their claims being rejected by critical thinkers for failing to meet their standards for belief. They call this excessive reliance on empiricism, but what they mean is insufficient reliance on faith (zero) as a path to knowledge. Somebody makes an unfalsifiable or otherwise insufficiently defended claim, the empiricist says he has no reason to believe that claim, and this is called scientism. What it is is strict empiricism, and as I have already said, it is impossible to rely on sound conclusions too much, but one can rely on it too little. You can't successfully rebut that claim if it is correct.

 

[cladking]

In my experience, nobody uses that word except people who object to their claims being rejected by critical thinkers for failing to meet their standards for belief.

Semantics and words are irrelevant. You can call belief in science by any word you choose and the referent is still superstition.