Who here believes in "Scientism"?

[mikkel_the_dane]

I've been accused of it as well, usually in the context of what we've covered....a science denier loses a debate, and in trying to save face accuses the other person of "scientism".

Well, yes, and I am a solipsist and nihilist, though I am neither.
I don't recall you as one of those, who actually do it. But apparently what @Quintessence did, is not enough for you. But that is a close as you will get,

 

[Quintessence]

That's the point....I keep hearing how "many" at RF believe in scientism, but no one will show any post where it's espoused, no one will say who advocates it, nor will anyone admit to believing it (so far).

So if no one can point to it or name an advocate, and no one admits to it, it's nothing more than a baseless pejorative (in my experience, one science deniers throw around when they've lost a debate).

Perhaps this thread will show otherwise.

So... that's not going to happen because....

I tried asking that earlier and was informed that answering it is against the rules.

... this is very much the case. Even if I wanted to dig up a past example of scientistic thought being expressed by an RF member, it would not be in keeping with the rules for me (or anyone) to go and point at it.

 

[Quintessence]

I've been accused of it as well, usually in the context of what we've covered....a science denier loses a debate, and in trying to save face accuses the other person of "scientism".

To add, personally when I've called out scientism it's most certainly not about science denialism. It's been to call out applying the sciences in places where it doesn't make any sense to limit to that way of understanding the world, or where someone is being almost dogmatic in their approach to applying science.

An example of that would be people using neurological research to "prove" that souls don't exist. Or using biological evolution to "prove" that mythic creation tales have no use of value to anyone.

 

[Jose Fly]

So... that's not going to happen because....



... this is very much the case. Even if I wanted to dig up a past example of scientistic thought being expressed by an RF member, it would not be in keeping with the rules for me (or anyone) to go and point at it.

Reply to the post where scientism is espoused, then link to your reply....entirely within the rules (you're only linking to your own post).

 

[Jose Fly]

To add, personally when I've called out scientism it's most certainly not about science denialism. It's been to call out applying the sciences in places where it doesn't make any sense to limit to that way of understanding the world, or where someone is being almost dogmatic in their approach to applying science.

An example of that would be people using neurological research to "prove" that souls don't exist. Or using biological evolution to "prove" that mythic creation tales have no use of value to anyone.

Without any context, it's impossible to respond to that.

 

[Secret Chief]

For anything unreal like ideals, morals, constructs, laws, stories,

I find it rather weird that you term these as "unreal." Try speeding down the motorway and then explain to the police officer that laws are unreal.

 

[Heyo]

I find it rather weird that you term these as "unreal." Try speeding down the motorway and then explain to the police officer that laws are unreal.

I don't insist on the term, just on the concept. Call it "not physical" if you like, it's the same to me.

 

[Quintessence]

Reply to the post where scientism is espoused, then link to your reply....entirely within the rules (you're only linking to your own post).

That's not how that works. Just so you know.

Without any context, it's impossible to respond to that.

What context is necessary? If someone insists that modern research on the human brain definitively proves that the idea of souls is bollocks, that's scientism. It's an utter failure to recognize what sciences can (and can't) tell us about the universe (notably, that it can't comment on souls at all because it's a metaphysical concept).

 

[Jose Fly]

That's not how that works. Just so you know.

Seriously? How the hell are you supposed to engage in a debate if you can't quote your opponent's words or even link to your own posts?

For example, many debates are about who said what. How are those supposed to be resolved if no one is allowed to link to a post where the person said what they deny saying?

What context is necessary? If someone insists that modern research on the human brain definitively proves that the idea of souls is bollocks, that's scientism.

No it's not (see the OP).

It's an utter failure to recognize what sciences can (and can't) tell us about the universe (notably, that it can't comment on souls at all because it's a metaphysical concept).

That depends on other factors, such as whether or not "soul" was previously defined and if so, how. None of that context was in your post.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Seriously? How the hell are you supposed to engage in a debate if you can't quote your opponent's words or even link to your own posts?

For example, many debates are about who said what. How are those supposed to be resolved if no one is allowed to link to a post where the person said what they deny saying?


No it's not (see the OP).


That depends on other factors, such as whether or not "soul" was previously defined and if so, how. None of that context was in your post.

Your definition is only one variant.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

To add, personally when I've called out scientism it's most certainly not about science denialism. It's been to call out applying the sciences in places where it doesn't make any sense to limit to that way of understanding the world, or where someone is being almost dogmatic in their approach to applying science.

An example of that would be people using neurological research to "prove" that souls don't exist. Or using biological evolution to "prove" that mythic creation tales have no use of value to anyone.

Also see it when people in the fields of 'hard science' dismiss 'soft sciences' because empiricism isn't nearly as useful for their function. Or, people pretending that empiricism is super important for the majority of social and a lot of medical science, which relies intensively on subjective reporting and unverifiable claims. And the refusal to accept unverifiable claims leading to a lot of ignoring patients when they report pain without source, or psychiatric care which is administered to too small a sample size to have evidence based results. Ditto things like rejection of gender studies, which you see a disturbing excess of in 'skeptical' communities.

That scientism bothers me a lot more than the scientism going on in Dawkinsian cirlce-jerks where you can't get five posts without someone going 'UH EVIDENCE?!'

 

[Jose Fly]

Your definition is only one variant.

Scientism - Wikipedia

Scientism is the opinion that science and the scientific method are the best or only way to render truth about the world and reality.[1][2]

While the term was defined originally to mean "methods and attitudes typical of or attributed to natural scientists", some scholars (and subsequently many others) also adopted it as a pejorative term with the meaning "an exaggerated trust in the efficacy of the methods of natural science applied to all areas of investigation (as in philosophy, the social sciences, and the humanities)".[3]​

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Scientism - Wikipedia

Scientism is the opinion that science and the scientific method are the best or only way to render truth about the world and reality.[1][2]

While the term was defined originally to mean "methods and attitudes typical of or attributed to natural scientists", some scholars (and subsequently many others) also adopted it as a pejorative term with the meaning "an exaggerated trust in the efficacy of the methods of natural science applied to all areas of investigation (as in philosophy, the social sciences, and the humanities)".[3]​

Well, to claim that there are no souls using science is a case of "Scientism is the opinion that science and the scientific method are the best or only way to render truth about the world and reality."

 

[Jose Fly]

Well, to claim that there are no souls using science is a case of "Scientism is the opinion that science and the scientific method are the best or only way to render truth about the world and reality."

No it's not. At worst, it's applying science to one specific area that others feel it's not suited for, but it most certainly isn't anything like saying science is the only way to answer all of our questions about everything.

Can I take your recent objections as an indication that you agree with me that there aren't "many at RF" who advocate for that type of scientism?

 

[Quintessence]

Seriously? How the hell are you supposed to engage in a debate if you can't quote your opponent's words or even link to your own posts?

For example, many debates are about who said what. How are those supposed to be resolved if no one is allowed to link to a post where the person said what they deny saying?

I'm going to assume that you are capable of understanding the difference between this and what you were suggesting earlier. If you aren't, well.. that'll be your problem I guess.

No it's not (see the OP).

So what you're saying is you are asking me to break the rules by posting someone else's content without their permission to call them out an example of scientism? Or would you prefer I magically pretend to convert to scientism and use myself as an example since you will not engage in hypotheticals without pointing fingers at specific users on the site? I'm wrong here, right?

That depends on other factors, such as wh

ether or not "soul" was previously defined and if so, how. None of that context was in your post.

It sounds like you're overthinking this. Whether or not the soul was "previously defined" doesn't sound relevant to me. Can you explain why and how that would be relevant? I mean, it's not as if there isn't an abundance of "previously defined" understandings of the soul going back... er... well, several hundred years, at least? Before science was even a thing?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

No it's not. At worst, it's applying science to one specific area that others feel it's not suited for, but it most certainly isn't anything like saying science is the only way to answer all of our questions about everything.

Can I take your recent objections as an indication that you agree with me that there aren't "many at RF" who advocate for that type of scientism?

So what is the world and reality?
Sorry, but that is important in regards to how you answer a question about souls.

 

[Jose Fly]

I'm going to assume that you are capable of understanding the difference between this and what you were suggesting earlier. If you aren't, well.. that'll be your problem I guess.

No, I don't understand the difference, since some posters here at RF have pulled that stunt with me when I showed where they said something they denied saying. Each time management sided with the complainers.

Heck, I don't even understand why it's so terrible to link to or quote someone's post in the first place. It's all there and a matter of written record, right? I'd think once you post something and leave it up, it's public, visible, and available for other to reply to, quote, or link to. If you don't want anyone to do those things, then delete the post.

Otherwise you have a bizarre situation where people post what they want but no one is allowed to quote or link to it.

So what you're saying is you are asking me to break the rules by posting someone else's content without their permission to call them out an example of scientism? Or would you prefer I magically pretend to convert to scientism and use myself as an example since you will not engage in hypotheticals without pointing fingers at specific users on the site? I'm wrong here, right?

See above. The rule not only makes no sense, it's a direct impediment to debate.

It sounds like you're overthinking this. Whether or not the soul was "previously defined" doesn't sound relevant to me. Can you explain why and how that would be relevant? I mean, it's not as if there isn't an abundance of "previously defined" understandings of the soul going back... er... well, several hundred years, at least? Before science was even a thing?

If for example the person advocating for a "soul" previously asserted that it was a physical, measurable thing, that would be very relevant context.

 

[Jose Fly]

So what is the world and reality?
Sorry, but that is important in regards to how you answer a question about souls.

You didn't answer my question. Again, are you admitting that there aren't "many at RF" who advocate for the view that science is the only means to answer all questions?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You didn't answer my question. Again, are you admitting that there aren't "many at RF" who advocate for the view that science is the only means to answer all questions?

Have I ever said many? They are 2 or more. I gave what 5 examples. That is 10 posters without overlap at minimum. And if recall right it was in effect for both the only or best way to understand the world.

So what is the world and reality to you?

 

[Jose Fly]

Have I ever said many?

Yes, but apparently I'm not allowed to show where you did.

They are 2 or more. I gave what 5 examples. That is 10 posters without overlap at minimum. And if recall right it was in effect for both the only or best way to understand the world.

Um, no you didn't give examples of anyone espousing scientism as defined in the OP.

So what is the world and reality to you?

Off topic. Let's keep this thread on topic please.