Who here believes in "Scientism"?

[Audie]

Physicality is descriptive, not prescriptive. Whether something is physical is determined by whether it interacts with other physical things.



You're desperate to carve out a niche for things that can be real but are exempt from having to be justified rationally, aren't you?

" by reality'

 

[PureX]

Physicality is descriptive, not prescriptive. Whether something is physical is determined by whether it interacts with other physical things.

You're desperate to carve out a niche for things that can be real but are exempt from having to be justified rationally, aren't you?

I don’t have to carve anything out. Reality is already far more than it’s physicality.

 

[Brian2]

That's why it's a bias. It's invisible to those who succumb to it. They think it's the truth just because it's their truth. Another word for it is 'belief': that self-determination that my truth is the truth. The scientism crowd are true believers in science as the only legitimate avenue of truth. It's why so many of them are also atheists. They can't tolerate any other possible avenues of truth. And it's the same with the true believers of God. They likewise cannot tolerate the idea that science might be an alternative avenue of truth. And neither group can see how similar they actually are because their respective bias is blinding them to any possible alternatives.

It's why you often see me disparaging 'belief' on these threads as opposed to faith. Belief closes our eyes to doubt, and therefor to alternative methods and possibilities.

Of course science is an alternative avenue of truth. I don't know anyone who rejects science altogether.

 

[TLK Valentine]

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.

Science is the study of the physical world, and I believe that everything in the physical world can be explained with enough time and effort.
If that makes me a believer in "scientism," so be it.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I don’t have to carve anything out. Reality is already far more than it’s physicality.

I can't tell if you're trying for a "concepts exist and they aren't physical" angle or a "God exists objectively and interacts with physical things but somehow isn't physical himself" angle.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

That's why it's a bias. It's invisible to those who succumb to it. They think it's the truth just because it's their truth. Another word for it is 'belief': that self-determination that my truth is the truth. The scientism crowd are true believers in science as the only legitimate avenue of truth. It's why so many of them are also atheists. They can't tolerate any other possible avenues of truth. And it's the same with the true believers of God. They likewise cannot tolerate the idea that science might be an alternative avenue of truth. And neither group can see how similar they actually are because their respective bias is blinding them to any possible alternatives.

It's why you often see me disparaging 'belief' on these threads as opposed to faith. Belief closes our eyes to doubt, and therefor to alternative methods and possibilities.

That invisibility makes it such a marvelous tool. Because of it, some people can't see it where it is and claim to see it where it isn't. It is as if claiming it exists doesn't even require that it actually does. You can just lob it in and declare it real. It bears a lot of similarities to any claim based on what a person believes.

 

[PureX]

I can't tell if you're trying for a "concepts exist and they aren't physical" angle or a "God exists objectively and interacts with physical things but somehow isn't physical himself" angle.

That's the big problem that comes with philosophical materialism. Exactly that kind of cognitive blindness. It's why philosophers rejected it as soon as it was proposed. Unfortunately, it's foolishness lingers.

 

[PureX]

That invisibility makes it such a marvelous tool. Because of it, some people can't see it where it is and claim to see it where it isn't. It is as if claiming it exists doesn't even require that it actually does. You can just lob it in and declare it real. It bears a lot of similarities to any claim based on what a person believes.

Only the ego sees it as a 'tool'.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That's the big problem that comes with philosophical materialism. Exactly that kind of cognitive blindness. It's why philosophers rejected it as soon as it was proposed. Unfortunately, it's foolishness lingers.

So you're choosing not to explain what you're talking about.

Your choice.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Just because someone can acknowledge the limitations of science doesn't make them anti-science. But YOU would have to be able to acknowledge the limitations of science to understand that.

I would say with great confidence that you believe in scientism. Whether your application of that belief to specific examples is justified or biased remains to be determined.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Only the ego sees it as a 'tool'.

I'm not sure what you mean, but I think people make things tools. We could talk about toolmaking in other organisms, but these are special sorts of tools. This one in particular is a sort of around but never found tool.

 

[PureX]

So you're choosing not to explain what you're talking about.

Your choice.

I'm choosing not to argue with the blind about the reality of color.

 

[PureX]

I would say with great confidence that you believe in scientism. Whether your application of that belief to specific examples is justified or biased remains to be determined.

You can say all kinds of idiotic stuff. It's a free country. And I can simply ignore it as meaningless nonsense. Like when a little kid whines, "Nut-huh, YOU did!"

 

[Audie]

So you're choosing not to explain what you're talking about.

Your choice.

Will not, or cannot ?

 

[Audie]

I'm choosing not to argue with the blind about the reality of color.

You is the blind saying there's really something there.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I'm choosing not to argue with the blind about the reality of color.

Even the blind can confirm the existence of colour through intersubjective verification: ask many sighted people who colour an object is; if they all agree, then you know to a high degree of certainty what the colour is.

OTOH, when someone claims to "see" things that nobody else can see, the best explanation is hallucination.

 

[Audie]

Even the blind can confirm the existence of colour through intersubjective verification: ask many sighted people who colour an object is; if they all agree, then you know to a high degree of certainty what the colour is.

OTOH, when someone claims to "see" things that nobody else can see, the best explanation is hallucination.

More, the existence if not the experience
of colour is readily explained.

 

[RestlessSoul]

More, the existence if not the experience
of colour is readily explained.

Yes, it’s the experience that remains unexplained

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You can say all kinds of idiotic stuff.

Is it idiotic to point out the fact that you believe scientism is real and widespread? The evidence supports that you believe this. Your own words being that evidence.

It's a free country.

It is, but I'm glad to know that you agree.

And I can simply ignore it as meaningless nonsense.

You can and often do regardless of the validity of what you ignore or any personal application of relevant rebuttal on your part.

Like when a little kid whines, "Nut-huh, YOU did!"

Like when a grown adult does that too.

Clearly, you believe this is the full and total belief system of anyone arguing for science. I have seen you freely apply it to any science that you don't like and cannot rebut in any reasonable way. Better and easier to label it a boogieman than to take the time to learn something or look beyond your own bias? Right? Right.

 

[Audie]

Yes, it’s the experience that remains unexplained

Oh? How much explanation do you need?