Who here believes in "Scientism"?

[PureX]

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.

And the amazing thing is that you somehow think this matters.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Of course science is an alternative avenue of truth.

I wouldn't say truth, but more of an avenue to knowledge and to the most correct way to understand based on the evidence.

I don't know anyone who rejects science altogether.

I do. Many people claim to accept some science, but then list technology that doesn't cause the palpitations for its existence and not much or nothing about the science behind that technology. For the most part, those rejecting science don't seem to know much about science and don't seem all that interested in learning either.

The same basic methodology, study, experiment, observation and scrutiny is applied to the evidence for evolution as it is to the construction of roads, development of medicine and vaccines, or the management of traffic. Yet, you will see people reject the former and not really know what was done to achieve any of the latter.

It is not simply the case of two people looking at the same evidence and coming to different conclusions. It is people that don't have any idea and base their conclusions on what they feel or have been told to do otherwise you are not a "true" whatever compared to someone knowledgeable of the subject matter and skilled in the arts of studying that subject. The two opinions may not just be different, but often radically unequal. Yet, that doesn't stop someone from holding to a weak, almost immaterial, conclusion solely because that is the one they are emotionally comfortable with.

The funny thing is, as I see it, is that you can have beliefs and accept science too. You just have to come to grips with the fact that a personal interpretation of the claims of those beliefs may not be as sound as it is wished to be.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

And the amazing thing is that you somehow think this matters.

And the amazing thing is that you keep responding to it as if it does to you.

I appreciate your kind support.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

And the amazing thing is that you somehow think this matters.

Don't you think that it rings with you so much that you respond to it, because it is identifying a bias that you don't want to admit exists?

 

[RestlessSoul]

Oh? How much explanation do you need?

If you can explain why any physical state is conscious rather than non conscious, why it is that humans and other organisms have qualitative experiences, why we are self aware, and why conscious mental states light up like a movie before the conscious agent, let’s hear it.

 

[Audie]

If you can explain why any physical state is conscious rather than non conscious, why it is that humans and other organisms have qualitative experiences, why we are self aware, and why conscious mental states light up like a movie before the conscious agent, let’s hear it.

If you is gonna expand so much...
How about ask for complrte rundown
of all knowledge possible and impossible

 

[IndigoChild5559]

If you can explain why any physical state is conscious rather than non conscious, why it is that humans and other organisms have qualitative experiences, why we are self aware, and why conscious mental states light up like a movie before the conscious agent, let’s hear it.

It used to be that the word conscious meant you were in a state of mind where you are aware of what is going on around you. In this version then, being asleep would be being unconscious.

But lately I have seen the word conscious meaning all the different brain states. In this usage, being asleep would be considered to be a DIFFERENT state of consciousness, rather than lack of consciousness.

 

[Brian2]

The funny thing is, as I see it, is that you can have beliefs and accept science too. You just have to come to grips with the fact that a personal interpretation of the claims of those beliefs may not be as sound as it is wished to be.

Yes people can have beliefs and accept science too. That does not mean that all scientific conclusions trump what the Bible tells us however.

 

[PureX]

Don't you think that it rings with you so much that you respond to it, because it is identifying a bias that you don't want to admit exists?

I don't need to 'believe in scientism'. I did not create the term, nor did I define it. It's a common observable phenomenon. Like racism. Even though those afflicted cannot recognize it.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Yes people can have beliefs and accept science too. That does not mean that all scientific conclusions trump what the Bible tells us however.

Actually it does. One of the differences between the Bible and science is that the Bible is not evidence based and science is. If the EVIDENCE indicates something other than what the Bible says took place, then we are bound to follow the evidence.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I don't need to 'believe in scientism'. I did not create the term, nor did I define it. It's a common observable phenomenon. Like racism. Even though those afflicted cannot recognize it.

I know you believe that it is common. I have seen you lob it against valid arguments for particular science. I guess you don't even know you levy it almost across the board for any science that challenges what you believe. It is just like how some racists don't realize they are racist.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Yes people can have beliefs and accept science too. That does not mean that all scientific conclusions trump what the Bible tells us however.

It isn't the lessons that are trumped, it is the things claimed as fact that have no evidence to support them as facts.

 

[Brian2]

It isn't the lessons that are trumped, it is the things claimed as fact that have no evidence to support them as facts.

Such as the existence of God or that God created everything and gave us life?

 

[Brian2]

Actually it does. One of the differences between the Bible and science is that the Bible is not evidence based and science is. If the EVIDENCE indicates something other than what the Bible says took place, then we are bound to follow the evidence.

So we are bound to be atheists because science cannot find a God?
Would that be scientism?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Such as the existence of God or that God created everything and gave us life?

I'm not sure what this response is supposed to mean. Nothing can be said for or against God using science. For science, claims of the supernatural are unfalsifiable.

I see. That is not the claim I was referring to. It is the global flood or the creation story in Genesis that are often presented as fact, but clearly no evidence exists to support those claims as historical events. To me personally, it is of no significance to my faith that those stories are best viewed as allegory and that the symbolism and lessons they teach are what is important.

 

[vulcanlogician]

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.

This post is directed at Penguin, but I felt I needed to add PureX's quote for context.

Penguin, you could go on and on about the merits of empiricism and I would agree with you on every point. I bet there isn't one thing about empiricism that we disagree upon. So you could list one-by-one the things that make empiricism reliable and how it always supplies certainty, and I'd keep agreeing and agreeing.

You are correct. Empiricism is great. It's dependable. If empiricism determines that something is true, then it's probably true. Let's start the conversation by saying that science gives us the most reliable information we have. Period. There's no disputing that.

And let's also say that many disciplines and ways of drawing conclusions that are pseudo-scientific can be rejected on that basis.

All, I'm saying is: once we've gathered all our evidence... once we've drawn the proper logical conclusions that follow from that evidence... once we've ruled out the things that are obviously false and said most of the information that science gives us is very much more reliable than any contrary information is... once we've done ALL of that. We can pause. And we can soak up as much of that correct and reliable empirical information that we can. And that's what we should do.

But once we've done that. We still might be left with questions. Questions about ethics. Questions about aesthetics. Questions about what purpose our life should serve. These don't need to involve any sort of religious BS (and in my case, they don't). But (in my case) science hasn't answered these questions to my satisfaction. A proponent of scientism would say: "Hey vulcan, don't bother trying to use your brain and/or logic to answer any of those questions. The only answers that count are empirically verifiable ones. No need to take any other approach."

But there's plenty of reasons to think that (carefully) thinking about a subject --such as literature-- can produce insights and knowledge. I could study Leo Tolstoy and come away with a bit of truth. Not a kind of reliable truth that I can tell others to believe. But also not some "personal truth" that only can be believed from a certain perspective. Literature and philosophy can hold aloft many universal truths that are simply not in the purview of science.

Does that make those disciplines better than science at getting to the truth? No. You and I probably agree that science is the best truth-producing discipline we got. But knowledge doesn't end where scientific discoveries end. We can get to the truth other ways. Science isn't the ONLY way. It's simply the most dependable and accurate way... to get to the truth.

Someone who argues in favor of scientism says more than "it's the best and most reliable way to the truth." They go one step farther. They say it's the only way. And THAT (and only that) is why I reject scientism.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

So we are bound to be atheists because science cannot find a God?
Would that be scientism?

Is science looking for a god? The best I know, all that can be said is that no evidence for the supernatural has been found and determined to be evidence of the supernatural. Thus no evidence that can be definitively shown to be evidence of God or gods.

 

[YoursTrue]

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.

You got it as far as I am concerned.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

So we are bound to be atheists because science cannot find a God?
Would that be scientism?

Your question does not make sense, because it assumes something that is not true. You seem to think that only a fundamentalist literalist creationist can find God. That is not the case. Most people who accept science, including Big Bang, evolution, etc., believe in God. In fact, among scientists themselves, only 30% are atheist.

 

[YoursTrue]

Is science looking for a god? The best I know, all that can be said is that no evidence for the supernatural has been found and determined to be evidence of the supernatural. Thus no evidence that can be definitively shown to be evidence of God or gods.

If a person is in a religion not based on the Bible, so to speak, there should be no contest as to the validity of the Bible in terms of historical data as outlined in the Bible and God's relationship with Israel, Abraham, Isaac, and Jesus among others. Because they don't base their beliefs on the Bible's testimony.