Who here believes in "Scientism"?

[RestlessSoul]

Fatally flawed isnt real close

All of existence is fatally flawed, hadn't you noticed?

 

[Audie]

All of existence is fatally flawed, hadn't you noticed?

I noticed i should never bother commenting on your posts

 

[MikeF]

You might read "Zen and the art of motorcycle maitensnce".

There is way more to Quality then " just what ya happen to like.

And quality would be a subjective preference that not everyone may feel is necessary, or necessary in every situation. My main point is that there is a reality external to ourselves that is what it is regardless of what we think about it, and then there are all our subjective perceptions and attitudes about what we perceive and think about which I lump under the category of subjective preferences, but maybe it would be more accurate to say subjective opinions, which would encompass positive, negative, or neutral attitudes.

 

[PureX]

And quality would be a subjective preference that not everyone may feel is necessary, or necessary in every situation. My main point is that there is a reality external to ourselves that is what it is regardless of what we think about it,

And yet only by thinking about it could you have come to that conclusion. So that it turns out that reality is entirely dependent on what you think it is. And, that you think it is anything. Stop thinking about it, and the entire issue becomes completely moot ... doesn't even exist.

and then there are all our subjective perceptions and attitudes about what we perceive and think about which I lump under the category of subjective preferences, but maybe it would be more accurate to say subjective opinions, which would encompass positive, negative, or neutral attitudes.

It would be more accurate to acknowledge that this is ALL a matter of perception and opinion. Even what you call "objective reality" is the product of your perception and your opinions about what you perceive. Your own meta-physicality is determining your "objective reality".

 

[PureX]

I asked a similar question on another forum once. I didn't find anybody who professed to believe in scientism. Nor have I ever heard anyone - except christians, and maybe some militant muslims - use the charge of "scientism" in a debate. I'm sure that there are some people like that, but they tend not to be around whereever I have my discussions.

Well now you have.

The reason you never see anyone admit to having succumbed to scientism is because it is a self-blinding bias. It isn't 'scientism' to it's adherents because in their minds it's just the truth of reality. And they believe this without question and without doubt. They cannot see any difference between real science and scientism because in their mind there IS NO DIFFERENCE. In their minds science is what they believe it to be. And they will not doubt nor question that belief because they are fully convinced of it's truthfulness. Why would they?

 

[MikeF]

But does that officially mean that you are contractually closing your mind to anything art discloses that science can't confirm?

I apologize, I didn't address this when I first responded to this post.

My response would be a definite no, I am not contractually closing my mind, however, if the "anything" to which you refer is an assertion about an existent event or phenomenon in the real world independent of abstract thought and it can not be confirmed by science, then it is simply acknowledged as such and afforded the appropriate level of confidence it deserves.

If what is being disclosed is not some fact about the world, rather, it is disclosing an emotion or opinion regarding the real world, a non-physical abstract construct, or something completely imaginary, then that would be taken as a subjective expression, not an objective statement. Because we are all unique, physically and experientially, we are not all going to draw the same conclusions on, or have the same attitude towards every issue in this realm of subjective opinion. In this realm there are no objectively right or wrong answers, just our subjective opinions influenced in a myriad of ways. I am fully receptive to the subjective opinions of others when presented as subjective opinion. If differences of opinion materially matter, then political negotiation and compromise would be required. Outside of that it should be to each his own, I think.

 

[MikeF]

In their minds science is what they believe it to be.

What is demonstrated to be. No belief required.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Yes, true, and that is why those who say that science tells us that God is not needed, are making a statement of faith.

It depends what they mean. In my experience that remark is not saying the God doesn't exist. It is simply saying that there are alternative explanations as well. You DO sometimes run across "hard atheists" who DO claim there is no God, but in my own life, the atheists I've known have all been "Soft Atheists" who make no such claim, but simply do not have a belief in God.

As for the Bible, if science tells us that there was a large local flood then I don't need to dismiss what the Bible says, I can interpret the flood to be a large local flood.
If science says that the universe is 14 billion years old, I can interpret the Bible as not meaning 24 hour days, and I also can interpret the Bible and see the possibility of evolution in it.

Nice.

 

[PureX]

... if the "anything" to which you refer is an assertion about an existent event or phenomenon in the real world independent of abstract thought ...

There is no "real world independent of abstract thought". "Real" and "world" and "Independent of" are all themselves abstract thoughts. There is no real or unreal anything except as an abstract thought. There is no world that is not a whole collection of abstract thoughts banded together into one meta-though. There is no perception/conception of independence that isn't abstracted from the basic concept of cooperation.

All thought is "abstract thought". All thought is subjectively generated even when it's triggered by an objective experience. All thought exists in the "real world" because the real world is itself, a thought.

and it can not be confirmed by science, then it is simply acknowledged as such and afforded the appropriate level of confidence it deserves.

If what is being disclosed is not some fact about the world, rather, it is disclosing an emotion or opinion regarding the real world, a non-physical abstract construct, or something completely imaginary, then that would be taken as a subjective expression, not an objective statement. Because we are all unique, physically and experientially, we are not all going to draw the same conclusions on, or have the same attitude towards every issue in this realm of subjective opinion. In this realm there are no objectively right or wrong answers, just our subjective opinions influenced in a myriad of ways. I am fully receptive to the subjective opinions of others when presented as subjective opinion. If differences of opinion materially matter, the political negotiation and compromise would be required. Outside of that it should be to each his own, I think.

 

[vulcanlogician]

I don't see it ever used the way you say it's defined, so I can't tell what I'm supposed to be agreeing to.

I think there are certainly empirical, objective facts about the universe beyond the understanding of science. I also think that anyone trying to speak with authority about those empirical, objective facts beyond the understanding of science is a huckster or a charlatan, or has been duped by a huckster or a charlatan.

... so you tell me.

I'm not consciously trying to define scientism in a way that gives my position an advantage. Maybe it's unconscious, though. We can find a more agreeable definition if you wish. If you define scientism differently than I, then it's possible we agree in reality and only disagree because of semantics.

Someone who claims authority on moral or artistic matters probably is a charlatan. But someone who has an analysis of art or ethics, which they offer up to criticism... I think discussions like that can lead us somewhere... as in (sometimes) help us attain a better understanding of the world and our lives.

To me that counts (or at least CAN count) as genuine knowledge.

 

[vulcanlogician]

I apologize, I didn't address this when I first responded to this post.

My response would be a definite no, I am not contractually closing my mind, however, if the "anything" to which you refer is an assertion about an existent event or phenomenon in the real world independent of abstract thought and it can not be confirmed by science, then it is simply acknowledged as such and afforded the appropriate level of confidence it deserves.

If what is being disclosed is not some fact about the world, rather, it is disclosing an emotion or opinion regarding the real world, a non-physical abstract construct, or something completely imaginary, then that would be taken as a subjective expression, not an objective statement. Because we are all unique, physically and experientially, we are not all going to draw the same conclusions on, or have the same attitude towards every issue in this realm of subjective opinion. In this realm there are no objectively right or wrong answers, just our subjective opinions influenced in a myriad of ways. I am fully receptive to the subjective opinions of others when presented as subjective opinion. If differences of opinion materially matter, the political negotiation and compromise would be required. Outside of that it should be to each his own, I think.

Nah, your post was clear. And I think your position is good. You have a leg to stand on, at the very least. You may even have the stronger argument than mine. The reason I'm challenging your position is because it's so strong in the first place. I much prefer debating a geologist to a flat earther, y'know? I'm not attacking your position because it's weak. I'm attacking it because it's strong.

I think there's something that art and literature can convey that IS objectively true, yet is not an empirically verifiable fact.

For instance, what it's like to be a slave. Empirical observation can give you all the brute facts about slavery. But how it is, to have one's freedom taken, the inner turmoil and conflict, the general experience of it all (which IS an objective reality about slavery, just as true as the brute facts) can get us from ignorance to understanding the same way empirical observation can. Experiences may hint at subjectivity. But they are objective things that happen in objective reality. I think we should focus on literature, because I think I have a good case to make there. Art is a messier discussion. And it's more difficult for me to demonstrate my point there, but, ultimately, I think the same thing about art too.

 

[vulcanlogician]

Things that dont square with science
tend not to be true.

I'm not trying to sell homeopathy here. I said before that pseudoscience can be readily dismissed. It's just that empiricism doesn't cover all the knowable stuff.

I mean, I could bring up mathematics, but proponents of scientism have this rule: yeah, math counts too.

I mean, it makes sense. But I don't know how they think that a mathematical theorem can be true when it takes ZERO empirical observation to prove a theorem.

To be fair, you COULD prove a mathematical theorem empirically. So I don't harp on math so much. But it's worth pointing out that theorems don't NEED empirical observation to be proven. All I'm saying is that there are objective realities that can be proven or disproven without empiricism. And, depending upon one's definition, that can possibly count as a strike against scientism.

 

[MikeF]

I mean, it makes sense. But I don't know how they think that a mathematical theorem can be true when it takes ZERO empirical observation to prove a theorem.

Jumping in here quickly.

Mathematics is purely analytic abstraction though, right? The world of mathematics, its boundaries and rules, are axiomatically set at the get-go. After the boundaries and rules are set it then becomes a matter of discovering what can be done within the established framework of the system.

Empiricism is only required if one wishes to use the language of mathematics to describe the real world, in which case you must demonstrate empirically that the mathematics you are using, or rather, ones mathematical explanations or descriptions of the real world, actually correspond or comport with the real world.

 

[vulcanlogician]

Mathematics is purely analytic abstraction though, right? The world of mathematics, its boundaries and rules, are axiomatically set at the get-go. After the boundaries and rules are set it then becomes a matter of discovering what can be done within the established framework of the system.

Can I put this another way?

"[Empiricism] is purely analytic abstraction though, right? The world of [sensible objects], its boundaries and rules, are axiomatically set at the get-go. After the boundaries and rules are set it then becomes a matter of discovering what can be done within the established framework of the system. [Like Newton's laws?]"

Tell me Newton's Laws without any axioms or pre-existing framework.

 

[Bear Wild]

Things that dont square with science
tend not to be true.

Is love true? What scientific evidence do we have for love? How do we measure it in science?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I'm not consciously trying to define scientism in a way that gives my position an advantage. Maybe it's unconscious, though. We can find a more agreeable definition if you wish. If you define scientism differently than I, then it's possible we agree in reality and only disagree because of semantics.

I don't really care about defining the term. It may have a more useful meaning at one point, but it's been turned into an epithet for people with wacky ideas to use against those who don't take them seriously.

Someone who claims authority on moral or artistic matters probably is a charlatan. But someone who has an analysis of art or ethics, which they offer up to criticism... I think discussions like that can lead us somewhere... as in (sometimes) help us attain a better understanding of the world and our lives.

To me that counts (or at least CAN count) as genuine knowledge.

Yeah... none of that is what I was talking about.

I'm talking about people who propose the existence of creator-gods, literal afterlives, miracles, homeopathy, ghosts, etc.

 

[vulcanlogician]

Love is an excellent example.

And even though love supersedes any observations someone can make, even though it seeks ignorance sometimes, I think love is objectively valuable. We'd be ****ed without it.

 

[vulcanlogician]

I don't really care about defining the term. It may have a more useful meaning at one point, but it's been turned into an epithet for people with wacky ideas to use against those who don't take them seriously.



Yeah... none of that is what I was talking about.

I'm talking about people who propose the existence of creator-gods, literal afterlives, miracles, homeopathy, ghosts, etc.

Can you make a wild guess as to my position on homeopathy or ghosts?

 

[MikeF]

Can I put this another way?

"[Empiricism] is purely analytic abstraction though, right? The world of [sensible objects], its boundaries and rules, are axiomatically set at the get-go. After the boundaries and rules are set it then becomes a matter of discovering what can be done within the established framework of the system. [Like Newton's laws?]"

Tell me Newton's Laws without any axioms or pre-existing framework.

That would be a false analogy in my view. The analogous entities would be the real world and Mathematics. The real world has boundaries, properties, and rules of interaction that would be analogous, not empiricism. Empiricism is simply a methodology used to gather information about the real world, information that is represented in abstractions, of thought, language, mathematics, etc. Since abstractions are boundless and do not have fixed rules or properties in and of themselves, we have to take special care to ensure that the abstractions we use to represent or describe the real world actually conform to and adequately correspond to the real world in our usage. This then is an essential task incorporated into Empiricism. Lastly, it is fallible human beings carrying all this out and therefore it is also the task of Empiricism to mitigate to the fullest possible extent, the inherent fallibilities of the human investigators throughout this process of discovery and documentation.

The disadvantage we have in the real world is that we do not know all the boundaries, properties, and rules up front. We are in the unenviable task of both trying to figure these out at the same time we try to figure out what can be done within the boundaries and rules of reality.

ETA: I hasten to add that we are at least making measurable progress in our efforts to understand and describe the real world despite the disadvantages. :}

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Can you make a wild guess as to my position on homeopathy or ghosts?

I don't know. Why would it be relevant?