Who here believes in "Scientism"?

[PureX]

And art, philosophy, and religion are great expressions of human imagination - a wondrous effect of our talent for pattern recognition.

If that's all you can see in it, I sure do feel sorry for you.

And while those endeavors can explore, they cannot provide definitive answers any more than science can. We can only speculate.

In fact, that's all we ever can do. Perception is conception, and conception is imaginary. The delusion is that somehow science can magically overcome these limitations of the human condition and provide us with the "real truth" is irrational, and illogical, and just plain false. The only truth any of us are ever going to arrive is that which we imagine to be true. Mostly because it works for us in attains our needs or desires. And even that is relative to everything else we imagine to be true.

It is a limitation of the scientific method that it restricts itself to hard facts, which the metaphysical has few of. And it's true that hardcore materialists often disregard such efforts altogether as futile.

But facts aren't "hard". They are contextual. Presuming them to be the "hard truth" is like presuming God wrote the Bible. It's a lie we tell ourselves so we can pretend we have access to the real, "hard" truth, when we do not.

Science is a useful tool for those who recognize its limitations - as is art, philosophy, and religion.

Yes, but many of us don't want to recognize those limitations. We want to create false idols and pretend they can tell us the real truth of things.

 

[PureX]

Pretty much. Isn't it wonderful?
"The only true wisdom is knowing you know nothing." ~Socrates.

I agree that this kind of honest humility is the beginning of wisdom.

 

[MikeF]

It's the language of resonance and imagination. The pictures being painted in our minds in response to the sounds we are hearing. Art is the voice of cognition, itself, speaking to us, and to each other. It's not about the mechanisms, it's about the CONTENT resulting from those mechanisms. You know, the stuff the scientism crowd dismisses as 'make-believe'.

The argument is that aesthetics such as art and literature have access to, or reveal objective truths unavailable to science.

So, if one listens to Beethoven and Wagner, and the content being conveyed by that music (as perceived by a listener) is an overwhelming confirmation of the superiority of the Arian race, made all the more clear when comparing this music to that which is found on the African and Asian continents or indigenous cultures across the globe, one can accept that message of confirmation unreservedly because art and literature unerringly speak or convey universal objective truths.

Have I got that right? Is that what you are saying?

 

[MikeF]

I disbelieve in science and believe in what science cannot see or study.

I see. Then your 'God' and its 'Angels' truly live in the kingdom of 'Heaven' just above the clouds in the sky, and 'Satan' and its 'Demons' abide in 'Hell' deep below our feet within the Earth?

I would assume then, that our earthly plane is in the center of your 'god's' universe. As a consequence, should we deduce that the Sun orbits the Earth in your 'god's' universe? What are the lights we see in the sky at night? Are they lamps held by 'Angels' in heaven, or do 'Angels' themselves emanate light such that we are actually looking at 'Angels' when we see these lights in the night sky?

What then, pray tell, is the moon? What is its role in your 'god's' 'Heaven' and how and why does it shine light?

Since we are to disbelieve science, these are some of the questions that jump to mind. I'm sure I will have a lot more as it really starts to sink in that I have to throw out all of my (apparently false) scientific understanding.

 

[PureX]

The argument is that aesthetics such as art and literature have access to, or reveal objective truths unavailable to science.

No, that isn't the argument because truth is neither objective nor subjective. It's cognitive and relative (to us). Science is only able to deal the physical mechanics of that. But the physical mechanics are far from the whole story. So we employ other means of exploring that whole story. And one of those other means is the art endeavor.

So, if one listens to Beethoven and Wagner, and the content being conveyed by that music (as perceived by a listener) is an overwhelming confirmation of the superiority of the Arian race, made all the more clear when comparing this music to that which is found on the African and Asian continents or indigenous cultures across the globe, one can accept that message of confirmation unreservedly because art and literature unerringly speak or convey universal objective truths.

Have I got that right? Is that what you are saying?

Art is not about determining or communicating facts. And only bad art (propaganda) tries to communicate opinion. Art is for sharing our cognitive experiences. Not the conclusions we draw from them. So a racist artist can share his/her cognitive experience through a piece of music, but it won't be his/her racism (conclusions) that gets shared. It'll be the whole cognitive experience of creating the artwork. We may recognize the artist's racism in it, but it will have no convincing effect on us because that's not what art does, or what it's for.

Watching a film with a racist story line isn't going to make us racist because that's not how artifice works, nor what it's for. And if we claim that it does, it's only because we were racist to begin with.

 

[Marwan]

I see. Then your 'God' and its 'Angels' truly live in the kingdom of 'Heaven' just above the clouds in the sky, and 'Satan' and its 'Demons' abide in 'Hell' deep below our feet within the Earth?

I would assume then, that our earthly plane is in the center of your 'god's' universe. As a consequence, should we deduce that the Sun orbits the Earth in your 'god's' universe? What are the lights we see in the sky at night? Are they lamps held by 'Angels' in heaven, or do 'Angels' themselves emanate light such that we are actually looking at 'Angels' when we see these lights in the night sky?

What then, pray tell, is the moon? What is its role in your 'god's' 'Heaven' and how and why does it shine light?

Since we are to disbelieve science, these are some of the questions that jump to mind. I'm sure I will have a lot more as it really starts to sink in that I have to thr

w out all of my (apparently false) scientific understanding.

Your assertions are based on a stupid interpretation of religious texts and a geocentric worldview.

It doesn't matter where they are located, they are, somewhere, located. Not in the physical universe.

Or are you as stupid to also assert that only the 'physical' universe is real?

 

[MikeF]

Your assertions are based on a stupid interpretation of religious texts and a geocentric worldview.

They were not assertions, they were questions. Questions that arose if we consider what it would mean if we are to disbelieve science, your stated belief.

What contradicts a geocentric worldview?

It doesn't matter where they are located, they are, somewhere, located. Not in the physical universe.

How do you know? Have you been to either 'Heaven' or 'Hell'?

Or are you as stupid to also assert that only the 'physical' universe is real?

My position is that we can only assert that something is real if it can be established to be so.

 

[Audie]

Your assertions are based on a stupid interpretation of religious texts and a geocentric worldview.

It doesn't matter where they are located, they are, somewhere, located. Not in the physical universe.

Or are you as stupid to also assert that only the 'physical' universe is real?

Keep up the charm offensive, you
wont be here for 20 posts.

 

[Marwan]

They were not assertions, they were questions. Questions that arose if we consider what it would mean if we are to disbelieve science, your stated belief.

What contradicts a geocentric worldview?



How do you know? Have you been to either 'Heaven' or 'Hell'?



My position is that we can only assert that something is real if it can be established to be so.

I've had visions of hell.

Keep up the charm offensive, you
wont be here for 20 posts.

Do you seriously think I care if I'm here for 20 posts or 1 million?

Ban me right now if you want.

I testify that there is no god or deity but God, and that there is no god or deity worthy of worship but God, and that God is the Greatest.

I look away with terror from your atheism and everything about it...

 

[MikeF]

I've had visions of hell.

What if your visions do not match, or even conflict with the visions of other people? How do you reconcile those differences?

 

[Audie]

I've had visions of hell.


Do you seriously think I care if I'm here for 20 posts or 1 million?

Ban me right now if you want.

I testify that there is no god or deity but God, and that there is no god or deity worthy of worship but God, and that God is the Greatest.

I look away with terror from your atheism and everything about it...

Belief in invisible things, not whats
real, having "visions",
terrified of this " faith" being contsminated
by people who see through the scam that
consumes your life
This all sounds like very poor mental
health.
Sympathy for one in such a state only goes so
far though. Calling people stupid dries it up fast

You may learn something here, though its doubtful.
Those who have been scammed are always very reluctant
to admit it even to themselves, for ressons of vanity if no
other.

It aapears youve far more at stake, and believe that you must maintain a rigid position, or all is lost.

Good luck; youre going to need it.

 

[Marwan]

Belief in invisible things, not whats
real, having "visions",
terrified of this " faith" being contsminated
by people who see through the scam that
consumes your life
This all sounds like very poor mental
health.
Sympathy for one in such a state only goes so
far though. Calling people stupid dries it up fast

You may learn something here, though its doubtful.
Those who have been scammed are always very reluctant
to admit it even to themselves, for ressons of vanity if no
other.

It aapears youve far more at stake, and believe that you must maintain a rigid position, or all is lost.

Good luck; youre going to need it.

Lol

 

[TLK Valentine]

If that's all you can see in it, I sure do feel sorry for you.

It's not, so you don't need to pretend.

In fact, that's all we ever can do. Perception is conception, and conception is imaginary. The delusion is that somehow science can magically overcome these limitations of the human condition and provide us with the "real truth" is irrational, and illogical, and just plain false. The only truth any of us are ever going to arrive is that which we imagine to be true. Mostly because it works for us in attains our needs or desires. And even that is relative to everything else we imagine to be true.

...in your opinion.

But facts aren't "hard". They are contextual. Presuming them to be the "hard truth" is like presuming God wrote the Bible. It's a lie we tell ourselves so we can pretend we have access to the real, "hard" truth, when we do not.

This is where many branches of science have a distinct advantage - they can communicate in hard, objective truths in an irrefutable, universal language: Mathematics.

What's the area of that circle? A=πr^2

What's the gravitational attraction between two bodies? F = (G * m1 * m2) / d^2

How do plants turn sunlight into energy? 6CO2 + 6H2O → C6H12O6 + 6O2

The numbers always balance out, regardless of anyone's opinion.

Yes, but many of us don't want to recognize those limitations. We want to create false idols and pretend they can tell us the real truth of things.

True - it's important to use the right tool for the job. One will learn the hard way when we're using the wrong one.

Remember when natural disasters were presumed to be the wrath of angry gods?
Remember when illness was thought to be caused by demonic activity, and could thus be cured through prayer?
Remember when a nation's military or economic well-being was believed to be proportional to its obedience to a higher being?

Wrong, wrong, wronggity-wrong... when will people learn?

 

[MikeF]

Wrong, wrong, wronggity-wrong... when will people learn?

So poetic! Love it.

 

[osgart]

Scientism is the conviction that science can answer all important questions about existence. Those kinds of people exist. They don't recognize the limits of empiricism. Empiricism can tell you many powerful things and continues to do so. But observance, and mathematics can't reveal intrinsic fundamental nature of reality. It can't tell you about inner qualities of being, nor can it tell you about why things are the way they are. It can only reveal how things behave as appears to the senses, and is calculated in math. It can't tell you exactly what nature and existence is intrinsically. So it is superficial explanation to think that science can answer all important questions of existence. Extrinsic behavior is nothing but scratching the surface of reality.

 

[MikeF]

Scientism is the conviction that science can answer all important questions about existence. Those kinds of people exist. They don't recognize the limits of empiricism. Empiricism can tell you many powerful things and continues to do so. But observance, and mathematics can't reveal intrinsic fundamental nature of reality. It can't tell you about inner qualities of being, nor can it tell you about why things are the way they are. It can only reveal how things behave as appears to the senses, and is calculated in math. It can't tell you exactly what nature and existence is intrinsically. So it is superficial explanation to think that science can answer all important questions of existence. Extrinsic behavior is nothing but scratching the surface of reality.

At the core, it is human beings asking these questions and working to find out the answers.

Let me ask this: If there are things beyond the capacity for human beings employing empiricism to answer, can it then be said that those things are simply beyond the capacity for human beings to answer?

Or perhaps you are saying that nothing is beyond the capacity of human beings to answer, they just can't answer everything by employing empiricism.

Do either reflect your position, or is it something else entirely?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Scientism is the conviction that science can answer all important questions about existence.

As you probably know, the word is used in more than one way. Most commonly in my experience, the word is used to mean that there are other ways to learn truth and acquire knowledge than through experience and that those who think otherwise are myopic.

The term in their hands is derogatory and generally attended by some expression of resentment that the output of these other methods isn't respected by empiricists, as when people say that they experience god and spiritual truth rather than simply that they had a psychological experience the meaning of which they are guessing about and which guess they want respected as truth because they believe it.

Empiricism can tell you many powerful things and continues to do so. But observance, and mathematics can't reveal intrinsic fundamental nature of reality. It can't tell you about inner qualities of being, nor can it tell you about why things are the way they are. It can only reveal how things behave as appears to the senses, and is calculated in math. It can't tell you exactly what nature and existence is intrinsically. So it is superficial explanation to think that science can answer all important questions of existence. Extrinsic behavior is nothing but scratching the surface of reality.

Most empiricists don't expect all questions to be answerable by the application of reason to the evidence of the senses, but they don't expect any other method to produce any knowledge, knowledge being demonstrably correct ideas that can be used to control future experience. It's not limited to the study of the world beyond our skin. It is through empiricism that we discover what brings happiness and what brings sorrow, what tastes sweet and what tastes bitter, which behaviors generate the things we desire and which to avoid. Of course, we need to be skilled at it to do it well. Many continue throughout their lives to make the same mistakes and fail to learn from experience or modify their behavior, but those that do better do so empirically.

 

[osgart]

Let me ask this: If there are things beyond the capacity for human beings employing empiricism to answer, can it then be said that those things are simply beyond the capacity for human beings to answer

In most cases, yes. Inner qualities and experiences are not detectable by use of empiricism. One might resort to reason and meditation to discover their inner selves. External behavior and modifying behaviour through empiricism is not the only way to discover the inner nature of being. A lot of work in discovering self can be done by way of reason before ever acting out on behaviours. I think philosophy is another way of exploring one's nature. I have the conviction that virtues, values, and character traits can be known by reason and applied if a person has the will for it. Behaviour cannot tell the whole story. Sometimes stories are a way of getting to know one's self; language is another tool for learning reality. Imagination is another way of exploring self.



A lot of these other methods might employ empiricism at times. I don't think empiricism alone can tell the whole story.

 

[osgart]

Or perhaps you are saying that nothing is beyond the capacity of human beings to answer, they just can't answer everything by employing empiricism.

I'm quite sure there are a lot of things that can never be understood as human beings. There's either too much to learn, or deeper realities that are beyond the scope of humans. I could never rule out deeper realities. In my conviction I can infer that deeper reality exists but I could never know what that is while I'm alive. I can ascertain that intelligence is at the heart of it, but I can't go further then that.

In my logic intellect cannot just arise from where there was no such thing before. Intellect must have always been for new intellects to arise. What can empiricism possibly say about that?

 

[MikeF]

I'm quite sure there are a lot of things that can never be understood as human beings. There's either too much to learn, or deeper realities that are beyond the scope of humans. I could never rule out deeper realities. In my conviction I can infer that deeper reality exists but I could never know what that is while I'm alive.

Great. I just wanted to confirm that you felt there were things we currently do not know and may never know.

I can ascertain that intelligence is at the heart of it, but I can't go further then that.

In my logic intellect cannot just arise from where there was no such thing before. Intellect must have always been for new intellects to arise. What can empiricism possibly say about that?

I'm not sure I can agree with your logic. Not sure why it is a necessity for intellect (however you are defining that) to have always been in order for new intellects to arise. If you subscribe to the Theory of Evolution, that there was a point on earth when no life existed, that not all life exhibits "intellect", that human beings evolved from life that had no intellect yet humans do have intellect, then at what point and in what way does pre-existing intellect play a role in human intellect?

Beyond this, when claiming that there must always have been intellect for there to be new intellects (with human beings being an example of a "new intellect"), it still leaves us with the unsatisfied question of how the original seed intellect came to be. It seems silly and wholly without justification to simply declare such intellect as having infinitely existed when we have no evidence of infinite existence of anything. It is just making something up to satisfy the requirement of the original intellect not needing its own first cause.

So in my view, empiricism would say that it does not appear that human intellect arose from previous intellect, but rather from species without intellect. Empiricism would say we have no firm idea of how life even began on Earth, though some confidence that there has not always been life on Earth, nor how the Cosmos began, nor whether there are other intellects, original or otherwise, beyond that evidenced on Earth, and as regards these unknowns there is currently no means by which to obtain the information necessary to form a definitive answer which leaves us with the definitive conclusion that we just don't know and may never know.