mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
No, you just give evidence for how you know this: I can't think of anything better, or as practical or beneficial as science.
You made the claim, can you give evidence for it?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Who here believes in "Scientism"?
- Thread starter Jose Fly
- Start date
No, you just give evidence for how you know this: I can't think of anything better, or as practical or beneficial as science.
You made the claim, can you give evidence for it?
So you didn't answer with science and meet the question.
So since you are the scientist, what is the falsifiable test for the universe being physical. Can you explain that?
As for sceintism there is another version:
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)
Definition of SCIENTISM
methods and attitudes typical of or attributed to the natural scientist; 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)… See the full definitionwww.merriam-webster.com
You are getting it wrong!!! I did not claim to answer the a unanswerable question of Philosophy of Solipsism.
When backed into a corner without a coherent response You are proposing an "Ontological Idealist" or the "Philosophy of Solipsism" belief of 'arguing from ignorance,' which cannot be answered.
You are not only moving the goal posts, but you are removing them from the field.
I am challenging the definition of "Scientism" specifically a pejorative accusation of those with an agenda against science as you have. The definition contains two serious flaws. (1) The claim of "rendered truth" as a part of the belief in scientism, which virtually no scientists of any believe the claim. (2) The accusation of the pejorative subjective "exaggerated trust." which as a far as scientists are concerned simply they have trust in science as the only known method for investigating our physical existence. Do you propose another method? Can you or @PureX document scientists that believe as the definition proposed, in particular the belief in "rendered truth" as fr as science is concerned, I would like to see a list of these ghosts.
"Rendered Truth" is more a religious claim in Christianity and Islam, who often use pejorative accusation of Scientism against science when they do not believe in science.
Again the accusation of "Scientism" os a pejorative strawman us by those that in someway reject science. The existence these scientists are "ghosts' i your imagination.
Last edited:
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
I have already conceed that point.
Now I use another defintion and ask you this:
So since you are the scientist, what is the falsifiable test for the universe being physical. Can you explain that?
Or if you can't answer that with science, then is the claim. that the universe is physical, not science?
So what is it? Is it sceince that the universe is physical or is it not science?
It has nothing to do with me and what I believe. It is science or it is not science, that the universe is physical. Just use science on it.
Not answered, Still waiting . . .
No, the definition does not apply, Still waiting . . .
You are getting it wrong!!! I did not claim to answer the a unanswerable question of Philosophy of Solipsism.
When backed into a corner without a coherent response You are proposing an "Ontological Idealist" or the "Philosophy of Solipsism" belief of 'arguing from ignorance,' which cannot be answered.
You are not only moving the goal posts, but you are removing them from the field.
I am challenging the definition of "Scientism" specifically a pejorative accusation of those with an agenda against science as you have. The definition contains two serious flaws. (1) The claim of "rendered truth" as a part of the belief in scientism, which virtually no scientists of any believe the claim. (2) The accusation of the pejorative subjective "exaggerated trust." which as a far as scientists are concerned simply they have trust in science as the only known method for investigating our physical existence. Do you propose another method? Can you or @PureX document scientists that believe as the definition proposed, in particular the belief in "rendered truth" as fr as science is concerned, I would like to see a list of these ghosts.
"Rendered Truth" is more a religious claim in Christianity and Islam, who often use pejorative accusation of Scientism against science when they do not believe in science.
Again the accusation of "Scientism" os a pejorative strawman us by those that in someway reject science. The existence these scientists are "ghosts' i your imagination.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Yeah, again I dont use that defition anymore.
As for the philodophy you use, which version of solipsism are you refering to?
As far as @mikkel_the_dane is concerned it is the Philosophy of Solipsism
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
What kind of solipsism is that?
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
That is scientism as per this defintion:
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).
Definition of SCIENTISM
methods and attitudes typical of or attributed to the natural scientist; 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)… See the full definition
Philosophy of Solipsism is what you are proposing, I believe nothing of the sort, or maybe you believe Ontological Idealism. which is ir.
Solipsism - Wikipedia
How do you define the science we have left?
Please cite scientists that believe science is "rendered truth."That is scientism as per this defintion:
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).
Definition of SCIENTISM
methods and attitudes typical of or attributed to the natural scientist; 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)… See the full definition
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Philosophy of Solipsism is what you are proposing, I believe nothing of the sort.
Solipsism is the philosophical idea that only one's mind is sure to exist. As an epistemological position, solipsism holds that knowledge of anything outside one's own mind is unsure; the external world and other minds cannot be known and might not exist outside the mind.Solipsism - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
...
Well, we are geting there. I am a skeptic that doesn't even believe in metaphysical solipsism, That is the first one. As for the second one it is in effect a tautology for the moment I think. It doesn't rule out the problem of a Boltzmann Brain universe or that I can trust the content of my mind.
So yes, I have a mind right now and that is all. No past or furture, no memories as certain and so on.
So even the knowledge is limited for a mind. It in effect becomes - right now I experince something or even more neutral - something is going on.
That is all, if you really want to play knowledge.
Thus
i believe the universe is fair, real, orderly and knowable. That is a sort of neutral belief in that I don't do metaphysics or ontology.
Rather I state what I believe in terms of how I trust the universe. But It could be physical or from God, but I don't know that and I don't believe in that.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
I concede that one. I don't believe in that one anymore. So you won a single battle. Big deal.
The only option is that ""Scientism" is pejorative accusation by those that in some way reject science.
You made a statement needs explanation.
How do you define the science we have left?
Last edited:
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Well, not according to the dictionary or wiki. which you use yourself.
So there is that.
As for what science is to me. That is besides the point because I can't have an idea of that, because you control what science is, since there is only your version and not several ones as per wiki again:
Philosophy of science - Wikipedia
So here is a trick I used. I used wiki and you fell for it, since you used it. Then I can use it too and use the link above:
Here is the start:
"According to Robert Priddy, all scientific study inescapably builds on at least some essential assumptions that cannot be tested by scientific processes;[55] that is, that scientists must start with some assumptions as to the ultimate analysis of the facts with which it deals."
No there is not that??? Not beside the point it is an up front issue, since you stated what used to be,
@PureX and you have danced around "Scientism in the dictionary enough, without responding to the specific problems I cited, Infact @PureX has gone silent,
The bottom line is there are is no such thing as scientists that believe in Scientism as defined. IT is a strawman pejorative accusation without substance. Who are these scientists that believe in Scientism?
Please no tricks. You are being evasive enough as it isbecause I can't have an idea of that, because you control what science is, since there is only your version and not several ones as per wiki again:
Philosophy of science - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
So here is a trick I used. I used wiki and you fell for it, since you used it. Then I can use it too and use the link above:
Here is the start:
"According to Robert Priddy, all scientific study inescapably builds on at least some essential assumptions that cannot be tested by scientific processes;[55] that is, that scientists must start with some assumptions as to the ultimate analysis of the facts with which it deals."
Your again venturing into the vague nebulous Ontological Idealism with selective references. This is true to a certain extent, but terribly incomplete, which is the reason Popper proposed that hypotheses and theories are verifiable and not verified or proven as in Logical Positivism.
Last edited:
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Well, there are these versions of science according to wiki:
Naturalism's axiomatic assumptions
Coherentism
Anything goes methodology
Sociology of scientific knowledge methodology
Continental philosophy
Philosophy of science - Wikipedia
Now remeber this. This is not about what I think, so if you answer as if it matters what I think about it, it really doesn't matters. What matters is that you have explain how this is the case. And if I died right after written this, it would still be there.
At least that is how I understand the universe to work.
So explain current approaches.
Last edited:
More shotgun nonsense. Please respond to subject of the thread. Start a thread on each one of the above and I will address them individually,
Where are the Scientism scientists?
This is most definitely what you think, because of the nebulous shotgun approach to your responses to my posts without answering the specifics.
The only approach I want to address is Methodological Naturalism, and the"Scientism" strawman fallacy
Last edited:
I made no such claim. I do, however, believe that that is why YOU use the word. Whenever you use the word, you're being critical and expressing contempt.
As I said, I call that a belief. Believing in is a term for belief by faith such as believing in Santa Claus or the tooth fairy. I believe many things, but believe in nothing.
And that is my belief, although I'd word it even more strongly and substitute empiricism for science. Empiricism is not just the best way to acquire knowledge about reality. It's the only way, unless you want to add things like philosophy, mathematics, and formal logic, which are pure reason. Is 2=2=4 a statement about reality? That two apples and two more yield four apples is, but that's not pure reason, and reason is already a part of critical thinking and empiricism.
And knowledge is strictly defined as well. Knowledge here means the collection of demonstrably correct ideas. They are the ideas that predict outcomes, and doing that successfully is how one demonstrates that these ideas are correct.
Another feature of correct ideas is that though falsifiable in the sense that if they were incorrect, that could at least in principle be shown to be the case, but because they are correct, they cannot be falsified.
But the important point here is faith and intuition are not paths to knowledge. They may suggest areas worth testing, but it's the testing that generates knowledge, not the formulating of hypotheses.
And I doubt that you can rebut any of that. Find an idea that meets that definition of knowledge that was the result of anything other than empiricism, and you will have succeeded. Here's a chance for you to test my claim that one feature of correct ideas is that they are falsifiable in the Popperian sense of the word but cannot in fact be falsified. If I am wrong, you can falsify my claim. Just provide the example requested. If I am correct, you cannot do that.
No, I do not respect faith. It's guessing. It's a logical error that generates a non sequitur every time. The faith-based belief doesn't follow from any preceding argument or claim.
The why bring it up as a question if it is nonsense smoke screen to avoid the topic of the thread.
Clarification. Do you believe the universe is physical? Being from God could be a physical Creation.
Augustus
…
???
Can you explain how normal social science fails to meet the standards of methodological naturalism?
Do you think social scientists commonly invoke supernatural or divine explanations for events?
Methodological naturalism just means the assumption that (for the purpose of scientific enquiry) events have natural explanations and causes rather than supernatural ones.