This confirms your acrid pejorative anti-science agenda against 95%+ of all scientists and every major university in the world.
-
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
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
I have no personal agenda as it is not a part of our physical existence.
And you have no feelings as they are not a part of our physical existence.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Those feelings of yours are not real. They are not a part of our physical existence.
PureX
Veteran Member
Their God is the ideal of objectivity as they perceive it being manifested through "the physical evidence". Their God of objectivity is in reality, though, a subjectively experienced and reasoned ideal. Which they absolutely cannot acknowledge so as to avoid the massive internal dissonance that it would generate.
RestlessSoul
Well-Known Member
Did you actually read my post? What you’ve said bears no relation to it.
I very much doubt whether 95% of all scientists in the world share you views on anything. Getting consensus among scientists on a lot of issues is rare.
I think you’re just drawing attention to your own poor understanding of what’s being discussed, here and elsewhere.
PureX
Veteran Member
Exactly what a scientism cultist would think.
Augustus
…
You just explained in your own words exactly this mistake.
I realise you don’t understand your mistake, but that’s your problem and just repeating the word “no” won’t magically make you less wrong.
If you were more open minded you’d realise, in the context I mentioned, it is a pejorative against unscientific thinking and a lack of scepticism.
Actually, yes.
You just pointed out some limitations of the social sciences that make them less reliable, I’m not sure what mental gymnastics it would require on your behalf to also maintain that people could not overestimate the scope and accuracy of the social sciences.
If you accept people can overestimate the scope and reliability of the social sciences, then you agree that scientism exists and is, to some extent, a problem.
You just don’t realise it as you are unaware of the history of the term scientism and that it was not invented for religious apologetics. It has long been used in academic scholarship and the philosophy of science (for example by Karl Popper whose idea of falsifiability you referred to earlier).
Don’t tell fibs
Nihilism
It is a fact that you expressed this belief. This confirms your acrid pejorative anti-science agenda against 95%+ of all scientists and every major university in the world.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Yeah, you don't like that, but that you don't like that, is not a part of our physical existence.
Your problem is that you are subjective in a way for which you have no evidence that it is a part of our physical existence. Yet in effect according to you, it is only real if it is comfirmed by natural science.
So all of your feelings are in effect unreal, but you know that it is not the case, because you feel them. That is the joke of your worldview.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
But it is not a fact, since the belief is subjective and you only accept objective physical facts for this world.
No
No
Scientism does not have a positive context concerning science.
Actually no.
No, not necessarily less reliable.
The mental gymnastics are your Modus Operandi.
Individual fallible humans can overestimate anything they choose, but it remains "Scientism" is a pejorative attack on science without a constructive purpose, and your posts are getting terrible monotonous and circular,
No, scientism does not exist by definition. It is a Strawman accusation.
I thought you were through, but continue to ramble meaninglessly.You just don’t realise it as you are unaware of the history of the term scientism and that it was not invented for religious apologetics. It has long been used in academic scholarship and the philosophy of science (for example by Karl Popper whose idea of falsifiability you referred to earlier).
Don’t tell fibs
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
You really have a lot of feelings and subjective opinions.
It seems that you in effect can't recognize when you are subjective. That is okay, that is normal. It just means that you don't understand when you are subjective.
It seems . . . reflects your personal agenda without a coherent worldview.
Nihilism
No God involved in Science.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
No, because it is not with objective, physical evidence that I have one. You are right now hallucinating according to your own worldview.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
No, that is not a fact, because it is not with obejctive, physical evidence that I can be subjective in effect.
Are you okay? You seem to be claiming something, which is not a part of our physical existence.
PureX
Veteran Member
But scientism isn't science. And the scientism cult has enshrined their delusional idealization of science as their godless God. Their anti-deity. The singular source of all truth, reality, and human advancement.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Well, here is a relgious article about scientism. It is written by me and everything else on the Internet about scientism is written by me, including all the post by other posters here.
Science and Scientism
Abstract. Scientism unreasonably extends the scientific mode of understanding the natural world, to claim that it should always override any other mode of