Who here believes in "Scientism"?

[Banach-Tarski Paradox]

This paranoid intentional Ignorance of science based on an ancient tribal agenda.

Your culture appears to teach disrespect for those on whose shoulders we stand.

What is a “tribal agenda”?

And how do you view tribal peoples, today?

You talk about tribal peoples a lot, but often to deny their cultures, their religions, and their histories.

 

[shunyadragon]

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.

incomprehensible. I cannot trust anything you write or your references.

 

[shunyadragon]

Your culture appears to teach disrespect for those on whose shoulders we stand.

What is a “tribal agenda”?

And how do you view tribal peoples, today?

You talk about tribal peoples a lot, but often to deny their cultures, their religions, and their histories.

I do not deny cultures or religions. I reject the ancient tribal agendas that reject and disrespect science as you do.

Ancient tribal believers rely on ancient tribal text without provenance as a source of truth to reject science.

 

[shunyadragon]

There are several posters, here, that have no idea what the dfference is, because in their world view there is no difference. Their scientism IS science.

Legitimate scientists and those that accept academic science as science do not consider Scientism as science.

No, it's not. But scientism IS. Apparently you are having difficulty recognizing the difference, too.

No, it's not. But the scientism cult treats science as if it were a deity.

No cult or deities involving science, but many cults and ancient religions consider science a cult.

When science becomes math, and logic, and medicine, and history, and every and all forms of intellectual inquiry and technical advancement in one's mind, science then becomes the “singular source of all truth, reality and human advancement”. This is the mind of the scientism cultist.

Science nor legitimate scientists consider science a "singular source of truth." It is more common for cults, and some ancient religions to make this claim as the "singular source of truth."

But in total, the mighty Godhead of science DOES have all the answers, or will have them soon enough. This is the unshakeable faith of the scientism cultists.

That is a commonly held subjective bias, yes. But the "observed facts" are just as subjective as any other humans experience. PERCEPTION IS CONCEPTION. The "true believers" of scientism are not able to recognize that there are no "objective facts". There are only objectified opinions being labeled as "facts".

Science claims nothing of the above, but some cults and ancient religions make similar claims based on an extreme subjective bias..

 

[Banach-Tarski Paradox]

incomprehensible. I cannot trust anything you write or your references.

You don’t trust anybody’s references, do you?

 

[Banach-Tarski Paradox]

I do not deny cultures or religions. I reject the ancient tribal agendas that reject and disrespect science as you do.

Ancient tribal believers rely on ancient tribal text without provenance as a source of truth to reject science.

On what basis does your religion and culture deem this part of oral tradition “idiotic”?

Anthropologists don’t.

Historians don’t.

That’s a religious view, not a scientific view.

SON DE CAPELLANIAS - LA BRUJA​

CATALINA​

 

[shunyadragon]

You don’t trust anybody’s references, do you?

I trust legitimate academic references, but books in Danish that @mikkel_the_dane cites that do not remotely support his argument are not acceptable.

You have rambled and rambled and present no legitimate references.

 

[shunyadragon]

On what basis does your religion and culture deem this part of oral tradition “idiotic”?

I do not consider oral tradition as "idiotic," It just has nothing to do with the topic of the thread or science,

Anthropologists don’t.

Historians don’t.

That’s a religious view, not a scientific view.

SON DE CAPELLANIAS - LA BRUJA​

CATALINA​

Rambling rubble rubble youtube references not related to the subject of the thread.

 

[Banach-Tarski Paradox]

I do not consider oral tradition as "idiotic," It just has nothing to do with the topic of the thread or science,

Rambling rubble rubble youtube references not related to the subject of the thread.

In your religion.

In your culture.

Other cultures more aligned with academia may disagree with your culture on this.

Academia is a part of civil society, and like any other part of civil society, will seek alliances with other parts of civil society, to promote coexistence in its own self-interest.

Academia cannot function in the modern world without such alliances.

 

[Banach-Tarski Paradox]

I do not consider oral tradition as "idiotic," It just has nothing to do with the topic of the thread or science,

You certainly deemed the first video as “idiotic”.

And again, anthropologists must certainly don’t.

You seek to handcuff anthropology and historiography like you seek to handcuff mathematics.

I don’t really have a big problem with folks who label that as “scientism”, even if I don’t tend to use the term, as I see it as part of a much older phenomena.

Maybe I’ll start, though, if it annoys you enough.

 

[Banach-Tarski Paradox]

It is more common for cults, and some ancient religions to make this claim as the "singular source of truth."

Isn’t your culture one of those “universal” cultures that considers its subjectivities to be objective?

We’ve discussed this before.

Remember me saying that, according to anthropologists and historians, your culture is not alone in this?

There are competing claims here.

Some cultures view themselves to be at the center of the world, the Axis Mundi, where heaven meets earth and hell, thereby providing an objective position from which to make observations and judgements about western cultures.

(By the way, are you interested in plate tectonics? And I don’t mean what historians call “vulgar geographical determinism”.)

It doesn’t matter that your culture disagrees, and substitutes these claims with its own claims.

What matters is that your culture is not alone in this.

You got competition.

You are not alone.

Didn’t I tell you before how much I admire this aspect of your culture?

But that’s still no reason for your culture to reject science.

Other cultures are able to maintain this same level of arrogance without rejecting science.

 

[shunyadragon]

Isn’t your culture one of those “universal” cultures that considers its subjectivities to be objective?

We’ve discussed this before.

Remember me saying that, according to anthropologists and historians, your culture is not alone in this?

No, I do not believe the subjective can be considered objective.

My belief in the philosophy of Universalism (not UU) has no reference to any culture. The only thing relevant to this thread is that this Universalist Philosophy accepts the evolving body of academic science as basis of the understanding of the nature of our physical existence.

There are competing claims here.

What competing claim is there concerning science? What other method is there that is competing with science with understand the physical nature of our existence?

Some cultures view themselves to be at the center of the world, the Axis Mundi, where heaven meets earth and hell, thereby providing an objective position from which to make observations and judgements about western cultures.

This of course would also be an extreme egocentric cultural claim that cannot be objectively determined.

(By the way, are you interested in plate tectonics? And I don’t mean what historians call “vulgar geographical determinism”.)

Confusing statement. Anything called “vulgar geographical determinism”. would not be legitimate history or science. legitimate academic historians would not make such outrageous claims.

None the less Geologic Plate Tectonics is established that describes the formation of continents, ocean basins and midocean ridge spreading zones that evolved over 4 billion years of earth's history.

It doesn’t matter that your culture disagrees, and substitutes these claims with its own claims.

It is not my culture, it is science,

What matters is that your culture is not alone in this.

You got competition.

You are not alone.

Didn’t I tell you before how much I admire this aspect of your culture?

I do not understand the above.

But that’s still no reason for your culture to reject science.

My culture? does not reject science.

Other cultures are able to maintain this same level of arrogance without rejecting science.

OK, but some ancient tribal cultures do indeed reject science, based on ancient scripture without provenance.

 

[Augustus]

Bizarre extortion of my posts on your part. Not worth responding to. The long controtted rationalization of your agenda on your part continues.

Your extreme anti-science agenda and crusade against scientific rigour is noted.

Your continued misrepresentation of the concept of methodological naturalism and continued diatribes against maintaining high standards across the sciences must come from your hostility to reason and rational scepticism in pursuit of your secret religious agenda.

Why else would you distort the truth so frequently and endlessly argue against scientific rigour across the sciences?

 

[shunyadragon]

Your extreme anti-science agenda and crusade against scientific rigour is noted.

Your continued misrepresentation of the concept of methodological naturalism and continued diatribes against maintaining high standards across the sciences must come from your hostility to reason and rational scepticism in pursuit of your secret religious agenda.

Why else would you distort the truth so frequently and endlessly argue against scientific rigour across the sciences?

My argument is valid that the standard of Methodological Naturalism is not uniformly applicable to all sciences, such as the Social Sciences, Methodological Naturalism and other methodology is used that does not meet the standard. This is understood and normal for Social Sciences.

Bizarre extortion of my posts on your part. Not worth responding to. The long controtted rationalization of your agenda on your part continues.

 

[Augustus]

My argument is valid that the standard of Methodological Naturalism is not uniformly applicable to all sciences, such as the Social Sciences, Methodological Naturalism and other methodology is used that does not meet the standard. This is understood and normal for Social Sciences.

MN is simply rejecting supernatural causes for events.

Thus you are arguing social sciences invoke the supernatural.

Why do malign science so much?

This must reflect you extreme anti science agenda.

You have also ranted against:

A) the idea some sciences are less reliable than others

B) That some people are insufficiently sceptical of results in these sciences

C) That acting on such incorrect information can be harmful and is to be avoided as much as possible.

That is my position, and across many threads you have endlessly lied about it, misrepresented it and insisted that such a position is absolutely and completely intellectually and morally wrong.

Someone arguing against scientific rigour as passionately as you do must have a very strong ideological agenda.

 

[Banach-Tarski Paradox]

My belief in the philosophy of Universalism (not UU) has no reference to any culture. The only thing relevant to this thread is that this Universalist Philosophy accepts the evolving body of academic science as basis of the understanding of the nature of our physical existence.

Look, I get it.

Your culture is the default culture.

The dominant culture.

The non-cultural culture.

La sociedad mayor.

But, according to historians and anthropologists, your culture is not the only culture that places itself at the center of the world.

 

[cladking]

Hi I am new to this thread. You write well. But I don't seem to grasp your thesis in a nutshell. What are you actually saying in simple words?

Everything that is reality is dependent on all other reality and everything that has come before. Reductionistic science (our science that takes things apart to understand them) can't even explain free will or its basis. It can't even define the terms.

To believe that science has all the answers is to believe free will doesn't exist, the universe is like a clockwork, and reality is preordained by science and its laws. "Science" as practiced by most people is a sick and perverted belief system that glorifies its priests (called Peers) and worships a methodology that they don't even understand is based solely on experiment.

The reality is we don't even know the nature of gravity, it's been proven the universe is no clockwork, and computer modeling can generate any desired results. Science changes one funeral at a time because people are nearly incapable of changing their beliefs even in the face of overwhelming evidence and even experiment itself. We believe we are "intelligent" but in actuality we have a complex language that allows the accumulation of knowledge over generations. True intelligence isn't a condition, it's an event.

"Science" is bought and paid for by individuals who have no scruples, no morals, no compunctions and lots and lots of greed.

 

[firedragon]

Everything that is reality is dependent on all other reality and everything that has come before. Reductionistic science (our science that takes things apart to understand them) can't even explain free will or its basis. It can't even define the terms.

To believe that science has all the answers is to believe free will doesn't exist, the universe is like a clockwork, and reality is preordained by science and its laws. "Science" as practiced by most people is a sick and perverted belief system that glorifies its priests (called Peers) and worships a methodology that they don't even understand is based solely on experiment.

The reality is we don't even know the nature of gravity, it's been proven the universe is no clockwork, and computer modeling can generate any desired results. Science changes one funeral at a time because people are nearly incapable of changing their beliefs even in the face of overwhelming evidence and even experiment itself. We believe we are "intelligent" but in actuality we have a complex language that allows the accumulation of knowledge over generations. True intelligence isn't a condition, it's an event.

"Science" is bought and paid for by individuals who have no scruples, no morals, no compunctions and lots and lots of greed.

Well, reductionism means reducing complex phenomena, such as consciousness or social behavior, to their simplest scientific explanations, sometimes ignoring the nuances provided by other perspectives.

Nevertheless, your whole point is that ""Science" is bought and paid for by individuals who have no scruples, no morals, no compunctions and lots and lots of greed". What do you mean "science is bought and paid for"? I really don't understand. Are you talking about someone buying something made using science or are you talking about embracing science as a whole?

 

[shunyadragon]

MN is simply rejecting supernatural causes for events.

IT is not that simple and you should no that.

Thus you are arguing social sciences invoke the supernatural.

No, yoy are just apparently not aware of the methodology of Social Sciences versu Basic sciences.

Why do malign science so much?

I do not

This must reflect you extreme anti science agenda.

No, this is mor bizarre misunderstanding of my posts.

You have also ranted against:

A) the idea some sciences are less reliable than others

No rant it is a fact that there are the different methodologies in different sciences. I did not claim less reliable (more misrepresentation of my posts.). This is a more detailed consideration of how different sciences use their methodology. You refused the reference I cited that described this,

B) That some people are insufficiently sceptical of results in these sciences

Some people?!?!?! Ambiguous response.

C) That acting on such incorrect information can be harmful and is to be avoided as much as possible.

Avoid playing with sharp objects like razor blades.

That is my position, and across many threads you have endlessly lied about it, misrepresented it and insisted that such a position is absolutely and completely intellectually and morally wrong.

Your ambiguity and bizarre reponses are the problem.

Someone arguing against scientific rigour as passionately as you do must have a very strong ideological agenda.

More bizarre misrepresentation of my posts. I never argued against scientific rigour.

 

[Augustus]

IT is not that simple and you should no that.

You tried to explain why. It proved you were wrong.

Can lead a horse to water…

No rant it is a fact that there are the different methodologies in different sciences. I did not claim less reliable (more misrepresentation of my posts.). This is a more detailed consideration of how different sciences use their methodology. You refused the reference I cited that described this,

For methodological reasons, Many social sciences are obviously less reliable.

No point in pretending otherwise.

Natural sciences generally study things that exist independently of human observation, social sciences frequently study things that only exist due to human conceptualisation of them. In addition they are often studied indirectly, and are very hard to isolate in order to study with reductionist methods.

Such complex systems with nonlinear dynamics, feedback loops and emergent properties are incredibly difficult to accurately and reliably study with scientific methods.

This is why studies in these fields often have low rates of replication.

Some people?!?!?! Ambiguous response

Unless you think that no one holds such views it is a perfectly unambiguous response - a relevant but unspecified number.

It’s no more ambiguous than saying “some Christians are fundamentalists”

More bizarre misrepresentation of my posts. I never argued against scientific rigour.

I’m obviously parodying your schtick SD

but seriously, of course you argued against scientific rigour. You just don’t realise because of your cognitive dissonance and irrational prejudices.

My point has been we should identify areas where scientific methods are less reliable and be sceptical of results in areas with poor track records that result from methodological problems. This is because acting on false information can be harmful.

This is an argument for scientific rigour.

Is there any of this you actually disagree with?

However, you endlessly ranted against this “extreme” position and felt the need to misrepresent it and lie about it in support of your personal prejudice and biased agenda.

Your poor comprehension and biases make you unable to comprehend this, but if you opened your mind , forgot all your prejudices and silly assumptions about my “agenda” for 1 second you might realise why you are being so foolish.

This won’t happen though as you prefer to live in your fantasy world full of secret religious apologists maintaining a decade of deep cover on a forum for no practical benefit rather than read a single post with an open mind while aiming to have a good faith discussion.