"Scientism, logic, memes are locked into an arguably limited system"
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
23-07-2015, 03:40 AM (This post was last modified: 23-07-2015 03:47 AM by Sam Polter.)
"Scientism, logic, memes are locked into an arguably limited system"
What do you think of that. I do not really understand what is being said.

back story: Was entered into the poll on my website Proof evolution is false (dont worry is atheist website) (see the poll to get the jist of exact context (he answered no to first question)

This is a site about evolution so i do not know why he thinks scientism should be mentioned (implying what science cannot answer everything) on a scientific argument

ps scientism:
Scientism is belief in the universal applicability of the scientific method and approach, and the view that empirical science constitutes the most authoritative worldview or most valuable part of human learning to the exclusion of other viewpoints.

edit: sorry for "promoting website" but i thought you might need context
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-07-2015, 03:49 AM
RE: "Scientism, logic, memes are locked into an arguably limited system"
I think someone is trying to say that reality is limited, but our imagination and fantasy is unlimited .

I prefer reality.

Insanity - doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-07-2015, 05:05 AM
RE: "Scientism, logic, memes are locked into an arguably limited system"
(23-07-2015 03:49 AM)Rahn127 Wrote:  I think someone is trying to say that reality is limited, but our imagination and fantasy is unlimited .

I prefer reality.

yeah but i do not see what that has to do with evolution which is scientific
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-07-2015, 05:19 AM
RE: "Scientism, logic, memes are locked into an arguably limited system"
It's an argument I've come across several times. The idea is that scientists exclude the supernatural as an explanation for something from the outset. It's kinda persuasive...

I observe event X, Mr T observes event X. I find event X baffling and embark on a quest of scientific discovery. Why did event X happen? Mr T finds event X mysterious and declares that Goddidit. My quest for scientific discovery is odd to Mr T. He already knows why it happened. Also, why won't I accept that Goddidit? Even though so far I have several working hypotheses and experiments backing up a non-supernatural explanation for X, it's highly suspicious. It seems helluva convoluted and improbable. Why should event X have such a complex-seeming explanation? Why am I bending over backwards to exclude God? And when I talk about my work I talk in terms of hypotheses and theories, and sometimes when an experiment goes as I don't expect I *modify* my theory??? That seems like cheating. Mr T decides that I have a screw loose.

The thing is... God in this case is just an escape. Mr T can't explain the event so he says that a person did it - because people are capricious and can do unexpected things. Since obviously no person can e.g. cause an earthquake, Mr T has to hypothesize that the person is very very strong/powerful and has abilities beyond those of normal people. He also (tee hee) has to hypothesize that the person is invisible - 'cos of all the skeptics who keep asking "if this guy's such a hotshot, where the fuck is he?"

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like morondog's post
23-07-2015, 06:03 AM
RE: "Scientism, logic, memes are locked into an arguably limited system"
(23-07-2015 05:19 AM)morondog Wrote:  I observe event X, Mr T observes event X. I find event X baffling and embark on a quest of scientific discovery. Why did event X happen? Mr T finds event X mysterious and declares that Goddidit.

We can reverse this argument, and it would be just as accurate.

I observe event X, Mr T observes event X. I find event X baffling and embark on a quest to discover how it happened. Why did event X happen? Mr T finds event X mysterious and declares that it must have been have been the result of a series of physical accidents.

How did Bob win a multimillion dollar lottery three times straight? Mr T finds this mysterious, but declares that it must have been just coincidental, a fluke.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-07-2015, 06:10 AM
RE: "Scientism, logic, memes are locked into an arguably limited system"
well duh, only good christians win the lottery and are cured from cancer. False christians, people from other religions and atheists die from cancer and never win anything. Proven fact.

Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored- Aldous Huxley
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like devilsadvoc8's post
23-07-2015, 06:17 AM (This post was last modified: 23-07-2015 06:24 AM by Tomasia.)
RE: "Scientism, logic, memes are locked into an arguably limited system"
(23-07-2015 06:10 AM)devilsadvoc8 Wrote:  well duh, only good christians win the lottery and are cured from cancer. False christians, people from other religions and atheists die from cancer and never win anything. Proven fact.

If people who lived near a nuclear plant developed cancer at an alarmingly higher rate than the general populace, hardly anyone besides the lawyers for the nuclear plant would argue it was just coincidental.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-07-2015, 06:24 AM
RE: "Scientism, logic, memes are locked into an arguably limited system"
(23-07-2015 06:03 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  I observe event X, Mr T observes event X. I find event X baffling and embark on a quest to discover how it happened. Why did event X happen? Mr T finds event X mysterious and declares that it must have been have been the result of a series of physical accidents.
You care to share the process of your quest? How in the absence of testing will you carry out your exploratory quest? By navel gazing?

Quote:How did Bob win a multimillion dollar lottery three times straight? Mr T finds this mysterious, but declares that it must have been just coincidental, a fluke.
I see your line. Yeah, if it's a lottery I'm gonna find it dodgy that Bob won the lottery 3 times and demand a review. Nevertheless a. it is possible for such an event to actually occur through random chance (even though chance has a small but important part to play in evolution that's not all there is, just by the way, which is also why you've got a shit analogy going here) b. *someone* wins the lottery. You are making a false analogy. We have won the lottery once, we don't know what the odds are against winning it, and you look at the cheque and declare that the odds against winning this exact figure are ridiculous and therefore Goddidit.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-07-2015, 06:37 AM
RE: "Scientism, logic, memes are locked into an arguably limited system"
(23-07-2015 06:03 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(23-07-2015 05:19 AM)morondog Wrote:  I observe event X, Mr T observes event X. I find event X baffling and embark on a quest of scientific discovery. Why did event X happen? Mr T finds event X mysterious and declares that Goddidit.

We can reverse this argument, and it would be just as accurate.

I observe event X, Mr T observes event X. I find event X baffling and embark on a quest to discover how it happened. Why did event X happen? Mr T finds event X mysterious and declares that it must have been have been the result of a series of physical accidents.

How did Bob win a multimillion dollar lottery three times straight? Mr T finds this mysterious, but declares that it must have been just coincidental, a fluke.

No, you cannot validly reverse the argument. There is no evidence of the supernatural, so it is not a logical choice.

When phenomena have been investigated, the supernatural has never been shown to be the answer. Not once, not ever.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-07-2015, 06:49 AM
RE: "Scientism, logic, memes are locked into an arguably limited system"
(23-07-2015 06:24 AM)morondog Wrote:  You care to share the process of your quest? How in the absence of testing will you carry out your exploratory quest? By navel gazing?

Do test reveal that ontological naturalism is true? No it doesn't. How would you test this? You can't test it with the scientific method, because the scientific method presupposes methodological naturalism, it's limited in a way that it cannot endorse or negate ontological naturalism.

What ever problems you see facing my quest, would be ones just as likely to plague yours, whether you recognize this or not.

Quote:I see your line. Yeah, if it's a lottery I'm gonna find it dodgy that Bob won the lottery 3 times and demand a review. Nevertheless a. it is possible for such an event to actually occur through random chance (even though chance has a small but important part to play in evolution that's not all there is, just by the way, which is also why you've got a shit analogy going here).

The line of reasoning is not this though. It's this: "It's very well possible that Bob could have won the lottery 3 times straight through random chance, therefore Bob won the lottery by random chance."


Quote: *someone* wins the lottery. You are making a false analogy. We have won the lottery once, we don't know what the odds are against winning it, and you look at the cheque and declare that the odds against winning this exact figure are ridiculous and therefore Goddidit.

There are plenty more losers in this lottery than winners. And there is no real meaningful distinction from an infinitesimal possibly of Bob winning the lottery 3 times, straight, and us winning it once with the same infinitesimal possibility. You can believe us winning this lottery was just an uncanny fluke, that matter was able to organize itself in such a way to produce conscious, self-aware creatures, with creative and moral capacities, and the ability to trace it's own origins, by a series of physical accidents, while others might not find that all that believable at all.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: