"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, 06:53 AM
RE: "Scientism, logic, memes are locked into an arguably limited system"
(23-07-2015 06:49 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  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.

But it is not the same possibility. The probability of an event happening three times in a row is the product of the probabilities, which is a very much smaller number.

Quote: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.

"A series of physical accidents" is a straw man version of evolution at the molecular level. You are utterly missing cumulative change. Read a book.

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, 06:54 AM
RE: "Scientism, logic, memes are locked into an arguably limited system"
(23-07-2015 06:37 AM)Chas Wrote:  No, you cannot validly reverse the argument. There is no evidence of the supernatural, so it is not a logical choice.

By what methodology would you be able to verify supernatural evidence? You can't do so with methodological naturalism (the scientific method), since this methodology can only provide possible naturalistic explanations for it, even if in fact truly was supernatural.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-07-2015, 07:01 AM (This post was last modified: 23-07-2015 07:08 AM by Tomasia.)
RE: "Scientism, logic, memes are locked into an arguably limited system"
(23-07-2015 06:53 AM)Chas Wrote:  "A series of physical accidents" is a straw man version of evolution at the molecular level. You are utterly missing cumulative change. Read a book.


I think you need to read a book. Your gripes about the term "accidents", only helps to reveal to me, that at some level you find materialism just as absurd as I do, and want to erase the word "accident" from being used here to conceal your own dissonance. My suggestion is to own the word, or risk making your case look even weaker. And notice I didn't say anything exclusively in regards to evolution either. I subscribe to evolution as well, and would classify as a theistic evolutionist.

I remember listening to Daniel Dennett's desire to reclaim the word design, what motivated his desire to do this, is likely quite similar to your desire to scrub the word "accident".
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-07-2015, 07:06 AM
RE: "Scientism, logic, memes are locked into an arguably limited system"
(23-07-2015 03:40 AM)Sam Polter Wrote:  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

What he means is that science is limited to what can be observed or logically inferred from what is observed and that what he is merely imagining is excluded. Like all theists he divides the universe arbitrarily into two realms, one that is real and one that can only be imagined.

Do not lose your knowledge that man's proper estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind and a step that travels unlimited roads. - Ayn Rand.

Don't sacrifice for me, live for yourself! - Me

The only alternative to Objectivism is some form of Subjectivism. - Dawson Bethrick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-07-2015, 07:12 AM
RE: "Scientism, logic, memes are locked into an arguably limited system"
(23-07-2015 03:40 AM)Sam Polter Wrote:  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.

Generally speaking, when anybody starts off the word "scientism" you are quite justified in simply ignoring anything that follows.

That said, the definition given is not that bad:
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 [because it is the only approach we have tried that has proven itself time and again to be reliable].

TLDR: Science works bitches!

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like unfogged's post
23-07-2015, 07:14 AM
RE: "Scientism, logic, memes are locked into an arguably limited system"
Are you really arguing honestly here Tomasia?

You define "supernatural" and "science" such that they must be non overlapping magisteria, yet you seem to believe in a supernatural that interacts with the real world with natural effects that science certainly can interrogate

You draw a strawman of "accidents" driving evolution to characature ordinary and well proven physical processes then claim victory when you strawman is called out while simultaneously arguing that atheists are really secret believers.

You seem to have some credibility here. Don't blow it all on poor arguments such as these.

Give me your argument in the form of a published paper, and then we can start to talk.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Hafnof's post
23-07-2015, 07:17 AM
RE: "Scientism, logic, memes are locked into an arguably limited system"
(23-07-2015 07:12 AM)unfogged Wrote:  Generally speaking, when anybody starts off the word "scientism" you are quite justified in simply ignoring anything that follows.

What if your an atheists that openly identifies their views as scientism? Should we ignore what they have to say too?

Alex Rosenberg is such an atheists, and he defines scientism in this way:

"“Scientism... is the conviction that the methods of science are the only reliable ways to secure knowledge of anything; that science’s description of the world is correct in its fundamentals; and that when “complete,” what science tells us will not be surprisingly different from what it tells us today. We’ll often use the adjective “scientistic” in referring to the approaches, theories, methods, and descriptions of the nature of reality that all the sciences share. Science provides all the significant truths about reality, and knowing such truths is what real understanding is all about.”

Excerpt From: Rosenberg, Alex. “The Atheist's Guide to Reality: Enjoying Life without Illusions.” iBooks. "

Do you agree with his version of scientism at least?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-07-2015, 07:24 AM
RE: "Scientism, logic, memes are locked into an arguably limited system"
(23-07-2015 05:19 AM)morondog Wrote:  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?"

I pity the atheist, foo!

I'm homophobic in the same way that I'm arachnophobic. I'm not scared of gay people but I'm going to scream if I find one in my bath.

I'm. Also homophobic in the same way I'm arachnophobic. I'm scared of spiders but I'd still fuck'em.
- my friend Marc
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TarzanSmith's post
23-07-2015, 07:36 AM
RE: "Scientism, logic, memes are locked into an arguably limited system"
scientism is just a rehash of positivism. Why do we need a new word, people need to read more.
Positivism does accrue some limitations, however. Positivism is the belief that the only thing that matters is what is measurable. While this does not necessarily negate the existence of non-measurables, it does relegate them to not having any meaningful effect on life.
positivism, however, often goes hand and hand with material redcuctionism, which states that the only thing that exists is matter (and energy, ect.) this in itself requires a much more dogmatic approach and is itself much more limiting, even if it happens to be true.

I'm homophobic in the same way that I'm arachnophobic. I'm not scared of gay people but I'm going to scream if I find one in my bath.

I'm. Also homophobic in the same way I'm arachnophobic. I'm scared of spiders but I'd still fuck'em.
- my friend Marc
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-07-2015, 07:51 AM (This post was last modified: 23-07-2015 07:55 AM by Tomasia.)
RE: "Scientism, logic, memes are locked into an arguably limited system"
(23-07-2015 07:14 AM)Hafnof Wrote:  You draw a strawman of "accidents" driving evolution to characature ordinary and well proven physical processes then claim victory when you strawman is called out while simultaneously arguing that atheists are really secret believers.

You’ve created a strawman by claiming that I stated “evolution is driven by accidents”.

I could just as easily define the position as: Through a series of physical accidents, matter was able to organize itself in such a way to produce a system, with non-random components, that allowed matter to organize even further, and produce conscious, self-aware creatures, with creative and moral capacities, and the ability to trace it's own origins, be a way for the universe to be aware of itself. Not by any plan, or intention, not by any foresight, or inevitability, but through a series of flukes.

Quote:You define "supernatural" and "science" such that they must be non overlapping magisteria, yet you seem to believe in a supernatural that interacts with the real world with natural effects that science certainly can interrogate

Science can interrogate supernatural claims, but can only provide possible naturalistic explanations for it, or at the very least claim that the naturalistic explanations are unknown at this point. It can't declare that a supernatural claim is false, since by design it's incapable of doing that. Those naturalistic explanations might even make one doubt their supernatural beliefs, or abandon them. But it would be because people find one explanation more convincing than it’s alternatives.

Science is methodological, not ontological. To make it ontological is not science, but scientism. And i think atheists and theists should be very weary of conflating the two.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: