Scientism? (reject, protestant, faith, verse, philosophy)

[Willamena]

Originally Posted by JerryL

True or false, this statement is irrellevent.

So if I try a divination here, it doesn't reliably give me correct information about reality. But if I try a divination while surrounded by people of some other culture, suddenly my conclusions will be accurate?!?

That's nothing I've claimed.

Originally Posted by JerryL

I suspect what you mean is "is considered valid". I'm not asking who considers what valid, I'm asking what can be *established* valid.

No, I mean "are valid," established and utilized. Your scientism is showing.

Originally Posted by JerryL

Divination falies to yield consistant results. They are not reliably consistant with reality, and they are not reliably consistant with one another.

Depends on what you are testing, and what you are testing for.

Originally Posted by JerryL

What culture do you feel would put diviniation on equal footing? If one person devines that there are 10 apples in a basket, and another person looks in the basket and counts that there are 5 apples. Which method is considered reliable? Will we conclude that the basket has 5 apples as determined by empericism, or 10 as determined by divination? Which culture would choose 10? Also, what bearing would the choice to accept 10 have on whether it actually was 10?

On equal footing with what? With science? You misunderstand if you think there is some sort of comparison between the two at work in these cultures, or worse, that divination is some sort of replacement for science.

"10 apples in a basket" is not something someone would be divining, since they are more likely to count the number of apples if they need to know that information. You're just being silly now.

[Super Universe]

This thread is posted under "Science vs Religion". Although technically correct, since religion is a creation of man, the idea most often applied is that it's science vs God.

How can science be against it's Creator?

All knowledge comes from God and here are the rules concerning the dispensation of that knowledge.

First you must have the ability to understand it. If special relativity had come to me in a dream it would not have found it's way into popularity. Only Einstein could understand it.

Second, you must do all the prior work to be able to receive such knowledge. If the previous rules (electromagnetism, inertia, speed of light...) had not been theorized then the higher rules (E=MC2 and space/time) could not be imagined yet in enough detail for the knowledge of it to be transmitted.

Think of a pyramid. You cannot place the top stone until you have the middle built and you cannot build the middle until you have the base assembled. You cannot immediately go to the top, you must build your knowledge base until you are in a position to understand the top stone of information when it comes.

Often you will then realize that it's not the top stone at all, there is much more of the puzzle to solve.

[lilithu]

Originally Posted by standing_on_one_foot

Somewhat silly. Science doesn't make claims about absolute truth; it makes claims about what can be observed and empirically measured. So of course that's the only truth it's concerned with.

Scientism isn't about the claims that science makes. It's about the claims that certain people make in the name of science.

Yes, scientism is a form of fundamentalism in the way that term is commonly used now (intolerant of other views). I was calling them "fundy atheists" before I was taught the term scientism by a religious studies professor. And to be clear, there's nothing wrong with being an atheist just as there's nothing wrong per se with being a fundamentalist christian (in the original sense of the phrase). It's when one starts imposing that view on others, insisting that it is the only correct view, ridiculing others for not adhering to it...

[JerryL]

Second, methods such as divination are a valid means of obtaining truth in some non-Western societies.

o if I try a divination here, it doesn't reliably give me correct information about reality. But if I try a divination while surrounded by people of some other culture, suddenly my conclusions will be accurate?!?

That's nothing I've claimed.

Really? And what does "valid means of obtaining truth" mean then?

No, I mean "are valid," established and utilized. Your scientism is showing.

You are equivocating the word "valid". I think you mean to say "accepted".

Depends on what you are testing, and what you are testing for.

Please feel free to pick a piece of reality which divination is successful at determining the truth of.

On equal footing with what? With science? You misunderstand if you think there is some sort of comparison between the two at work in these cultures, or worse, that divination is some sort of replacement for science.

Not with science, with emperical data. Which culture would believe the divined number of apples over the counted number of apples?

From the OP:

scientism claims that science alone can render truth about the world and reality.

Since that is the claim, and your counter was divination, you seem to be claiming that divination can render truth about the world and reality. I'd like to see a genuine example of this.

"10 apples in a basket" is not something someone would be divining, since they are more likely to count the number of apples if they need to know that information. You're just being silly now.

So "the number of apples in a basket" is not a portion of "the world and reality" than can be discerned by divination? OK. What data about the world and reality does divination address?

[Fluffy]

Please feel free to pick a piece of reality which divination is successful at determining the truth of.

When you use the term "reality", are you defining it as subjective or objective? If you are defining it as subjective, are you suggesting that it coheres with a seperate objective reality or that perception is reality?

[Willamena]

Originally Posted by JerryL

Really? And what does "valid means of obtaining truth" mean then?

First, riddle me this: what does "valid means of obtaining truth" have to do with anything you posted above? (i.e. I fully expect that you will provide a discourse about what is "correct information about reality".)

Originally Posted by JerryL

You are equivocating the word "valid". I think you mean to say "accepted".

No, I am being perfectly clear. You are the one who is equivocating on "validity" to conform to some definition of science-uncovered reality.

Originally Posted by JerryL

Please feel free to pick a piece of reality which divination is successful at determining the truth of.

Subjectively perceived reality.

Originally Posted by JerryL

Not with science, with emperical data. Which culture would believe the divined number of apples over the counted number of apples?

"Data" is a part of science (nowhere was this better analogized than in Star Trek: The Next Generation in the character of Data). Knowledge, on the other hand, is not exclusive to science.

No culture would find it necessary to divine a number of apples, and in fact they would find the suggestion silly --I thought I made that clear.

Originally Posted by JerryL

From the OP:

scientism claims that science alone can render truth about the world and reality.

Since that is the claim, and your counter was divination, you seem to be claiming that divination can render truth about the world and reality. I'd like to see a genuine example of this.

What's the point? Your scientism would not allow you to acknowledge them as "valid" (even on behalf of people of that culture) or as "real".

If you are truly interested in approaching this with an open mind, though, this webpage shows how divination is a large part of some cultures:
http://www.metmuseum.org/explore/ora...Pemberton.html

Originally Posted by JerryL

So "the number of apples in a basket" is not a portion of "the world and reality" than can be discerned by divination? OK. What data about the world and reality does divination address?

Divination addresses knowlege about us (humans).

[fantôme profane]

Originally Posted by Super Universe

How can science be against it's Creator?

Of course when you refer to the creator of science you must be referring to human beings. Humans created science just like humans created religion. To believe otherwise is what leads to fundamentalism, of either kind.

[JerryL]

When you use the term "reality", are you defining it as subjective or objective? If you are defining it as subjective, are you suggesting that it coheres with a seperate objective reality or that perception is reality?

I didn't realize "real" was a difficult vocabulary term.

First, riddle me this: what does "valid means of obtaining truth" have to do with anything you posted above?

And how can I answer that if I don't know what it means? You used the term, please define it.

You've asserted a hypothetical position which claims that non-emperical methods (like divination) are (your words) "not valid means of obtaning truth".

You've then said that, in some cultures, divination is a valid means of obtaining truth.

I'm asking what "valid means of obtaining truth" means, because the definitions I can conjure would make divination not a "valid means of obtaining truth".

No, I am being perfectly clear. You are the one who is equivocating on "validity" to conform to some definition of science-uncovered reality.

How am I equivocating my own term? How is divination "valid"? How are *you* defining the word?

Subjectively perceived reality.

Please give an example of subjectively percieved reality.

Data" is a part of science (nowhere was this better analogized than in Star Trek: The Next Generation in the character of Data). Knowledge, on the other hand, is not exclusive to science.

No culture would find it necessary to divine a number of apples, and in fact they would find the suggestion silly --I thought I made that clear.

And I then asked what divination would be correctly used to determine about the nature of reality.

You've argued that empericism is not the only valid method for determining the naure of reality, and I've been asking for an example ever since. Why are you not simply answering the question?

What's the point? Your scientism would not allow you to acknowledge them as "valid" (even on behalf of people of that culture) or as "real".

If you are truly interested in approaching this with an open mind, though, this webpage shows how divination is a large part of some cultures:
http://www.metmuseum.org/explore/ora...Pemberton.html

Why won't you answer the question?

Divination addresses knowlege about us (humans).

Please give an example? Would divination be a valid method to determine the mass of a human? Would it be a valid method to determine the mental health of a human? Would it be a valid method to determine the hair-color of a person? What, exactly, can I determine about reality through divination?

It seems an easy question. In case you are having difficulty framing an anwer, I'll provide one on empericism to give you an idea.

Emperial observation can be used to determin the number of apples in a basket. This is done by opening the basket and counting the apples. Essentially everyone (with the possible exception of those unable to count) comes to the same conclusion on the number of apples when using this method.