Qualified Observation and Spirituality

[Thief]

Based on what though? We have no evidence of anyone surviving, so isn't it really just a case of wishful thinking based on our fear of extinction?

and you are wishing there is no One to answer to?.....no One to render judgment for what you lack?
no One standing over you in your last hour?

 

[Thief]

There are just meaningless words cobbled together to make some abstract point only you understand. You have a habit of turning scientific statements into philosophical word salad, so your lack of all evidence means something to yourself.

it seems you don't understand.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

and you are wishing there is no One to answer to?.....no One to render judgment for what you lack?
no One standing over you in your last hour?

This all seems like wishful thinking to me, comforting but without any basis in reality.

 

[Thief]

This all seems like wishful thinking to me, comforting but without any basis in reality.

So you 'believe' when you can put you finger 'in the wound'?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

So you 'believe' when you can put you finger 'in the wound'?

Yes, what's wrong with that?

 

[Thief]

Thomas was rebutted for his lack of faith.
'Blessed are those who believe and have not seen'.

Seems then, believe is formed of thought and feeling.

Sure, you must have seen and heard something first.
Kinda hard to form a thought if never you have lived.

But having lived....having seen as much as you have...
and would you continue to say?.....'nothing Greater than me'

 

[outhouse]

it seems you don't understand.

That's OK no one does.

 

[Gambit]

It often seems that people have great difficulty with accepting different ideas. Over the course of our lives we hear many different and intriguing ideas, some of which may outrage us or may enchant us and so on and some may confuse us. So what system can we use to determine which ideas are valid, which ones we should accept or reject? What system can we use?

When I speak of Scientific Method, I mean that in most instances scientists investigate problems by putting ideas to the test. Those that work are selected, those that don't work are rejected, and those that fail to produce enough data are held in abeyance. So the more information we have on things, the greater our ability to select or reject ideas.

What you're advocating is scientism (a pejorative term). No one lives his or her life based solely on the "scientific method." And it is absurd to believe that anyone can.

 

[Mycroft]

What you're advocating is scientism (a pejorative term). No one lives his or her life based solely on the "scientific method." And it is absurd to believe that anyone can.

/facepalm

 

[George-ananda]

What you're advocating is scientism (a pejorative term). No one lives his or her life based solely on the "scientific method." And it is absurd to believe that anyone can.

/facepalm

Quatermass, what is the face palm about?

I pointed out before how you confuse how science does and should operate with how human beings do and should operate.

You were telling me we should not accept any beliefs beyond science because they are not 'verifiable' and hence just subjective opinions. I countered that humans should accept the most reasonable hypothesis as the most reasonable hypothesis (understanding that it is not provable so not a perfect 100% certain).

I gave the example of a jury in a murder trial that reaches a decision of 'guilty beyond reasonable doubt' after thorough deliberation over all evidence and argumentation applicable to the case. Can they 'verify' their conclusion; No. Can they claim they have reached the most reasonable conclusion; Yes. This is how humans have to operate and it is different from how science operates.

 

[Mycroft]

Quatermass, what is the face palm about?

I pointed out before how you confuse how science does and should operate with how human beings do and should operate.

You were telling me we should not accept any beliefs beyond science because they are not 'verifiable' and hence just subjective opinions. I countered that humans should accept the most reasonable hypothesis as the most reasonable hypothesis (understanding that it is not provable so not a perfect 100% certain).

I gave the example of a jury in a murder trial that reaches a decision of 'guilty beyond reasonable doubt' after thorough deliberation over all evidence and argumentation applicable to the case. Can they 'verify' their conclusion; No. Can they claim they have reached the most reasonable conclusion; Yes. This is how humans have to operate and it is different from how science operates.

scientism
ˈsʌɪəntɪz(ə)m/
noun
rare

1. Expression similar to "Yeah? Well...you're a booby head!'
   2. The inability or unwillingness to prove claims.
   3. A filibuster.

 

[George-ananda]

scientism
ˈsʌɪəntɪz(ə)m/
noun
rare

1. Expression similar to "Yeah? Well...you're a booby head!'
   2. The inability or unwillingness to prove claims.
   3. A filibuster.

Did you click on the link in Gambit's post that provided the Wikipedia discussion of 'scientism'. It sounds a lot like what you have been trying to tell me in other threads.

 

[Mycroft]

Did you click on the link in Gambit's post that provided the Wikipedia discussion of 'scientism'. It sounds a lot like what you have been trying to tell me in other threads.

I suppose it depends on the context. Most often on RF it's used to imply one treats science as a religion, it's meant pejoratively.

 

[Gambit]

I suppose it depends on the context. Most often on RF it's used to imply one treats science as a religion, it's meant pejoratively.

Wikipedia defines "scientism" as the "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."

 

[Mycroft]

Wikipedia defines "scientism" as the "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."

Scientism is the view that only scientific claims are meaningful. It is often widely abused as a term to refer to science and attitudes associated with science, and its primary use these days is a pejorative.

The non-pejorative - and therefore boring - sense of the term denotes the "methods and attitudes typical of or attributed to the natural scientist." This term is meaning is rarely seen on RF.

 

[Gambit]

Scientism is the view that only scientific claims are meaningful.

And this is exactly what you're espousing as made evident in the OP of this thread.