• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

"Scientism" on Wikipedia ...

joelr

Well-Known Member
A thing can be measured only if it maintains it’s temporary equilibrium long enough to facilitate measurement; can we really say that of meaning?

"temporary equilibrium"? You are using standards of measuring economic systems and things that comprise interdependent variables of different speeds and so on. In linquistics there are methods for measuring the meaning of statements. He wanted a measurement of a statement as a scientific process. This is Linguistics and the sub-topic from this one post is long dead. Give it up.

Linguistics is the scientific study of human language, meaning that it is a comprehensive, systematic, objective, and precise study of language. Linguistics encompasses the analysis of every aspect of language, as well as the methods for studying and modelling them.
 

joelr

Well-Known Member
He @joelr is using 2 different meanings of measure as per Google:
-ascertain the size, amount, or degree of (something) by using an instrument or device marked in standard units.
-assess the importance, effect, or value of (something).

There are many types of measurements made in analysis of linguistics:

Linguistics is the scientific study of human language, meaning that it is a comprehensive, systematic, objective, and precise study of language. Linguistics encompasses the analysis of every aspect of language, as well as the methods for studying and modelling them.

The traditional areas of linguistic analysis include phonetics, phonology, morphology, syntax, semantics, and pragmatics. Each of these areas roughly corresponds to phenomena found in human linguistic systems: sounds (and gesture, in the case of signed languages), minimal units (phonemes, words, morphemes), phrases and sentences, and meaning and its use.

Linguistics studies these phenomena in diverse ways and from various perspectives. Theoretical linguistics (including traditional descriptive linguistics) is concerned with building models of these systems, their parts (ontologies), and their combinatorics. Psycholinguistics builds theories of the processing and production of all these phenomena. These phenomena may be studied synchronically or diachronically (through history), in monolinguals or polyglots, in children or adults, as they are acquired or statically, as abstract objects or as embodied cognitive structures, using texts (corpora) or through experimental elicitation, by gathering data mechanically, through fieldwork, or through introspective judgment tasks. Computational linguistics implements theoretical constructs to parse or produce natural language or homologues. Neurolinguistics investigates linguistic phenomena by experiments on actual brain responses involving linguistic stimuli.

Linguistics is related to philosophy of language, stylistics and rhetoric, semiotics, lexicography, and translation
 

RestlessSoul

Well-Known Member
There are different theories trying to get away from the wave function collapse or wave particle duality, but quantum mechanics cannot quantize the remaining force - gravity - into a "smallest unit" without infinities all over the mathematical results. So for now GR cannot join QM.



He just finds philosophy useless. Metaphysics as in physics that we haven't yet discovered is a common topic. But God and spirit realms are not part of the discussion.



Yes they use the terms lightly but they are not part of the science. Scientists are sometimes in organized religion or explore other religions. I don't know what they actually think about those things. But there is no connection to science. It's more related to psychology.


Science is the study of the natural world, so of course scientists will always stop short of considering supernatural phenomena; that would be beyond the remit of the discipline. But the lines between science and philosophy inevitably become blurred when we ask “what is real?” and “what exists?”
Even more so when we ask the great imponderable, “why?”

Referring to single polarised photon experiments, Paul Dirac said “questions about what decides whether the photon is to go through or not and how it changes it’s direction of polarisation…should be regarded as outside the domain of science.” He said that in 1935, but such questions have not remained outside the domain of science, have they?
 

joelr

Well-Known Member
Science is the study of the natural world, so of course scientists will always stop short of considering supernatural phenomena; that would be beyond the remit of the discipline. But the lines between science and philosophy inevitably become blurred when we ask “what is real?” and “what exists?”
Even more so when we ask the great imponderable, “why?”

Referring to single polarised photon experiments, Paul Dirac said “questions about what decides whether the photon is to go through or not and how it changes it’s direction of polarisation…should be regarded as outside the domain of science.” He said that in 1935, but such questions have not remained outside the domain of science, have they?


Science doesn't stop short of supernatural phenomena? There isn't any such thing? When someone can demonstrate it has a reality then a way to test it may come about.
Classical EM evolved into quantum versions, QED, but if you have a photon and it has a behavior you cannot understand then the laws would want to be searched for? That isn't supernatural, it's just learning more about science and following leads.
 

joelr

Well-Known Member
Philosophers won’t shut up and go away, simply because anyone who ever asked the questions “who am I and what am I here for?” is himself a philosopher.
That's great. People chasing you around on forums saying "but what is real?" isn't as great.
 

Sheldon

Veteran Member
Our understanding is dependent on our perspective, and as our paradigm shifts, so do our perceptions. Thus we no longer believe that the sun revolves around the earth.

Are you saying that is not an objective fact, or that the previous perspective of a geocentric earth was in any way a valid perspective?

Do you think our perspective can closely match reality, or paradoxically not remotely match reality, and every stage in between?

If I claim the earth is not flat, and a flat earther say it is, are you saying it is all a matter of perspective, or does one "perception" more closely match reality than the other?
 

Sheldon

Veteran Member
Science is the study of the natural world, so of course scientists will always stop short of considering supernatural phenomena; that would be beyond the remit of the discipline.
Sorry but this is pure assumption, if anything beyond the physical world and universe ever offer anything for science to study they will of course do so.

It is simply a fact that science cannot study what does not exist. Now if something exists, and there is nothing for science to study, then fine, but someone would need to demonstrate something beyond subjective claims, or anecdotal personal experience in order to demonstrate this to be the case. Else all unfalsifiable claims suddenly are on the table.
 

RestlessSoul

Well-Known Member
Are you saying that is not an objective fact, or that the previous perspective of a geocentric earth was in any way a valid perspective?

Do you think our perspective can closely match reality, or paradoxically not remotely match reality, and every stage in between?

If I claim the earth is not flat, and a flat earther say it is, are you saying it is all a matter of perspective, or does one "perception" more closely match reality than the other?


Yes Sheldon, of course the Ptolemaic astronomical model was a perfectly valid perspective, for many centuries. It was confirmed by observation, and it worked fine until the point where it no longer served. Similarly, the Newtonian model of physics was valid and worked perfectly well until it too no longer served, and was superseded by general relativity and QM. The arrogance of the modern exceptionalist is to assume that our current models represent what you call ‘objective fact’. They don’t, they represent at best a working hypothesis, a best guess - objective fact must always be just out of reach of our subjective perceptions; there are no certainties, only degrees of probability.

The flat earth model, on the other hand, never served, nor was it ever particularly convincing. Anyone who had been to sea, had caught a glimpse the dimensions of the globe. That’s basic stuff, even for the unimaginative and the literal minded.
 

RestlessSoul

Well-Known Member
Science doesn't stop short of supernatural phenomena? There isn't any such thing? When someone can demonstrate it has a reality then a way to test it may come about.
Classical EM evolved into quantum versions, QED, but if you have a photon and it has a behavior you cannot understand then the laws would want to be searched for? That isn't supernatural, it's just learning more about science and following leads.


So you’re saying that no phenomenon can be considered to exist, unless or until science can identify and quantify it (which, of course, it can only ever do imperfectly, even within the limits of it’s own methodology)?

That sounds exactly like scientism, as described at the top of this thread.
 
Last edited:

RestlessSoul

Well-Known Member
Sorry but this is pure assumption, if anything beyond the physical world and universe ever offer anything for science to study they will of course do so.

It is simply a fact that science cannot study what does not exist. Now if something exists, and there is nothing for science to study, then fine, but someone would need to demonstrate something beyond subjective claims, or anecdotal personal experience in order to demonstrate this to be the case. Else all unfalsifiable claims suddenly are on the table.


The physical world is an illusion Sheldon, all that appears solid is in fact without definable substance. You have mistaken the illusion for the only true reality. This is the irony of your position.
 

joelr

Well-Known Member
So you’re saying that no phenomenon can be considered to exist, unless or until science can identify and quantify it (which, of course, it can only ever do imperfectly, even within the limits of it’s own methodology)?

That sounds exactly like scientism, as described at the top of this thread.

I didn't say that. But to believe something exists you need evidence. If you are claiming the supernatural world cannot be seen in any way by any method that science could ever verify than how would you have justification in believing it's real?
You can also say you have an invisible pet dragon that science cannot detect, but it's real. You can say you feel it in your heart. What good is that?
 

RestlessSoul

Well-Known Member
I didn't say that. But to believe something exists you need evidence. If you are claiming the supernatural world cannot be seen in any way by any method that science could ever verify than how would you have justification in believing it's real?
You can also say you have an invisible pet dragon that science cannot detect, but it's real. You can say you feel it in your heart. What good is that?


What good is feeling something in your heart, and knowing it to be real, and true, and beautiful? All the good in the world, I should have thought.
 

joelr

Well-Known Member
What good is feeling something in your heart, and knowing it to be real, and true, and beautiful? All the good in the world, I should have thought.
Sure if you think believing in false things is "all the good in the world".
There are hundreds of millions of people who believe in their heart Krishna is real. Anyone can feel that any imaginary being is true, real and beautiful. They can also feel that about any ideology. Their race is superior, or their gender or sexual orientation. Or maybe that God is telling them they have certain rights to certain land. Or that God desires the death of every living thing in 6 nearby cities. No prisoners, just murder.
All the good in the world? HA.
 

RestlessSoul

Well-Known Member
Sure if you think believing in false things is "all the good in the world".
There are hundreds of millions of people who believe in their heart Krishna is real. Anyone can feel that any imaginary being is true, real and beautiful. They can also feel that about any ideology. Their race is superior, or their gender or sexual orientation. Or maybe that God is telling them they have certain rights to certain land. Or that God desires the death of every living thing in 6 nearby cities. No prisoners, just murder.
All the good in the world? HA.


Yeah, but here’s the thing; all that bad stuff, the business about racism, murder, wiping out cities - it came from your head, not mine. So I’m not really sure what point you are trying to make here.
 

Yazata

Active Member
Sorry, it's nonsense. Logical positivism was debated among philosophers for decades, meanwhile science discovered quantum mechanics, and the entire modern world. I'm going to source Feynman.
Richard Feynman, who shared the 1965 Nobel prize in physics for his work on quantum field theory, claimed that the “philosophy of science is as useful to scientists as ornithology is to birds”.

Feynman was (in)famous for tossing out witty quips. Many were only relevant to particular situations in which they were uttered. It might be helpful to know the context of the quip that you quoted. My guess is that he was criticising the sort of methodologists who presumed to lay out some "Scientific Method", some algorithm that scientists like him were supposed to follow in order to be scientists. Feynman preferred to practice physics more or less the way that he had been taught in physics graduate school, thank you very much.

I don't believe that Feynman was opposed to the philosophy of science per se. He practiced the philosophy of science himself. That's obvious in his The Character of Physical Law which is nothing if not a philosophy of physics book. He seems to think that the matters that he was discussing were important for theoretical physicists like himself and worthy of their consideration.

Here's the chapter titles of that book:

The law of gravitation, an example of physical law

The relation of mathematics to physics

The great conservation principles

Symmetry in physical law

The distinction of past and future

Probability and uncertainty - the quantum mechanical view of nature

Seeking new laws


So how is Feynman's supposed dismissal of the philosophy of science consistent with his beliefs in the existence of physical law, in how he recognizes physical laws, and (ideally) discovers more of them? How is it consistent with what appears to be the main topic of his book, the relationship between mathematics and physical reality?

Your example about the solar system was discovered because we understand evidence. Any philosophers around at the time didn't help with that.

Except that most of them were philosophers. Astrophysicists didn't exist in their time.

That "...because we understand evidence" of yours certainly appears to need further explanation. What is the relationship between evidence, reality and truth? That relationship would seem to be central not only to what is and isn't science, to its proper scope and subject matter, and to how it should best be practiced, but also to many of the issues that twist RF in knots. (Hint, nobody really knows the answers to those kind of questions, although the philosophy of science has a huge literature on it.)

And how can these kind of questions even be addressed without doing philosophy??
 
Last edited:

joelr

Well-Known Member
Yeah, but here’s the thing; all that bad stuff, the business about racism, murder, wiping out cities - it came from your head, not mine. So I’m not really sure what point you are trying to make here.

You said feeling something in your heart, and knowing it to be real, and true, and beautiful, is "all the good in the world".
Except that is one of the main reasons people claim as their primary knowledge for belief in a deity. Many of those same people will also claim their deity hates homosexuals, wants non-believers to be killed. Any prophet can feel in their heart a message from a God, know it to be true and consider it beautiful, and the message is one of racism, hate, bigotry.
Now you say this is all in my head. Whoopsy, you forgot that it's HAPPENING IN THE REAL WORLD!? For 2000 years people have been using this "heart knowledge" to justify all types of injustice.

So the obvious point is, no it is not "all the good in the world". Clearly people have claimed to know in their heart and know it to be real and true and were talking about Lord Krishna, Allah, and hundreds of other revelatory cults and other movements. They have also used the knowledge to commit hate crimes. So it's actually zero of the good. It can de demonstrated that those feelings are an illusion because members in Islam and Hinduism (among many others) will make the same claims. If you haven't had personal relationships with a fundamentalist in Islam or Hinduism then you simply don't realize they are equally as certain and intense in their belief.
We both know those religions are not real so it's a demonstration that those feelings are not a good pathway to truth.

The stuff about hate, racism, murder, isn't just out in the world,,,,,,,IT's IN SCRIPTURE?????? So this comment is highly delusional.
 

joelr

Well-Known Member
Feynman was (in)famous for tossing out witty quips. Many were only relevant to particular situations in which they were uttered. It might be helpful to know the context of the quip that you quoted. My guess is that he was criticising the sort of methodologists who presumed to lay out some "Scientific Method", some algorithm that scientists like him were supposed to follow in order to be scientists. Feynman preferred to practice physics more or less the way that he had been taught in physics graduate school, thank you very much.

I don't believe that Feynman was opposed to the philosophy of science per se. He practiced the philosophy of science himself. That's obvious in his The Character of Physical Law which is nothing if not a philosophy of physics book. He seems to think that the matters that he was discussing were important for theoretical physicists like himself and worthy of their consideration.

Here's the chapter titles of that book:

The law of gravitation, an example of physical law

The relation of mathematics to physics

The great conservation principles

Symmetry in physical law

The distinction of past and future

Probability and uncertainty - the quantum mechanical view of nature

Seeking new laws


So how is Feynman's supposed dismissal of the philosophy of science consistent with his beliefs in the existence of physical law, in how he recognizes physical laws, and (ideally) discovers more of them? How is it consistent with what appears to be the main topic of his book, the relationship between mathematics and physical reality?

You would have to do your own research. In The Pleasure of Finding Things Out and Surely You're Joking he rags on philosophers several times. He mocks some Spinoza and feels like it's mostly a waste of time. He obviously believes in the scientific method, methods of analysis that work. He mentioned taking some propositions from Spinoza and then taking contrary propositions and being unable to tell which matched the real world.
He was more of an Aristotle and disliked Platonic methods. It's been a while since I've read either book.


Except that most of them were philosophers. Astrophysicists didn't exist in their time.

That "...because we understand evidence" of yours certainly appears to need further explanation. What is the relationship between evidence, reality and truth? That relationship would seem to be central not only to what is and isn't science, to its proper scope and subject matter, and to how it should best be practiced, but also to many of the issues that twist RF in knots. (Hint, nobody really knows the answers to those kind of questions, although the philosophy of science has a huge literature on it.)

And how can these kind of questions even be addressed without doing philosophy??

No astrophysicists didn't exist but astronomers did. By the 2nd century the early astronomers were already debunking the cosmology of the 7 heavens/firmament.
Understanding evidence is something that didn't always happen. Causal relationships and testability were not assumed. It wasn't until people began looking at patterns in the sky without assumptions and understanding data, evidence, theories, and the basic scientific method. We do not need the relationship or philosophy between evidence and truth just basic knowledge of the scientific method.
This was not always a thing. If it rained it was from a deity. Bad weather meant angry Gods. The Earth was assumed to be the center of the universe and data was formed around that idea.

By understanding evidence and how to start out without assumptions and allow data to lead is how early astronomers figured out the solar system.
 

RestlessSoul

Well-Known Member
You said feeling something in your heart, and knowing it to be real, and true, and beautiful, is "all the good in the world".
Except that is one of the main reasons people claim as their primary knowledge for belief in a deity. Many of those same people will also claim their deity hates homosexuals, wants non-believers to be killed. Any prophet can feel in their heart a message from a God, know it to be true and consider it beautiful, and the message is one of racism, hate, bigotry.
Now you say this is all in my head. Whoopsy, you forgot that it's HAPPENING IN THE REAL WORLD!? For 2000 years people have been using this "heart knowledge" to justify all types of injustice.

So the obvious point is, no it is not "all the good in the world". Clearly people have claimed to know in their heart and know it to be real and true and were talking about Lord Krishna, Allah, and hundreds of other revelatory cults and other movements. They have also used the knowledge to commit hate crimes. So it's actually zero of the good. It can de demonstrated that those feelings are an illusion because members in Islam and Hinduism (among many others) will make the same claims. If you haven't had personal relationships with a fundamentalist in Islam or Hinduism then you simply don't realize they are equally as certain and intense in their belief.
We both know those religions are not real so it's a demonstration that those feelings are not a good pathway to truth.

The stuff about hate, racism, murder, isn't just out in the world,,,,,,,IT's IN SCRIPTURE?????? So this comment is highly delusional.


You can’t tell, in your own heart, the difference between love and hate? Maybe you should learn to trust your heart, and speak it’s language.
 
Top