• 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!

A Recent Axiomatic Observation ...

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
Sensory perception that strongly indicates a conclusion is what we call "evidence."

Most people gain enough of this evidence to conclude that an external, objective, physical world exists by the age of 14 months. In fact, most people who believe in God also believe that the external, objective, physical world exists.

You're the one getting hung up on that. That's your bias, not everyone else's.

Well, read including assumption 1:
Philosophy of science - Wikipedia
 

F1fan

Veteran Member
To a racist, (a race based bigot), there is no such thing as racism. At least not of the variety that the racist, himself, is party to. And there is a very simple and obvious reason for this once we think about it. And the reason is because from the racist's perspective and understanding of truth and reality, there is no bigotry involved. Because his bigotry, TO HIM, is simply reality. It's neither biased nor mean-spirited, it's just the truth is he sees and believes it to be. And he will only be able to see other people's racism, so long as it is not of the same variety as his own. Anyone that sees the world as he does, though, cannot be a racist. Because that person would just be a realist. As the racist, himself, presumes himself to be.
Of course there is a difference between real in the sense of an objkect existing and we can sense it existing to there being a phenomenon, like gravity, that isn't an object but is real as a phenomenon. Racism isn't a natural phenomenon like gravity, it is a social and behavioral phenomenon, and as we do observe it in some people it is a result of how our brains function, and optional.

For example, if I believe that light-skinned people are inherently superior to dark-skinned people, then my thinking and saying so is not bigotry from my perspective. It's just reality. So should someone accuse me of being a racist, I would think they're quite wrong, since I neither thought nor said anything biased, bigoted, or mean-spirited. I simply stated a fact of reality as I see and understand it. And if someone told me that my next door neighbor, who also believes as I do, was a racist, I would likewise say and believe that he is not. That he, in fact, simply recognizes true reality, as I do. And that's not racism.
See how you move from a belief, which is uncertain and a judgment we will make with or without evidence. This is a flaw in unskilled thinkers. Their beliefs might not be supported by adequate evidence so there is a motivation to double down on the validity of flawed belief, and call it fact. This seems to be a way to remove the flawed thinker from accountability, and it shows awareness of the flaw.

This is why racists never think they are racist. AND it why it's nearly impossible to get them to see themselves as being racist. Because to do that, we would have to get them to change their understanding of reality and truth. Which no human being is going to do without a fight, and a significant internal struggle. So it very rarely happens.
Unskilled thinkers will self-verfiy beliefs that are personal and flawed. We see a similar case with theists who insist their God exists, or some God exists, yet can't explain how they came to this conclusion via facts, nor how it is evident naturally. We often see theists move from claiming their belief, to referring to God as if it is a fact, or veen claim God is a fact.

And this is why the adherents of 'scientism', here on RF, cannot see themselves as being adherents of 'scientism'. And why they cannot see anyone else being adherents of it, either. Because to them 'scientism' isn't a thing, it's just reality as they see and understand reality. And that reality does not extend beyond the parameters of 'scientism' such that it might be perceived and evaluated from an 'external' point of view. There is no other or external point of view to the adherent. It simply is what is.

But I'm not posting this thread to attack the scientism crowd.

The reason I think this is an important observation is because I suspect this kind of conceptual 'blind spot' exists within a lot of the reality/truth paradigms that we humans hold onto. Not the least of which would include a lot of theological paradigms. (Not to mention our economic and political paradigms.) Which is important to consider. Are the various truth paradigms that we hold to really as true as we think they are? Or are they just one of these self-blinding biases that we get ourselves trapped in, because we can't see past them?

And I guess the tangential question would be, do we even care? Or are we willing to just sweep the whole question under the rug so we don't have to face the difficult internal struggle involved in correcting and changing our truth paradigm?
I'm not sure what the problem is, nor who is guilty of this definition:

sci·en·tism
/ˈsīənˌtizəm/

noun
RARE
  1. thought or expression regarded as characteristic of scientists.
  2. excessive belief in the power of scientific knowledge and techniques.

Rare, that's funny. I never hear this word except theists having a problem with science being used to dispute religious claims.

It is bad that a person writes with the characteristic of a scientist? No.

Is it bad to have excessive belief in the power of scientific knowledge and techniques? I don;t know, I'm not even sure what this would look like. My thought would be someone claiming that science will cure all diseases, or will solve all our problems, or has all the answers. But I don;t see anyone claiming any such thing on this site.

What biases are you seeing in those you accuse of being the scientism crowd? Let's note there is no bias in NOT being a theist.
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
...
sci·en·tism
/ˈsīənˌtizəm/

noun
RARE
  1. thought or expression regarded as characteristic of scientists.
  2. excessive belief in the power of scientific knowledge and techniques.

Rare, that's funny. I never hear this word except theists having a problem with science being used to dispute religious claims.

It is bad that a person writes with the characteristic of a scientist? No.

Is it bad to have excessive belief in the power of scientific knowledge and techniques? I don;t know, I'm not even sure what this would look like. My thought would be someone claiming that science will cure all diseases, or will solve all our problems, or has all the answers. But I don;t see anyone claiming any such thing on this site.

What biases are you seeing in those you accuse of being the scientism crowd? Let's note there is no bias in NOT being a theist.

There are at least one other definition around. But let us go with the second one from yours.

Is hard science the best way to understand the world?
 

F1fan

Veteran Member
There are at least one other definition around. But let us go with the second one from yours.

Is hard science the best way to understand the world?
Absolutely. If you were covered in boils would you want science to examine and explain it as an allergic reaction to a plant, or go to a religious leader who tells you God is punishing you for masturbation?

If we looked to religion as the way to understand the world we would still be riding horses.
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
Absolutely. If you were covered in boils would you want science to examine and explain it as an allergic reaction to a plant, or go to a religious leader who tells you God is punishing you for masturbation?

If we looked to religion as the way to understand the world we would still be riding horses.

So all cases of human behaviour is covered by your examples? Do you got any evidence for that?
And how do you know best as per evidence? I.e. external sensory experience and/or scientific instruments?
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
In the context of philosophy of science, this is indeed one of its axiomatic assumptions for the sake of their methodology.

This has no relevance to the fact that this conclusion can be formed through a logical analysis of observation.

Write that logical analysis down and submit to enough departments of what you find relevant. I am done. For the purpose of this exchange, you win.
Just write it down and submit to enough departments of what you find relevant. You have solved an over 400 years old problem in philosophy as you have refuted Rene Descartes.
 

Ella S.

Dispassionate Goth
Write that logical analysis down and submit to enough departments of what you find relevant. I am done. For the purpose of this exchange, you win.
Just write it down and submit to enough departments of what you find relevant. You have solved an over 400 years old problem in philosophy as you have refuted Rene Descartes.

Even in the link that you yourself provide it states, "The world outside ourselves appears to respond in ways which are consistent with it being real."

This is a problem that was solved by empiricists long before naturalism or the scientific method were formalized. It's also, as mentioned previously, obvious to most people in infancy.
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
Even in the link that you yourself provide it states, "The world outside ourselves appears to respond in ways which are consistent with it being real."

This is a problem that was solved by empiricists long before naturalism or the scientific method were formalized. It's also, as mentioned previously, obvious to most people in infancy.

Listen if you can actually do what you claim, there is fame and money in that. More fame properly, but also money if you do it right.
Stop posting here here and write it down for yourself and figure out to get it properly published.
You have do something that nobody have not done in over 400 years of recorded history.
 

Ella S.

Dispassionate Goth
Listen if you can actually do what you claim, there is fame and money in that. More fame properly, but also money if you do it right.
Stop posting here here and write it down for yourself and figure out to get it properly published.
You have do something that nobody have not done in over 400 years of recorded history.

There is no fame or money in rehashing issues that have been solved for centuries. Arguments against solipsism date all the way back to ancient times, as do arguments against idealism.

I am a little shocked that your big "gotcha" is that the existence of objective reality is considered an axiomatic assumption in the philosophy of science. As if that somehow means that axiom came from nowhere and there's no history of arguments in favor of it.

For as well read as you are, I find it hard to believe that you've never come across the multitude of arguments for the existence of an objective reality. I think you're being willfully obtuse to avoid the total collapse of your worldview.
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
There is no fame or money in rehashing issues that have been solved for centuries. Arguments against solipsism date all the way back to ancient times, as do arguments against idealism.

I am a little shocked that your big "gotcha" is that the existence of objective reality is considered an axiomatic assumption in the philosophy of science. As if that somehow means that axiom came from nowhere and there's no history of arguments in favor of it.

For as well read as you are, I find it hard to believe that you've never come across the multitude of arguments for the existence of an objective reality. I think you're being willfully obtuse to avoid the total collapse of your worldview.

Or in reverse. What if there is no evidence for that? What would you do?
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
Any rational sceptic should be concerned about scientism, but the tendency is to pretend it doesn't exist just because some apologists misuse the term.

I agree with everything you said. But I'ld like to raise a red flag here.

When the term is misused by apologists, then it is fair to say that that "scientism" doesn't exist, because it's really just a strawman.

It's like creationists arguing against strawmen of evolution.
The evolution theory that they talk about, indeed does not exist.
The same name is used, but the content is different.
THAT evolution does not exist.
Just like THAT "scientism" doesn't either.

It just so happens that most of the time when it comes up on this forum (by theists engaging in apologetics, usually), then that scientism indeed doesn't exist.

To then come into this thread and make the blanket assertions that "them scientismists" pretend "scientism" doesn't exist, really just is some kind of bait and switch.

This is why it's always wise here to debate the actual content and ignore the labels, or to at least ask people to define the terms they are using.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
The question is, if they are true, OF YOU, how would you know?

I ask people what they mean. Because what person A means by the term doesn't necessarily match what person B means by the term.

And then I respond to whatever they say they mean by it.
And when I think it doesn't apply to my position, I'll say so and explain it.

As I said in my last post above here... I don't care much for labels. Especially not for labels that have so much ambiguity attached. So I prefer content over labels.

I have listed and explained some of the intellectual traits that 'scientism' refers to, and yet there are several here that want to argue them tooth and nail

I didn't "argue" them. I asked you to clarify them.
(in case you are referring to me).

And certain things you said still aren't clear to me at all.
 

Ella S.

Dispassionate Goth
Or in reverse. What if there is no evidence for that? What would you do?

Defer to the next best explanation and/or withhold belief until enough evidence could be collected to make one of the competing hypothetical models (naturalism, idealism, solipsism, dualism, etc.) more likely, more than one of which agrees that there is an objective, physical world.

Except we do have enough evidence to demonstrate that there is likely an objective, physical world. You would have to demonstrate that you have a more likely alternative model with its own evidence, otherwise that belief remains our best explanation.

The issue you're bringing up is that we don't have absolute proof of such, which I will readily admit to, but that is again not relevant. You're claiming that there is no evidence for the existence of objective reality but that's simply not the case.

There's even evidence for the existence of God. As a strong atheist, I just think there's evidence against this evidence and better evidence that there isn't a God.

You're trying to uproot something that pretty much everyone else has already agreed on. You're going to need a more convincing argument.
 

PureX

Veteran Member
Of course there is a difference between real in the sense of an object existing and we can sense it existing to there being a phenomenon, like gravity, that isn't an object but is real as a phenomenon. Racism isn't a natural phenomenon like gravity, it is a social and behavioral phenomenon, and as we do observe it in some people it is a result of how our brains function, and optional.
Perception is also conception, and it's all the effect resulting from how our sensoral system and our brains function. And yet the results are far more important and significant than the functionality. Racism is both perception and conception. Same as anything else. Some people are aware that they have the capacity to change how they perceive things by changing how they conceive of them. But not many. That's a cognitive rarity. So racism and scientism are not really any more of a choice for most people than their idea of gravity or any other phenomena we perceive/conceive. It's why this thread is going the same way any thread about racism would go. Those who engage in it are insisting that it doesn't exist, except in iterations different from their own. And they can't really help themselves from doing that because very few humans are aware of their own ability to change their perception of reality by changing their conception of it. So instead, their ego just blindly fights against any change, and denies any proposed alternatives, because that's it's job.
 
Last edited:

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
Defer to the next best explanation and/or withhold belief until enough evidence could be collected to make one of the competing hypothetical models (naturalism, idealism, solipsism, dualism, etc.) more likely, more than one of which agrees that there is an objective, physical world.

Except we do have enough evidence to demonstrate that there is likely an objective, physical world. You would have to demonstrate that you have a more likely alternative model with its own evidence, otherwise that belief remains our best explanation.

The issue you're bringing up is that we don't have absolute proof of such, which I will readily admit to, but that is again not relevant. You're claiming that there is no evidence for the existence of objective reality but that's simply not the case.

There's even evidence for the existence of God. As a strong atheist, I just think there's evidence against this evidence and better evidence that there isn't a God.

You're trying to uproot something that pretty much everyone else has already agreed on. You're going to need a more convincing argument.

You left out the models of no claim of metaphysics and ontology.
You do positive metaphysics. I don't have to, because I have learned to be in the world without claiming that.
 

PureX

Veteran Member
So that quote of yours wasn't an accusation of "scientism" at the address of unnamed people that participate in this thread?

Maybe you should re-read your own post.
Maybe you should stop feeling accused when no one is accusing you.

The really weird thing is you're feeling accused of something you don't believe even exists. Don't you find that odd?
 
Top