• 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!

Evidence, specifically scientific evidence.

Audie

Veteran Member
Indeed not. The role of science is to understand nature through observation and the construction of predictive models of it, not to offer masterclasses in "wisdom", whatever those might look like.

But that was not the challenge you laid down in post 183, to which I have been trying to respond. That challenge, if I'm not mistaken, was what wisdom has been derived from the practice of science.

What the, pardon french and all, hell, is "wisdom", as here
used?

Other than an opportunity for equivacation.

Where does one get admonished to be "wise", btw, do you
know? Since childhood, that is.
 

exchemist

Veteran Member
A very faint whiff, depending on how it was intended.
What I saw was a request for example / explanation.

Much like my request, for examples of these scientismists.
Who would deny that there may be such? You know
there's worse, and crazier.

I'd like to know about them. If I, others are taking a
profoundly, life and earth threateningly wrong approach
to grasping the nature of reality, I would surely like
to know.

I tend to think in terms of examples. That is certainly
how things are donein law. I can understand things that way.


All I got was something to the effect that they are
everywhere, and I must be dumb if I cannot see them.

From following the topic I get the idea that our friend
believes he, and perhaps some few followers, have
achieved a level of understanding denied to the
"Scientism(ists)".

I also get the impression that he has had to concoct a group
of people and their way of thinking, in order to contrast his
Enlightenment to those benighted materialists / scientism(ists).

A lot of psychological projection is all that is, imo.

The refusal to provide even one (1) actual example from the
purported multitude stands as pretty good evidence, of a
material sort, that there are no examples to give.

There's more to observe, but let it fade away, it seems
there is no there there.
Audie I am feeling my way among people I do not yet know yet. My perspective on the individual contributors is shifting all the time. But I did sense in those posts what could be a tendency towards a scientific reductionism and a contempt for thinking that is not scientifically based. I would be very happy to be proved wrong, and perhaps I shall be.

PureX, by contrast, seems to evince a very low opinion of what science has contributed to human thought and to have a very pessimistic world outlook that he blames science for in some way. I find it extremely hard to imagine he has ever studied the subject in any depth. It may be that in the end we find we have little to say to one another. However we shall see.
 

exchemist

Veteran Member
What the, pardon french and all, hell, is "wisdom", as here
used?

Other than an opportunity for equivacation.

Where does one get admonished to be "wise", btw, do you
know? Since childhood, that is.
I rather agree. To me, wisdom is something one acquires through experience and contemplation of other things, including the example of other people, rather than something that can be taught as such. Wisdom does seem to be a terms with an elastic definition, too: Wisdom - Wikipedia

Maybe we need a thread on the nature of wisdom. Or perhaps there has already been one.

P.S. It is equivocation. ;) Zut alors!
 
Last edited:

Audie

Veteran Member
I rather agree. To me, wisdom is something one acquires through experience and contemplation of other things, including the example of other people, rather than something that can be taught as such. Wisdom does seem to be a terms with an elastic definition, too: Wisdom - Wikipedia

Maybe we need a thread on the nature of wisdom. Or perhaps there has already been one.

P.S. It is equivocation. ;) Zut alors!

Sheesh, my evil twin !
 

PureX

Veteran Member
Indeed not. The role of science is to understand nature through observation and the construction of predictive models of it, not to offer masterclasses in "wisdom", whatever those might look like.
Or ANY classes. In fact, it's deliberately avoided, and left to non-scientists, and the scientists 'spare time' to engage in.
But that was not the challenge you laid down in post 183, to which I have been trying to respond. That challenge, if I'm not mistaken, was what wisdom has been derived from the practice of science.
And mostly the answer is "none". KNOWLEDGE has been derived from the practice of science, and that knowledge could then, if one chose, be used to seek wisdom (apart from his scientific endeavors). Which has, of course, happened. But not because science promoted or encouraged it in any way.

This was my point.

I am not anti-science. Nor am I against seeking functional knowledge of the physical world. I am simply pointing out that there is a new social meme developing that has been dubbed "scientism", and that many of the atheists on this site have succumbed to it to varying degrees. And that it's a form of willful ignorance-producing bias that's just as strong and as prevalent as the authoritarian dogmatism of the various religions that these same folks so strongly abhor for the same characteristics.
 

PureX

Veteran Member
Where does one get admonished to be "wise", btw, do you
know? Since childhood, that is.
Been to a church, lately? Been to a theater, concert hall or visual art gallery? In these places the pursuit of wisdom (as opposed to the acquisition of knowledge) tends to be commonplace.
 

Audie

Veteran Member
Or ANY classes. In fact, it's deliberately avoided, and left to non-scientists, and the scientists 'spare time' to engage in.
And mostly the answer is "none". KNOWLEDGE has been derived from the practice of science, and that knowledge could then, if one chose, be used to seek wisdom (apart from his scientific endeavors). Which has, of course, happened. But not because science promoted or encouraged it in any way.

This was my point.

I am not anti-science. Nor am I against seeking functional knowledge of the physical world. I am simply pointing out that there is a new social meme developing that has been dubbed "scientism", and that many of the atheists on this site have succumbed to it to varying degrees. And that it's a form of willful ignorance-producing bias that's just as strong and as prevalent as the authoritarian dogmatism of the various religions that these same folks so strongly abhor for the same characteristics.

This "meme" stuff is certainly present in your imagination.

All you can do is talk vague generalities, and,
NO specific example. Aka no content.
 
Last edited:

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Audie I am feeling my way among people I do not yet know yet. My perspective on the individual contributors is shifting all the time. But I did sense in those posts what could be a tendency towards a scientific reductionism and a contempt for thinking that is not scientifically based. I would be very happy to be proved wrong, and perhaps I shall be.

PureX, by contrast, seems to evince a very low opinion of what science has contributed to human thought and to have a very pessimistic world outlook that he blames science for in some way. I find it extremely hard to imagine he has ever studied the subject in any depth. It may be that in the end we find we have little to say to one another. However we shall see.

I have a feeling that strategy is simply PureX's way to avoid confronting the fact that the diversity of life is due to evolution. No one has proposed that science has the answer for everything here but he seems to keep thinking that is the case of those that accept that science can answer many questions.
 

PureX

Veteran Member
This "meme" stuff is certainly present in your imagination.

All you can do is talk vague generalities, and,
NO specific example. Aka no content.
I'm not going to "name names", sorry. The names don't matter to me. What matters is the existence of the ideology, and it's effect on those who hold it, and on those around them. I'm sorry you can't seem to grasp what I'm referring to without specific names and posts, but I'm not going to look them up and start a fight with them to satisfy you. 'Exchemist' seems to have grasped the point and the examples just fine, (though he's perceiving it in greater extreme then was intended or necessary, but that's probably the result of the way I write).
 

PureX

Veteran Member
I have a feeling that strategy is simply PureX's way to avoid confronting the fact that the diversity of life is due to evolution. No one has proposed that science has the answer for everything here but he seems to keep thinking that is the case of those that accept that science can answer many questions.
There are those among us that DO believe that science can answer every question (that matters), and will do so, eventually. More than I think you realize.
 

exchemist

Veteran Member
Or ANY classes. In fact, it's deliberately avoided, and left to non-scientists, and the scientists 'spare time' to engage in.
And mostly the answer is "none". KNOWLEDGE has been derived from the practice of science, and that knowledge could then, if one chose, be used to seek wisdom (apart from his scientific endeavors). Which has, of course, happened. But not because science promoted or encouraged it in any way.

This was my point.

I am not anti-science. Nor am I against seeking functional knowledge of the physical world. I am simply pointing out that there is a new social meme developing that has been dubbed "scientism", and that many of the atheists on this site have succumbed to it to varying degrees. And that it's a form of willful ignorance-producing bias that's just as strong and as prevalent as the authoritarian dogmatism of the various religions that these same folks so strongly abhor for the same characteristics.
I'm afraid I do not think you are simply pointing out the incidence of scientism. You seem determined to belittle the achievements of science and to regard its influence as trivial or baleful. I find this perverse, to be honest.

I do not get the impression from you that you are merely a dispassionate observer, seeking to redress the balance against practitioners of scientism. I have the impression of someone with rather extreme views himself, and with an axe to grind.

While writing this I see you have said to Audie that maybe you write more forcefully than you intend - or words to that effect. I do hope so.

To end on a +ve note, however, I do agree with you that the toolkit of science has its limits in helping Man make sense of the totality of human experience.
 

exchemist

Veteran Member
I have a feeling that strategy is simply PureX's way to avoid confronting the fact that the diversity of life is due to evolution. No one has proposed that science has the answer for everything here but he seems to keep thinking that is the case of those that accept that science can answer many questions.
Oh is PureX a creationist, too? If so I find that rather shocking. He seems too thoughtful for that.
 

Audie

Veteran Member
Been to a church, lately? Been to a theater, concert hall or visual art gallery? In these places the pursuit of wisdom (as opposed to the acquisition of knowledge) tends to be commonplace.
Been to a church, lately? Been to a theater, concert hall or visual art gallery? In these places the pursuit of wisdom (as opposed to the acquisition of knowledge) tends to be commonplace.


I live in NYC where there is a great abundance of museums, concerts,
culture of all sorts, which is what I love about it.

None of them "admonish" the audience about "wisdom".

Commonplace? As previously noted, in your imagination, only.
 

exchemist

Veteran Member
I live in NYC where there is a great abundance of museums, concerts,
culture of all sorts, which is what I love about it.

None of them "admonish" the audience about "wisdom".

Commonplace? As previously noted, in your imagination, only.
I really do think we need a thread exploring what is meant by "wisdom".

PureX seems to be adopting a definition along the lines of "anything to do with the arts or religion". Which would ipso facto rule science out of course.....but is not exactly the sort of definition I would willingly subscribe to! :D
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Oh is PureX a creationist, too? If so I find that rather shocking. He seems too thoughtful for that.

The way he approaches the topic implies it. I am not saying that he is definitely one. But the false charges of "sciencism" sound an awful lot like what a creationist would say.
 

PureX

Veteran Member
I'm afraid I do not think you are simply pointing out the incidence of scientism. You seem determined to belittle the achievements of science and to regard its influence as trivial or baleful.
Only in relation to the pursuit of wisdom, rather than the pursuit of knowledge regarding the interconnected functionality of the physical world. There is no reason for you to be offended by this, that I can think of.

And "scientism" is a real meme, that really does eschew subjective wisdom for the specter of "objective truth".
I do not get the impression from you that you are merely a dispassionate observer, seeking to redress the balance against practitioners of scientism. I have the impression of someone with rather extreme views himself, and with an axe to grind.
Well, I believe that would be an unfairly extreme characterization of me. Though I admit that I have a writing/speaking style that's a bit confrontational and 'edgy' at times. It comes from a belief that if I want to say something, I should say it out loud, and with conviction, so everyone can hear it, and listen. No mumbling! :)

Also, I can't help what other people can't or aren't willing to understand. And it's not my responsibility to "correct" their shortcomings in that regard. It's theirs. So I tend not to be especially accommodating when people accuse me of being delusional simply because they can't grasp the subject at hand.
 

Audie

Veteran Member
I do agree with you that the toolkit of science has its limits in helping Man make sense of the totality of human experience.



And not one freakin' person here would say otherwise!!!

Do you agree with anything else he says?
 

exchemist

Veteran Member
The way he approaches the topic implies it. I am not saying that he is definitely one. But the false charges of "sciencism" sound an awful lot like what a creationist would say.
Maybe he will comment, then.

P.S. "scientism": Scientism - Wikipedia. is something that may not necessarily be a false charge. There certainly are Gradgrindian people who are blinkered or narrow-minded in that way. Dickens was describing a real type.
 
Top