Evidence, specifically scientific evidence.

[ChristineM]

Fine. Just don't pompously pretend you have a formal proof, when you do not even understand the terms you are using.

Pompously? I guess you'd know all about that given the pedantic, condescending insults you have offered.

 

[exchemist]

This why I gave a qualified admission that she had evidence. I stopped short of "proof". Personally I am not even sure if it meets the standard of "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" but that may be because I was raised believing in God and I might still have some lingering beliefs.

Sure. I am not taking a position out of any personal conviction, but I get a bit tired of people who claim to be able to "prove" this one way or the other. It is well-known to be futile (being one of the oldest issues in philosophy) and a quick glance at this Wiki article makes that quite plain: Existence of God - Wikipedia

 

[exchemist]

Pompously? I guess you'd know all about that given the pedantic, condescending insults you have offered.

I am quite glad to be considered at times a pedant. Any scientist worth his or her salt has to be on occasions.

 

[ChristineM]

I am quite glad to be considered at times a pedant. Any scientist worth his or her salt has to be on occasions.

Not the ones i know.

I have found this, as 2nd result after "How do I teach myself to be less pedantic? : socialskills..."

"Pedantic is the adjective form of pedant — a person who puts unnecessary stress on minor or trivial points of learning, displaying a scholarship lacking in judgment or sense of proportion.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

The desire to "remove subjectivity" is itself a subjective desire, and the product of delusional thought. It is not logically possible for a human to remove "subjectivity" from his view of reality, as the human is the "subject" being referred to by this use of the term. When understood in this light, "scientism" is just as subjectively derived as theology is.

It is interesting that you try to refute an argument by comparing it to religion. It says a lot about how you view your own religious beliefs.

There is a real, objective universe out there. This isn't a desire. This is a reality. The success of the scientific method is plain for anyone to see. It is the success of science that lends credence to its use.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

The difference in in the relative perspective through which the fact/opinion is being determined.

And that relative perspective would be . . . ?

Why should it be? What makes impiricism superior to all other methods of thought?

The success of science demonstrates that it is superior to other methodologies. This is why we see so many theists and ID/creationists trying to argue that their beliefs are backed by science.

We can. But we are fooling ourselves if we think we have ascertained any "objective truth", because we are the subjects being referred to in the term "subjectivity". All world views are subjective.

When scientists are studying the Sun or the Moon they are not studying humans.

The point is; who's limits?

The limits that work.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

No, most of them have not. Most creationists have dismissed science as pointless human self-deception. And many of those that do try to debate the science are not trying to establish a scientific theory, they are trying to win religious converts. There is a distinct difference.

Creation science or scientific creationism[1] is a branch of creationism that claims to provide scientific support for the Genesis creation narrative in the Book of Genesis and disprove or reexplain the scientific facts,[2] theories and scientific paradigms about geology,[3] cosmology, biological evolution,[4][5] archeology,[6][7] history, and linguistics.[8]
Creation science - Wikipedia

"Intelligent design (ID) is a scientific theory that employs the methods commonly used by other historical sciences to conclude that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."
https://www.discovery.org/id/faqs/

The biggest ID/creationist organization in the world says that ID is a scientific theory.

Yes, but they do this because want to plant their religion in the minds of other people's children, not because they want scientists to accept their theories as "scientific".

That is not what these organizations are saying.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Hahaha. I've always felt it rather socially nerdy to admit to having a science degree - all the stereotypes of scientists keeping pens in their breast pockets and of "Green Anorak Chemists", at my university.

But you are not serious in your contention that academic science is some sort of fashion, are you? Or that pure and applied science are "old foes", other than in the sense of the friendly teasing between the Engineering faculty and the Physics faculty at some university cocktail party? Pure and applied science have gone hand in glove throughout history. One era's pure science discovery is the next era's goldmine of applications. For example we are now in the era of the applications of the great pure science theories of the c.20th: relativity and quantum theory.

They are not always diametrically opposed to each other, but they very often are- and the consequences go far beyond 'friendly teasing'

Russian farmers used hypothesis, repeated experimentation, empirical measurement, observation- to achieve the important practical outcome of feeding millions of people. Like the Wright brothers, Edison, Gates- they were not 'scientists' they were too busy figuring out how things actually work while scientists were earning their degrees.

the word 'science' and 'scientists' was introduced into farming by Stalin. Millions died of starvation in the following years.

 

[Subduction Zone]

They are not always diametrically opposed to each other, but they very often are- and the consequences go far beyond 'friendly teasing'

Russian farmers used hypothesis, repeated experimentation, empirical measurement, observation- to achieve the important practical outcome of feeding millions of people. Like the Wright brothers, Edison, Gates- they were not 'scientists' they were too busy figuring out how things actually work while scientists were earning their degrees.

the word 'science' and 'scientists' was introduced into farming by Stalin. Millions died of starvation in the following years.

You seem to have a rather distorted view of Lysenkoism:

Lysenkoism - Wikipedia

Lysenko did not follow the scientific method. He worked based upon communistic ideology.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Russian farmers used hypothesis, repeated experimentation, empirical measurement, observation- to achieve the important practical outcome of feeding millions of people. Like the Wright brothers, Edison, Gates- they were not 'scientists' they were too busy figuring out how things actually work while scientists were earning their degrees.

So what were these hypotheses, their accompanying null hypotheses, their experimental design, and the data derived from those experiments?

I suspect that I will not get an answer to that question.

the word 'science' and 'scientists' was introduced into farming by Stalin. Millions died of starvation in the following years.

Actually, the word pseudoscience was introduced by Stalin.

"The pseudo-scientific ideas of Lysenkoism assumed the heritability of acquired characteristics.[1] Lysenko's theory rejected Mendelian inheritance and the concept of the "gene"; it departed from Darwinian evolutionary theory by rejecting natural selection.[2]"
Lysenkoism - Wikipedia

 

[PureX]

There is a real, objective universe out there.

How do you know this? Your whole existential experience is "subjective". Always has been and always will be. The very definition of "objectivity" rejects your individual thought experience and the "reality" that it produces in your mind. There is no objective you left to even access this imagined 'objective reality' of yours.

 

[PureX]

And that relative perspective would be . . . The limits that work.

Work for whom, and by what criteria? Creationism "works" for those who believe in it, or they wouldn't believe in it.

 

[PureX]

It's clear to me by the comments in this thread that "scientism" is just as blindingly biased and dogmatic as any religious theology is.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

It's clear to me by the comments in this thread that "scientism" is just as blindingly biased and dogmatic as any religious theology is.

Once again, you try to compare science to your own beliefs in order to denigrate science. This is what we call psychological projection.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Work for whom, and by what criteria? Creationism "works" for those who believe in it, or they wouldn't believe in it.

If by "works" you mean make predictions about scientific evidence, then the answer is clearly no. If by "works" you mean give people a false sense of security that creationism is not contradicted by centuries of scientific evidence, then perhaps it does work in that sense.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

"I think the point of saying "woefully ignorant" is to imply much, while
delivering nothing. Intended as a sweeping indictment of all science,
with a hand wave."

"Of course there is much to learn. But "woe" is an emotion, and
if you feel woe because you only got an Omega when you wanted
a Rolex, that is your problem".

"Calling science "woefully ignorant"?

"I call such "lying with the truth".

"dont bold it if you are going to mess up the subjunctive"

Now I concede that my English may not be as proficient as yours, but even at a casual glance, your comments would imply criticism at best. And disagreement at worst. By summing up with, "But it is the best that our creofriends seem able to come up with", only makes your post incongruous, and inconsistent. Your "lying with the truth" may have some personal significance or relevance, but I see no literary significance or relevance, other than being oxymoronic(the lying truth). Similar to my "a pleasant annoyance".

I see nothing wrong with my subjunctive

Who could doubt you on that!

I not only stated that that my subjunctive(who still uses that term?) was fine, but I also explained why. I suppose it is easier to argue from incredulity than to actually address the facts I stated. Namely, simply highlighting(bold) the verb "was" doesn't "mess-up" the hypothetical. Unless you care to demonstrate?

So, NO, I don't get it. But I do understand that YOU get it.

Since you are the author of your post, and the fact that I could be wrong, I have no choice but to accept that all the comments you've made were meant to support or augment my position. Might I suggest in the future that you be less cryptic, and more clearer in your use of the English language. Also, there are NO degrees of "woe", anymore than there are degrees of "pregnancy".

 

[exchemist]

It's clear to me by the comments in this thread that "scientism" is just as blindingly biased and dogmatic as any religious theology is.

I'm not sure I see evidence of "scientism" here. I do see a fair number of contributors with a physicalist (or philosophical materialist) worldview, but that is a perfectly respectable philosophical approach to the world and not necessarily "scientism".

But maybe I am misunderstanding what scientism is. I had thought it meant inappropriate extension of the methods of science into areas of human experience where they do not help, driven by a Gradgrindian, reductionist ideology that science is the only worthwhile discipline of thought.

Is that what you see here, or do you have a different interpretation of what scientism is?

 

[Truly Enlightened]

How do you know this? Your whole existential experience is "subjective". Always has been and always will be. The very definition of "objectivity" rejects your individual thought experience and the "reality" that it produces in your mind. There is no objective you left to even access this imagined 'objective reality' of yours.

It is truly amazing how the mind can make up fantasies when it idles for too long. I'm sure those struggling to feed their families, pay their bills, or find their gender mates, are not consumed in pondering the meaning of life, especially in the make-believe world of who gives a s**t. What all mental masturbators fail to understand is that science actually works. You can't mentally or virtually feed your family, provide them with shelter and clothing, or improve any physical aspect of life outside the mind. But science can. Science works because it is objective, tangible, dependable, predictable, observable, intuitive, and falsifiable. This is the total opposite of religious or supernatural beliefs. Including any other mind numbing, dumbing-down exercises in mental self-abuse and confirmation biases.

At the end of the day, we are nothing more than highly developed primates, with an overdeveloped limbic system, and an underdeveloped pre-frontal cortex. No matter what you may postulate as reality, this reality will always be the only reality that we can physically interact with.

 

[exchemist]

It is truly amazing how the mind can make up fantasies when it idles for too long. I'm sure those struggling to feed their families, pay their bills, or find their gender mates, are not consumed in pondering the meaning of life, especially in the make-believe world of who gives a s**t. What all mental masturbators fail to understand is that science actually works. You can't mentally or virtually feed your family, provide them with shelter and clothing, or improve any physical aspect of life outside the mind. But science can. Science works because it is objective, tangible, dependable, predictable, observable, intuitive, and falsifiable. This is the total opposite of religious or supernatural beliefs. Including any other mind numbing, dumbing-down exercises in mental self-abuse and confirmation biases.

At the end of the day, we are nothing more than highly developed primates, with an overdeveloped limbic system, and an underdeveloped pre-frontal cortex. No matter what you may postulate as reality, this reality will always be the only reality that we can physically interact with.

This is the first time I have read an anti-intellectual argument in favour of science. You seem to suggest that people with no time to think are superior to those that do think.

It is perfectly obvious that individual experience is subjective. That's why science insists on reproducibility of observations, to try to ensure the findings its models are constructed upon are as close to objective as possible. And even then there are occasional failures.

It is also worth reflecting that it has taken a great deal more than science to shape the modern world and that that people provided themselves with food, clothing and shelter - and by all accounts lived happy lives - for thousands of years before science was born or thought of.

And that the fulfilment and enjoyment of life that people look for (once they are fed, clothed and sheltered) does not in most cases come from science, but from subjective experiences and the life of the mind.

 

[PureX]

I'm not sure I see evidence of "scientism" here. I do see a fair number of contributors with a physicalist (or philosophical materialist) worldview, but that is a perfectly respectable philosophical approach to the world and not necessarily "scientism".

What philosophical approach is not "perfectly respectable", and by who's criteria is it deemed unworthy of respect?

The point is that they are all biased, in this case in blinding favor of material physicality. Respect was not at issue.

But maybe I am misunderstanding what scientism is. I had thought it meant inappropriate extension of the methods of science into areas of human experience where they do not help, driven by a Gradgrindian, reductionist ideology that science is the only worthwhile discipline of thought.

Yes, a blinding bias in favor of "truth" as demonstrated by material physicality, exclusively.