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.
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:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Fine. Just don't pompously pretend you have a formal proof, when you do not even understand the terms you are using.
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 - WikipediaThis 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.
I am quite glad to be considered at times a pedant. Any scientist worth his or her salt has to be on occasions.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.
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.
The difference in in the relative perspective through which the fact/opinion is being determined.
Why should it be? What makes impiricism superior to all other methods of thought?
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.
The point is; who's limits?
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.
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".
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.
You seem to have a rather distorted view of Lysenkoism: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.
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.
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.There is a real, objective universe out there.
Work for whom, and by what criteria? Creationism "works" for those who believe in it, or they wouldn't believe in it.And that relative perspective would be . . . The limits that work.
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.
Work for whom, and by what criteria? Creationism "works" for those who believe in it, or they wouldn't believe in it.
I see nothing wrong with my subjunctive
Who could doubt you on that!
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".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.
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.
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 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.
What philosophical approach is not "perfectly respectable", and by who's criteria is it deemed unworthy of respect?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".
Yes, a blinding bias in favor of "truth" as demonstrated by material physicality, exclusively.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.