"Scientism" on Wikipedia ...

[George-ananda]

Perhaps it would be a better approach to believe us at face value when we tell theists that "scientism" does not describe our attitudes or what we present here, and then to stop strawmanning us?

Well I haven't read all your posts but have you shown where the OP descriptions are incorrect?

 

[Audie]

If I offer up myself as an example do I win?

Kidding but I find very little to object to in the OP.
What do you find objectionable?
Silly label but I don't see much to be bothered by.
IOW it is kind of how I see things.

So provide an example.
Better still since that wont be forthcomjng i should
just walk away from it as i often did from bigotry in the usa.
Dreadful asian alien atheist and all, something for anyone tp hate.

 

[lukethethird]

If I offer up myself as an example do I win?

Kidding but I find very little to object to in the OP.
What do you find objectionable?
Silly label but I don't see much to be bothered by.
IOW it is kind of how I see things.

The term scientism is just an exercise in poor judgement and faulty logic, nothin new on this forum.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I was just reading some of the more recent additional information on wiki about "scientism", and could not help but notice the striking resemblance between many of the 'atheists' that participate on this site, and the characterizations being offered on wiki regarding "scientism". And yet whenever I've tried to point out these same characterizations to those atheists on this site who routinely express these exact same characteristics, they deny that they or anyone they know show any resemblance to them. Somehow, they are unable to see themselves as such even as they actively express themselves as such.

It's quite puzzling, and it gives me the impression of there being some sort of cult-like phenomena involved.

Let me post some of the characteristics of "scientism" from wiki and lets see if any of you self-proclaimed atheists, here, can see yourself in any of them ...

"In the philosophy of science, the term scientism frequently implies a critique of the more extreme expressions of logical positivism[2][3] and has been used by social scientists such as Friedrich Hayek,[4] philosophers of science such as Karl Popper,[5] and philosophers such as Mary Midgley,[6] the later Hilary Putnam,[6][7] and Tzvetan Todorov[8] to describe (for example) the dogmatic endorsement of scientific methodology and the reduction of all knowledge to only that which is measured or confirmatory.[9]"

"It has been defined as "the view that the characteristic inductive methods of the natural sciences are the only source of genuine factual knowledge and, in particular, that they alone can yield true knowledge about man and society"."

(The term "Scientism") It is used to criticize a totalizing view of science as if it were capable of describing all reality and knowledge, or as if it were the only true way to acquire knowledge about reality and the nature of things;"

"E. F. Schumacher, in his A Guide for the Perplexed, criticized scientism as an impoverished world view confined solely to what can be counted, measured and weighed. "The architects of the modern worldview, notably Galileo and Descartes, assumed that those things that could be weighed, measured, and counted were more true than those that could not be quantified. If it couldn't be counted ... it didn't count."[32]"

"Intellectual historian T.J. Jackson Lears argued there has been a recent reemergence of "nineteenth-century positivist faith that a reified 'science' has discovered (or is about to discover) all the important truths about human life. Precise measurement and rigorous calculation, in this view, are the basis for finally settling enduring metaphysical and moral controversies."
​

I have read many of the self-proclaimed atheists on this site paraphrasing many of these same ideals, often, and repeatedly.

"God is not real unless and until God can be proven real by the objective methodology of science".

I don't see those qualities in myself. Not in any holistic sense, anyway.

 

[Nakosis]

So provide an example.
Better still since that wont be forthcomjng i should
just walk away from it as i often did from bigotry in the usa.
Dreadful asian alien atheist and all, something for anyone tp hate.

I'd rather hear your objections to it.
Otherwise I'd suggest looking in a mirror.

IOW, what in the OP does not refer to you?

 

[Nakosis]

The term scientism is just an exercise in poor judgement and faulty logic, nothin new on this forum.

Poor judgement and faulty logic depends on the individual right. Just like in theism.
So would you say theism is an exercise in poor judgement and faulty logic as well?

 

[Audie]

I'd rather hear your objections to it.
Otherwise I'd suggest looking in a mirror.

IOW, what in the OP does not refer to you?

If you consider me a bigot come out and say so

 

[Nakosis]

I don't see those qualities in myself. Not in any holistic sense, anyway.

Which qualities do you find objectional in reference to yourself.

All it is really saying is facts ought to be supported by physical evidence.

Doesn't seem all that bad to me.

 

[Nakosis]

If you consider me a bigot come out and say so

Are you going to tell me you are not prejudiced against supernatural explanations?

 

[Sheldon]

I think 'scientism' is a new needed word as discussed in the OP.

I don't think it's that new, many theists have looked for dishonest ways to discredit science for quite a while, so this is just a vapid straw man some theists like to dishonestly pretend applied to anyone who doesn't believe claims because they are unevidenced and or unfalsifiable.

I think the atheist-materialist type thinkers don't like the label although it describes the attitudes they present here.

I think it's a negative stereotype many theists present, because they can't cope with people not sharing their unevidenced belief in a deity or deities, and having the temerity to suggest they demonstrate something beyond anecdotal subjective claims.

Does anyone want to buy an invisible unicorn? Please, can all those adhering to "scientism" spare me their denials of invisible unicorns.

Perhaps it would be a better approach by them to accept the term as not something derogatory and defend their thinking.

Ok, try and convince me that the thread author once again, knows better than I do what I think and believe.

 

[Sheldon]

I see it as neutral, not a pejorative.

I see the word superstition as a neutral description of theistic belief, and not at all pejorative. I'm guessing most theists disagree. The difference seems to be that I am not telling them what they think about the term, only what I think.

 

[Jose Fly]

When I say "how we feel" I mean whether we should enjoy a piece of art versus disliking it. Or whether we should value walks in nature. Or whether we should prefer less economic regulation instead of more. Or whether we should define an unmarried man as a "bachelor" or a "fumblescump."

So yes, science is learning more and more about neurology and the physical processes by which we create preferences and opinions, but it can't tell us which subjective preference is "better" or more "worthwhile." It doesn't care about those things. Subjective preferences are not topics relevant to the scientific method and we use other conceptual tools to explore, study, and rationalize them.

Exactly. I can think of all sorts of scenarios where science isn't the only or best way to reach a conclusion, and some where it's not helpful at all.

Which of these two houses are prettier and I should buy?

Do I want a boy or a girl as my first baby?

Which football team do I like better?

Is that painting "art"?

Is a soaring eagle "majestic"?

Is it morally wrong to lend my brother money?

 

[lukethethird]

Poor judgement and faulty logic depends on the individual right. Just like in theism.
So would you say theism is an exercise in poor judgement and faulty logic as well?

It doesn't have to be. Believing in God is not a problem at all, the problem can be in claiming what God does because in many cases those claims can be tested, and we know which ones they are because one or more atheists will be glad to point them out.

 

[Sheldon]

Exactly. I can think of all sorts of scenarios where science isn't the only or best way to reach a conclusion, and some where it's not helpful at all.

Which of these two houses are prettier and I should buy?

Subsidence, rising damp, flood plane, built on a fault line, nah I'm not interested in your scientism thanks...I'll have the local priest to come round and bless the place, or the local bone shaker, but he'll be more expensive as he pays taxes.

 

[Nakosis]

It doesn't have to be. Believing in God is not a problem at all, the problem can be in claiming what God does because in many cases those claims can be tested, and we know which ones they are because one or more atheists will be glad to point them out.

Good,
Scientism doesn't have to be either. Obviously depending on the individual it could be, but doesn't have to be.

 

[Audie]

Are you going to tell me you are not prejudiced against supernatural explanations?

That is hardly comparable to bigotry against people, and normally dodging a question with sly innuendo is not really groovy.
In the event, I expect everyone is dubious of
some supernatural stuff. Horoscopes, tarot,
crydtal healing, etc.
That is not bigotry or prejudice.
Ftm, I had an experience of seeing, interacting with a being not of this world.
Assuming as you do about me, you label that as conscirnce dictates.

To yourself. Id rather not hear from you.

 

[Jose Fly]

Subsidence, rising damp, flood plane, built on a fault line, nah I'm not interested in your scientism thanks...

Huh? Did you actually read what you replied to?

"Which of these two houses are prettier and I should buy?"

 

[George-ananda]

I don't think it's that new, many theists have looked for dishonest ways to discredit science for quite a while, so this is just a vapid straw man some theists like to dishonestly pretend applied to anyone who doesn't believe claims because they are unevidenced and or unfalsifiable.



I think it's a negative stereotype many theists present, because they can't cope with people not sharing their unevidenced belief in a deity or deities, and having the temerity to suggest they demonstrate something beyond anecdotal subjective claims.

Does anyone want to buy an invisible unicorn? Please, can all those adhering to "scientism" spare me their denials of invisible unicorns.



Ok, try and convince me that the thread author once again, knows better than I do what I think and believe.

For example, I give consideration and respect to paranormal experiences, psychic/clairvoyant, channeled sources, spiritual masters, Spiritualism, Theosophical, Vedic (Hindu) and other wisdom traditions.

So, what fields of alleged direct knowledge or wisdom traditions do you give respect and attention to beyond 'science'? If it's just 'science' then I would refer to that as 'scientism'.

 

[Lain]

In the event, I expect everyone is dubious of
some supernatural stuff. Horoscopes, tarot,
crydtal healing, etc.

I'm not, but that's just me and my circles of life.

 

[Nakosis]

Exactly. I can think of all sorts of scenarios where science isn't the only or best way to reach a conclusion, and some where it's not helpful at all.

Which of these two houses are prettier and I should buy?

Do I want a boy or a girl as my first baby?

Which football team do I like better?

Is that painting "art"?

Is a soaring eagle "majestic"?

Is it morally wrong to lend my brother money?

All these things depend on your feelings and feelings are becoming measurable.
All we'd have to do is show you a picture of a baby girl or baby boy and measure your feelings.
You'd have your answer. However your amazing brain takes care of that without asking science, but you could.