Your Belief...

[Nakosis]

Hence "uselessness of religious debating"

Yes, but there is an aspect of human psychology that is interesting.
Why we do what we do seems often based on what we believe.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

In the non-pejorative sense it is my mostly my view.
Least I don't have an argument against the view.
However in the pejorative sense it reminds me to not make too many faith based claims about science.

Yeah, I understand you. I can make a non-pejorative answer as to an argument against the view, but it really doesn't matter, because if I change the definitions of the 3 words, I can make an argument in favor of them.
We are playing with words and in the end if you use the overall same version of good like me, that is all that counts.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Yes, but there is an aspect of human psychology that is interesting.
Why we do what we do seems often based on what we believe.

That is different levels of cognition, how to handle emotions and cultural upbringing.

 

[George-ananda]

In the non-pejorative sense it is my mostly my view.
Least I don't have an argument against the view.
However in the pejorative sense it reminds me to not make too many faith based claims about science.

I think the term ‘Scientism’ describes a valid philosophy and those that espouse that philosophy should be able to comfortably own the philosophy and support it.

People like @MikeF are ready to make the term a pejorative so its usage just creates controversy.

 

[MikeF]

Well, lets compare the first definition you provided for scientism, which I assumed was what I should apply to your usage in this thread:

From Wikipedia:

Scientism is the opinion that science and the scientific method are the best or only way to render truth about the world and reality.

With this new definition you have provided:

When I used the word 'Scientism' I was using it in the sense of an established meaning:

2: an exaggerated trust in the efficacy of the methods of natural science applied to all areas of investigation (as in philosophy, the social sciences, and the humanities)

I do not see these two definitions as being equivalent, do you?

The first definition I could see as one that someone might apply to themselves, an idea that they ascribe to.

The second definition I see as a negative label, one that an accuser applies to someone they feel are exhibiting the negative traits described in the definition. This is the pejorative use of the word, the cudgel wielded by the cudgel holder against anyone extending scientific principles beyond the boundaries set by the cudgel wielder. Surely you don't imagine people self-identify with this definition.

Let's unpack this second, pejorative definition of scientism. What is meant by an exaggerated trust in the efficacy of scientific methods? Who is making such a determination and on what grounds? Who is the arbiter in such an accusation, no one other than the accuser.

Reading a little further, we see it is specifically the scientific methods of natural science (however that is defined). The absurdity here is that methods vary according to the problem being investigated. One does not use an electron microscope to examine distant galaxies, nor use the Hubble Space Telescope to investigate viruses. So why is there this assumption that inappropriate investigative methods would be use in philosophy, social sciences (which are sciences for heavens sake), and humanities? Methods are designed specifically to the problem being investigated.

It is not from methods that the wielder of the scientism cudgel wishes to isolate philosophy, social sciences, and humanities, rather it is the principles and standards of scientific investigation that provide the mitigation against human error, human flaws and fallibility.

Again, scientific inquiry, at its core, is the systematic identification and mitigation of all the ways in which human error can impact and corrupt the investigative process, and incorporating that into the investigation. No form of investigation should be considered useful or valid if it cannot acknowledge potential error in any human investigator and take steps to mitigate that potential error. I fail to see why philosophy, social sciences, and humanities should be shielded from that. Wouldn't you agree?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Well, lets compare the first definition you provided for scientism, which I assumed was what I should apply to your usage in this thread:



With this new definition you have provided:



I do not see these two definitions as being equivalent, do you?

The first definition I could see as one that someone might apply to themselves, an idea that they ascribe to.

The second definition I see as a negative label, one that an accuser applies to someone they feel are exhibiting the negative traits described in the definition. This is the pejorative use of the word, the cudgel wielded by the cudgel holder against anyone extending scientific principles beyond the boundaries set by the cudgel wielder. Surely you don't imagine people self-identify with this definition.

Let's unpack this second, pejorative definition of scientism. What is meant by an exaggerated trust in the efficacy of scientific methods? Who is making such a determination and on what grounds? Who is the arbiter in such an accusation, no one other than the accuser.

Reading a little further, we see it is specifically the scientific methods of natural science (however that is defined). The absurdity here is that methods vary according to the problem being investigated. One does not use an electron microscope to examine distant galaxies, nor use the Hubble Space Telescope to investigate viruses. So why is there this assumption that inappropriate investigative methods would be use in philosophy, social sciences (which are sciences for heavens sake), and humanities? Methods are designed specifically to the problem being investigated.

It is not from methods that the wielder of the scientism cudgel wishes to isolate philosophy, social sciences, and humanities, rather it is the principles and standards of scientific investigation that provide the mitigation against human error, human flaws and fallibility.

Again, scientific inquiry, at its core, is the systematic identification and mitigation of all the ways in which human error can impact and corrupt the investigative process, and incorporating that into the investigation. No form of investigation should be considered useful or valid if it cannot acknowledge potential error in any human investigator and take steps to mitigate that potential error. I fail to see why philosophy, social sciences, and humanities should be shielded from that. Wouldn't you agree?

Short answer. Are there any limits to the concept of objective evidence as used in natural science? Yes, but some people believe they can use it, when they are actually not.

 

[George-ananda]

Well, lets compare the first definition you provided for scientism, which I assumed was what I should apply to your usage in this thread:



With this new definition you have provided:



I do not see these two definitions as being equivalent, do you?

The first definition I could see as one that someone might apply to themselves, an idea that they ascribe to.

The second definition I see as a negative label, one that an accuser applies to someone they feel are exhibiting the negative traits described in the definition. This is the pejorative use of the word, the cudgel wielded by the cudgel holder against anyone extending scientific principles beyond the boundaries set by the cudgel wielder. Surely you don't imagine people self-identify with this definition.

Let's unpack this second, pejorative definition of scientism. What is meant by an exaggerated trust in the efficacy of scientific methods? Who is making such a determination and on what grounds? Who is the arbiter in such an accusation, no one other than the accuser.

Reading a little further, we see it is specifically the scientific methods of natural science (however that is defined). The absurdity here is that methods vary according to the problem being investigated. One does not use an electron microscope to examine distant galaxies, nor use the Hubble Space Telescope to investigate viruses. So why is there this assumption that inappropriate investigative methods would be use in philosophy, social sciences (which are sciences for heavens sake), and humanities? Methods are designed specifically to the problem being investigated.

It is not from methods that the wielder of the scientism cudgel wishes to isolate philosophy, social sciences, and humanities, rather it is the principles and standards of scientific investigation that provide the mitigation against human error, human flaws and fallibility.

Again, scientific inquiry, at its core, is the systematic identification and mitigation of all the ways in which human error can impact and corrupt the investigative process, and incorporating that into the investigation. No form of investigation should be considered useful or valid if it cannot acknowledge potential error in any human investigator and take steps to mitigate that potential error. I fail to see why philosophy, social sciences, and humanities should be shielded from that. Wouldn't you agree?

So, it appears the word 'Scientism' can be used in both a pejorative and non-pejorative way.

The crux of our differences probably comes down to the fact that I give much esteem and consideration to spiritual teachings that cannot be studied through the physical senses and physical science. I believe there are those that can tell us more about reality through information received through clairvoyant senses that cannot be confirmed or disproved by physical science (i.e., Vedic (Hindu) and Theosophical Sciences).

I see these spiritual sciences as complimentary to physical science and not in opposition.

I'm going to assume you do not give much esteem and consideration to such sciences and probably would prefer to not refer to them even as 'sciences'.

 

[HeatherAnn]

Hence "uselessness of religious debating"

Actually, religious debate is very useful because it’s basically helping each other THINK & explore foundational beliefs’ integrity.

The Bible teaches this though few interpret it this way… wrestling ideas is important. Jacob’s name was changed to Israel, meaning, “He who wrestled God” - or he who wrestled his ideas of God.

 

[HeatherAnn]

[Belief]…Has no value in determining what is true.​

... Perhaps it’s time to stop talking admiringly about faith and belief as if these were virtues.
What Actually Is a Belief? And Why Is It So Hard to Change?

Fascinating to consider how faith and beliefs can be admirable. Indeed! Motivation is key to success!

If belief “Has no value in determining what is true”… how do you explain the placebo effect?

 

[MikeF]

So, it appears the word 'Scientism' can be used in both a pejorative and non-pejorative way.

yep.

The crux of our differences probably comes down to the fact that I give much esteem and consideration to spiritual teachings that cannot be studied through the physical senses and physical science. I believe there are those that can tell us more about reality through information received through clairvoyant senses that cannot be confirmed or disproved by physical science (i.e., Vedic (Hindu) and Theosophical Sciences).

I see these spiritual sciences as complimentary to physical science and not in opposition.

I'm going to assume you do not give much esteem and consideration to such sciences and probably would prefer to not refer to them even as 'sciences'.

To me, science is science. If your investigative methods are sound and you control for human error, in my book you are doing science.

Again, my intent wasn't to challenge your beliefs about spiritual/supernatural.

My only intent was to provide my perspective on the word scientism and to ask you to consider if your views really have been reached in a neutral and unemotional way, as you seemed to imply.

 

[George-ananda]

yep.



To me, science is science. If your investigative methods are sound and you control for human error, in my book you are doing science.

Well, it's not as clear cut as that when you are describing things that are beyond the physical senses and require clairvoyant/psychic insight as in Vedic Science.



Vedic science is the study of reality through the lens of realized sages. Originating from India, the Vedas are texts revealed by sages and are not limited to a single field, namely religion. (From Popular Vedic Science website)

They are still doing 'science' as in the dictionary definition:

> a systematically organized body of knowledge on a particular subject


Followers of Scientism (even under the non-pejorative use of the word) would not be fans of Vedic Science of course.

 

[MikeF]

I get where you're coming from, but for me ....

Well, it's not as clear cut as that when you are describing things that are beyond the physical senses and require clairvoyant/psychic insight as in Vedic Science.

Words like insight and intuition are pretty much red flags, more so when they reference a single individual or a select group of individuals.

There is much beyond the detection range of our human biological senses. There are many examples of other animals that have broader ranges of detection for various biological senses, or have unique senses that humans do not posses. We have the knowledge and capacity to create non-biological sensors that can detect phenomena beyond our limited biological senses and to detect phenomena for which there is no biological sensor.

How would anyone know of clairvoyant or psychic phenomena if not sensed in some manner? I think this concept of beyond detection contradicts a claim of experience. If it is experienced, there is a reason for it. It just might not be the reason hoped for.

Vedic science is the study of reality through the lens of realized sages. Originating from India, the Vedas are texts revealed by sages and are not limited to a single field, namely religion.

(From Popular Vedic Science website)

Again, a red flag to have knowledge revealed through ancient text as dictated or transcribed by select, yet fallible human beings (as we all are fallible).

They are still doing 'science' as in the dictionary definition:

> a systematically organized body of knowledge on a particular subject

That is the extent of what the dictionary has to say on the word science? I don't believe you.

To use such a snippet of a definition and say "See, the Vedas fit this definition, they are science too!" is disingenuous. If that is what the word science means to you, then I will use something else to represent what I am referencing. How about "modern scientific inquiry". This will be the label for my definition of what science is, as my concept is quite distinct from yours and has more requirements.

Followers of Scientism (even under the non-pejorative use of the word) would not be fans of Vedic Science of course.

Nor would a lot of other people, I imagine.

 

[stvdv]

Actually, religious debate is very useful because it’s basically helping each other THINK & explore foundational beliefs’ integrity.

The Bible teaches this though few interpret it this way… wrestling ideas is important. Jacob’s name was changed to Israel, meaning, “He who wrestled God” - or he who wrestled his ideas of God.

For me:
"to find truth" debate is useless
"to find truth" sharing experience works

I read what others says
Then I use:
Introspection, meditation ++
I don't need other people to think for me
@stvdvRF

 

[George-ananda]

I get where you're coming from, but for me ....



Words like insight and intuition are pretty much red flags, more so when they reference a single individual or a select group of individuals.

There is much beyond the detection range of our human biological senses. There are many examples of other animals that have broader ranges of detection for various biological senses, or have unique senses that humans do not posses. We have the knowledge and capacity to create non-biological sensors that can detect phenomena beyond our limited biological senses and to detect phenomena for which there is no biological sensor.

How would anyone know of clairvoyant or psychic phenomena if not sensed in some manner? I think this concept of beyond detection contradicts a claim of experience. If it is experienced, there is a reason for it. It just might not be the reason hoped for.

This is all predicated on the belief that we are more than physical bodies but also have interpenetrating astral/mental bodies and also a soul body. (Three Bodies Doctrine). These bodies have their own sensory abilities that can tell of things not directly detectable by the physical senses and instruments. Even mainstream science now tells us that the majority of matter in the universe is not directly detectable by the physical (so-called Dark Matter).

Anyway, those most gifted in the use of those higher senses can tell us of things the less gifted cannot directly detect.

Again, a red flag to have knowledge revealed through ancient text as dictated or transcribed by select, yet fallible human beings (as we all are fallible).

This stuff includes the teachings of modern spiritual teachers too that confirm and expand upon our knowledge.


Anyway, I have no expectations to convert you into an interest in esoteric stuff. I am just pointing out that I am willing to consider and learn from sources other than what you call 'science' if they present hypotheses I rationally find likely to be on the tight track.

 

[MikeF]

This is all predicated on the belief that we are more than physical bodies but also have interpenetrating astral/mental bodies and also a soul body. (Three Bodies Doctrine). These bodies have their own sensory abilities that can tell of things not directly detectable by the physical senses and instruments. Even mainstream science now tells us that the majority of matter in the universe is not directly detectable by the physical (so-called Dark Matter).

Anyway, those most gifted in the use of those higher senses can tell us of things the less gifted cannot directly detect.

This stuff includes the teachings of modern spiritual teachers too that confirm and expand upon our knowledge.

Got it.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Yes, but there is an aspect of human psychology that is interesting.
Why we do what we do seems often based on what we believe.

More likely what we want to believe

 

[Nakosis]

More likely what we want to believe

If you really want to believe something, what would be stopping you?

 

[Nakosis]

Fascinating to consider how faith and beliefs can be admirable. Indeed! Motivation is key to success!

If belief “Has no value in determining what is true”… how do you explain the placebo effect?

Mental states of mind triggering biochemical reactions.
We learn how to trigger desired physiological states through external stimulation.
Whats really cool is if we can learn to trigger these physiological states at will.

 

[Nakosis]

I think the term ‘Scientism’ describes a valid philosophy and those that espouse that philosophy should be able to comfortably own the philosophy and support it.

People like @MikeF are ready to make the term a pejorative so its usage just creates controversy.

While it's true that I think I could support/argue for the philosophy, it's not like I adhere to it like a Bible. IOW, it makes sense to me but maybe there are exceptions I'm willing to consider.

 

[RestlessSoul]

If you really want to believe something, what would be stopping you?

Doubt?