Announcement

Collapse

Natural Science 301 Guidelines

This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.

As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

The Jorge against scientism

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The Jorge against scientism

    For new readers: Jorge Fernandez was a constant bugbear to scientism people involved in this forum. Mighty and frequent were the attacks on Jorge's positions; yet, unbowed, he dished out as much abuse as his opponents did.

    It would be interesting to know what Jorge thinks of this book Scholastic Metaphysics: A Contemporary Introduction by Edward Feser, herein reviewed: http://www.catholicworldreport.com/I...scientism.aspx

    [Tip o'the hat to Leonhard.]
    The greater number of laws . . . , the more thieves . . . there will be. ---- Lao-Tzu

    [T]he truth I’m after and the truth never harmed anyone. What harms us is to persist in self-deceit and ignorance -— Marcus Aurelius, Meditations

  • #2
    For new readers, Jorge Fernandez has been a long-time clown making unsupportable and unsupported statements, defending them with "you're drunk" accusations, and without a single exception running away from all requests for analysis, evidence, or even rudimentary intelligence. ALL Jorge dished out was abuse. His opponents, when not laughing at him, generally have produced informed, interesting, and thought-provoking discussions. Without showing any signs of being drunk.

    Comment


    • #3
      Accusations of 'scientism' are easily flung about, often by people who aren't fully informed on what scientism actually is. It has become one of those all purpose derogatives like 'fundamentalist'.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by pancreasman View Post
        Accusations of 'scientism' are easily flung about, often by people who aren't fully informed on what scientism actually is. It has become one of those all purpose derogatives like 'fundamentalist'.
        Feser, according to the linked review, has his own definition of "scientism", which boils down to the denial that Making Stuff Up is a valid avenue to knowledge. Feser argues that science is simply one approach among many which lead us to Right Answers, and a limited approach which fails to produce Feser's answers. I especially enjoyed where he dismissed the argument that the scientific method works, and produces results on which everyone can ultimately agree (rather than arbitrary and irresolvable schisms). After all, science is itself based on a philosophy, which honest scientists must admit puts it on equal footing with the philosphy of Making Stuff Up.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by phank View Post
          Feser, according to the linked review, has his own definition of "scientism", which boils down to the denial that Making Stuff Up is a valid avenue to knowledge. Feser argues that science is simply one approach among many which lead us to Right Answers, and a limited approach which fails to produce Feser's answers. I especially enjoyed where he dismissed the argument that the scientific method works, and produces results on which everyone can ultimately agree (rather than arbitrary and irresolvable schisms). After all, science is itself based on a philosophy, which honest scientists must admit puts it on equal footing with the philosphy of Making Stuff Up.
          Yes, well that's just silly. Why the mutually assured destruction of solipsism is preferable to just admitting science actually WORKS a whole lot of the time is beyond me.

          Comment


          • #6
            This thread belongs in the looney bin.
            "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
              This thread belongs in the looney bin.
              Since it targets a particular individual, yes. A nuanced understanding of scientism is a worthwhile discussion. Shame we didn't start with that.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by pancreasman View Post
                Accusations of 'scientism' are easily flung about, often by people who aren't fully informed on what scientism actually is. It has become one of those all purpose derogatives like 'fundamentalist'.
                Originally posted by pancreasman View Post
                Since it targets a particular individual, yes. A nuanced understanding of scientism is a worthwhile discussion. Shame we didn't start with that.

                From the review: " . . . there is no kind of knowledge superior to modern science.

                Anyone who denies the possibility of a meaningful metaphysics, and affirms instead the alleged superiority of science as what should replace it, is devoted to “scientism.” Again, this is the theory that there is no such thing as a “metaphysics” that can go beyond physics. “Scientism” thinks nothing can attain fundamentals better than modern science."

                All right, pancreasman, tell us what you think scientism really is. Try to explain things so that we can see what is wrong with Feser's understanding of what scientism is.
                The greater number of laws . . . , the more thieves . . . there will be. ---- Lao-Tzu

                [T]he truth I’m after and the truth never harmed anyone. What harms us is to persist in self-deceit and ignorance -— Marcus Aurelius, Meditations

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Truthseeker View Post
                  From the review: " . . . there is no kind of knowledge superior to modern science.

                  Anyone who denies the possibility of a meaningful metaphysics, and affirms instead the alleged superiority of science as what should replace it, is devoted to “scientism.” Again, this is the theory that there is no such thing as a “metaphysics” that can go beyond physics. “Scientism” thinks nothing can attain fundamentals better than modern science."

                  All right, pancreasman, tell us what you think scientism really is. Try to explain things so that we can see what is wrong with Feser's understanding of what scientism is.

                  Read your quoted sentence again and see if it says what you think it says. I certainly don't think science is the only intellectual tool. I do think its the best tool for investigating the physical universe. I also think that there is no superior tool. If there is, what tool is superior to science in gaining knowledge.

                  Historian Richard G. Olson defines scientism as “efforts to extend scientific ideas, methods, practices, and attitudes to matters of human social and political concern.” (1) But this formulation is so broad as to render it virtually useless. Philosopher Tom Sorell offers a more precise definition: “Scientism is a matter of putting too high a value on natural science in comparison with other branches of learning or culture.” (2) MIT physicist Ian Hutchinson offers a closely related version, but more extreme: “Science, modeled on the natural sciences, is the only source of real knowledge.” (3) The latter two definitions are far more precise and will better help us evaluate scientism’s merit.
                  from http://www.aaas.org/page/what-scientism

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    I guess one question is whether rock-solid, unshakeable sincere belief in the imaginary counts as "real knowledge". The key to good science has always been imagination - the ability to dream up how things MIGHT be, in ways that can be operationally defined so as to be testable. Science is far less the drawing of logical conclusions from available evidence, than it is leaping to nearly unwarranted conclusions and then looking at (or for) the evidence those conclusions require, to see if they're right. Most of the time, alas, they're not right, or only partially right.

                    But right offhand, we see two related categories: leaps of imagination to untestable conclusions; and the stubborn refusal to let foregone conclusions fall prey to failed tests. Both of these categories surely result in "real knowledge" in the minds of those who fall into them.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by phank View Post
                      For new readers, Jorge Fernandez has been a long-time clown making unsupportable and unsupported statements, defending them with "you're drunk" accusations, and without a single exception running away from all requests for analysis, evidence, or even rudimentary intelligence. ALL Jorge dished out was abuse. His opponents, when not laughing at him, generally have produced informed, interesting, and thought-provoking discussions. Without showing any signs of being drunk.
                      Then you have the hutzpah of questioning why I often tossed "you're drunk or on drugs" to people like yourself. Just read the above (when you're sober) and you'll know why. The same to Tassman et al.

                      Jorge

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Truthseeker View Post
                        For new readers: Jorge Fernandez was a constant bugbear to scientism people involved in this forum. Mighty and frequent were the attacks on Jorge's positions; yet, unbowed, he dished out as much abuse as his opponents did.

                        It would be interesting to know what Jorge thinks of this book Scholastic Metaphysics: A Contemporary Introduction by Edward Feser, herein reviewed: http://www.catholicworldreport.com/I...scientism.aspx

                        [Tip o'the hat to Leonhard.]
                        I'd first have to read the book, of course.

                        Without reading it, Scientism is essentially an offspring of Ontological Materialism. Once that point is comprehended, my position becomes perfectly clear and justified. Sorry you can't see it that way, Truthseeker.

                        Jorge

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by pancreasman View Post
                          Accusations of 'scientism' are easily flung about, often by people who aren't fully informed on what scientism actually is. It has become one of those all purpose derogatives like 'fundamentalist'.
                          See my last post (above) and try harder.

                          Jorge

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Truthseeker View Post
                            For new readers: Jorge Fernandez was a constant bugbear to scientism people involved in this forum. Mighty and frequent were the attacks on Jorge's positions; yet, unbowed, he dished out as much abuse as his opponents did.

                            It would be interesting to know what Jorge thinks of this book Scholastic Metaphysics: A Contemporary Introduction by Edward Feser, herein reviewed: http://www.catholicworldreport.com/I...scientism.aspx

                            [Tip o'the hat to Leonhard.]
                            I think a better way to look at this is along the lines of the use of philosophy in science. I'm reading this book:-

                            Plato at the Googolplex

                            - at the moment. It's very early days, but the author notes that many (but by no means all) scientists jeer at philosophy often claiming that it's useless in science. And besides, it's often the case that science ends up answering questions that were once considered to be philosophical questions and potentially unsolvable ones at that.

                            However I think her aim is to show why philosophy is relevant and one of the ways is that it always forces us to question our assumptions. The moment one feels to have solved a particular problem, then take a step back and look at the assumptions it relies upon, and begin to question those.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Jorge View Post
                              Without reading it, Scientism is essentially an offspring of Ontological Materialism.
                              "Ontological Materialism" is not in Wikipedia. My inquiry (search) was redirected to the entry "Materialism." There the definition was offered:
                              A form of philosophical monism which holds that matter is the fundamental substance in nature, and that all phenomena, including mental phenomena and consciousness, are the result of material interactions.



                              Once that point is comprehended, my position becomes perfectly clear and justified. Sorry you can't see it that way, Truthseeker.
                              I think it is clear. Justified? Well, can you prove your position starting from premises that even atheists will accept?
                              The greater number of laws . . . , the more thieves . . . there will be. ---- Lao-Tzu

                              [T]he truth I’m after and the truth never harmed anyone. What harms us is to persist in self-deceit and ignorance -— Marcus Aurelius, Meditations

                              Comment

                              Related Threads

                              Collapse

                              Topics Statistics Last Post
                              Started by lee_merrill, 11-23-2020, 10:25 PM
                              3 responses
                              31 views
                              1 like
                              Last Post Christianbookworm  
                              Started by rogue06, 11-22-2020, 08:25 AM
                              4 responses
                              58 views
                              3 likes
                              Last Post rogue06
                              by rogue06
                               
                              Started by TheLurch, 11-19-2020, 02:11 PM
                              1 response
                              30 views
                              1 like
                              Last Post rogue06
                              by rogue06
                               
                              Started by rogue06, 11-10-2020, 08:50 AM
                              0 responses
                              18 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post rogue06
                              by rogue06
                               
                              Started by shunyadragon, 11-09-2020, 06:36 PM
                              2 responses
                              17 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post shunyadragon  
                              Working...
                              X