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

Scientist Resigns as Stem-Cell Creation Method Is Discredited

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

  • #61
    Originally posted by Adrift View Post
    There is no problem with the word "scientism". As the Wikipedia article I linked states, "In essence, scientism sees science as the absolute and only justifiable access to the truth."
    This definition seems just a bit limited. There is a distinction between verifiable and non-verifiable truths. Pure guessing is also an avenue to the truth, but often guesses are wrong. Are wrong guesses "knowledge"? Are ANY guesses "knowledge" even if we guess right?


    As far as I can see, scientism and Metaphysical Naturalism are not necessarily synonymous. One may hold that the material world is all that there is, and reject supernaturalism as does the Metaphysical Naturalist, but I don't see anything in the Metaphysical Naturalist's worldview that would prevent them from ascertaining truths through methods other than the scientific method. They may believe that we can obtain truths through the study of history, philosophy, literature, art, etc. It just needs to be grounded in materialism.
    So are you saying that the distinction is that scientism requires a fairly defined and rigid set of methodological rules while Metaphysical Naturalism does not necessarily do so? Or are you distinguishing here between the search for knowledge, and the search for meaning?

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by phank View Post
      This definition seems just a bit limited. There is a distinction between verifiable and non-verifiable truths. Pure guessing is also an avenue to the truth, but often guesses are wrong. Are wrong guesses "knowledge"? Are ANY guesses "knowledge" even if we guess right?
      No, I don't think I'd say that guesses are knowledge, unless we're prepared to say that something like a theory is merely a guess. I guess if you're okay with saying that, then never mind.

      So are you saying that the distinction is that scientism requires a fairly defined and rigid set of methodological rules while Metaphysical Naturalism does not necessarily do so?
      As far as I understand it (and I could be wrong) that sounds about right. Professor of philosophy and secular humanist activist, John R. Shook writes here:

      Source: LECTURES ON SCIENCE AND NATURALISM

      Other kinds of naturalism do not agree with reductionist universalism and feel comfortable with permitting other scientific fields to describe reality with just as much legitimacy as physics. Because the biological and social sciences have traditionally used some methodological principles and modes of causality that depart from the physical sciences, many naturalists want to draw a line between trustworthy physical sciences (physics, chemistry, geosciences, astronomy, cosmology) and suspicious biological and social sciences. For example, some approaches to the social sciences have assumed the existence of social entities (that must not be treated as mere aggregates of people), and some biological and social sciences have use teleological causality (explanations that appeal to future outcomes to explain present behaviors). We will not discuss this internal dispute among naturalists here. However, the naturalists who would permit just the physical sciences to describe reality (let us call their view "scientism") do form a separate camp from those naturalists who are comfortable with all of the physical, biological, and social sciences describing reality (let us call their view "pluralism").

      © Copyright Original Source



      So, it seems to me that all those who hold to scientism are Metaphysical Naturalists, but its not necessarily the case that all Metaphysical Naturalists need hold to scientism. And here I take it that Metaphysical Naturalism is mainly to do with rejecting forms of supernaturalism entirely. So, in other words, its sort of a...all dogs are animals, but not all animals are dogs kinda thing.

      Like I said, maybe I'm wrong about that though. Regardless, if you want to call it scientism, or Metaphysical Naturalism, or whatever, what most theists (and many nontheists) reject is the idea that the scientific method is the only way to ascertain truths about reality.

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by Adrift View Post
        Like I said, maybe I'm wrong about that though. Regardless, if you want to call it scientism, or Metaphysical Naturalism, or whatever, what most theists (and many nontheists) reject is the idea that the scientific method is the only way to ascertain truths about reality.
        I understand that you see scientism as a subset of Metaphysical Naturalism. What I'm getting at is the distinction between knowledge and truth. Theists believe at least one god exists (that is, exists external to the human imagination), and this might be true, but it can never be knowable. So we might say that science is the only avenue to knowledge, but NOT the only avenue to truth. I think (I'm not sure) that we agreed that correct guesses are true, but we can't KNOW that they are true.

        To the Metaphysical Naturalist, I'd say that reality is the ultimate arbitrator of what is true, and reality can be known only through empircal investigation. People might intuit, or guess, or speculate things that are true, but until empirical investigation ratifies them, they are truths but not knowledge.

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by phank View Post
          I understand that you see scientism as a subset of Metaphysical Naturalism. What I'm getting at is the distinction between knowledge and truth. Theists believe at least one god exists (that is, exists external to the human imagination), and this might be true, but it can never be knowable.
          I don't really see this as a theist vs. nontheist sort of thing. Certainly there are nontheists who think that science is not the only avenue to knowledge (and here I go with the dictionary definition of knowledge as "the body of truths or facts accumulated in the course of time").

          So we might say that science is the only avenue to knowledge, but NOT the only avenue to truth.
          The study of literature, and history, and art, and soft sciences like philosophy, and social science are avenues of knowledge that some may not consider strictly scientific, at least, not in the same way that hard sciences are. They don't necessarily use the scientific method in order to collect data and ascertain truths.

          To the Metaphysical Naturalist, I'd say that reality is the ultimate arbitrator of what is true, and reality can be known only through empircal investigation. People might intuit, or guess, or speculate things that are true, but until empirical investigation ratifies them, they are truths but not knowledge.
          Hmm. I'm not sure I entirely agree with that, but I'm no authority on the subject.
          Last edited by Adrift; 12-28-2014, 11:56 PM.

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by Adrift View Post
            I don't really see this as a theist vs. nontheist sort of thing. Certainly there are nontheists who think that science is not the only avenue to knowledge (and here I go with the dictionary definition of knowledge as "the body of truths or facts accumulated in the course of time").
            Correct. There are many agnostics and atheists that don't see science as providing all of the answers. While they may not turn to religion in search of solutions to questions that science is ill-equipped to answer (such as all of the "whys") they have no trouble turning toward philosophy.

            I'm always still in trouble again

            "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
            "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
            "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by Adrift View Post
              I don't really see this as a theist vs. nontheist sort of thing. Certainly there are nontheists who think that science is not the only avenue to knowledge (and here I go with the dictionary definition of knowledge as "the body of truths or facts accumulated in the course of time").
              Nor do I. I gave one example, but there are many others.

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                Correct. There are many agnostics and atheists that don't see science as providing all of the answers.
                This is a bit vague, agnostics as a category is a bit messy. The materialists, atheists and agnostics, in the metaphysical naturalists end of the spectrum consider Metaphysical Naturism to basically answer all the questions concerning the nature of our existence. This would be equivalent to scientism.

                While they may not turn to religion in search of solutions to questions that science is ill-equipped to answer (such as all of the "whys") they have no trouble turning toward philosophy.
                This is confusing and anecdotal at best.
                Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                go with the flow the river knows . . .

                Frank

                I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                  Correct. There are many agnostics and atheists that don't see science as providing all of the answers. While they may not turn to religion in search of solutions to questions that science is ill-equipped to answer (such as all of the "whys") they have no trouble turning toward philosophy.
                  Yes, to be sure. The question here, as I understand it, is whether "answers" is the same thing as "knowledge." When a child asks why the sky is blue and the parent answers "because god wants it that way", this might be a fully satisfying answer to the child. But is it knowledge?

                  Maybe another way to phrase it is, are questions that science is ill-equipped to answer, truly meaningful questions? I suspect that most of the time, such questions (such as the "why" questions you mention) are hard for science to answer because no answer is meaningful that does not accept the set of assumptions on which the "why" question rests. Most such questions are asking about the "final cause" -- that is, "for the sake of which a thing is done." But there may very well BE no final cause in most instances, and teleological thinking might be a logical blunder.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                    This is a bit vague, agnostics as a category is a bit messy. The materialists, atheists and agnostics, in the metaphysical naturalists end of the spectrum consider Metaphysical Naturism to basically answer all the questions concerning the nature of our existence. This would be equivalent to scientism.
                    By agnostic I mean those who aren't sure whether or not that there is a God. I don't know why that would be any messier as a category than would theists or atheists.

                    Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                    This is confusing and anecdotal at best.
                    I don't know why this would be confusing unless you don't think that any agnostics or atheists ever turn to philosophy for answers that science is ill-equipped to provide such as the aforementioned "whys." Science is tremendously successful at answering how something happens but really stinks at answering why which religion does a much better job at supplying answers for.

                    I'm always still in trouble again

                    "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                    "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                    "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by phank View Post

                      Maybe another way to phrase it is, are questions that science is ill-equipped to answer, truly meaningful questions? I suspect that most of the time, such questions (such as the "why" questions you mention) are hard for science to answer because no answer is meaningful that does not accept the set of assumptions on which the "why" question rests.
                      Many folks -- and not just theists -- consider some of those why questions to be the truly important ones. Of course I imagine that those beholden to metaphysical naturalism (a.k.a. ontological or philosophical naturalism) would not be interested and be dismissive.

                      I'm always still in trouble again

                      "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                      "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                      "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                        By agnostic I mean those who aren't sure whether or not that there is a God. I don't know why that would be any messier as a category than would theists or atheists.
                        In part almost everyone turns toward philosophy in one way or another, and yes agnosticism is a vaguer category then atheism. For example I consider myself a very skeptical agnostic in many ways, but also a theist as a Baha'i. Metaphysical Naturalism is itself a philosophy.


                        I don't know why this would be confusing unless you don't think that any agnostics or atheists ever turn to philosophy for answers that science is ill-equipped to provide such as the aforementioned "whys." Science is tremendously successful at answering how something happens but really stinks at answering why which religion does a much better job at supplying answers for.
                        Answering questions of why? is pretty much a universal Metaphysical question. fundamentally science is 'descriptive' in its nature from as much a detached manner as possible. In reality it would be an naive illusion if one hopes that science whether Metaphysical Naturalism nor Methodological Naturalism would ever be capable of answering this question. Probably most who believe in Metaphysical Naturalism are indifferent to the question why, because our physical existence would simply exist naturally without a reason 'why?'
                        Last edited by shunyadragon; 12-30-2014, 09:13 AM.
                        Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                        Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                        But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                        go with the flow the river knows . . .

                        Frank

                        I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          As far as I understand it (and I could be wrong) that sounds about right. Professor of philosophy and secular humanist activist, John R. Shook writes here:


                          Source: Source: LECTURES ON SCIENCE AND NATURALISM


                          Other kinds of naturalism do not agree with reductionist universalism and feel comfortable with permitting other scientific fields to describe reality with just as much legitimacy as physics. Because the biological and social sciences have traditionally used some methodological principles and modes of causality that depart from the physical sciences, many naturalists want to draw a line between trustworthy physical sciences (physics, chemistry, geosciences, astronomy, cosmology) and suspicious biological and social sciences. For example, some approaches to the social sciences have assumed the existence of social entities (that must not be treated as mere aggregates of people), and some biological and social sciences have use teleological causality (explanations that appeal to future outcomes to explain present behaviors). We will not discuss this internal dispute among naturalists here. However, the naturalists who would permit just the physical sciences to describe reality (let us call their view "scientism") do form a separate camp from those naturalists who are comfortable with all of the physical, biological, and social sciences describing reality (let us call their view "pluralism").

                          © Copyright Original Source



                          I will play the Devil's advocate on the way this source words some things.

                          'Because the biological and social sciences have traditionally used some methodological principles and modes of causality that depart from the physical sciences, many naturalists want to draw a line between trustworthy physical sciences (physics, chemistry, geosciences, astronomy, cosmology) and suspicious biological and social sciences. For example, some approaches to the social sciences have assumed the existence of social entities (that must not be treated as mere aggregates of people), and some biological and social sciences have use teleological causality (explanations that appeal to future outcomes to explain present behaviors).'

                          First, ALL sciences must be 'trustworthy,' regardless of one's view of Naturalism, and Methodological Naturalism methodology applies to ALL sciences. 'Suspicious biological and social sciences' needs to defined more carefully to be meaningful here, because again the academic criteria and methods of ALL sciences would not consider 'suspicious' science regardless.

                          Sciences like the social sciences and economics DO NOT depart from the Methodology of the physical sciences. This methodology applies to all sciences, and departing would indeed lead to 'suspicious science,' and be unacceptable. They apply the knowledge and methodology of the physical sciences to their fields.

                          Second, the problem of 'teleological causality,' is a given in sciences like economics and social sciences, and the limits of such descriptice and predictive value in these sciences should keep in touch with the reality of such predictions regardless of one's philosophy concerning naturalism. The predictive value in some of these disciplines is actually increasing with the better integration of basic sciences, and math models such as 'Chaos Theory.' Nonetheless regardless of ones view of Naturalism, the bottom line is whether it is Good Science versus BAD Science, which is the topic of this thread.

                          It should be noted that common accusations of those who object to the science evolution and cosmology describe these sciences as 'scientism,' also misuse these questions in science on the issue of teleological predictability and causality, and accuse biological and social sciences as 'suspicious at best' concerning evolution and cosmology.

                          The claim of scientism vs pluralism. I do not believe the Metaphysical Naturalists 'permit' just the physical sciences to describe reality. Nor do they in reality form a separate 'camp' from those who are comfortable with all science physical as well as applied, or whatever. There, of course, may be differences in how individual scientists may consider theses issues, but that is too vague and anecdotal.

                          The only criteria that differentiates Metaphysical Naturalism from Methodological Naturalism is the metaphysical assumption, and not how comfortable one scientist or the other is with other sciences then the physical sciences. ALL sciences have their foundation in the methodology of Methodological Naturalism
                          Last edited by shunyadragon; 12-30-2014, 09:11 AM.
                          Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                          Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                          But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                          go with the flow the river knows . . .

                          Frank

                          I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            It should be noted that common accusations of those who object to the science evolution and cosmology describe these sciences as 'scientism,' also misuse these questions in science on the issue of teleological predictability and causality, and accuse biological and social sciences as 'suspicious at best' concerning evolution and cosmology.
                            Show us examples of people who describe the science of evolution and cosmology as scientism. I'd also like to see examples of those same people accusing biological and social sciences as "suspicious at best". For the record, when John R. Shook was describing people who find biological and social sciences suspicious, he was, of course, referring to some Metaphysical/Philosophical Naturalists. I thought that was clear. You did read the paper, right? Also, it of course makes no sense to describe scientific fields as "scientism", since scientism describes the personal philosophy of people, and not the science itself.

                            The claim of scientism vs pluralism. I do not believe the Metaphysical Naturalists 'permit' just the physical sciences to describe reality. Nor do they in reality form a separate 'camp' from those who are comfortable with all science physical as well as applied, or whatever. There, of course, may be differences in how individual scientists may consider theses issues, but that is too vague and anecdotal.
                            Ok. Well you'll have to take that up with John R. Shook, The author of the paper I cited who is the Research Associate in Philosophy, and Instructor of Science Education, at the University at Buffalo, and who "also worked with several secular organizations, including the Center for Inquiry, the American Humanist Association, the Institute for Humanist Studies, the Humanist Institute, and the Society of Humanist Philosophers." He is an open supporter scientism and the overall scientistic-worldview.

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Originally posted by Adrift View Post
                              Show us examples of people who describe the science of evolution and cosmology as scientism. I'd also like to see examples of those same people accusing biological and social sciences as "suspicious at best". For the record, when John R. Shook was describing people who find biological and social sciences suspicious, he was, of course, referring to some Metaphysical/Philosophical Naturalists. I thought that was clear. You did read the paper, right? Also, it of course makes no sense to describe scientific fields as "scientism", since scientism describes the personal philosophy of people, and not the science itself.
                              Yes, I read the article, and does not change my objections. Referring to '. . . some Metaphysical Naturalists' is too vague, and does not address the problem of defining 'scientism' as some how different from Metaphysical Naturalism. My challenge is such references is vague and anecdotal. I am sure Jorge and AIG consider the science of evolution and cosmology 'suspicious' at best.

                              Originally posted by Pancreasman, url
                              http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?4744-The-Jorge-against-scientism][/url]

                              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'.
                              Science described as scientism in AIG.

                              Source: https://answersingenesis.org/creation-vs-evolution/the-creation-evolution-controversy/



                              Science, or more accurately “scientism,” has not hesitated to wade into the domain of religion. In 1981, theologians and scientists met at Massachusetts Institute of Technology under the auspices of the World Council of Churches to discuss “Science, Faith and the Future.” The general premise of the conference was that modern science requires us to develop an entirely new religion for the future. One theologian proposed evolutionary theory as an especially rich source for this new religion. Another proposed “ecotheology” as an approach to religion that starts with the premise that the universe is god. Not to be outdone by theologians, a scientist claimed to have localized the exact part of the brain responsible for what “traditional religion calls the intuitive perception of God.” Religious experience, he claimed, is a product of the parietal-occipital region on the non-dominant side of the brain! Who knows—by now he may even have found a cure.

                              © Copyright Original Source




                              Ok. Well you'll have to take that up with John R. Shook, The author of the paper I cited who is the Research Associate in Philosophy, and Instructor of Science Education, at the University at Buffalo, and who "also worked with several secular organizations, including the Center for Inquiry, the American Humanist Association, the Institute for Humanist Studies, the Humanist Institute, and the Society of Humanist Philosophers." He is an open supporter scientism and the overall scientistic-worldview.
                              You cited him to support your argument, and in the this thread I am taking it up with you as promoting this view.
                              Last edited by shunyadragon; 12-30-2014, 10:31 AM.
                              Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                              Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                              But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                              go with the flow the river knows . . .

                              Frank

                              I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                                Yes, I read the article, and does not change my objections. Referring to '. . . some Metaphysical Naturalists' is too vague, and does not address the problem of defining 'scientism' as some how different from Metaphysical Naturalism. My challenge is such references is vague and anecdotal.

                                Science described as scientism in AIG.

                                Source: https://answersingenesis.org/creation-vs-evolution/the-creation-evolution-controversy/



                                Science, or more accurately “scientism,” has not hesitated to wade into the domain of religion. In 1981, theologians and scientists met at Massachusetts Institute of Technology under the auspices of the World Council of Churches to discuss “Science, Faith and the Future.” The general premise of the conference was that modern science requires us to develop an entirely new religion for the future. One theologian proposed evolutionary theory as an especially rich source for this new religion. Another proposed “ecotheology” as an approach to religion that starts with the premise that the universe is god. Not to be outdone by theologians, a scientist claimed to have localized the exact part of the brain responsible for what “traditional religion calls the intuitive perception of God.” Religious experience, he claimed, is a product of the parietal-occipital region on the non-dominant side of the brain! Who knows—by now he may even have found a cure.

                                © Copyright Original Source

                                Okay. I see you weren't able to back your assertion that, "common accusations of those who object to the science evolution and cosmology describe these sciences as 'scientism,'". The paragraph you cited does not support that assertion at all. What the paragraph you cited describes is a conference of scientists and theologians who were actively looking for ways to form a new religion based on science, with, perhaps, the theory of evolution playing a part as a source for that new religion. The article does not assert that the theory of evolution itself is "scientism". I knew you wouldn't be able to back your assertion, which is why I asked you to support it. You have a terrible habit of making bald assertions like that.

                                You cited him to support your argument, and in the this thread I am taking it up with you as promoting this view.
                                What exactly do you think my argument is?

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-18-2024, 12:15 PM
                                48 responses
                                135 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Sparko
                                by Sparko
                                 
                                Started by Sparko, 03-07-2024, 08:52 AM
                                16 responses
                                74 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by rogue06, 02-28-2024, 11:06 AM
                                6 responses
                                46 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Working...
                                X