|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Dawkins is a Fool. God says so!
|
Elephenor
Shipmate
# 4026
|
Posted
In the days when Theology was Queen of the Sciences, Mathematics constituted three or four of the Seven Liberal Arts.
In my more recent experience British universities seemed fairly evenly split whether to offer a BA Mathematics or a BSc Mathematics. A few offered both. (Those universities which conservatively offer a BA Natural Science can be discounted from consideration.) Though with reorganisation of faculties, I don't think there's much doubt of the trend towards BSc.
I read that our modern restrictive (and singular) usage of 'Science' is a peculiarly Anglophone problem, and that (French) sciences, (German) wissenschaften or (Italian) scienze could still cover the entire lecture of a modern university; thus journals with titles like 'La Revue des Sciences Philosophiques et Théologiques'. Though I find it very hard to credit we haven't exported our narrower definition to some degree.
[ 06. October 2014, 19:49: Message edited by: Elephenor ]
--------------------
"Man is...a `eucharistic' animal." (Kallistos Ware)
Posts: 214 | From: UK | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:
Er, in which which post in this thread did you expound the basics of your beliefs? Because I can't see anywhere you got anywhere close, or even tried. Making things up doesn't make them true.
I never said I expounded them. I said I told them. Is English your first language? Or are you just twisting my words on purpose so you can come back and say "you weren't expounding there"?
And it was here, blind fuckwit.
quote:
Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:
Christians seem perfectly happy to define what an atheist is but get really upset if it works the other way.
I'm more than happy to let Atheists define what Atheism is. I just wish the definition would settle down and quit changing so.
quote:
Also there seems to be a deliberate failure to recognise the pretty simple fact that in English "you" can mean either singular or plural collective. Atheists are not talking about what individual Christians believe. So when we talk about "you" we are talking about christianity not you personally. I would have thought that was obvious.
Guess you thought wrong then, huh? "I would have thought that was obvious" is the perennial cry of the person whose words were unclear or misleading.
quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
Perhaps Pre-cambrian noticed that I asked you to explain what your jargon meant to you.
Perhaps this explains the otherwise dishonest-seeming change of verb. Nah, not really. I said I did something that I did, and he twisted it to try to make it look like I said something I didn't. And then has the mendacity to accuse someone else of arguing in bad faith. You atheists aren't really coming across well on this thread. This must be the asshole squad from the atheist rearguard.
quote:
So, tell me which bit(s) of God, Heaven, Soul, Prayer, Sin (Original and non-original), Redemption are not part of your religion and we can make a start of sorts.
I'm not sure what you're asking. Of course they're part of my religion. You asked me for my religion and I told you my religion and now you want to know which aren't my religion. What gives?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
The word "science" used to mean any "systematically organized body of knowledge on a particular subject" (OED Mac). Thus obviously philosophy, theology and mathematics would be sciences. Indeed, so was be the so-called "sweet science": boxing. (It's called a "science" because in contrast to wildly throwing haymakers actual boxing has systematically organised knowledge on how to beat the crap out of someone with your fists.)
It is only in modern times that the social dominance of the empirical natural sciences has turned this specific kind of science into the only "true" kind in many people's minds. Furthermore, what actually gets proposed now as the (only valid) "scientific method" is some vague generalisation of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics. Famously, faced with the paradoxes of quantum mechanics, early 20thC physicists decided to finally chuck out the traditional motivation of studying physics in order to understand the universe in a classical "natural philosophy" sense, and replaced that with a cognitively maximally sparse approach that would only seek to establish consistent mathematical relationships between measurable quantities, and that would measure scientific success only by the ability to predict. Questions of meaning in the Copenhagen interpretation simply are rejected unless they can be rendered into a form that allows experimental validation.
Thus scientism and related idiocies are basically just the social aftershock of the great "I'll be fucked if I know what this means, but I'm getting good results" moment of theoretical physics in the early 20thC. To claim that this sort of attitude has been that of "proper science" all along is anachronistic to the point of ridiculousness. It's also no surprise that Evensong is dragging out Einstein to put this attitude in question, because again Einstein is actually famous for opposing this change to how physics would be interpreted over a couple of decades. And Schrödinger's cat, now ironically some kind of symbol for the strange power of quantum mechanics, actually was proposed for much the same reason. It was an "old style" physics argument trying to point out that while the maths seems to be working, the meaning was unclear or even nonsensical.
Anyway, a vaguely generalised Copenhagen interpretation of natural science has become what atheists hang their hat on, and also has become a kind of standard excuse for natural scientists why they neither know any philosophy nor are interested in any. It's basically a "just let me do my job, OK?" thing now. And one cannot really complain too hard about that (unless one has "elitist" views about what a proper academic should be like). The problem is that eventually - typically when they get older and "real science" gets harder to do - the same people start to talk about their job, and the universe, and all the rest. At that point knowing a bit of philosophy would really help, otherwise one becomes a Dawkins. And that, all will agree, is a terrible fate indeed...
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dark Knight
Super Zero
# 9415
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I thought I just did.
It depends on what you think a "Christian" principle is, though.
As far as I'm concerned, if the social sciences count as sciences in all their wishy-washy wooliness, I don't see why theology is so beyond the pale.
As a social scientist, I think this is one of the most succinct descriptions of them I've seen for awhile. But they are not real sciences. I've just been writing on this actually. Most of what the social sciences seek to investigate would probably be better done using phenomenology and hermeneutics.
--------------------
So don't ever call me lucky
You don't know what I done, what it was, who I lost, or what it cost me - A B Original: I C U
----
Love is as strong as death (Song of Solomon 8:6).
Posts: 2958 | From: Beyond the Yellow Brick Road | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Elephenor: I read that our modern restrictive (and singular) usage of 'Science' is a peculiarly Anglophone problem, and that (French) sciences, (German) wissenschaften or (Italian) scienze could still cover the entire lecture of a modern university
I'm not sure if it is a problem, but you're right that there is a semantic difference here. The same thing happens in Dutch. The word wetenschap usually covers a bigger area than the English word 'Science'. It depends a bit on context, but if I want to translate the word 'Science', I normally use the term exacte wetenschap.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I thought I just did.
It depends on what you think a "Christian" principle is, though.
As far as I'm concerned, if the social sciences count as sciences in all their wishy-washy wooliness, I don't see why theology is so beyond the pale.
As a social scientist, I think this is one of the most succinct descriptions of them I've seen for awhile. But they are not real sciences. I've just been writing on this actually. Most of what the social sciences seek to investigate would probably be better done using phenomenology and hermeneutics.
I read an article recently that argued that if you look at Kuhn's paradigm shifts model, they're not sciences (yet?) because they have no central paradigm. There are "schools" but there isn't any agreement on how to go about "doing" sociology or historiography or whatever. You can't overthrow the paradigm because there isn't one. They are pre-sciences at best.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dark Knight
Super Zero
# 9415
|
Posted
Oooh, can you send me the link? Sounds very interesting. PM is fine, whatever.
--------------------
So don't ever call me lucky
You don't know what I done, what it was, who I lost, or what it cost me - A B Original: I C U
----
Love is as strong as death (Song of Solomon 8:6).
Posts: 2958 | From: Beyond the Yellow Brick Road | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
Oooh, can you send me the link? Sounds very interesting. PM is fine, whatever.
If I can find it. It was part of my classwork about a year ago, I think, and I'm not sure if I read it online or downloaded a copy.
ETA: It occurs to me that maybe that's just part of the book itself, and not a separate article? Now I must see if I can find my copy of Kuhn.
[ 08. October 2014, 05:25: Message edited by: mousethief ]
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dark Knight
Super Zero
# 9415
|
Posted
Meanwhile, in Purg, the disingenuousness continues.
In response to Marvin's post, I write this.
To which lb, in his/her infinite wisdom, quote-mine responses with this.
Sort of like "Lalalalalala, I can't hear you, cause I'm right and you're wrong, not listening, not listening!"
--------------------
So don't ever call me lucky
You don't know what I done, what it was, who I lost, or what it cost me - A B Original: I C U
----
Love is as strong as death (Song of Solomon 8:6).
Posts: 2958 | From: Beyond the Yellow Brick Road | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
What a delusional, egotistical, pencil-dicked moron you are.
This
quote:
Sort of like "Lalalalalala, I can't hear you, cause I'm right and you're wrong, not listening, not listening!"
is the basis of your argument.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dark Knight
Super Zero
# 9415
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
What a delusional, egotistical, pencil-dicked moron you are.
This
quote:
Sort of like "Lalalalalala, I can't hear you, cause I'm right and you're wrong, not listening, not listening!"
is the basis of your argument.
This is basically what you've done that whole thread.
lb: "Hey, y'all, why you so bothered by scientism? Just chill, yo!"
Others: "This is why <the many reasons we have discussed that are a little bit too clever for your tiny little brain>
lb: "Wo, but - wow, y'all have, like reasons? Like, reasoned ones? But, like religious people be, like, having faith and stuff. Not like science, yo!"
Others: <more reasoning which, sadly, you are just too fucking stupid to get>
lb: Wo, you all are like, just, not like accepting my position because of faith and shit. I mean, I can't actually counter what you're, like saying, but other people have said stuff I agree with, and they're like ... right, I guess?"
If it's at all unclear, I've represented you as Jesse Pinkman. Because whenever you post, I read your posts in his voice. And because you're both Forrest Gump level stupid.
--------------------
So don't ever call me lucky
You don't know what I done, what it was, who I lost, or what it cost me - A B Original: I C U
----
Love is as strong as death (Song of Solomon 8:6).
Posts: 2958 | From: Beyond the Yellow Brick Road | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Oh, yes, the masterful, god of reason that you are, if someone disagrees, they must be stupid. I understand your pathetic attempts at an argument, it simply is not as reasonable or logical as you think.
Your statement of "I don't accept it." is probably the most intellectually honest thing you said on the entire thread.
As far as the insults, please at least make it entertaining.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dark Knight
Super Zero
# 9415
|
Posted
Sweetums, if someone disagrees with me, I discuss with them. There are numerous examples of this on that thread, with Justinian and I disagreeing (with impoliteness on both sides, and me even admitting I was wrong at one point, which - gasp - maybe throws over your whole little hissy-snarl above?), SusanDoris and I disagreeing, and now I'm disagreeing with Marvin.
I don't think any of them are stupid. I don't agree with them. And I've explained why.
I think you're stupid. Probably because your contributions to the thread so far have been poorly reasoned and justified,
misunderstandings of blatant category errors, utterly extraordinarily ironic statements which demonstrate almost not self-reflexivity, more category errors and even more appallingly unreflective and apparently irony-free snark.
Oh. And the odd straw man here or there.
Not to mention more extraordinarily unreflective and idiotic (and apparently irony-free) statements.
That was long and hard (yes, that's what he said), so to clarify. I don't think people who disagree with me are stupid. I think you are.
--------------------
So don't ever call me lucky
You don't know what I done, what it was, who I lost, or what it cost me - A B Original: I C U
----
Love is as strong as death (Song of Solomon 8:6).
Posts: 2958 | From: Beyond the Yellow Brick Road | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Lilbuddha, if you're going to start a thread asking "why do people have problems with scientism", and then spend the entire thread giving the impression that your goal is to invalidate every objection that people have, it's hardly surprising that you get blowback.
The most telling argument against scientism is that no-one ACTUALLY lives their life that way. Even if it were in some technical sense true that every bit of anger that leads people back into the jaws of the Hell board could be explained by a detailed description of the way that neurons are firing in Shipmates' brains and how the balance of various neurochemicals is changing, such a description misses the entire bloody point of why we get pissed off at each other.
So I for one am not going to bother debating any more with you or anyone else whether it's true or not that everything can be explained scientifically. I'm just going to say that EVEN IF it's true it's stupidly irrelevant and meaningless and unhelpful and undesirable and just a completely dumb way of looking at the world.
Exactly why people are in love with each other matters a lot less than how it makes them behave and relate to each other. I don't give a damn about why I enjoy the taste of certain foods, what matters that I do.
I rarely care why I prefer certain composers and singers, except for when trying to make a more educated guess about which other composers and singers I might also enjoy. There are in fact people out there trying to describe scientifically how to write a hit pop song, and I suppose if you're basically trying to exploit music for the purpose of making oodles of money that kind of joyless analysis of music is the way to go, but for most people IT'S A FUCKING ART. To be EXPERIENCED.
A certain level of analysis is in fact helpful as a composer or performer. I've sat down and gone through an analysis of pieces that I've played so that I understand the construction of the music, as it can help me work out what to emphasise in a performance. But I don't want to spend my time listening to a Beethoven symphony going "oh yes, he's altered the recapitulation by inserting a Neapolitan Sixth in first inversion". Even as a performer I don't want any of that kind of stuff to replace the instinctive, emotional experiencing of what a chord progression feels like.
And I say this as one of the most intensely analytical people you're ever likely to meet. Every personality test I've ever been subjected to has come up with that result. Switching off the intellectual side of my brain is something that I find very difficult.
But maybe being so thoroughly goddamn analytical is precisely why I'm well aware of the shortcomings of trying to deal with the world that way all the time.
Scientism is a stupidly short-sighted prioritisation of one way of dealing with the world at the expense of all others. Even if describing absolutely everything in scientific terms IS possible, it's a terrible idea that will lead to enormous ethical difficulties because once everything is explained, the next step will be that everything is controlled.
And that's really what it's about. A determination to control everything. Scientism is fundamentally about a refusal to just let things HAPPEN.
You want to see where that leads, go and watch Gattaca.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Excellent points, Orfeo. It's just unlivable. I was thinking about football - I don't want to have an analysis of what my body is doing when I kick the ball, I just want to do it. That is the spontaneity and beauty of human life. The analysis is useful at times, but on its own, becomes anti-life.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
orfeo: Lilbuddha, if you're going to start a thread asking "why do people have problems with scientism", and then spend the entire thread giving the impression that your goal is to invalidate every objection that people have, it's hardly surprising that you get blowback.
The goal is to hear people's objections to Scientism, and then turn them towards religion. I guess you can get some kind of kick out of that. It isn't helped by the fact that lilBuddha doesn't really understand what Scientism means, and therefore doesn't get some of the basic arguments that are made on the thread.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
RooK
1 of 6
# 1852
|
Posted
You don't have to turn to religion to reject scientism. Science is a tool, like a hammer. Very effective for certain things, but painfully useless at others. You don't need to have faith in the unprovable to see that.
Posts: 15274 | From: Portland, Oregon, USA, Earth | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
It isn't helped by the fact that lilBuddha doesn't really understand what Scientism means, and therefore doesn't get some of the basic arguments that are made on the thread.
To be fair, Evensong has also been posting on the thread, and I'm not convinced Evensong's understanding of the difference between scientism and materialism is any better than LilBuddha's.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
True. My understanding of it isn't perfect either, but at least I think I've learned something from the thread.
[ 10. October 2014, 15:47: Message edited by: LeRoc ]
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
itsarumdo
Shipmate
# 18174
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
...
And that's really what it's about. A determination to control everything. Scientism is fundamentally about a refusal to just let things HAPPEN.
You want to see where that leads, go and watch Gattaca.
Thankyou! Because it's also pretty fascist - as soon as there is no irrational basis for decisions, everything is in the domain of the experts. The experts would determine whether you take medicine or not, what time you get up for your best health, what nutrients you take and how you take them, who your best partner is, etc etc etc. It's all rationally arguable, and if there is only a rational scientific basis, someone somewhere can be wheeled out as THE expert in it.
--------------------
"Iti sapis potanda tinone" Lycophron
Posts: 994 | From: Planet Zog | Registered: Jul 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
It isn't helped by the fact that lilBuddha doesn't really understand what Scientism means, and therefore doesn't get some of the basic arguments that are made on the thread.
I understand the arguments, I simply do not agree that they are correct.
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Lilbuddha, if you're going to start a thread asking "why do people have problems with scientism", and then spend the entire thread giving the impression that your goal is to invalidate every objection that people have, it's hardly surprising that you get blowback.
Alright, I owe Allen and likely some others an apology. Allen gave his reasons for particularly having a problem with scientism, and I did not properly acknowledge this.
So that question, for some instances, received an answer.
I was not attempting to invalidate every objection, regardless of what it is. The objections to scientism presented are at least as faith based as scientism is itself.
That there must be this nebulous more, these unknowable processes that govern the universe.
The arguments presented need this presupposition to exist.
- We can know This is an extrapolation of what has happened. Perhaps naive, perhaps too hopeful; but certainly understandable.
- We can never know. Why does the mere thought of person A cause my heart to race when person B, of very similar personality and attribute causes no stirring? Things such as this, for which science cannot describe, make this position understandable, but no less a position of faith.
We do not know the limits of our ability to learn or even the limit of what there is to know. This works in both directions.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
lilBuddha: I understand the arguments, I simply do not agree that they are correct.
You think you do but you don't. And you're not the only one. The thread is rather fascinating, in what this does to communication.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
lilBuddha: I understand the arguments, I simply do not agree that they are correct.
You think you do but you don't. And you're not the only one. The thread is rather fascinating, in what this does to communication.
There's not agreeing and not wanting to agree. That is as simple as lilBuddha suggests.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Sioni Sais: There's not agreeing and not wanting to agree. That is as simple as lilBuddha suggests.
Now I'm the one who doesn't understand you.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I was not attempting to invalidate every objection, regardless of what it is. The objections to scientism presented are at least as faith based as scientism is itself.
That there must be this nebulous more, these unknowable processes that govern the universe.
The arguments presented need this presupposition to exist.
This is bullshit. As Rook indicated a few posts before yours.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
The scientismist has a built-in kneejerk reaction to anybody who questions scientism: "You're reacting out of emotion and faith!"
I don't think you can pin that particular complaint on RooK, and there are plenty of other people on the thread who really aren't. Scientism has serious logical, philosophical, and epistemological problems.
It brings no honor to science to treat it as a religion, or make claims for it that cannot be defended without resort to name-calling. Science is a big girl. She can stand up on her own two feet without the muddle-headed cheering squad.
[ 11. October 2014, 00:06: Message edited by: mousethief ]
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
The scientismist has a built-in kneejerk reaction to anybody who questions scientism: "You're reacting out of emotion and faith!"
I don't think you can pin that particular complaint on RooK, and there are plenty of other people on the thread who really aren't. Scientism has serious logical, philosophical, and epistemological problems.
It brings no honor to science to treat it as a religion, or make claims for it that cannot be defended without resort to name-calling. Science is a big girl. She can stand up on her own two feet without the muddle-headed cheering squad.
To make an (American) football analogy, science is the quarterback, scientism is defensive line (ie, too slow and unreliable to play backfield, to stupid to play offense).
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dark Knight
Super Zero
# 9415
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I was not attempting to invalidate every objection, regardless of what it is. The objections to scientism presented are at least as faith based as scientism is itself.
That there must be this nebulous more, these unknowable processes that govern the universe.
The arguments presented need this presupposition to exist.
This is bullshit. As Rook indicated a few posts before yours.
Yep. This makes it clear, again, that LeRoc is right - lb doesn't understand the arguments being made.
--------------------
So don't ever call me lucky
You don't know what I done, what it was, who I lost, or what it cost me - A B Original: I C U
----
Love is as strong as death (Song of Solomon 8:6).
Posts: 2958 | From: Beyond the Yellow Brick Road | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dark Knight
Super Zero
# 9415
|
Posted
And neither does this this tool. ![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
--------------------
So don't ever call me lucky
You don't know what I done, what it was, who I lost, or what it cost me - A B Original: I C U
----
Love is as strong as death (Song of Solomon 8:6).
Posts: 2958 | From: Beyond the Yellow Brick Road | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I was not attempting to invalidate every objection, regardless of what it is. The objections to scientism presented are at least as faith based as scientism is itself.
That there must be this nebulous more, these unknowable processes that govern the universe.
The arguments presented need this presupposition to exist.
This is bullshit. As Rook indicated a few posts before yours.
Let us look.
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
You don't have to turn to religion to reject scientism.
I don't disagree, I don't think I've stated differently.
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
Science is a tool, like a hammer. Very effective for certain things, but painfully useless at others.
I agree, but would add at least currently. If we are speaking in possibilities. If we shift to probabilities, different answer.
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
You don't need to have faith in the unprovable to see that.
But one does need to believe that it will always remain so to reject scientism as completely and forever untenable.
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
The scientismist has a built-in kneejerk reaction to anybody who questions scientism: "You're reacting out of emotion and faith!"
The same statement works for any faith position. And, ISTM, that is the problem with much of this discussion.
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I don't think you can pin that particular complaint on RooK, and there are plenty of other people on the thread who really aren't. Scientism has serious logical,
Quite, we cannot know what we will possibly be able to know.
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
philosophical,
There are no philosophies that are unproblematic. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
It brings no honor to science to treat it as a religion, or make claims for it that cannot be defended without resort to name-calling. Science is a big girl. She can stand up on her own two feet without the muddle-headed cheering squad.
I agree.
I am not a scientism-ist. I am not, truly, defending scientism. More questioning the accuracy of the insults hurled against it. Much as I have done in defence of Christianity and Atheism on this site.
On this site the word, and its anti-science permutation, has been used as epithet and trump.
I wanted to discuss it. I, apparently, have done my part of the discussion less than perfectly.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
On this site the word, and its anti-science permutation, has been used as epithet and trump.
Where? The SOF has precious few anti-science types (at the mo). I don't think any have argued on this thread or the related Purg thread, have they? Can you provide us with a link?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I agree, but would add at least currently. If we are speaking in possibilities. If we shift to probabilities, different answer.
Well, if we're both still alive in another 10 centuries let's compare notes and see how we're progressing, shall we? Assuming Jesus doesn't come back first.
The sun is still shining in the sky. At least currently. But hey, I suggest we all start changing our lives in the knowledge that it only has a couple of billion years left.
[ 11. October 2014, 01:55: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
On this site the word, and its anti-science permutation, has been used as epithet and trump.
Where? The SOF has precious few anti-science types (at the mo). I don't think any have argued on this thread or the related Purg thread, have they? Can you provide us with a link?
This is the exchange which prompted my OP. Granted, in itself it is not strictly anti-science. I think, in this case, it was more the putting science in the same category as religion which brought me to a halt. And then the mention of the word scientism brought me to the OP in Purg. The OP had been an ongoing thought, prompted by various incidents. Or my impression of this. I wish I could more easily point to more, but I don't catalogue things this way.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dark Knight
Super Zero
# 9415
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
Science is a tool, like a hammer. Very effective for certain things, but painfully useless at others.
I agree, but would add at least currently. If we are speaking in possibilities. If we shift to probabilities, different answer.
Except no. The faith that one day science will be able to discover everything is a misplaced faith, because - once again - science is not a tool that can be used to understand some things. If you cannot get past that fundamental category error, you will never understand this. Given time, yes, what can be investigated empirically and verified scientifically probably will be. Some things cannot be.
That is not about a belief in a mystical other, or faith in God or the spaghetti monster or my aunt Patsy's shade. That is an epistemological distinction, which has ontological underpinnings which have been explained repeatedly to you in Purg. quote:
quote:
You don't need to have faith in the unprovable to see that.
But one does need to believe that it will always remain so to reject scientism as completely and forever untenable.
No, all one really needs is a grasp of the fact that science is useful for investigating and understanding some things, but not everything. That isn't faith, it's logic.
--------------------
So don't ever call me lucky
You don't know what I done, what it was, who I lost, or what it cost me - A B Original: I C U
----
Love is as strong as death (Song of Solomon 8:6).
Posts: 2958 | From: Beyond the Yellow Brick Road | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
RooK
1 of 6
# 1852
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Science is a tool, like a hammer. Very effective for certain things, but painfully useless at others.
I agree, but would add at least currently. If we are speaking in possibilities. If we shift to probabilities, different answer.
You appear to be high. A sober look at probabilities suggests that our global society is going to smother/starve itself into extinction before it figures out to stop watching so much kittehs/pron. The probability of actual scientists ever finding a falsifiable theory to test "why RooK prefers the colour orange over green" is plain old infinitesimal. Negligible even. Just like scientism itself.
Posts: 15274 | From: Portland, Oregon, USA, Earth | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Did I say I thought it was probable? No, no I didn't.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
RooK
1 of 6
# 1852
|
Posted
I see that you miss the logical progression from possibility, via probability, into negligibility. Meaning "Not significant or important enough to be worth considering; trifling".
To blather on about the whimsical possibility of using science to explain absolutely everything is the exact same frivolous absurdity as conjecture about the possibility of invisible telepathic penguins actually controlling everybody named "Roger". Just because it can be imagined does not mean it is useful, much less true.
And that's not even trying to face the previous noted category error about attempting to cram subjective opinion and experience through the lens of science. You might as well try to savour a cookie with a hammer.
Just to be excruciating clear: I'm not actually explaining anything to you any more. I'm just mocking you, for practice and for entertainment. Because, clearly, if you haven't gotten the point by now, you're just not capable of grasping it.
Posts: 15274 | From: Portland, Oregon, USA, Earth | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
This is the exchange which prompted my OP. Granted, in itself it is not strictly anti-science.
So why exactly did it get you so hot under the collar?
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
On this site the word, and its anti-science permutation, has been used as epithet and trump.
Where? The SOF has precious few anti-science types (at the mo). I don't think any have argued on this thread or the related Purg thread, have they? Can you provide us with a link?
This is the exchange which prompted my OP. Granted, in itself it is not strictly anti-science. I think, in this case, it was more the putting science in the same category as religion which brought me to a halt. And then the mention of the word scientism brought me to the OP in Purg. The OP had been an ongoing thought, prompted by various incidents. Or my impression of this. I wish I could more easily point to more, but I don't catalogue things this way.
Wow. Just, wow.
So, a few posts below that, you cut out the bit that WASN'T about the word 'scientism', divorced it from its context and criticised it.
You then went and created a whole Purgatory thread about the 'scientism' part, again divorcing it from its context - which was to comment on the difference between "science vs faith" and "scientism vs faith".
And so now, when I finally know what started this off, I find a post from Evensong that basically lines up with what a whole great pile of us have been saying ever since.
Do you know how uncommon it is for me to agree with Evensong? Especially when it comes to agreeing with Evensong in preference to agreeing with you?. Well, mark this day in your calendar, honey, because it's pretty momentous.
Evensong's right. The point was that "scientism" is a statement of faith, just like a statement of religious faith. That's the criticism of it, that it gets dressed up as something more rational and meaningful and tends to involve sneering at anyone who has faith in anything OTHER than science, when it's exactly the same kind of one-eyed allegiance - possibly worse because it's usually hypocritical.
This has been said to you over and over and over again, in 50 different ways. I can't even remember which day of a week I made a reference to fundamentalism, for example.
But you keep coming back with this bloody stupid retort about how we think the alternative to scientism is religion. As if there's no middle ground where people just get on with the business of living without having to have one single Answer to the entire universe before they're able to pour milk on their cereal.
You're wrong. You've been wrong for days. Please start DEALING with it.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
So, a few posts below that, you cut out the bit that WASN'T about the word 'scientism', divorced it from its context and criticised it.
In that post I was criticising the concept that theology is a science. That reply was not about scientism. And, the context is a few posts above, easily referenced by a reader of the thread.
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
You then went and created a whole Purgatory thread about the 'scientism' part, again divorcing it from its context - which was to comment on the difference between "science vs faith" and "scientism vs faith".
I did not reference Evensong's post because it is not the the main cause of the Purg OP. And truly, as I said to mousethief, the word triggered the the OP, not the post itself. My impression of its use over time on this site was the fuel.
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
This has been said to you over and over and over again, in 50 different ways. I can't even remember which day of a week I made a reference to fundamentalism, for example.
But you keep coming back with this bloody stupid retort about how we think the alternative to scientism is religion. As if there's no middle ground where people just get on with the business of living without having to have one single Answer to the entire universe before they're able to pour milk on their cereal.
If you can point to a statement that I made saying you think the alternative to scientism is religion, please point it out and I will retract and apologise. It was not my intention. I have said, more than once, that I am not a scientism-ist. And that I am not advocating that anyone should be.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dark Knight
Super Zero
# 9415
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
And neither does this this tool.
Groxes or whatever his name is continues his disingenuous and fallacious interactions. Mark another one down as too dumb to understand what's going on.
[ 12. October 2014, 03:16: Message edited by: Dark Knight ]
--------------------
So don't ever call me lucky
You don't know what I done, what it was, who I lost, or what it cost me - A B Original: I C U
----
Love is as strong as death (Song of Solomon 8:6).
Posts: 2958 | From: Beyond the Yellow Brick Road | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Evensong's right. .
It's been delightful to have such pains in the asses as you, RooK and IngoB arguing with me for a change.
Nothing like a bit of polarisation on an issue to bring out some unlikely comrades.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
I won't hold my breath for future issues, but hey, it's been grand while it lasted.
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
RooK
1 of 6
# 1852
|
Posted
It's less impossible when you consider the real dynamics:
I, personally, am correct 99.3% of the time. Objectively.
You, on the other hand, pick which side to be on based almost entirely on whether they are the "minority".
In order to have me (and potentially other intelligent and insightful posters) appear to be on the same side as you, all you have to do is be correct. Instead of what you normally are, which is annoying.
Posts: 15274 | From: Portland, Oregon, USA, Earth | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
You're such a scream! Bet your wife laughs at you all the time.
[ 12. October 2014, 14:10: Message edited by: Evensong ]
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Socratic-enigma
Shipmate
# 12074
|
Posted
Just to return to Evensong's original contention, let's be clear -
Theology is not a science.
1. In science, nothing is sacred
Phlogiston, Aristotle's Law of Falling Bodies, have gone the way of the Dodo. Even Newton's mechanics, which were the closest thing in science to Holy Writ, have been superceded by Relativity.
2. Science is universal
The Periodic Table is the same whether you're in Beijing, Timbuktu or Upper Kumbucta West. The basic principles of Physics and Chemistry are accepted everywhere because of their utility.
3. In science, the validity of any theory is determined by its applicability
Relativity was able to explain and predict celestial motions which Newtonian Mechanics could not account for.
What the term 'science' may have meant is irrelevant; we are only concerned with what it means now. The principles I have listed are pertinent to our current understanding - and none of them apply to Theology.
S-E
(a proud member of the asshole squad from the atheist rearguard)
--------------------
"Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions, and can never pretend to any other office than to serve and obey them."
David Hume
Posts: 817 | From: Melbourne, Australia | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Socratic-enigma: 3. In science, the validity of any theory is determined by its applicability
That's a new one for me.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
Theology is very applicable. I apply it to many parts of my life. Since you said that the validity of a theory is determined by its applicability, it follows that it is also valid. Thank you.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
itsarumdo
Shipmate
# 18174
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Socratic-enigma:
Just to return to Evensong's original contention, let's be clear -
Theology is not a science.
1. In science, nothing is sacred
Phlogiston, Aristotle's Law of Falling Bodies, have gone the way of the Dodo. Even Newton's mechanics, which were the closest thing in science to Holy Writ, have been superceded by Relativity.
2. Science is universal
The Periodic Table is the same whether you're in Beijing, Timbuktu or Upper Kumbucta West. The basic principles of Physics and Chemistry are accepted everywhere because of their utility.
3. In science, the validity of any theory is determined by its applicability
Relativity was able to explain and predict celestial motions which Newtonian Mechanics could not account for.
What the term 'science' may have meant is irrelevant; we are only concerned with what it means now. The principles I have listed are pertinent to our current understanding - and none of them apply to Theology.
S-E
(a proud member of the asshole squad from the atheist rearguard)
well - that's quite an idealised position. In fact, there are many things in science that are sacred - to at least some scientists. Excluded middles, Ockham being sacred prioris. Sacred methods include the double blind placebo trial -
an exercise in statistics that makes circus contortion acts appear positively linear. Sacred science has indeed been superceded by better science eventually, but major hypotheses in science have almost always become sacred until their bronze feet have been completely eroded away - a process that may take many decades.
I'm sure there are quite a few sacred cows out there that specialists in indivudual fields are aware of. If you happen to believe Sheldrake, the idea that all the universal constants are truly constant is itself a sacred cow.
Science may be universal for the universally accepted stuff, but there is a lot of science that it up for debate, and the balance of debate is far from universal, since different viewpoints tend to be favoured in different countries. Static science is universal.
And empiricism is not a property of science - it's a general approach that applies in almost all areas of life - including spirituality... Because it's not just about "is there a God or isn't there?" Take a look at the 8th day threads.
--------------------
"Iti sapis potanda tinone" Lycophron
Posts: 994 | From: Planet Zog | Registered: Jul 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Michael Snow
Shipmate
# 16363
|
Posted
"Stephen Hawking is a remarkable person whom I've known for 40 years and for that reason any oracular statement he makes gets exaggerated publicity. I know Stephen Hawking well enough to know that he has read very little philosophy and even less theology, so I don't think we should attach any weight to his views on this topic," (of God)--Martin Rees, Royal Society
--------------------
http://spurgeonwarquotes.wordpress.com/
Posts: 62 | From: S. Dak./ Romania | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
