homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   »   » Oblivion   » When does Science become 'Scientism'? (Page 2)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: When does Science become 'Scientism'?
Jack o' the Green
Shipmate
# 11091

 - Posted      Profile for Jack o' the Green   Email Jack o' the Green   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Absolutely. Professor of Mathematics John C. Lennox makes the same point, as does Edward Feser. Once science makes such pronouncements, it steps outside its discipline and what can be proven scientifically - invalidating itself.
Posts: 3121 | From: Lancashire, England | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
quote:
The scientist Peter Atkins has stated that there is no question regarding reality which science cannot answer - including why there is a universe at all, and the 'hard' question of consciousness.
I think that is an over-statement. I think there is no question which cannot be explored and illuminated by a proper application of the scientific method. But answered? That seems to me to be an over-confident overstatement.
It seems to me to be scientism plain and simple.

quote:
Originally posted by Jack o' the Green:
For further information, here is Peter Atkins' quote in full. <snip>

Good grief. Clearly HIS science brought some of the chrysalis with it. That's a statement of faith, not a statement of scientific fact. Science is clearly his religion. I don't see how it can be twisted any other way.

quote:
I've often thought that many branches of philosophy should be taught at school from primary onwards.
Hear, hear.

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Jack o' the Green
Shipmate
# 11091

 - Posted      Profile for Jack o' the Green   Email Jack o' the Green   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Sipech:

I would illustrate with quote from Penn Jillette:
quote:
“If every trace of any single religion were wiped out and nothing were passed on, it would never be created exactly that way again. There might be some other nonsense in its place, but not that exact nonsense. If all of science were wiped out, it would still be true and someone would find a way to figure it all out again.”

This quote did get me thinking. It seems to me to presuppose that religion is nonsense. For followers of particular religions or spiritual philosophies e.g. certain forms of Buddhism, Hinduism, Christianity, Islam etc, there is an objective, ultimate reality making itself known - either through active revelation or religious experience in a way which, while probably being influenced by the culture of the time also transcends it. If such an ultimate reality exists, then there wouldn't be any reason to think that it couldn't again be encountered by human beings.
Posts: 3121 | From: Lancashire, England | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468

 - Posted      Profile for Golden Key   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Penn's an atheist--sometimes positive and lyrical about it, others militant.

Back in 2005, he did a fairly positive essay for NPR's "This I Believe" segment.

--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")

Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110

 - Posted      Profile for Barnabas62   Email Barnabas62   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I agree, mousethief. Those more complete quotations from Atkins are very revealing. ISTM he stops thinking within the usual disciplines of science and instead he becomes a polemicist.

Of course, any of us is free to do that. Dr Bronowski's famous words from Aushwitz (in the Ascent of Man series) were also a kind of polemic, but they were characterised by personal anguish and humility, not the sort of arrogance one finds in Atkins. And that makes a huge difference. The shared humanity comes across.

--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?

Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Alisdair
Shipmate
# 15837

 - Posted      Profile for Alisdair   Email Alisdair   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Much hubris as the silverfish presumes to understand the 'Mona Lisa' after chewing on the edge of the canvas.

Or, as Donald Rumsfeld so wisely said, although in a rather different context, "Reports that say that something hasn't happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns – the ones we don't know we don't know."

Which leads quite nicely into Paul's assertion: 'For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.' - 1Cor.13.12.

One thing is sure, that throughout history human beings---whether under the label of religion, science, or something else---have presumed to know what it's all about and how it all hangs together. And every time have been shown to be either completely wrong, or to have incomplete knowledge and understanding. There seems no evidence to suggest that that reality is any less real today.

Human 'objectivity' and 'rationalism' are both notoriously suspect, which is why whenever any one of us claims to 'know' something it is wise to be wary, even if we decide to trust them, be they scientist, theologian, lawyer, or journalist, etc. Beneath the label they are all human beings living inside the same 'bubble' of reality. Who knows what may lie beyond it, if there is a beyond?

Posts: 334 | From: Washed up in England | Registered: Aug 2010  |  IP: Logged
Jack o' the Green
Shipmate
# 11091

 - Posted      Profile for Jack o' the Green   Email Jack o' the Green   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
An interesting piece by Edward Feser based on some recent comments by physicist Lawrence Krauss

Krauss' article: http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/all-scientists-should-be-militant-atheists

Feser's response:
http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2015/09/15760/

Posts: 3121 | From: Lancashire, England | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
LeRoc

Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216

 - Posted      Profile for LeRoc     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Um yes, Krauss's piece is indeed bullshit. What I find interesting that he just assumes that the word 'sacred' means 'beyond question'.

--------------------
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
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333

 - Posted      Profile for lilBuddha     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jack o' the Green:
quote:
Originally posted by Sipech:

I would illustrate with quote from Penn Jillette:
quote:
“If every trace of any single religion were wiped out and nothing were passed on, it would never be created exactly that way again. There might be some other nonsense in its place, but not that exact nonsense. If all of science were wiped out, it would still be true and someone would find a way to figure it all out again.”

This quote did get me thinking. It seems to me to presuppose that religion is nonsense.
I truly do not wish to be insulting, but this comment caused an epic mental double-take. This is the crystal clear point he is making.
But as to the True Religion making itself known again, ISTM, the forgetting bit is massively contra mainstream Christianity. (And probably Islam) It is consistent with Buddhism, though.

Golden Key:
As to Jillette's NPR interview, there are bits in that many theists could well learn from, but I won't take that tangent at the moment.

--------------------
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
Jack o' the Green
Shipmate
# 11091

 - Posted      Profile for Jack o' the Green   Email Jack o' the Green   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Jack o' the Green:
quote:
Originally posted by Sipech:

I would illustrate with quote from Penn Jillette:
quote:
“If every trace of any single religion were wiped out and nothing were passed on, it would never be created exactly that way again. There might be some other nonsense in its place, but not that exact nonsense. If all of science were wiped out, it would still be true and someone would find a way to figure it all out again.”

This quote did get me thinking. It seems to me to presuppose that religion is nonsense.
I truly do not wish to be insulting, but this comment caused an epic mental double-take. This is the crystal clear point he is making.
No, it is the premise he is starting from and running with. He isn't justifying it.
Posts: 3121 | From: Lancashire, England | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740

 - Posted      Profile for quetzalcoatl   Email quetzalcoatl   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jack o' the Green:
quote:
Originally posted by Sipech:

I would illustrate with quote from Penn Jillette:
quote:
“If every trace of any single religion were wiped out and nothing were passed on, it would never be created exactly that way again. There might be some other nonsense in its place, but not that exact nonsense. If all of science were wiped out, it would still be true and someone would find a way to figure it all out again.”

This quote did get me thinking. It seems to me to presuppose that religion is nonsense. For followers of particular religions or spiritual philosophies e.g. certain forms of Buddhism, Hinduism, Christianity, Islam etc, there is an objective, ultimate reality making itself known - either through active revelation or religious experience in a way which, while probably being influenced by the culture of the time also transcends it. If such an ultimate reality exists, then there wouldn't be any reason to think that it couldn't again be encountered by human beings.
I missed this. I think the word 'exactly' is bullshit really. Well, I think that religion would arise again, and would constellate around certain key themes, and probably the saviour would be one of them, also non-dualism, transcendence, eternity, and non-attachment. Humans just seem to gravitate towards these themes.

--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.

Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011  |  IP: Logged
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333

 - Posted      Profile for lilBuddha     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jack o' the Green:
it is the premise he is starting from and running with. He isn't justifying it.

You start for the premise that God exists.
No difference.

--------------------
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
no prophet's flag is set so...

Proceed to see sea
# 15560

 - Posted      Profile for no prophet's flag is set so...   Author's homepage   Email no prophet's flag is set so...   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
I think scientism can arise out of poor education about critical thinking and the theory of knowledge.

People are oftem simply not taught epistemiology and therefore struggle to analyse and and explain different kinds of knowledge/truth claims.

I think it is something that should be taught in secondary school myself.

This is worth restating. With the emphasis on STEM disciplines in our economic wish to convert all pieces of knowledge (and arts) to money, the real purpose of science is to make something to sell isn't it? If it's not applied science it's considered useless.

Useful link: Personal construct theory - George Kelly.

quote:
...people are naive scientists, they sometimes employ systems for construing the world that are distorted by idiosyncratic experiences not applicable to their current social situation. A system of construction that chronically fails to characterize and/or predict events, and is not appropriately revised to comprehend and predict one's changing social world, is considered to underlie psychopathology (or mental illness.)
I might assert that science can make predictions (e.g., climate, chemical reactions) or explain the past (e.g., continental drift, crime scene reconstruction). Scientism would be when the theory or method doesn't work, but the person won't let go. We might define this as a pathology according to Kelly.

I should then suggest that science telling me how I should enjoy a piece of music or chocolate cake is pathology, and a deranged use of science, tantamount to criminal if not crazy.

--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/

Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010  |  IP: Logged
Jack o' the Green
Shipmate
# 11091

 - Posted      Profile for Jack o' the Green   Email Jack o' the Green   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Jack o' the Green:
it is the premise he is starting from and running with. He isn't justifying it.

You start for the premise that God exists.
No difference.

I don't think I do, though that's irrelevant to the point I was making.
Posts: 3121 | From: Lancashire, England | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333

 - Posted      Profile for lilBuddha     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I am not sure the point you were making. Jillette does not need to justify anything. He is an atheist. All that is required for the label to be accurate is to not believe in God.
Sipech began this with a misrepresentation of the statement, which has naught* to do with scientism.
Jillette is not presenting a proof or dissertation, merely stating something fairly obvious to the general atheist POV.


*At its surface. I do not know Jillette's writings to sufficiently know whether his POV is "scientism" or not.

--------------------
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
Jack o' the Green
Shipmate
# 11091

 - Posted      Profile for Jack o' the Green   Email Jack o' the Green   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
The point I was making was simply that his conclusion was based on the premise that religion is nonsense and therefore there is no objective reality either to reveal itself or be sought and experienced afresh if all religions were forgotten tomorrow. He's completely entitled to his views of course, but his reasoning is circular. It's no better than a Christian arguing that the Bible is inspired because it states that it's inspired, and is therefore correct about its being inspired.
Posts: 3121 | From: Lancashire, England | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333

 - Posted      Profile for lilBuddha     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I suppose that is why your statement seems a little odd to me. Of course that is his position.
I would argue that atheism, or at least agnosticism, has an advantage over theism in that their statement of "you've got nothing" in the way of proof is hard to refute. Whereas a theist's* counter is rather hollow.


*This includes Buddhism and other outlooks that are not, strictly, theist.

--------------------
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
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513

 - Posted      Profile for Alogon   Email Alogon   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jack o' the Green:
Would you see any parts of reality which can't be completely investigated or understood by the scientific method?

How about Bach's Mattheuspassion? And the fact that Dawkins loves it? I wouldn't doubt his sincerity for a moment. But in his case, it's like admiring the golden eggs of a goose that one is about to kill. The participants in this discussion, aggressive atheists all, lambast various aspects of religious faith and those who profess it for nearly two hours. But as cultured gentlemen, they don't dare say a word against the acknowledged masterpieces of religious art and architecture. This is interesting.

The question is whether a society whose only religious faith is scientism would ever produce art of comparable beauty. Wouldn't it be almost as philistine as that imagined by Huxley in Brave New World? Thanks to secular commercialism, we seem to be moving in that direction already.

--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.

Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468

 - Posted      Profile for Golden Key   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
lB--

quote:
Golden Key:
As to Jillette's NPR interview, there are bits in that many theists could well learn from, but I won't take that tangent at the moment.

Yup. [Smile] I'm guessing you mean living in the moment and enjoying what's here, etc.?


quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I am not sure the point you were making. Jillette does not need to justify anything. He is an atheist. All that is required for the label to be accurate is to not believe in God.

And he asserts it in a nuanced way: it's not that he simply doesn't believe in God, but he believes there is no God.

quote:
Jillette is not presenting a proof or dissertation, merely stating something fairly obvious to the general atheist POV.
This. And the point of the "This I Believe" series was to express what you believe and why--not engage in formal debate.

Jack, if you doubt that, take a look at some of the other essays on that site.

--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")

Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Jack o' the Green
Shipmate
# 11091

 - Posted      Profile for Jack o' the Green   Email Jack o' the Green   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I don't, and I have.

[ 29. September 2015, 00:48: Message edited by: Jack o' the Green ]

Posts: 3121 | From: Lancashire, England | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Jack o' the Green:
it is the premise he is starting from and running with. He isn't justifying it.

You start for the premise that God exists.
No difference.

This is needless personalization of the argument. The question is not whether Jack otG starts with anything. The question is about Jillette. Whatever Jack does is quite irrelevant to that question.

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333

 - Posted      Profile for lilBuddha     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
This is needless personalization of the argument.

Granted. Should have said theists.

Apologies, Jack o' the Green.

--------------------
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
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513

 - Posted      Profile for Alogon   Email Alogon   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
A good scientist keeps their religious beliefs at home and does science in the lab.

I agree, but would add, good religious beliefs have nothing to fear from scientific findings. They have, on the contrary, inspired and encouraged scientists to work avidly and with integrity.

--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.

Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Alan Cresswell

Mad Scientist 先生
# 31

 - Posted      Profile for Alan Cresswell   Email Alan Cresswell   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I agree that religious beliefs are often tangential to scientific enquiry, at least for (what I consider to be) orthodox Christianity and good science. Entering the lab with the intention of proving (or disproving) a religious belief is both bad science and bad theology.

Of course, religion will be part of the background to choices about what areas of science to study (eg: some people, on religious grounds, will not study anything defence related, or will show a preference to medical science). And, religion will inform our ethics of how we conduct ourself as scientists (just as religion will inform our ethics in how we live the rest of our lives, or how others outside scientific disciplines conduct themselves).

At the end of the day, does it actually matter why people enter science? Does it make any difference if someone studies cosmology because they believe God created everything and they want to know more about what was made, or because someone grew up with amazing pictures from the Hubble telescope and wanted to explore the beauty of the cosmos more?

--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.

Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I agree that religious beliefs are often tangential to scientific enquiry, at least for (what I consider to be) orthodox Christianity and good science. Entering the lab with the intention of proving (or disproving) a religious belief is both bad science and bad theology.

Of course entering the lab with the intention of proving or disproving ANYTHING is bad science.

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513

 - Posted      Profile for Alogon   Email Alogon   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
entering the lab with the intention of proving or disproving ANYTHING is bad science.

I'm no expert, but this sounds incorrect. It is similar to the moronic declaration of the president of an elite college, who should know better, that "scientists don't make arguments."

According to Popper, a scientific hypothesis cannot be proven correct, but it can be proven false.

Quoting Wikipedia's article on "Null hypothesis":

"Rejecting or disproving the null hypothesis—and thus concluding that there are grounds for believing that there is a relationship between two phenomena (e.g. that a potential treatment has a measurable effect)—is a central task in the modern practice of science, and gives a precise sense in which a claim is capable of being proven false."

I'm equating "task" with "intention". Maybe you can point out a fatal flaw in doing so, but I think that experiments are frequently designed to test a hypothesis against the null hypothesis. Scientists don't just pour random chemicals into test tubes and observe what happens. It is only necessary for the process to be honest and replicable.

--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.

Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549

 - Posted      Profile for Dafyd   Email Dafyd   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Of course entering the lab with the intention of proving or disproving ANYTHING is bad science.

In an ideal world, in which scientists are completely dispassionate robots, maybe. (Though even then there are arguments that completely dispassionate robots wouldn't be ideal scientists.)
As it is, I think a lot of science in the real world gets done after entering the lab with the intention of proving or disproving some hypothesis. And is still constructive science.

(Isaac Newton is arguably the greatest scientist in the history of the world and had an ego the size of a planet. The chances that he never went into a laboratory with the intention of proving his own hypothesis right, or someone else's hypothesis wrong are I think nonexistent.)

--------------------
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
Alan Cresswell

Mad Scientist 先生
# 31

 - Posted      Profile for Alan Cresswell   Email Alan Cresswell   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
It's getting well into the realms of philosophy of science (which everyone should study).

Popper is popularly known as showing that you can't prove a scientfic hypothesis, and therefore advocating that in that case we should test a hypothesis by experiments that could falsify it.

Which, he did say. But, he didn't stop there. Effectively he realised that "this demonstrates hypothesis X is false" is itself a hypothesis, and therefore can't be proved to be correct. You can never scientifically prove anything either correct or false.

Popper developed an analogy that likens science to building on a swamp, where to provide a foundation you drive piles into the swamp. He likened hypotheses to those piles. In science, because you can neither prove nor disprove a hypothesis, the piles can never be driven down to rest on the bedrock of objective, empirical truth. They can, however be driven in a long way and their stability tested. We can then build scientific knowledge on a foundation of extensively tested hypotheses, even if none of what we build rests on bedrock.

--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.

Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Jack o' the Green
Shipmate
# 11091

 - Posted      Profile for Jack o' the Green   Email Jack o' the Green   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
This is needless personalization of the argument.

Granted. Should have said theists.

Apologies, Jack o' the Green.

Thank you. Apology accepted.
[Smile]

[ 29. September 2015, 16:34: Message edited by: Jack o' the Green ]

Posts: 3121 | From: Lancashire, England | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
HughWillRidmee
Shipmate
# 15614

 - Posted      Profile for HughWillRidmee   Email HughWillRidmee   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jack o' the Green:
He uses the metaphor of using a metal detector on the beach, and coming to the conclusion that there isn't anything under the sand which isn't made of metal.

If he does he misunderstands the scientific method - the conclusion should be that nothing was detected under the sand, other than metal. The possibility of non-metallic material needs to be explored by other means. Standard obfuscation through the redefinition of something in order to appear to knock it down - do I hear "straw man"?

I don't, myself, think that philosophy is useless - I reckon it can be useful in determining the questions that science can (should?) address.
Surely the partnership should be - Philosophy identifies the questions, people use the scientific method to identify the likely answers. That would, of course, require the philosophers to have an accurate knowledge of how the scientific method works and an up-to-date and comprehensive understanding of what science has, and has not, achieved thus far.

Theology - "The study of the nature of God and religious belief". Studying religious belief is OK, even fun. Studying the nature of God? - studying human attempts to explain God - that's surely better since I don't believe it to be possible to study the nature of something that is without evidence, unnecessary and almost certainly non-existent.

--------------------
The danger to society is not merely that it should believe wrong things.. but that it should become credulous, and lose the habit of testing things and inquiring into them...
W. K. Clifford, "The Ethics of Belief" (1877)

Posts: 894 | From: Middle England | Registered: Apr 2010  |  IP: Logged
HughWillRidmee
Shipmate
# 15614

 - Posted      Profile for HughWillRidmee   Email HughWillRidmee   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
A good scientist keeps their religious beliefs at home and does science in the lab.

I agree, but would add, good religious beliefs have nothing to fear from scientific findings. They have, on the contrary, inspired and encouraged scientists to work avidly and with integrity.
“My practice as a scientist is atheistic. That is to say, when I set up an experiment I assume that no god, angel or devil is going to interfere with its course; and this assumption has been justified by such success as I have achieved in my professional career. I should therefore be intellectually dishonest if I were not also atheistic in the affairs of the world.” population geneticist J. B. S. Haldane

--------------------
The danger to society is not merely that it should believe wrong things.. but that it should become credulous, and lose the habit of testing things and inquiring into them...
W. K. Clifford, "The Ethics of Belief" (1877)

Posts: 894 | From: Middle England | Registered: Apr 2010  |  IP: Logged
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549

 - Posted      Profile for Dafyd   Email Dafyd   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
I don't, myself, think that philosophy is useless - I reckon it can be useful in determining the questions that science can (should?) address.
Surely the partnership should be - Philosophy identifies the questions, people use the scientific method to identify the likely answers.

Really? You don't think scientists have managed to identify questions to address on their own up till now?
Did Newton need John Locke to tell him whether to investigate the corpuscular nature of light?
Did Bradwardine need Scotus to tell him to formulate the mean speed theorem?

To what philosophical question is the mean speed theorem an answer?

How do you propose, using the scientific method, to decide between the correspondence theory of truth and the coherence theory of truth?

--------------------
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
Philip Charles

Ship's cutler
# 618

 - Posted      Profile for Philip Charles   Author's homepage   Email Philip Charles   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
The scientist depends on his/her ability to objectify what is being studied. The ammonium hydroxide does not say "Don't pour me into that copper sulphate because strange things will happen". The universe does not say to the astronomer "Mind your tongue you insignificant worm, stop making snide remarks about my lovely dark matter or I will spit black holes at you!"
But if I try to be scientific about my wife the result is a definite responce, "Get out of my sight you sexist pig, how dare you ... " [Projectile]
A surgeon after spending several hours of scientific investigation before the operation reports back to the patient after the surgery and says "That foot is sorted, but don't go round kicking people with it just yet." (That was supposed to be a surgeon type quip.) The surgeon acting first as scientist then as a human relating to another human.
Science deals with objects, but anything to do with human relationships is outside its field.

--------------------
There are 10 kinds of people. Those who understand binary and those who don't.

Posts: 89 | From: Dunedin, NZ | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740

 - Posted      Profile for quetzalcoatl   Email quetzalcoatl   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Philip Charles

That's a nice example of the surgeon, switching from scientific to personal modes of being. It seems to make the point crystal clear, that using science in some contexts would be not only counter-intuitive, but inhuman, anti-human.

Science is surely a tool, not a Weltanschauung, (world view). Those who turn it into one, are not doing science, after all.

--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.

Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011  |  IP: Logged
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549

 - Posted      Profile for Dafyd   Email Dafyd   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
It occurred to me just now that there's a nice example of scientism going on down in Hell.

Russ has opined that in order to judge the morality of homosexuality we need to know what it is. And he thinks, from a biological perspective, it's a defect in the reproductive system.
Setting aside the question of whether that is even correct from a biological perspective, that's not what homosexuality is. Homosexuality is the lived experience of people feeling same sex attraction.
You could put together a team of geneticists, population modellers, embryologists, and so on, and they could find out everything there is to know biologically. But if they're all straight nothing in that process will tell them what homosexuality is. To do that you have to listen to gay people.

--------------------
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
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081

 - Posted      Profile for Eutychus   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
hosting/

This is not Hell and nor is it Dead Horses. Please try to keep both of them out of Purgatory.

/hosting

--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy

Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740

 - Posted      Profile for quetzalcoatl   Email quetzalcoatl   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
A non-DH example, which is often used, is the Mona Lisa. Science can examine it, work it what it's made of, and the arrangements of pigments on the surface, and so on, and all of this is very useful.

But at some point you might do well to stand back and actually look at it, and see how it affects you.

--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.

Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Science is surely a tool, not a Weltanschauung, (world view). Those who turn it into one, are not doing science, after all.

This is the whole thread in a nutshell. Close the doors, turn off the lights, we can all go home.

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
alienfromzog

Ship's Alien
# 5327

 - Posted      Profile for alienfromzog   Email alienfromzog   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Science is surely a tool, not a Weltanschauung, (world view). Those who turn it into one, are not doing science, after all.

This is the whole thread in a nutshell. Close the doors, turn off the lights, we can all go home.
Yep. Spot on. [Overused]

AFZ

--------------------
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
[Sen. D.P.Moynihan]

An Alien's View of Earth - my blog (or vanity exercise...)

Posts: 2150 | From: Zog, obviously! Straight past Alpha Centauri, 2nd planet on the left... | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Jack o' the Green
Shipmate
# 11091

 - Posted      Profile for Jack o' the Green   Email Jack o' the Green   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by alienfromzog:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Science is surely a tool, not a Weltanschauung, (world view). Those who turn it into one, are not doing science, after all.

This is the whole thread in a nutshell. Close the doors, turn off the lights, we can all go home.
Yep. Spot on. [Overused]

AFZ

I would certainly agree absolutely. However, in the current climate of the way science is (in my opinion) misused to answer theological and philosophical questions - by some scientists amongst others - it doesn't do any harm to be able to articulate why this is a mistake.
Posts: 3121 | From: Lancashire, England | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379

 - Posted      Profile for Belle Ringer   Email Belle Ringer   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Is it scientism or abuse of science when something that has never been tested is declared "science says it's safe"? The issue comes up in things like drugs, where scientific testing suggests a specific dose of drug X is safe, a specific dose of drug y is safe, a specific dose of drug z is safe, but the three are prescribed together when there has been no safety test of the combination.

Then there's the problem of whether science is a process or a statement of absolute truth. A friend told me science is always right. I asked which year's science -- when I was a kid, science said space was full of ether; then it was empty; then space dust and solar winds. Just because today we think differently than last century doesn't prove today's scientific beliefs are perfect and final understandings of reality, but I've been accused of being "anti science" for saying that.

Then there's the "if science can't capture and test it, it doesn't exist." Ha. There's more to reality than can be double blind studied in a lab.

Scientism is denial of the limits of scientific knowledge.

Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333

 - Posted      Profile for lilBuddha     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
Is it scientism or abuse of science when something that has never been tested is declared "science says it's safe"? The issue comes up in things like drugs, where scientific testing suggests a specific dose of drug X is safe, a specific dose of drug y is safe, a specific dose of drug z is safe, but the three are prescribed together when there has been no safety test of the combination.

That is called marketing and hasn't anything to do with science.

--------------------
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
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992

 - Posted      Profile for Adeodatus     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
It occurred to me when I was thinking about this that perhaps scientism is when you're asked to explain the meaning of Romeo and Juliet and your answer is, "Hormones."

--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."

Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333

 - Posted      Profile for lilBuddha     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
It occurred to me when I was thinking about this that perhaps scientism is when you're asked to explain the meaning of Romeo and Juliet and your answer is, "Hormones."

OK, if you are attempting to imply "Love" is the correct answer, I suggest you re-read the play.

--------------------
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
Alan Cresswell

Mad Scientist 先生
# 31

 - Posted      Profile for Alan Cresswell   Email Alan Cresswell   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Well, "hormones" isn't the right answer either. Although, if you can make a convincing case from the text it might get you a good mark in an English Lit exam.

But, perhaps the idea that there is always a "right answer" is also a mark of scientism.

--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.

Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333

 - Posted      Profile for lilBuddha     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Well, "hormones" isn't the right answer either. Although, if you can make a convincing case from the text it might get you a good mark in an English Lit exam.

But, perhaps the idea that there is always a "right answer" is also a mark of scientism.

Did not say there was a"right answer". But "love", a common answer, is wrong. Well, at least a very poor answer. Hormones certainly play a part. Pride makes a better answer.
And, absolutely, one-hundred percent wrong on thinking there is a "right answer" is a mark of scientism.

[ 12. October 2015, 23:48: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]

--------------------
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
Komensky
Shipmate
# 8675

 - Posted      Profile for Komensky   Email Komensky   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Well, "hormones" isn't the right answer either. Although, if you can make a convincing case from the text it might get you a good mark in an English Lit exam.

But, perhaps the idea that there is always a "right answer" is also a mark of scientism.

I like the way you are headed with this. I think 'naturalism' is a better term than 'scientism'. It admits that everything in the world comes from natural processes and merely admits that science can offer the best answers, rather than necessarily the 'right' answers. This was one of the areas where I felt that Sam Harris went wrong. Rather than arguing that science can help determine moral values, he argued that science is (or ultimately will be) the only source of moral values—and however you slice it, that's not going to work.

K.

--------------------
"The English are not very spiritual people, so they invented cricket to give them some idea of eternity." - George Bernard Shaw

Posts: 1784 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992

 - Posted      Profile for Adeodatus     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
It occurred to me when I was thinking about this that perhaps scientism is when you're asked to explain the meaning of Romeo and Juliet and your answer is, "Hormones."

OK, if you are attempting to imply "Love" is the correct answer, I suggest you re-read the play.
I wasn't. I was suggesting that scientism and reductionism are closely related.

And I'm quite well acquainted with the play, thanks.

--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."

Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333

 - Posted      Profile for lilBuddha     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Not meaning to be insulting, but how is religion any less reductionist?

--------------------
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
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992

 - Posted      Profile for Adeodatus     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Not meaning to be insulting, but how is religion any less reductionist?

Unfortunately religion can be reductionist, though I never met someone who blandly insists "Jesus is the answer" whom I didn't want to slap. But any religion I'd touch with a bargepole would celebrate the complexity, fluidity, and multi-facetedness of experience and meaning. It would delight that meaning is sculpted more often than it's discovered. It would proclaim that poetry says at least as much about the world as maths.

If it was asked the meaning of Romeo and Juliet, it might say something like, "Go and act in the play."

--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."

Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
follow ship of fools on twitter
buy your ship of fools postcards
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
 
  ship of fools