empirical science acceptor

[driewerf]

A few months ago I had an exchange with a fellow forum member (was it Speedwell or Pittabread - can't remember) in which I contested to label myself as an evolutionist.
I want to create a contrast with creationists. Creationists have chosen a conclusion and are shoehorning reality into that preconceived conclusion. If I were to accept the designation of evolutionist I risk to create the same impression. (Though of course arguing for a different assumption.)
The designation of "evolutionist" is wrong for two reasons

• the Theory of Evolution is but one part (admittedly a central one) of one science (biology) while the sciences have so much more to offer
• Most science acceptors don't argue in favour of the ToE per sé, but for scientific integrity, for intellectual rigor, for going there where the evidence leads to.

I have thought about a better label. "Empiricist" comes closer, but doesn't cover it completely. In the end I concluded that "Empirical science acceptor" covers it best.

• It stresses the importance of empirical evidence
• it's broader than the Theory of Evolution, and includes other "controversial, creationist unfriendly" sciences like geology, astronomy etc
• it includes the notion of rejecting theories and hypotheses that have been shown wrong.

There is but one remark to make: it's too long and not sexy.
Therefor I invite fellow forum members, specially those who like to play with language to come up with a more suitable designation. It needs to be shorter, more catchy and yet accurate.
Who thinks to be able to take up the challenge?

kind regards,
driewerf

 

[Joyous Song]

JS: Evolutionary, Creationary Logician???? Also too long but we could be ECL's which is shorter.

 

[Halbhh]

A few months ago I had an exchange with a fellow forum member (was it Speedwell or Pittabread - can't remember) in which I contested to label myself as an evolutionist.
I want to create a contrast with creationists. Creationists have chosen a conclusion and are shoehorning reality into that preconceived conclusion. If I were to accept the designation of evolutionist I risk to create the same impression. (Though of course arguing for a different assumption.)
The designation of "evolutionist" is wrong for two reasons

• the Theory of Evolution is but one part (admittedly a central one) of one science (biology) while the sciences have so much more to offer
• Most science acceptors don't argue in favour of the ToE per sé, but for scientific integrity, for intellectual rigor, for going there where the evidence leads to.

I have thought about a better label. "Empiricist" comes closer, but doesn't cover it completely. In the end I concluded that "Empirical science acceptor" covers it best.

• It stresses the importance of empirical evidence
• it's broader than the Theory of Evolution, and includes other "controversial, creationist unfriendly" sciences like geology, astronomy etc
• it includes the notion of rejecting theories and hypotheses that have been shown wrong.

There is but one remark to make: it's too long and not sexy.
Therefor I invite fellow forum members, specially those who like to play with language to come up with a more suitable designation. It needs to be shorter, more catchy and yet accurate.
Who thinks to be able to take up the challenge?

kind regards,
driewerf

Ideologue? ( just kidding. thought some humor might be fun)

How about "Work in Progress"

Right? That's a key aspect of evolution in a way, the work of life to constantly adapt.

 

[Ophiolite]

Therefor I invite fellow forum members, specially those who like to play with language to come up with a more suitable designation. It needs to be shorter, more catchy and yet accurate.

Scientist.

If you wish to argue that should apply to only a practicing scientistst, then Naturalist. (That evokes both Natural Philosopher and Methodological Naturalism.)

As an aside I have no problem with identifying as an Evolutionist. If it was good enough for Ernst Mayr it would cavalier for me to say it's not good enough for me.

 

[driewerf]

Scientist.
If you wish to argue that should apply to only a practicing scientistst,

That indeed is my objection. "Scientist" should only apply to researchers.

then Naturalist. (That evokes both Natural Philosopher and Methodological Naturalism.)

It's an option. Though it evokes a little bit too much the aspect of going out in the wild, while neglecting the lab sciences. But it's an option.

As an aside I have no problem with identifying as an Evolutionist. If it was good enough for Ernst Mayr it would cavalier for me to say it's not good enough for me.

Not the way it is used here.

 

[The IbanezerScrooge]

I think you're conferring too much weight to the term "evolutionist". It's just a label that mostly other people use on someone else to describe their position on the singular field of study that is evolution. i.e. that they accept the science related to the diversity of life on this planet.

It's kind of the same issue as "atheist". others want to confer some greater meaning and philosophy about people who identify as such. But it's an answer to a single question: Do you believe in gods? That answer being "no".

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Scientist.

If you wish to argue that should apply to only a practicing scientistst, then Naturalist. (That evokes both Natural Philosopher and Methodological Naturalism.)

As an aside I have no problem with identifying as an Evolutionist. If it was good enough for Ernst Mayr it would cavalier for me to say it's not good enough for me.

What about Naturist? Nothing to hide and accepting of evidence no matter how unpalatable it may be to look at.

 

[Ophiolite]

What about Naturist? Nothing to hide and accepting of evidence no matter how unpalatable it may be to look at.

Already been set up by Dr. Chris Smith at Cambridge: The Naked Scientists.

 

[Astrid]

Why a label?
We don't call someone an Amalariaist
if they don't have malaria
Or a Healthyest in contrast to
someone with dengue.

Normal educated people accept
ToE as naturally as they do algebra.
We don't call them algebrists.
Or others gravitationalists.

Creationists are the little group
that needs a distinguishing name.

 

[Gottservant]

Not to annoy you deliberately, but as Christians we have the concept that being Christian entails something different, for every member of that Body.

While you are decrying divergence from a singular term of reference (that doesn't apply universally), you need to think about what you are identifying with, in terms of what that reference enables you to differentiate.

What I am saying is that there is a difference between naming the Queen of an ant nest, to determining what the various functions of that Queen's army (gatherer, larvae carrier, soldier) should be - as long as the name is not too ambitious, you should not have any problem in transitioning from one (the name) to the other (the functions)?

 

[sfs]

Why a label?
We don't call someone an Amalariaist
if they don't have malaria

Hey, I want the 'malarialist' label. In fact, I'd like to be an evolutionary malarialist since I study the evolution of malaria. Or maybe it should malarial evolutionist?

(Okay, so technically I study the genetics of malaria, but that sometimes includes the evolution of the parasites.)

 

[driewerf]

Why a label?

Because we will be labeled anyway. At this moment it is "evolutionist", which doesn't suit.
So better get a label that accurately describes me.

 

[Frank Robert]

A few months ago I had an exchange with a fellow forum member (was it Speedwell or Pittabread - can't remember) in which I contested to label myself as an evolutionist.
I want to create a contrast with creationists. Creationists have chosen a conclusion and are shoehorning reality into that preconceived conclusion. If I were to accept the designation of evolutionist I risk to create the same impression. (Though of course arguing for a different assumption.)
The designation of "evolutionist" is wrong for two reasons

• the Theory of Evolution is but one part (admittedly a central one) of one science (biology) while the sciences have so much more to offer
• Most science acceptors don't argue in favour of the ToE per sé, but for scientific integrity, for intellectual rigor, for going there where the evidence leads to.

I have thought about a better label. "Empiricist" comes closer, but doesn't cover it completely. In the end I concluded that "Empirical science acceptor" covers it best.

• It stresses the importance of empirical evidence
• it's broader than the Theory of Evolution, and includes other "controversial, creationist unfriendly" sciences like geology, astronomy etc
• it includes the notion of rejecting theories and hypotheses that have been shown wrong.

There is but one remark to make: it's too long and not sexy.
Therefor I invite fellow forum members, specially those who like to play with language to come up with a more suitable designation. It needs to be shorter, more catchy and yet accurate.
Who thinks to be able to take up the challenge?

kind regards,
driewerf

I like Sean Carroll's "Poetic Naturalism."

A poetic naturalist will deny that notions like "right and wrong," "purpose and duty," or "beauty and ugliness" are part of the fundamental architecture of the world. The world is just the world, unfolding according to the patterns of nature, free of any judgmental attributes.​

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I like Sean Carroll's "Poetic Naturalism."

A poetic naturalist will deny that notions like "right and wrong," "purpose and duty," or "beauty and ugliness" are part of the fundamental architecture of the world. The world is just the world, unfolding according to the patterns of nature, free of any judgmental attributes.​

Your link is to subscriber-only source. Here's the link to Sean's blog where he describes it himself:
Poetic Naturalism.

E.T.A. Here's his video on Poetic Naturalism: