Is Science the Only Means of Knowing?

[Uber Genius]

That still seems like a small sample size and not representative anyway beyond some vague statistical idea that any sufficiently large number of people you meet are more commonly what you'd expect of the group.

By all means enumerate how those are necessarily incoherent or contradictory except when held absolutely

No need. Verificationism, stemming from logical positivism, has been dead for over 50 years. A simple search or any investigation on your part will yield the incoherence. "Scientism" might yield the quickest result.

 

[muichimotsu]

No need. Verificationism, stemming from logical positivism, has been dead for over 50 years. A simple search or any investigation on your part will yield the incoherence. "Scientism" might yield the quickest result.

Yeah, because explaining it from your knowledge is too difficult. Pretty sure I wasn't making any particular characterization of science in that respect, you're borderline putting words in my mouth

 

[Uber Genius]

Yeah, because explaining it from your knowledge is too difficult. Pretty sure I wasn't making any particular characterization of science in that respect, you're borderline putting words in my mouth

Very confusing response.

I initially posted:

Out of 18 votes we only have one devotee to scientism. That is auspicious indeed. Most atheists I engage on philosophy sites or youtube espouse some form of logical positivism, verificationism or falsificationism, missing the incoherence.

It was a response to the OP not you. It made an observation about the incoherence of verificationism.

You responded (Instead of doing any research):

By all means enumerate how those are necessarily incoherent or contradictory except when held absolutely

To which I responded:

No need. Verificationism, stemming from logical positivism, has been dead for over 50 years. A simple search or any investigation on your part will yield the incoherence. "Scientism" might yield the quickest result.

Again, instead of doing any research, you responded,

"Yeah, because explaining it from your knowledge is too difficult. Pretty sure I wasn't making any particular characterization of science in that respect, you're borderline putting words in my mouth."

So firstly, how could I put words in your mouth, since I never accused you of scientism?

Secondly, Why do I need to do your homework again? If you have the ability to shape your beliefs by study of the current body of knowledge, and in turn defend your beliefs with arguments and evidence, then certainly you can do 30-seconds of research on why verificationism came to be determined incoherent.

I am interested in people who want to engage in testing what is real about the world, if you are not willing to do your due diligence you are clearly NOT HERE TO GAIN KNOWLEDGE.

As I have stated repeatedly on threads of which you have participated I don't do people's homework for them. Everyone on this thread can answer my question as it is an epistemic one. Secondly, it is easy to research.

 

[muichimotsu]

Very confusing response.

I initially posted:
It was a response to the OP not you. It made an observation about the incoherence of verificationism.

You responded (Instead of doing any research):


To which I responded:


Again, instead of doing any research, you responded,

"Yeah, because explaining it from your knowledge is too difficult. Pretty sure I wasn't making any particular characterization of science in that respect, you're borderline putting words in my mouth."

So firstly, how could I put words in your mouth, since I never accused you of scientism?

Secondly, Why do I need to do your homework again? If you have the ability to shape your beliefs by study of the current body of knowledge, and in turn defend your beliefs with arguments and evidence, then certainly you can do 30-seconds of research on why verificationism came to be determined incoherent.

I am interested in people who want to engage in testing what is real about the world, if you are not willing to do your due diligence you are clearly NOT HERE TO GAIN KNOWLEDGE.

As I have stated repeatedly on threads of which you have participated I don't do people's homework for them. Everyone on this thread can answer my question as it is an epistemic one. Secondly, it is easy to research.

If you're going to assume everyone reaches the same conclusion based on the "homework", that's the same kind of idiocy that would assume everyone's going to interpret the bible the same way. I grant your point and falsificationism has effectively replaced verificationism, though the latter is more about meaning rather than truth in itself, which isn't necessarily what science is addressing versus what best explains reality.

 

[Uber Genius]

If you're going to assume everyone reaches the same conclusion based on the "homework", that's the same kind of idiocy that would assume everyone's going to interpret the bible the same way.

False analogy.
While scholars can differ on how the original audience would have understood a text THAT IS OVER 1900 YEARS IN THE PAST,

There are no scholars who defends scientism!

Defender of scientism:"The only meaningful truths are scientific truths."

Me:"Wait, how do you know that is true, since it is not discovered using science?"

Defender of scientism:"ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh???????????????????"

"Let me get back to you own that one..."

"But your assumption is idiocy."

You are really not trying here at all are you.

We all have false beliefs, the difference between those who retain those false beliefs for a lifetime and those who shed them is the willingness to engage them honestly, do research, eliminate rational mistakes (false cause, false facts, false assumptions, faulty logic, etc).

I had hoped for more.

Now I have wasted my time with someone who isn't trying.

No more, you have earned the "Ignored" list.

 

[muichimotsu]

False analogy.
While scholars can differ on how the original audience would have understood a text THAT IS OVER 1900 YEARS IN THE PAST,

There are no scholars who defends scientism!

Defender of scientism:"The only meaningful truths are scientific truths."

Me:"Wait, how do you know that is true, since it is not discovered using science?"

Defender of scientism:"ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh???????????????????"

"Let me get back to you own that one..."

"But your assumption is idiocy."

You are really not trying here at all are you.

We all have false beliefs, the difference between those who retain those false beliefs for a lifetime and those who shed them is the willingness to engage them honestly, do research, eliminate rational mistakes (false cause, false facts, false assumptions, faulty logic, etc).

I had hoped for more.

Now I have wasted my time with someone who isn't trying.

No more, you have earned the "Ignored" list.

Pretty sure I wasn't defending scientism and you're the one that would seem to suggest that there's cognitive dissonance in valuing science and yet dismissing particular notions of a philosophical conclusion based more on rationalism and faulty reasoning to conclude God exists. Philosophy has value, I cannot deny that, it was my minor and arguably as important in helping me develop my worldview along with studying religion as my major

But you won't likely even see this: not that I'm losing sleep over it. If you apply the same scrutiny to science and the like as you do to your own beliefs, methinks it'd be just as likely you'd realize the unfounded and irrational (along with unscientific) nature of beliefs in regards to God and Jesus. Or just say it's different, which would be special pleading

 

[BigV]

I answered YES, to your question, but I am interpreting "Science" as a "Scientific Method", ie. using testable methodology.