Let's talk about "scientism"

[PsychoSarah]

scientism is flawed, not the scientific method.

You do realize that the scientific method only works on things which are testable, right?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

No.

So you disagree with the cosmologists who have corrected Craig for misconstruing findings from cosmology to support his position?

There are many that find them good arguments. There are many that find them bad arguments.

What is your point?

My point? You're the one who is touting the "many" who have come to Christ after having heard the arguments.

 

[fireof god98]

You do realize that the scientific method only works on things which are testable, right?

that is why science is to stay where it can be used while philosophy and theology have it own area. this is why science has never claimed god does not exist because this knowledge is in the area of philosophy

 

[DogmaHunter]

I am arguing against the belief that scientists are totally objective and free from bias. I am arguing against the belief that scientists are fundamentally different than every other human being in that they engage in their work free of presuppositions.

Is there an atheist on this board that believes that scientists are infallable, free of bias and are unable to tinker with their data to make look like their particular hypothesis holds up?

I've never met one. It seems to me that you are conflating science as a method of inquiry to scientists, the people using science to find out stuff about the world.

Science as a method has mechanisms in place to correct and/or exposes hoaxes, biasses, mistakes, etc. That's actually one of the strengths of the method. Whenever you as a scientist make a claim or propose a hypothesis, your peers will jump on it from all angles trying to prove you wrong. If you are a dishonest scientist who's only interested in fame, you might get your 5 minutes in the spot light with some bogus paper. It won't last though.

That's the great thing about science... You don't trust the results of other scientists. You double check, you redo the experiments or you design completely different experiments to test the same thing etc.

Whenever scientists overstep their bounds and begin making authoritative pronouncements on domains outside of their area of expertise, they are abusing science and using their mantle of authority to cloak this from the unaware public.

Regardless of public opinion, there are no authorities in science. There are experts, yes. But no authorities. Experts can be wrong. Authorities are assumed to be correct. That's some semantic shenannigans, I know. But it is, what it is.

Having said that....
About the topic of the OP: I don't think about such jargon and definitions enough to know what label should be pasted on my forehead. So I'll just briefly state how science fits in my worldview...

First, let me state that when people use the word "supernatural"... I don't really know what they mean. To understand that, I guess I need to know what "natural" means. Is "natural" = "the universe"? Is "natural" = "all that exists"? People tell me god is "super natural". When asked why, I usually get as response "he's beyond / not part of the universe". I guess in that sense, the "natural" = "the universe".

But what then if the multi-verse exists? That would be "natural", now wouldn't it? If a god exists... why wouldn't that be "natural" either? I'm not seeing the distinction. It's not at all clear to me.

Second, when it comes to explaining reality to the best of our ability, it seems to me that only science is up to the task. Like Lawrence Krauss once said, take 100 of the brightest people in the world and lock them in a rooom for a decade without access to any data and ask them to come up with a working model that describes particle physics. They won't come up with anything usefull.

Now take those same people and ask them the same question, but this time with full access to labs, particle accelerators, peer research etc... and they WILL come up with something usefull.

You don't find out how the universe works or what does and doesn't exist by just sitting there and thinking about it.

 

[DogmaHunter]

while it is true that science has given us many great things like medicine,technology and a greater understanding of our world it has also given us many weapons like the atomic bomb and biological weapons

Science gave us the knowledge of how biology and atoms work. Engineers then took that knowledge to build these weapons.

The same scientific knowledge used to build those weapons was also used to build meds and technology to treat cancers, develop vaccinations, etc.


This reminds me of an interview of Neil deGrasse Tyson with Stephen Colbert... Stephen asked Neil if it bothered him that in movies, scientists are always "the bad guys", like in The Terminator: it was science that build skynet, etc.

Neil then answered: "You know.... at the end of the day... when the smoke clears.... there's a politician funding that research."

Interview was funny as hell btw, I reccommend it. Can be found on youtube

 

[BL2KTN]

Jeremy seems to have checked out of the forums for the time being. Whether that was due to be being banned or having his fill of being wrong, who can say?

 

[bhsmte]

Jeremy seems to have checked out of the forums for the time being. Whether that was due to be being banned or having his fill of being wrong, who can say?

Still waiting for Jeremy to answer these questions:

Does he agree with the TOE and why or why not?
Does he agree with germ theory and why or why not?
Does he agree with the theory of gravity and why or why not?

 

[PsychoSarah]

that is why science is to stay where it can be used while philosophy and theology have it own area. this is why science has never claimed god does not exist because this knowledge is in the area of philosophy

Pretty much, too bad philosophy never actually answers questions.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Pretty much, too bad philosophy never actually answers questions.

It does for me.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[PsychoSarah]

It does for me.


eudaimonia,

Mark

What I mean is that the answers aren't really conclusive beyond personal views.

 

[fireof god98]

Pretty much, too bad philosophy never actually answers questions.

it makes us think, which is the first step to the answers

 

[Archaeopteryx]

What I mean is that the answers aren't really conclusive beyond personal views.

I disagree. Some "personal views" are easily, conclusively even, refuted by a little philosophy.

 

[Eudaimonist]

What I mean is that the answers aren't really conclusive beyond personal views.

Are you of the opinion that all views are personal, or is there such a thing as impersonal views as well?


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

Still waiting for Jeremy to answer these questions:

Does he agree with the TOE and why or why not?
Does he agree with germ theory and why or why not?
Does he agree with the theory of gravity and why or why not?

For the sake of getting more speedily to the point, I will say yes.
So what? What is your point?

 

[PsychoSarah]

For the sake of getting more speedily to the point, I will say yes.
So what? What is your point?

I wouldn't understand the point of drilling you like that either, you aren't a fundamentalist.

 

[VProud]

If you mean the idea that all of the universe is governed by natural laws, than I am of that ideology, ask away!

But, first, allow me to ask you this: If God were to exist, and his laws governed the universe, why wouldn't you class them as natural laws? Surely God is a natural being and therefor his laws and force that he exerts would be natural laws.

 

[Usus Vox Tractus]

If you mean the idea that all of the universe is governed by natural laws, than I am of that ideology, ask away!

But, first, allow me to ask you this: If God were to exist, and his laws governed the universe, why wouldn't you class them as natural laws? Surely God is a natural being and therefor his laws and force that he exerts would be natural laws.

Yes, of course!

In God before the beginning, all 4 fundamental forces are unified. These become individuated when God self divides to create a universe.

God is like white light, the physical laws are like the colors and the space of the colors spread out is like the universe.

 

[bhsmte]

For the sake of getting more speedily to the point, I will say yes.
So what? What is your point?

The point was in relation to a discussion we were having about a week ago, when I originally asked the questions.