Let's talk about "scientism"

[2PhiloVoid]

Hahaha, my man!

That is exactly right! It is self-refuting!

As a criterion of knowledge it is far too restrictive and ultimately self-refuting.

Philosopher of religion Keith Ward has said scientism is philosophically inconsistent or even self-refuting, as the truth of the statements "no statements are true unless they can be proven scientifically (or logically)" or "no statements are true unless they can be shown empirically to be true" cannot themselves be proven scientifically, logically, or empirically.

Ward, Keith, Is Religion Dangerous?

Alston, William P (2003). "Religious language and verificationism". In Moser, Paul K; Copan, Paul. The Rationality of Theism. New York: Routledge. pp. 26–34

I think McComas' ideas on this are good too, particularly since they come from a secular point of view.

http://coehp.uark.edu/pase/TheMythsOfScience.pdf

Peace

 

[fireof god98]

Please feel free to give detailed examples of the many established scientific theories that are based on assumptions, that can not be verified with empirical evidence, or the scientific method.

well according to the quantum theory,there is a small probability that i could suddenly dissolve and rematerialize in another room. this has of course not been seen by any scientist and i ask if you have every seen it

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Have scientists fudged data, yes. Were they discovered and their science careers ruined, yes. That is the corrective nature of science and the rigor in which it eventually ferrets out bad information. Far too many scientists are doing legit work, to allow bad work to have much of a shelf life. At the end of the day, scientists know, many others are going to be completing experiments to verify whether their work is correct or not, so it tends to blow away the garbage pretty quick. Again, history has proven this to be the case.

Seems like you are hung up on the TOE possibly disproving something. The TOE is the TOE and explains how life evolved and has boatloads of evidence to support what it states and the majority of Christians accept it based on the evidence, so I don't see why the TOE should be an issue, but I would agree, some Christians do see it as a threat.

In regards to Einstein, he actually gave credence to a universal God as being possible and he was quite clear about this. Of course, he did say, be felt belief in a personal God, was childlike behavior.

I don't know about all of that. Lee Smolin seems to think that a lot of the directions in physics are 'controlled' by a status quo of secular expectation in the various universities and organizations of the land, a status quo that he believes tends to hinder further scientific progress.

Reference

The Trouble With Physics (2006) - Lee Smolin

 

[fireof god98]

Who said scientists are cold, hard nosed, unbiased etc..? Scientists are people just like everyone else. With that said, studies have shown, scientists do tend to rely heavily on analytical thinking vs intuitive thinking and this is likely why many gravitated towards science in the first place.

The piece you are missing though, besides the personal side of people doing science, is the scientific method, which is independent of any personal implications of scientists. The method has been imbedded in science for a long time and for good reason, because it works. It is the great equalizer, to ferret out bias that may work it's way into science in the short term. And lets face it, scientists have egos to and do you know what drives many of them? Doing good work, that will pass the scrutiny of the scientific method, because if it doesn't, their reputations tend to take a hit and that is not good for the ego. So in science, there is motivation to be right and to able to prove, with empirical evidence and the scientific method you are right. If you are wrong, there are plenty of willing scientists to come along and show you that you are wrong.

I could be wrong about this, but I have the impression by the content of your posts, you do have a need to discredit science to some degree and it is likely driven by that fact you want to be able to put your faith beliefs, on somewhat equal footing.

Many have tried the same before you.

all i think he is doing is trying to do is to explain science is not this tool that can help us explain everything in the universe.

 

[bhsmte]

well according to the quantum theory,there is a small probability that i could suddenly dissolve and rematerialize in another room. this has of course not been seen by any scientist and i ask if you have every seen it

Can't say I have, but the principle of quantum theory has held up and strengthened over the last 90 years.

Results of Quantum Theory

Quantum mechanics solved all of the great difficulties that troubled physicists in the early years of the 20th century. It gradually enhanced the understanding of the structure of matter, and it provided a theoretical basis for the understanding of atomic structure (see ATOM AND ATOMIC THEORY) and the phenomenon of spectral lines: Each spectral line corresponds to the energy of a photon transmitted or absorbed when an electron makes a transition from one energy level to another. The understanding of chemical bonding was fundamentally transformed by quantum mechanics and came to be based on Schrödinger's wave equations. New fields in physics emerged-solid-state physics, condensed matter physics, superconductivity, nuclear physics, and elementary particle physics (see PHYSICS)-that all found a consistent basis in quantum mechanics

 

[bhsmte]

I don't know about all of that. Lee Smolin seems to think that a lot of the directions in physics are 'controlled' by a status quo of secular expectation in the various universities and organizations of the land, a status quo that he believes tends to hinder further scientific progress.

Reference

The Trouble With Physics (2006) - Lee Smolin

Would you expect the direction of physics to follow the liking of every physicist?

Does every theologian like the direction of their church, or their religion's philosophies?

I would think that would be a very unrealistic expectation. He may have a point, or maybe he doesn't, but over time, the number of people motivated to make new discoveries, tends to break through any human made barriers. If you do good work and have the evidence to back it up, it will get recognized.

 

[bhsmte]

all i think he is doing is trying to do is to explain science is not this tool that can help us explain everything in the universe.

As I said, it appears to me he is trying to convince himself of more than that, but again, I may be wrong.

And, I don't see anyone on these boards stating that science can help us explain or understand everything.

 

[fireof god98]

Can't say I have, but the principle of quantum theory has held up and strengthened over the last 90 years.

Results of Quantum Theory

Quantum mechanics solved all of the great difficulties that troubled physicists in the early years of the 20th century. It gradually enhanced the understanding of the structure of matter, and it provided a theoretical basis for the understanding of atomic structure (see ATOM AND ATOMIC THEORY) and the phenomenon of spectral lines: Each spectral line corresponds to the energy of a photon transmitted or absorbed when an electron makes a transition from one energy level to another. The understanding of chemical bonding was fundamentally transformed by quantum mechanics and came to be based on Schrödinger's wave equations. New fields in physics emerged-solid-state physics, condensed matter physics, superconductivity, nuclear physics, and elementary particle physics (see PHYSICS)-that all found a consistent basis in quantum mechanics

yes electrons are regularly dematerialize and find themselves rematerialized on the other side of walls inside my pc and the molecules of our body would also collapse without this principle. do you not have faith in reason and logic or even the scientific method ?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Would you expect the direction of physics to follow the liking of every physicist?

Does every theologian like the direction of their church, or their religion's philosophies?

I would think that would be a very unrealistic expectation. He may have a point, or maybe he doesn't, but over time, the number of people motivated to make new discoveries, tends to break through any human made barriers. If you do good work and have the evidence to back it up, it will get recognized.

Not necessarily. There is bureaucracy present in the current scientific establishment which tends to squelch other directions or ideas given by theorists who don't hold to the 'orthodox' science that is promoted so highly. This is what Smolin is saying--and as far as I know, he isn't a Christian, so we can't just write him off because we think he has a religious bias--he doesn't. And we can't just write him off because he is 'just' an iconoclast who works 'within' today's science.

Just something to think about.

 

[bhsmte]

yes electrons are regularly dematerialize and find themselves rematerialized on the other side of walls inside my pc and the molecules of our body would also collapse without this principle. do you not have faith in reason and logic or even the scientific method ?

I wonder how quantum theory has been able to hold up then? Is it a giant conspiracy and we are all being duped by corrupt scientists?

 

[bhsmte]

Not necessarily. There is bureaucracy present in the current scientific establishment which tends to squelch other directions or ideas given by theorists who don't hold to the 'orthodox' science that is promoted so highly. This is what Smolin is saying--and as far as I know, he isn't a Christian, so we can't just write him off because we think he has a religious bias--he doesn't. And we can't just write him off because he is 'just' an iconoclast who works 'within' today's science.

Just something to think about.

Do you know anything that doesn't have a level of bureaucracy to it? We are dealing with human beings here, not robots and there certainly could be some barriers to discoveries in other areas that crop up from time to time. As I stated, this tends to take care of itself over time and history has proven this to be the case.

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

Who said scientists are cold, hard nosed, unbiased etc..? Scientists are people just like everyone else. With that said, studies have shown, scientists do tend to rely heavily on analytical thinking vs intuitive thinking and this is likely why many gravitated towards science in the first place.

The piece you are missing though, besides the personal side of people doing science, is the scientific method, which is independent of any personal implications of scientists. The method has been imbedded in science for a long time and for good reason, because it works. It is the great equalizer, to ferret out bias that may work it's way into science in the short term. And lets face it, scientists have egos to and do you know what drives many of them? Doing good work, that will pass the scrutiny of the scientific method, because if it doesn't, their reputations tend to take a hit and that is not good for the ego. So in science, there is motivation to be right and to able to prove, with empirical evidence and the scientific method you are right. If you are wrong, there are plenty of willing scientists to come along and show you that you are wrong.

I could be wrong about this, but I have the impression by the content of your posts, you do have a need to discredit science to some degree and it is likely driven by that fact you want to be able to put your faith beliefs, on somewhat equal footing.

Many have tried the same before you.

I get the gist of what you’re saying. You are saying that the scientific method by virtue of its self-correcting nature, has a minimal potential for abuse by its practitioners.

I do not disagree with you. In fact I stated earlier that this feature of the method was one of its strengths.

You seem, along with Deidre, to be under the impression that I am attempting to discredit science so that I can place it along side of my beliefs.

But science, like in Allen Sandage’s case, was one of the things that led me to God, not away from Him!

In your mind you envision a scale in which on one side there is contained light faith, and on the other, heavy science. The science is weightier and heavier than the faith and thus, the scale is off balance in favor of the side of science. In your mind you see me as attempting to “lighten” science so that the disparity between the weight of the two will be rendered less pronounced and become “equal”.

The problem you are having is that you have a misunderstanding of how the Christian apologist views the nature of faith and its relationship toward science. We do not see the two as opposed, nor do we pit them against each other or place them in their own separate little dish on the scale as if they were totally unrelated, but rather we see them as complimenting each other, science and faith together on one side of the scale in its own little dish, and on the other, atheism, or whatever paradigm you wish to posit. The dish containing science/faith outweighs anything that is placed in the opposite dish.

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

Please feel free to give detailed examples of the many established scientific theories that are based on assumptions, that can not be verified with empirical evidence, or the scientific method.

Before I do that, you will agree that the nine or so assumptions I listed are assumptions that science depends upon as being true even though they cannot be proven by science and that the men and women engaging in scientific pursuit trust and believe that these assumptions obtain despite them being unable to empirically verify them.

You agree correct?

 

[fireof god98]

I wonder how quantum theory has been able to hold up then? Is it a giant conspiracy and we are all being duped by corrupt scientists?

at one time many people held to the steady state theory and it explained very well how nuclear reactions inside the core of a star,not the big bang,could add more protons and neutrons to the nuclei of hydrogen and helium until they could make heavier elements. my point was that it was widely accept but later dropped and it was not because of corrupt scientists

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

Have scientists fudged data, yes. Were they discovered and their science careers ruined, yes. That is the corrective nature of science and the rigor in which it eventually ferrets out bad information. Far too many scientists are doing legit work, to allow bad work to have much of a shelf life. At the end of the day, scientists know, many others are going to be completing experiments to verify whether their work is correct or not, so it tends to blow away the garbage pretty quick. Again, history has proven this to be the case.

Seems like you are hung up on the TOE possibly disproving something. The TOE is the TOE and explains how life evolved and has boatloads of evidence to support what it states and the majority of Christians accept it based on the evidence, so I don't see why the TOE should be an issue, but I would agree, some Christians do see it as a threat.

In regards to Einstein, he actually gave credence to a universal God as being possible and he was quite clear about this. Of course, he did say, be felt belief in a personal God, was childlike behavior.

If you will recall in a post of mine, I made mention that the TOE, if it were true, poses no problem whatsoever to the Christian who both realizes that Genesis is not a science textbook and whose author deliberately makes use of figurative language to convey deeper theologically significant truths.

The TOE is not something I even feel a need to study in depth. It affects my philosophy neither adversely or positively.

 

[fireof god98]

maybe this will clear up what faith is and what it is not
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_4PSgFjtvI

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Do you know anything that doesn't have a level of bureaucracy to it? We are dealing with human beings here, not robots and there certainly could be some barriers to discoveries in other areas that crop up from time to time. As I stated, this tends to take care of itself over time and history has proven this to be the case.

True, many organizations reflect some level of bureaucracy, but not all bureaucracy necessarily squelches new ideas or directions. Science bureaucracy does tend to do this, and not just in connection to something like the Intelligent Design movement; ID does have problems. The squelching Smolin is talking about has been going on for about 30 years, and he is speaking in connection with 'normative' science, like quantum theory, and especially string theory, etc.

Anyway, my basic point is that there are those in power who use their position to maintain a status quo, which is odd for science in general, since according to Beveridge, for instance, science's underlying philosophical premise is that there are no 'singular' authorities (W.I.B Beveridge --The Art of Scientific Thinking (1950)).

Peace

 

[bhsmte]

I get the gist of what you’re saying. You are saying that the scientific method by virtue of its self-correcting nature, has a minimal potential for abuse by its practitioners.

I do not disagree with you. In fact I stated earlier that this feature of the method was one of its strengths.

You seem, along with Deidre, to be under the impression that I am attempting to discredit science so that I can place it along side of my beliefs.

But science, like in Allen Sandage’s case, was one of the things that led me to God, not away from Him!

In your mind you envision a scale in which on one side there is contained light faith, and on the other, heavy science. The science is weightier and heavier than the faith and thus, the scale is off balance in favor of the side of science. In your mind you see me as attempting to “lighten” science so that the disparity between the weight of the two will be rendered less pronounced and become “equal”.

The problem you are having is that you have a misunderstanding of how the Christian apologist views the nature of faith and its relationship toward science. We do not see the two as opposed, nor do we pit them against each other or place them in their own separate little dish on the scale as if they were totally unrelated, but rather we see them as complimenting each other, science and faith together on one side of the scale in its own little dish, and on the other, atheism, or whatever paradigm you wish to posit. The dish containing science/faith outweighs anything that is placed in the opposite dish.

It would depend on the Christian apologist and what argument they use. I have yet to see an argument from a Christian apologist, that can be supported by science or empirical evidence and the prominent Christian's who are established scientists (like a Francis Collin's) all acknowledge the same.

The arguments I have seen, involve a certain reasoning, with assumptions that can only mean God and nothing else. Also, the arguments utilized, do absolutely nothing to establish the God as the Christian God, which requires a whole different level of argument and reasoning.

Certainly, I can see why Christians latch onto these arguments, to be able to feel more secure in their belief, but their ability to sway believers of other Gods, religions and or non-believers, falls woefully short IMO. Considering Christianity has been shrinking in the world for decades now, is a pretty good clue to how the story lacks credibility as people gain knowledge.

 

[fireof god98]

It would depend on the Christian apologist and what argument they use. I have yet to see an argument from a Christian apologist, that can be supported by science or empirical evidence and the prominent Christian's who are established scientists (like a Francis Collin's) all acknowledge the same.

The arguments I have seen, involve a certain reasoning, with assumptions that can only mean God and nothing else. Also, the arguments utilized, do absolutely nothing to establish the God as the Christian God, which requires a whole different level of argument and reasoning.

Certainly, I can see why Christians latch onto these arguments, to be able to feel more secure in their belief, but their ability to sway believers of other Gods, religions and or non-believers, falls woefully short IMO. Considering Christianity has been shrinking in the world for decades now, is a pretty good clue to how the story lacks credibility as people gain knowledge.

if one could understand god with reason alone then he would not really be god

 

[bhsmte]

True, many organizations reflect some level of bureaucracy, but not all bureaucracy necessarily squelches new ideas or directions. Science bureaucracy does tend to do this, and not just in connection to something like the Intelligent Design movement; ID does have problems. The squelching Smolin is talking about has been going on for about 30 years, and he is speaking in connection with 'normative' science, like quantum theory, and especially string theory, etc.

Anyway, my basic point is that there are those in power who use their position to maintain a status quo, which is odd for science in general, since according to Beveridge, for instance, science's underlying philosophical premise is that there are no 'singular' authorities (W.I.B Beveridge --The Art of Scientific Thinking (1950)).

Peace

Ok, I got the point you are trying to make.