Let's talk about "scientism"

[Jeremy E Walker]

Could you name, say, five of those many persons who came to Christianity after hearing the Kalaam Cosmological argument?

I could if I felt like looking for them. But I am not persuaded that it would be at all fruitful so I won't.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Even if he did misconstrue the findings, it is enough that it be shown he has appealed to science to support his arguments which is all I was intending to prove by saying what I said.

So you admit that though he appealed to science he misconstrued the findings?

Testimonials from people like ohh....Antony Flew? Maybe you have heard of him?

You said "many." I'm pretty sure Anthony Flew is only one individual, not many. Regardless of which, there are many who have heard the stock arguments and found them unimpressive. I'm sure you've interacted with many such individuals in your time here.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Testimonials from people like ohh....Antony Flew? Maybe you have heard of him?

Yes, and even when he was a solid atheist, I was unimpressed with him.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[KCfromNC]

1. The assumption that science is a reliable method of knowing about nature is not subject to verification through the scientific method.

Good thing it isn't an assumption. We have lots of good evidence that this idea is true.

2. The assumption that the speed of light is constant in one direction between any two points (A) and (B) is not subject to verification through the scientific method.

False.

3. Logical and mathematical truths cannot be verified by scientists

I'm not even sure what this is supposed to mean. There are 1000m in a km. Verified truth of not, it is a usefu' part of the language of science. Same with the rest of math and logic.

4. The assumption that the external world of physical objects is real cannot be verified by science.

Nor is it one made by science, so I have no idea why it it's in this list.

5. The assumption that the human mind is capable of understanding the nature of reality cannot be verified by science, for in attempting to do so, scientists would be relying upon the belief that they were accurately apprehending reality and thus would be arguing in a circle.

scientific realism isn't science, so this is irrelevant.

6. The assumption that the past was not created five minutes ago cannot be proven by scientists.

neither can anything else.

7. The assumption that any phenomena can be understood as an effect of the laws of nature

... isn't something claimed by science.

8. The assumption that the laws of nature are the same everywhere cannot be proved via the scientific method.

False. This is tested all the time.

9. The assumption that other minds exist cannot be proven by science. Scientists take it for granted that the people they interact with on a daily basis are actually human beings and not androids.

There is pretty good evidence for this belief, so it is way beyond an assumption.

And anything which claims that science should prove anything doesn't understand how science works.

Overall, this is pretty weak. NNoneof these really matter to the workings oft science. And it misses the obvious ones, like the problem of induction.

 

[PsychoSarah]

compared to my criterion of rationality that is not self-refuting.

Self-refuting? If you mean the scientific method and other such processes allow for theories to be disproven, that is true, but it is a strength, not a weakness.

 

[quatona]

compared to my criterion of rationality that is not self-refuting.

Which would be represented in which method?
Plus, of course, you haven´t shown that the scientific method is self-refuting.

 

[quatona]

I could if I felt like looking for them. But I am not persuaded that it would be at all fruitful so I won't.

Ok, so your claim remains unsupported. You even made it before you had found the evidence.

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

So you admit that though he appealed to science he misconstrued the findings?

No.

You said "many." I'm pretty sure Anthony Flew is only one individual, not many. Regardless of which, there are many who have heard the stock arguments and found them unimpressive. I'm sure you've interacted with many such individuals in your time here.

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

What is your point?

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

Which would be represented in which method?
Plus, of course, you haven´t shown that the scientific method is self-refuting.

The criterion which allows for the existence of varying types of propositional knowledge, not just one type.

As the Internet Encyclopedia puts it:

A thorough epistemology should, of course, address all kinds of knowledge, although there might be different standards for a priori and a posteriori knowledge.

Epistemology [Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy]

And I have never said the scientific method was self-refuting. I have no idea where you even got that from.

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

Ok, so your claim remains unsupported. You even made it before you had found the evidence.

ReasonableFaith.org – Defend Biblical Christianity, Apologetics, Bible Questions

Look in the testimonial section. Start there.

 

[quatona]

The criterion which allows for the existence of varying types of propositional knowledge, not just one type.

As the Internet Encyclopedia puts it:

A thorough epistemology should, of course, address all kinds of knowledge, although there might be different standards for a priori and a posteriori knowledge.

Epistemology[bless and do not curse][Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy]

So where is the method?

And I have never said the scientific method was self-refuting. I have no idea where you even got that from.

I asked "[The scientific method] 'flawed' - as opposed to what?"
and you replied "compared to my criterion of rationality [which, btw., isn´t a method and hence not a comparandum, to begin with] which isn´t self-refuting". Contrasting an alleged flawed thing to something else by pointing out how the latter isn´t self-refuting suggests to me that this is part of the contrast. Or else the remark would be completely redundant.

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

So where is the method?


I asked "[The scientific method] 'flawed' - as opposed to what?"
and you replied "compared to my criterion of rationality [which, btw., isn´t a method and hence not a comparandum, to begin with] which isn´t self-refuting". Contrasting an alleged flawed thing to something else by pointing out how the latter isn´t self-refuting suggests to me that this is part of the contrast. Or else the remark would be completely redundant.

scientism is flawed, not the scientific method.

 

[quatona]

scientism is flawed, not the scientific method.

Well, as soon as you are able to present a viable and workable (and on top "rational" - since this is the criterium you yourself postulated) epistemological method that includes the exploration of allegedly existing stuff that can´t be explored by the scientific method, your anti-scientism will have a leg to stand on.

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

Well, as soon as you are able to present a viable and workable (and on top "rational" - since this is the criterium you yourself postulated) epistemological method that includes the exploration of allegedly existing stuff that can´t be explored by the scientific method, your anti-scientism will have a leg to stand on.

scientism is self-refuting. that is the only reason I need to reject it.

You have anything of substance you wish to ask or comment on?

 

[quatona]

scientism is self-refuting. that is the only reason I need to reject it.

Whilst we have agreed that every methodological system necessarily starts from axioms, I must have missed it when you demonstrated that this fact renders the system "self-refuting".

From a pragmatic pov, scientism can be seen as the attempt of a reductio ad absurdum: whereever applying the scientific method leaves something unexplained or unexplainable, this is the place where proponents of the "supernatural" can use and offer whatever methodology (which inevitably will suffer from the same problem every methodology suffers from, though) they may have developed. So far I haven´t seen any such method.
IOW: Without scientism (the idea that everything must be explainable by application of the scientific method) "supernaturalists" wouldn´t even know where there´s still space left for the "supernatural".

Whilst you "supernaturalists" are methodologically empty-handed, scientism does your homework for you, as well. Thus, a little bit of appreciation would be in order.

You have anything of substance you wish to ask or comment on?

Well, so far it´s been you who made the claims, and I was the one checking whether there´s substance to them.

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

Whilst we have agreed that every methodological system necessarily starts from axioms, I must have missed it when you demonstrated that this fact renders the system "self-refuting".

From a pragmatic pov, scientism can be seen as the attempt of a reductio ad absurdum: whereever applying the scientific method leaves something unexplained or unexplainable, this is the place where proponents of the "supernatural" can use and offer whatever methodology (which inevitably will suffer from the same problem every methodology suffers from, though) they may have developed. So far I haven´t seen any such method.
IOW: Without scientism (the idea that everything must be explainable by application of the scientific method) "supernaturalists" wouldn´t even know where there´s still space left for the "supernatural".

Whilst you "supernaturalists" are methodologically empty-handed, scientism does your homework for you, as well. Thus, a little bit of appreciation would be in order.


Well, so far it´s been you who made the claims, and I was the one checking whether there´s substance to them.

thats not the reason scientism is self-refuting. check Dr. Craigs work on it.

 

[quatona]

thats not the reason scientism is self-refuting. check Dr. Craigs work on it.

Dr. Craig?

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

Dr. Craig?

yea ReasonableFaith.org – Defend Biblical Christianity, Apologetics, Bible Questions

while youre there check out the testimonials too bro

 

[quatona]

yea ReasonableFaith.org – Defend Biblical Christianity, Apologetics, Bible Questions

while youre there check out the testimonials too bro

 

[Jeremy E Walker]