Scientism

[DerelictJunction]

Then it disagrees with Wikipedia.

QV the first sentence here: Scientism.

Which reference do you consider more likely to be accurate?

 

[AV1611VET]

Which reference do you consider more likely to be accurate?

Wikipedia

 

[DerelictJunction]

Wikipedia

Why?

 

[AV1611VET]

Why?

For one thing, Wikipedia gives names of people and their quotes on the subject.

It is much more comprehensive.

Why? do you think the dictionary's definition is more accurate?

 

[DerelictJunction]

For one thing, Wikipedia gives names of people and their quotes on the subject.

It is much more comprehensive.

Why? do you think the dictionary's definition is more accurate?

Dictionaries are researched extensively for accuracy prior to publishing. They are also considered an accurate reference source for college research papers while Wiki is not.

 

[AV1611VET]

Dictionaries are researched extensively for accuracy prior to publishing.

And Wikipedia isn't?

They are also considered an accurate reference source for college research papers while Wiki is not.

By whom? the Dictionary Society of North America?

 

[justlookinla]

lookin wrote:


Others may not have been clear, but your asking for a "yes or no" answer to a question that has two separate statements in it is a problem. It's a problem because too often, it is used as a rhetorical trick to make someone appear to be stupid.

For instance, if I asked you "Do you agree with the statement "gravity is real or fish need bicycles." yes or no?"

You could say "yes", in which case I ridicule you for saying that fish need bicycles, or you could say "no", in which case I ridicule you for saying that gravity isn't real.

So, no need to fight here. Why not just ask them as two separate questions:

1. Is empirical science constitutes the most authoritative worldview? By that, do you mean, most likely to be true? Note, I don't think empirical science excludes the possibility of a God.

2. Is empirical science the most valuable part of human learning? Define "valuable"?

This is why it may be useful to separate them. Unless, of course, your original intent was to trick and attack, in which case I'm not interested.


In Christ -

Papias

Why not just answer, yes I believe in gravity and no, fish do not need bicycles? Of course this will now become and analogy argument, arguing if your analogy accurately represents my post. At this point, the original question will be (hopefully?) forgotten.

 

[justlookinla]

Potentially, the humanities, arts, & social sciences.

No doubt. They offer insights to life that science cannot offer.

 

[justlookinla]

Don't know if I should agree or not.

Are you asking if I agree with the content of the quote?
Or are you asking if I agree if that is what the word "scientism" means?

If the first, my answer is "no".
If the latter, my answer is "I don't really care".

I view science as a very usefull tool to find out how reality works.
The best tool that I know of. Are there better tools out there? Perhaps, who knows... not me in any case. So until someone provides me with a better tool, I have no choice but to stick with the best one I'm aware of.

OK.

 

[justlookinla]

There are implications and assumptions burried in your question which are implicitly accepted when even only trying to answer your question one way or the other.

It is what people call a "loaded question". No matter what the answer is, the answer will silently have to accept the implications and assumptions.

So if one doesn't wish to agree to these implications and assumptions, one would have to take a step back and call the question itself into question.

Which is the point where you start your little game of screaming "evasion!!!" instead of actually addressing the valid objections to your loaded question.

This is an extremely dishonest practice and you should change your ways. It has become a default routine for you and it's really not pretty. Or nice.




Here we go again........

I swear I didn't even read that sentence while I was writing the above. That's how predictable you have become.

I predict you'll continually use the 'define this and define that' response in your future posts. We'll see.

 

[justlookinla]

Fastest burden shift on record!

Nope, not at all. If one disagrees with the Wikipedia definition, simply point where the disagreement is.

 

[justlookinla]

Disagree. From Scientism | Define Scientism at Dictionary.com

Scientism: noun
1. the style, assumptions, techniques, practices, etc., typifying or regarded as typifying scientists.
2. the belief that the assumptions, methods of research, etc., of the physical and biological sciences are equally appropriate and essential to all other disciplines, including the humanities and the social sciences.
3. scientific or pseudoscientific language.

Looks like the dictionary doesn't agree with your definition either.

Great, you disagree. Do you disagree.....

1) in the universal applicability of the scientific method and approach?

or

2) with the view that empirical science constitutes the most authoritative worldview?

or

3) that it's most valuable part of human learning to the exclusion of other viewpoints?

Which part of the Wikipedia definition do you reject? All? Some? None?

 

[DerelictJunction]

Great, you disagree. Do you disagree.....

1) in the universal applicability of the scientific method and approach?

or

2) with the view that empirical science constitutes the most authoritative worldview?

or

3) that it's most valuable part of human learning to the exclusion of other viewpoints?

Which part of the Wikipedia definition do you reject? All? Some? None?

I agree that it is universally applicable.
I disagree that it is the most authoritative worldview.
I disagree that it should be used as an exclusive viewpoint.

 

[justlookinla]

I agree that it is universally applicable.
I disagree that it is the most authoritative worldview.
I disagree that it should be used as an exclusive viewpoint.

Thanks for the direct answers.

In #2, what is a more authoritative worldview, in your opinion?

 

[TheBear]

Which reference do you consider more likely to be accurate?

Wikipedia

Haven't you, on many occasions, expressed your opinion that Wikipedia is unreliable, can't be trusted, and that Wikipedia can take a hike?

 

[AV1611VET]

Haven't you, on many occasions, expressed your opinion that Wikipedia is unreliable, can't be trusted, and that Wikipedia can take a hike?

When run through my Boolean standards ... yes.

If Wikipedia mentions deep time, Wikipedia can take a hike.

If Wikipedia mentions Jesus walked on water, Wikipedia can stay put.

 

[DerelictJunction]

Thanks for the direct answers.

In #2, what is a more authoritative worldview, in your opinion?

I think many worldviews have equal authority because they cover areas not covered by others. I think science can be used to validate particular declarations of other worldviews.

 

[keith99]

"Scientism is belief in the universal applicability of the scientific method and approach, and the view that empirical science constitutes the most authoritative worldview or most valuable part of human learning to the exclusion of other viewpoints."

Agree or disagree?

In what context? As a definition for a severe psychological condition it sounds fine. Rather like fundie squared but starting from science instead of a misreading of Scripture.

As something that real scientists believe it is a total lie.

 

[justlookinla]

I think many worldviews have equal authority because they cover areas not covered by others. I think science can be used to validate particular declarations of other worldviews.

The definition didn't indicate equal authority, the definition stated that "empirical science constitutes the most authoritative worldview".....the MOST authoritative worldview.

Maybe you read it too quickly, but you disagreed that it was the MOST authoritative worldview. If it's not the MOST authoritative worldview, what other worldview is science secondary to?

 

[justlookinla]

In what context? As a definition for a severe psychological condition it sounds fine. Rather like fundie squared but starting from science instead of a misreading of Scripture.

As something that real scientists believe it is a total lie.

Point out the part of the definition that real scientists believe is a lie.