Scientism

[Abraxos]

And if it could be scientifically proven, you´d call that "circular reasoning".
I suggest you better abstain from putting up standards that result in epistemological nihilism.

(besides, the above statement is neither a definition nor arbitrary)

No, because then scientism self-defeats itself by going against it's own standards.

Based on scientism you can not scientifically prove that statement because it's an abstract notion. And you can not measure an abstract notion because it's not based in the material but the immaterial, obviously.

Science is ethically neutral. It shows us how the world is, but it doesn't tells us how the world ought to be. For that you need ethics, and ethics is inescapable in everyday life. So just relying on the physical sciences is short-sightedness and quite frankly stupid.

 

[lesliedellow]

So who the heck would say: "I endorse the notion that we should put too high a value on...."??

Whether or not somebody explicitly endorses an over valuation of science is fairly irrelevant. It is the things they do say which gives the game away.

 

[lesliedellow]

And if it could be scientifically proven, you´d call that "circular reasoning".
I suggest you better abstain from putting up standards that result in epistemological nihilism.

It took the logical positivist several decades to realise they were sawing off the branch they were sitting on. Some of us came to that realisation within the few seconds it took us to read their central dogma.

 

[quatona]

Whether or not somebody explicitly endorses an over valuation of science is fairly irrelevant. It is the things they do say which gives the game away.

1. Look at the question in the thread title.
2. My point: A definition that implicitly or explicitly contains a "too..." isn´t objective and doesn´t lend itself to objective investigation.

 

[quatona]

It took the logical positivist several decades to realise they were sawing off the branch they were sitting on. Some of us came to that realisation within the few seconds it took us to read their central dogma.

And this addresses my post exactly how?

 

[lesliedellow]

1. Look at the question in the thread title.
2. My point: A definition that implicitly or explicitly contains a "too..." isn´t objective and doesn´t lend itself to objective investigation.

And what about eugenics? Wasn't that an over valuation of science's area of competence? You shouldn't need to search high and low for an "objective" reason why it is a despicable ideology, before condemning it. By the time you had satisfied yourself that you had an "objective" reason, half the population might have been compulsorarily sterilised.

 

[lesliedellow]

And this addresses my post exactly how?

Logical positivists provided scientism with its philosophical justification - until the entire edifice came crashing down.

 

[Kenny'sID]

The kind of scientism that seems to pervade popular culture is strange to say the least. I suspect the emergence of militant atheism as the main influence on the impressionable. It's become this widespread belief that the only source of knowledge and truth is physical science; and if something can't be proven through the physical sciences it is meaningless or cannot be known. That is simply a false and self-refuting theory of knowledge. Consider the statement 'You should only believe what can be scientifically proven.' Can that statement be scientifically proven? Obviously not, as it is just an arbitrary definition, the view is literally self-refuting, and yet this seems to persist in pop culture very widely and prevents people from finding spiritual truths and spiritual knowledge.

I could name two that monkey around this site.

I know of a few as well, so together maybe enough for a full barrel?

 

[TLK Valentine]

I'm not sure leslie realizes the OP is a link to the definition.

A link to a definition, you mean...

 

[TLK Valentine]

Well, as the definition in the link explicitly says that "scientism" refers to an improper or excessive use of the sceintific method -- both of which are contrary to any search for truth -- I'm going to have to vote "no..."

Of course, I can't vote "no," because AV chose not to include that as an option...

 

[AirPo]

Aside from

"authoritative"

, yes.

 

[AV1611VET]

A link to a definition, you mean...

Then by all means, give us the definition.

And if you don't know it, then use the link as a working definition.

Do I have to show you scientific methodists how to use your own philosophy ... professor?

 

[AV1611VET]

Of course, I can't vote "no," because AV chose not to include that as an option...

Wow.

Solid aurum.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Then by all means, give us the definition.

As there's more than one, that would be impossible.

And if you don't know it, then use the link as a working definition.

Which I've already done... which you've already ignored.

Do I have to show you scientific methodists how to use your own philosophy ... professor?

If you do it right, it would mark a novel change of pace...

 

[TLK Valentine]

Wow.

Solid aurum.

Indeed -- You didn't even have the courage to allow people to say "no," so you chose the more politically correct route of "yes" or "other."

 

[Kenny'sID]

Indeed -- You didn't even have the courage to allow people to say "no," so you chose the more politically correct route of "yes" or "other."

Anything "other" than yes, might be considered a "no"...no?

 

[AV1611VET]

Anything "other" than yes, might be considered a "no"...no?

Methinks that was too obvious.

He's a college professor of literature.

In fact, his old avatar showed him standing on a desk in a classroom or something.

At least, that's how it looked to me.

 

[Kenny'sID]

He's a college professor of literature.

Yikes!

 

[AirPo]

I'm not sure leslie realizes the OP is a link to the definition.

It happens. I've had people not realize that --> is my way of linking stories.

 

[AV1611VET]

Yikes!

Yes, indeed!

Some people don't take their work home with them though.

Like most others here, he uses his skills very little off the job.

Sometimes I have to show them how to think, and I'm not even a scientific methodist!

At least not in the modern sense.