An analogy

[DavisModerator]

Simon you are being stubborn again and digging in your heals despite people clearly demonstrating that not only is scientism not a fallacy but that you do not even understand what fallacies are. Use this as an opportunity to educate yourself on what a fallacy is, explore the fallacies to get a better understanding of them. And even delve into epistemology and theories of knowledge including the roles that science and rationalism play in it.

The alternative is for you to do what you sometimes (and too frequently) do, which is commit yourself to your position regardless of what people say, avoid learning about something you obviously are at least partially ignorant of, scramble to find increasingly hopeless ways to justify your position, and perhaps just redefine things to suit your agenda.

Scientism is NOT a fallacy. No amount of insisting it is will change that. Please, take if from two people who spent YEARS studying philosophy. It is not.

[DavisModerator]

Simon you are being stubborn again and digging in your heals despite people clearly demonstrating that not only is scientism not a fallacy but that you do not even understand what fallacies are. Use this as an opportunity to educate yourself on what a fallacy is, explore the fallacies to get a better understanding of them. And even delve into epistemology and theories of knowledge including the roles that science and rationalism play in it.

The alternative is for you to do what you sometimes (and too frequently) do, which is commit yourself to your position regardless of what people say, avoid learning about something you obviously are at least partially ignorant of, scramble to find increasingly hopeless ways to justify your position, and perhaps just redefine things to suit your agenda.

Scientism is NOT a fallacy. No amount of insisting it is will change that. Please, take if from two people who spent YEARS studying philosophy. It is not.

[UnseenParticipant]

@simon

I suggest you are using “fallacy” in an informal/colloquial sense, not in the rigorous formal sense of philosophy where fallacies are either formal or informal (sometimes referred to as “verbal fallacies”). Please take seven minutes out of your day to watch a short video and perhaps you’ll stop talking nonsense.

[Simon PayntonParticipant]

If an argument (X) leads to the contradiction ((A) and (not A)) – then (X) is a fallacy.

The existence of something cannot be both unknown and known at the same time.  If I say that all I know is all there is – then I am making a claim about the potential existence or non-existence of items in a domain I know nothing about, by definition.

[DavisModerator]

Okay, so no surprise here, you’ve ignored me and are digging your heels in and you’ve ignored unseen who was considerate enough to link a video about fallacies.

[UnseenParticipant]

Simon Paynton wrote:

If an argument (X) leads to the contradiction ((A) and (not A)) – then (X) is a fallacy.

The existence of something cannot be both unknown and known at the same time. If I say that all I know is all there is – then I am making a claim about the potential existence or non-existence of items in a domain I know nothing about, by definition.

Maybe we can move forward a bit here by getting you to make your case non-abstractly. Would it be too much trouble to give us an example of an argument made by proponents of scientism that leads to a contradiction?

[UnseenParticipant]

@simon

To be clear, I don’t deny that scientism is a “thing,” or that reliance solely on science and its methods can be taken too far. I know things without resorting to science all the time, and not just my internal states. I know someone is changing a tire on their car outside my window. I know it’s been a while since I went out to see a movie in a theater. I know that my son-in-law’s name is Byron. I’m as certain of things like this as I am that metals expand when heated or that space is expanding at an accelerating rate. Simple observation gives me knowledge I don’t need science to know or prove.

If that’s your point, I agree.

I’m only denying that scientism is a fallacy.

[_Robert_Participant]

There is one aspect of science (not a logical fallacy) that always needs to be considered. The effect that scientific observation, experimentation and data collection can have on the subject(s) of study. Not only talking only about at the quantum level. I insisted on reviewing test setups and methods before my team of engineers spent days collecting data. So many reports have been invalidated because the test probes literally loaded down the signals being observed.

I don’t really think “social science”, or “political science” should be called science at all. Call it social studies. As we get deeper into the brain-related hard sciences, it is inevitable much of what is called psychology today will be replaced. People like JP walking around spouting “conclusions” like they are scientists.

[jakelafortParticipant]

Science is what we have to peer deeply into the natural world. Everything else is dreck. Scientism is not a fallacy. That is purdy F’in obvious. Humans conduct science therefore it will be flawed but its nature is to correct.

On the other hand there is a deeper question relating to science-whether we and it can ever know ultimate reality. Is that even a legit concept? I have a feeling it can’t. We won’t. Science is for humans at once cold, calulating, sterile on the one paw and mysterious, recondite and abstruse. Without curiosity life fucking sucks. And even with it… Science is the shit. Yet is may well be limited in its scope and power.

[Simon PayntonParticipant]

Unseen wrote:

Would it be too much trouble to give us an example of an argument made by proponents of scientism that leads to a contradiction?

The statement itself is self-contradictory: “I know the unknowable”.

If you know everyday facts about the world, then you’re using the scientific method of gathering evidence with your senses.

[UnseenParticipant]

Simon Paynton wrote:

Unseen wrote:

Would it be too much trouble to give us an example of an argument made by proponents of scientism that leads to a contradiction?

The statement itself is self-contradictory: “I know the unknowable”. If you know everyday facts about the world, then you’re using the scientific method of gathering evidence with your senses.

To say “I know the unknowable” does not lead to a contradiction, it is a contradiction.

I need a more concrete example of someone claiming to know the unknowable. Also, what do you mean by “unknowable”? Something that actually can’t be known (along with how you know it’s unknowable) or something that in principle can’t be known.

Also, I note that, according to you, everyone espouses scientism because, after all we use the scientific method of gathering evidence with our senses all day long during our waking hours.

[Simon PayntonParticipant]

Unseen wrote:

everyone espouses scientism because, after all we use the scientific method of gathering evidence with our senses all day long during our waking hours.

The scientific method, of gathering evidence, is a good thing.  Scientism is an abuse of the scientific method that says, if no evidence is forthcoming, there’s nothing there.

In the case of life after death, unknowable means that second-hand evidence is inadmissable, and for most people, this inadmissable evidence is the only evidence available.

[DavisModerator]

No Simon, if there is no evidence that something exists (such as an after life) or that a theory works, the answer isn’t a conclusive guaranteed no, the answer is: we have no reason to support that theory (or in my own words ..to take it seriously). No one her is expressing certainty that there is no afterlife. Just as I would never 100% say that there aren’t dancing moon hippos floating in space somewhere we cannot see them. I can confidently say I have been given no compelling reason to take theories of an afterlife seriously

My mother is almost certainly ashes and a memory now and not some ghostly presence in the clouds. I remain open to the possibility that someone might give me evidence of an afterlife one day. SO would any good scientist. If a scientist says with certainty there is no afterlife, then they need a refresher on how science works.

[UnseenParticipant]

I’m as certain that there is no full-grown African elephant in my sock drawer as I am that the Sun will set this evening and rise again in the morning. If I’m wrong about things like that, I’m insane.

I’m an atheist rather than an agnostic on the question of the existence of God (the theistic God of the Abrahamic religions) because such a being is a nonsensical blend of impossibilities and contradictions. I’m agnostic on any God that meets the standards of possibility and noncontradiction. These are very reasonable minimum standards for a deity to meet.

[UnseenParticipant]

BTW, I justify calling myself a full-on atheist because I deny that any theistic deity can be so wonderful as to deserve to be worshipped and obeyed.

Anyone who wants to play the Evil Genius game is ultimately denying that we know anything including that 2+2=4 the law of the excluded middle and many other kinds of knowledge. If all you really know is your own existence, that’s not much.

The Abrahamic God is a self-contradiction. He loves us like a father but maintains Eternal Hell for people who defy or doubt him. He’s all-knowing but all-powerful, two traits from which one can easily derive contradictions (if he knows the future rather than a future due to his omniscience, then the future is not subject to change despite his claimed omnipotence). And so on.

I can be an atheist regarding the Abrahamic God as described, no need to fiddle with the halfheartedness of agnosticism.

I am agnostic regarding any gods I know little or nothing about.

[Author]

Posts