Home | Community | Message Board

MagicBag Grow Bags
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Myyco.com Isolated Cubensis Liquid Culture For Sale

Jump to first unread post Pages: 1 | 2 | 3  [ show all ]
Offlineclam_dude
stranger in astrange land

Registered: 09/10/03
Posts: 1,717
Loc: twilight zone
Last seen: 6 years, 5 months
"scientism" * 1
    #18371903 - 06/05/13 10:20 AM (10 years, 9 months ago)

I swear to god, nothing makes me angrier than when I hear people use this word.  It implies an ideology - which is a belief that by definition, cannot be changed.  However, science is about following evidence. 

I usually hear the word "scientism" in the context that scientists only believe there to be material entities in the universe (no soul, etc).  And so people are quick to call this "scientism."  But the second that there is evidence for non-material things, scientists would be the first to acknowledge it.  So there is absolutely no ideology.  If someone wants to say that going with what the evidence shows is an ideology, than you have lost the meaning of what an "ideology" is.  An ideology is the exact opposite of going with the evidence wherever it leads.

Yeah, the "ideology of following evidence," that's what you're saying when you use the word "scientism." Stop embarrassing yourselves.  Some people will buy that crap, but not everyone is so gullible.


--------------------
"I would like to thank god for making me an atheist" - Ricky Gervais

Edited by clam_dude (06/05/13 10:31 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleCyclohexylamine
Turn on, Tune in, Drop out
 User Gallery


Registered: 09/08/10
Posts: 14,327
Re: "scientism" [Re: clam_dude]
    #18371945 - 06/05/13 10:33 AM (10 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

clam_dude said:
I swear to god, nothing makes me angrier than when I hear people use this word.  It implies an ideology - which is a belief that by definition, cannot be changed.  However, science is about following evidence. 

I usually hear the word "scientism" in the context that scientists only believe there to be material entities in the universe (no soul, etc).  And so people are quick to call this "scientism."  But the second that there is evidence for non-material things, scientists would be the first to acknowledge it.  So there is absolutely no ideology.  If someone wants to say that going with what the evidence shows is an ideology, than you have lost the meaning of what an "ideology" is.  An ideology is the exact opposite of going with the evidence wherever it leads.

Yeah, the "ideology of following evidence," that's what you're saying when you use the word "scientism." Stop embarrassing yourselves.  Some people will buy that crap, but not everyone is so gullible.



:thumbup: I agree.


--------------------
:brainondrugs:

You are not special :haha:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleRepertoire89
Cat
Male User Gallery


Registered: 11/15/12
Posts: 22,146
Re: "scientism" [Re: Cyclohexylamine] * 1
    #18372012 - 06/05/13 10:52 AM (10 years, 9 months ago)

The word 'scientism' sounds kind of retarded.

Overall I would agree but know an excess number of people who take a dogmatic approach to secularism, which would include ignoring evidence and drawing fallacious correlations.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineclam_dude
stranger in astrange land

Registered: 09/10/03
Posts: 1,717
Loc: twilight zone
Last seen: 6 years, 5 months
Re: "scientism" [Re: Repertoire89]
    #18372030 - 06/05/13 10:57 AM (10 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

Repertoire89 said:
The word 'scientism' sounds kind of retarded.

Overall I would agree but know an excess number of people who take a dogmatic approach to secularism, which would include ignoring evidence and drawing fallacious correlations.




I'm just wondering what a "dogmatic approach to secularism" would entail. Dogmatic about keeping religion out of government and public places?


--------------------
"I would like to thank god for making me an atheist" - Ricky Gervais

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleRepertoire89
Cat
Male User Gallery


Registered: 11/15/12
Posts: 22,146
Re: "scientism" [Re: clam_dude]
    #18372069 - 06/05/13 11:07 AM (10 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

clam_dude said:

I'm just wondering what a "dogmatic approach to secularism" would entail. Dogmatic about keeping religion out of government and public places?




Dogmatic 'about' is irrelevant, I'm referring to the means not the end.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineclam_dude
stranger in astrange land

Registered: 09/10/03
Posts: 1,717
Loc: twilight zone
Last seen: 6 years, 5 months
Re: "scientism" [Re: Repertoire89]
    #18372092 - 06/05/13 11:12 AM (10 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

Repertoire89 said:
Quote:

clam_dude said:

I'm just wondering what a "dogmatic approach to secularism" would entail. Dogmatic about keeping religion out of government and public places?




Dogmatic 'about' is irrelevant, I'm referring to the means not the end.




Just tell me what you're talking about instead of making me guess and trying to sound clever.  What means are you referring to?


--------------------
"I would like to thank god for making me an atheist" - Ricky Gervais

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisiblehTx
(:
Male User Gallery


Registered: 03/27/13
Posts: 5,724
Loc: Space-time
Re: "scientism" [Re: Repertoire89]
    #18372102 - 06/05/13 11:17 AM (10 years, 9 months ago)

Scientism: the view that the characteristic inductive methods of the natural sciences are the only source of genuine factual knowledge and, in particular, that they alone can yield true knowledge about man and society.

Yupp. sounds like scientism to me. If this is the worldview you hold, why are you pissed when people call you out on it? Do you not believe it to be a point of view? You view it to be the whole truth, nothing but the truth, so help you god?

gtfo.

Your sole reason for starting this thread is to ignite the same exact debate thats going on in your "atheism is the only rational position" thread.

Take it back over there ffs.


--------------------
zen by age ten times six hundred lifetimes
Light up the darkness.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisiblehTx
(:
Male User Gallery


Registered: 03/27/13
Posts: 5,724
Loc: Space-time
Re: "scientism" [Re: hTx]
    #18372105 - 06/05/13 11:19 AM (10 years, 9 months ago)

Scientism is an ideology. herpderp..

You sound like a fundamentalist christian..

"But, but..no this isn't an ideology this is just how it is!".

dogma to the core, and you don't even (and probably never will) see it. :lol:


--------------------
zen by age ten times six hundred lifetimes
Light up the darkness.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleRepertoire89
Cat
Male User Gallery


Registered: 11/15/12
Posts: 22,146
Re: "scientism" [Re: clam_dude]
    #18372123 - 06/05/13 11:24 AM (10 years, 9 months ago)

Those posts were very direct, if you have an issue with comprehension that is your own.

An example of the means would be drawing a false correlation: such as saying the shutting down of the nervous system proves there is no life after death, when in reality it indicates nothing of the sort. I've heard that argument made by more than one person intelligent enough to know the correlation is false, its a form of either willful ignorance or dishonesty.
That would be an example of dogmatism, and you can think the means justifies the end (as it may well) but the point I was making is in regard to the means alone.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineEllis Dee
Archangel
Male User Gallery


Registered: 06/29/01
Posts: 13,104
Loc: Fire in the sky
Last seen: 5 years, 15 days
Re: "scientism" [Re: clam_dude]
    #18372135 - 06/05/13 11:26 AM (10 years, 9 months ago)

If it quacks like a duck its a duck.


--------------------
"If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do."-King Solomon

And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels,

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleRepertoire89
Cat
Male User Gallery


Registered: 11/15/12
Posts: 22,146
Re: "scientism" [Re: Ellis Dee]
    #18372149 - 06/05/13 11:29 AM (10 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

Ellis Dee said:
If it quacks like a duck its a duck.




You changed your name

:mypoorbrain:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleCyclohexylamine
Turn on, Tune in, Drop out
 User Gallery


Registered: 09/08/10
Posts: 14,327
Re: "scientism" [Re: Repertoire89]
    #18372168 - 06/05/13 11:32 AM (10 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

Repertoire89 said:
Those posts were very direct, if you have an issue with comprehension that is your own.

An example of the means would be drawing a false correlation: such as saying the shutting down of the nervous system proves there is no life after death, when in reality it indicates nothing of the sort. I've heard that argument made by more than one person intelligent enough to know the correlation is false, its a form of either willful ignorance or dishonesty.
That would be an example of dogmatism, and you can think the means justifies the end (as it may well) but the point I was making is in regard to the means alone.




I have never heard of anyone here saying shutting down the nervous system proves there is no life after death. That isn't dogmatism, but just unscientific thinking.


--------------------
:brainondrugs:

You are not special :haha:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleCyclohexylamine
Turn on, Tune in, Drop out
 User Gallery


Registered: 09/08/10
Posts: 14,327
Re: "scientism" [Re: hTx] * 1
    #18372177 - 06/05/13 11:34 AM (10 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

hTx said:
Scientism is an ideology. herpderp..

You sound like a fundamentalist christian..

"But, but..no this isn't an ideology this is just how it is!".

dogma to the core, and you don't even (and probably never will) see it. :lol:




Explain how it is an ideology?
Explain how science is dogma.
If you are going to throw around bullshit claims, back them up.

:waits:


--------------------
:brainondrugs:

You are not special :haha:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleRepertoire89
Cat
Male User Gallery


Registered: 11/15/12
Posts: 22,146
Re: "scientism" [Re: Cyclohexylamine]
    #18372191 - 06/05/13 11:36 AM (10 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

tymoteusz3 said:

I have never heard of anyone here saying shutting down the nervous system proves there is no life after death. That isn't dogmatism, but just unscientific thinking.




I've heard variations of the idea, the example given I've never heard except for someone saying it was 'evidence' (but not proof). Definitely heard an abundance of variations on the idea, pointing to a bodily function and claiming its existence to be definite proof. The whole idea of life after death is that the body dies but consciousness continues, so anything one points to concerning the body is irrelevant in absolute terms.

Anyways I view dogmatic secularism to be unscientific

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineclam_dude
stranger in astrange land

Registered: 09/10/03
Posts: 1,717
Loc: twilight zone
Last seen: 6 years, 5 months
Re: "scientism" [Re: hTx]
    #18372199 - 06/05/13 11:38 AM (10 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

hTx said:
Scientism: the view that the characteristic inductive methods of the natural sciences are the only source of genuine factual knowledge and, in particular, that they alone can yield true knowledge about man and society.

Yupp. sounds like scientism to me. If this is the worldview you hold, why are you pissed when people call you out on it? Do you not believe it to be a point of view? You view it to be the whole truth, nothing but the truth, so help you god?

gtfo.

Your sole reason for starting this thread is to ignite the same exact debate thats going on in your "atheism is the only rational position" thread.

Take it back over there ffs.




Your definition of the word "scientism" is probably not something that Richard Dawkins, or Daniel Dennett would subscribe to (and they are the ones who are constantly accused of "scientism").  But they, or I, for that matter, might actually be ok with it, depending on the definition of "inductive methods of natural sciences".  You might say someone is using the scientific method as evidence that their spouse loves them.  You can blame me all you want for taking the magic out of love, but if someone doesn't specifically show signs in the real world - body language, words, actions, etc.. then there is no reason to believe this person loves you.  And all of the people accused of "scientism", enjoy art, poetry, music, love, etc, just like everyone else. 

So what you're doing is implying that some people only believe something if they can run an experiment, the "scientific method" as you learn it in science class.  But the truth is that the scientific method is used by everyone constantly to make decisions, weather we are conscious of it or not.  The decision to stop at a red light instead of go through is the scientific method.  And indeed, the decision weather or not to have kids is based on the scientific method.

My point is that you too, hTx, use the "inductive methods of the natural sciences" constantly.  Because, even you live in the real world.


--------------------
"I would like to thank god for making me an atheist" - Ricky Gervais

Edited by clam_dude (06/05/13 11:42 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleCyclohexylamine
Turn on, Tune in, Drop out
 User Gallery


Registered: 09/08/10
Posts: 14,327
Re: "scientism" [Re: Repertoire89]
    #18372202 - 06/05/13 11:39 AM (10 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

Repertoire89 said:
Quote:

tymoteusz3 said:

I have never heard of anyone here saying shutting down the nervous system proves there is no life after death. That isn't dogmatism, but just unscientific thinking.




I've heard variations of the idea, the example given I've never heard except for someone saying it was 'evidence' (but not proof). Definitely heard an abundance of variations on the idea, pointing to a bodily function and claiming its existence to be definite proof. The whole idea of life after death is that the body dies but consciousness continues, so anything one points to concerning the body is irrelevant in absolute terms.

Anyways I view dogmatic secularism to be unscientific




I have never heard that idea by anyone credible claiming it was science. Because it isn't.
And it doesn't really have anything to do with "scientism".


--------------------
:brainondrugs:

You are not special :haha:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleRepertoire89
Cat
Male User Gallery


Registered: 11/15/12
Posts: 22,146
Re: "scientism" [Re: Cyclohexylamine]
    #18372244 - 06/05/13 11:46 AM (10 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

tymoteusz3 said:

I have never heard that idea by anyone credible claiming it was science. Because it isn't.
And it doesn't really have anything to do with "scientism".




I've never heard anyone I would consider credible use that type of example either, although we may disagree on who is credible. Dr.Dawkins I wouldn't consider credible as an example, he's too much of an absolutist for me to take seriously.

It might not be considered 'scientism', I'm not sure what that word would entail in an individual.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineclam_dude
stranger in astrange land

Registered: 09/10/03
Posts: 1,717
Loc: twilight zone
Last seen: 6 years, 5 months
Re: "scientism" [Re: Repertoire89]
    #18372259 - 06/05/13 11:49 AM (10 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

Repertoire89 said:
Anyways I view dogmatic secularism to be unscientific




Just because you can put words together in a sentence doesn't mean that they go together.  "dogmatic secularism" sounds to me like the "sport of watching television."  It just doesn't make sense.

You understand what secularism is, right? It's removing religion from places where it doesn't belong.  Religions carry dogmas.  And secularism is trying to remove them.  So "dogmatic secularism" is an oxymoron. 

And who says with certainty that an afterlife is "impossible"?  There is just no evidence for it.  So don't tell me that because I don't believe in an afterlife, that it's because of some sort of dogma.  You can say that about anything - I have a dogmatic belief that german shepherd is a kind of dog.  Ok then.


--------------------
"I would like to thank god for making me an atheist" - Ricky Gervais

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleRepertoire89
Cat
Male User Gallery


Registered: 11/15/12
Posts: 22,146
Re: "scientism" [Re: clam_dude]
    #18372270 - 06/05/13 11:52 AM (10 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

clam_dude said:
Quote:

Repertoire89 said:
Anyways I view dogmatic secularism to be unscientific




Just because you can put words together in a sentence doesn't mean that they go together.  "dogmatic secularism" sounds to me like the "sport of watching television."  It just doesn't make sense.

You understand what secularism is, right? It's removing religion from places where it doesn't belong.  Religions carry dogmas.  And secularism is trying to remove them.  So "dogmatic secularism" is an oxymoron. 

And who says with certainty that an afterlife is "impossible"?  There is just no evidence for it.  So don't tell me that because I don't believe in an afterlife, that it's because of some sort of dogma.  You can say that about anything - I have a dogmatic belief that german shepherd is a kind of dog.  Ok then.




Your whole point about the definition of the word secularism is irrelevant, you know what its meaning is in the context of the conversation.

As far as who says with certainty that an afterlife is impossible, there is no lack of abundance of people making the claim.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineclam_dude
stranger in astrange land

Registered: 09/10/03
Posts: 1,717
Loc: twilight zone
Last seen: 6 years, 5 months
Re: "scientism" [Re: Repertoire89]
    #18372302 - 06/05/13 11:57 AM (10 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

Repertoire89 said:
Your whole point about the definition of the word secularism is irrelevant, you know what its meaning is in the context of the conversation.

As far as who says with certainty that an afterlife is impossible, there is no lack of abundance of people making the claim.




Ok, well I haven't heard any, and I haven't said that.  And I've never heard that view associated with secularism.  So I really have no idea what you're talking about.

And you're the one who first used the word "secularism", not me.  I don't see what this has to do with religion, which secularism specifically refers to.  Are you confusing secularism with materialism?


--------------------
"I would like to thank god for making me an atheist" - Ricky Gervais

Edited by clam_dude (06/05/13 11:59 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezzripz
Stranger


Registered: 12/23/08
Posts: 8,292
Loc: Manchester, UK
Last seen: 4 years, 9 months
Re: "scientism" [Re: Cyclohexylamine]
    #18372324 - 06/05/13 12:00 PM (10 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

tymoteusz3 said:
Quote:

hTx said:
Scientism is an ideology. herpderp..

You sound like a fundamentalist christian..

"But, but..no this isn't an ideology this is just how it is!".

dogma to the core, and you don't even (and probably never will) see it. :lol:




Explain how it is an ideology?
Explain how science is dogma.
If you are going to throw around bullshit claims, back them up.

:waits:




wake up sleepy eyes. not science, scientism...?

Comeon or I'm coming at you with a bucket of cold water

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleRepertoire89
Cat
Male User Gallery


Registered: 11/15/12
Posts: 22,146
Re: "scientism" [Re: clam_dude]
    #18372419 - 06/05/13 12:18 PM (10 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

clam_dude said:

Are you confusing secularism with materialism?




Yes

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisible8ow8
Soylent McGriddle
Male


Registered: 05/22/13
Posts: 196
Loc: Canada
Re: "scientism" [Re: Repertoire89]
    #18372440 - 06/05/13 12:22 PM (10 years, 9 months ago)

I had a scientism once. Itchy like hell. The cure is wine coolers.


--------------------
“There you go. Giving a fuck when it ain’t your turn to give a fuck.”

My Trade list

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblejohnm214
Male User Gallery
Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
Re: "scientism" [Re: clam_dude]
    #18372458 - 06/05/13 12:26 PM (10 years, 9 months ago)

When someone uses the word "scientism" I immediately suspect them of being a charlatan.  Its just a buzzword used to denote a vague discomfort with rational and empirical inquiry.  I've litterally never heard it raised in an arguably proper context- appeals to authority aren't science at all, and so this criticism has nothing to do with science.

Quote:

zzripz said:
Quote:

tymoteusz3 said:
Quote:

hTx said:
Scientism is an ideology. herpderp..

You sound like a fundamentalist christian..

"But, but..no this isn't an ideology this is just how it is!".

dogma to the core, and you don't even (and probably never will) see it. :lol:




Explain how it is an ideology?
Explain how science is dogma.
If you are going to throw around bullshit claims, back them up.

:waits:




wake up sleepy eyes. not science, scientism...?

Comeon or I'm coming at you with a bucket of cold water





Well, that's not an explanation at all.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinekennedy
Male

Registered: 02/11/09
Posts: 432
Last seen: 9 years, 7 months
Re: "scientism" [Re: johnm214] * 1
    #18372713 - 06/05/13 01:35 PM (10 years, 9 months ago)

I don't think that scientism is a just an illegitimate buzzword.  I don't know if 'scientism' is the best word for what it refers to though, because I think that the people who are guilty of scientism are those who try to use scientific knowledge to explain and guide all human affairs, including those that are not within the domain of natural science.  I think people are guilty of scientism when they point to some piece of scientific knowledge and make morally perscriptive claims etc. 
Maybe my understanding of the term is incorrect though.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezzripz
Stranger


Registered: 12/23/08
Posts: 8,292
Loc: Manchester, UK
Last seen: 4 years, 9 months
Re: "scientism" [Re: kennedy]
    #18372913 - 06/05/13 02:17 PM (10 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

kennedy said:
I don't think that scientism is a just an illegitimate buzzword.  I don't know if 'scientism' is the best word for what it refers to though, because I think that the people who are guilty of scientism are those who try to use scientific knowledge to explain and guide all human affairs, including those that are not within the domain of natural science.  I think people are guilty of scientism when they point to some piece of scientific knowledge and make morally perscriptive claims etc. 
Maybe my understanding of the term is incorrect though.




No it isn't.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisiblePoid
Shroomery's #1 Spellir
Male User Gallery


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,372
Loc: SF Bay Area Flag
Re: "scientism" [Re: clam_dude]
    #18373048 - 06/05/13 02:55 PM (10 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

clam_dude said:
I swear to god, nothing makes me angrier than when I hear people use this word.  It implies an ideology - which is a belief that by definition, cannot be changed.


Where did you get this definition of 'ideology'? Here are two definitions of the term, neither of which define it as being an unchangeable belief:

ideology - The Free Dictionary
Quote:

1. The body of ideas reflecting the social needs and aspirations of an individual, group, class, or culture.
2. A set of doctrines or beliefs that form the basis of a political, economic, or other system.


Ideology - Wikipedia
Quote:

An ideology is a set of conscious and unconscious ideas that constitute one's goals, expectations, and actions. An ideology is a comprehensive vision, a way of looking at things (compare worldview) as in several philosophical tendencies (see political ideologies), or a set of ideas proposed by the dominant class of a society to all members of this society (a "received consciousness" or product of socialization).



According to these definitions, science is an ideology.



Here is some relevant food for thought:

Philosophy: The Power of Ideas
Quote:

    Jürgen Habermas, a profesor at the University of Frankfurt, is one of many thinkers influenced by the critical approach of the Frankfurt School...The kind of reflection critical theory emphasizes is reflection on the assumptions of science or philosophy. For instance, empirical science approaches the world with a view to finding lawlike regularities in the things it examines; the measure of knowledge thus becomes the predictive power of the experimental method. Underlying the practice of empirical science is the assumption that its findings are independent of the observer (or, if not, then the presence of the observer can be corrected for). When the experimental method is used on the human being, it is no surprise that what emerges is a picture of a thing (a human thing) that also follows lawlike regularities and for which more or less sophisticated predictions can be made.

    Positivistic science treats human beings as objective things; what is needed is an approach to knowledge that treats the human being as a subject, one not isolated from other subjects but, on the contrary, interacting with them. This interaction takes place in a domain that allows the sharing of intersubjective experiences and that provides contexts of history, art, literature, and language itself that enable us to understand one another.

    This "practical" interest each of us has in understanding one another...is the realm of science he calls historical/hermeneutical...He emphasizes that in this "practical" science, the individual cannot be treated as an objective unit; on the contrary, my human identity is to a greater or lesser extent the creation of human language and of the society into which I was born. Through this society and language, I gain a "preunderstanding" of others in my quest for mutual self-understanding; that is, I cannot understand myself if I cannot understand the words and actions of others. The meanings of those words and actions give me context for making sense of myself in the human world.

    ...for Habermas, there is a second kind of knowledge that is also inappropriate for the positivistic sciences. Habermas calls this "emancipatory knowledge," and it is the concern of critical theory. It is the work of critical theory to make explicit the controlling ideology of a political or social order. "Ideology" misrepresents and distorts the truth about the existence and use arbitrary power throughout society. The roots of ideology go deep into the heart of what a society takes to be knowledge. For example, a social order may be blind to its own fundamental belief that the method of positivistic science, which reduces the human being to the status of a thing for purposes of study, is the surest road to truth. In the realm of the practical, such a reductionistic philosophy can be seen, say, in the treatment of a poem as a single object, independent of the society that produced it, to be studied just for itself. Habermas would agree with Marx that ideology produces reification; that is, reification takes human acts or properties, objectifies them, and treats them as independent of the human world. In a capitalistic society, for example, money is the reification of human labor and is in the end used against the laborer.


Epistemological anarchism - Wikipedia
Quote:

Epistemological anarchism is an epistemological theory advanced by Austrian philosopher of science Paul Feyerabend which holds that there are no useful and exception-free methodological rules governing the progress of science or the growth of knowledge. It holds that the idea that science can or should operate according to universal and fixed rules is unrealistic, pernicious, and detrimental to science itself.

Feyerabend felt that science started as a liberating movement, but over time it had become increasingly dogmatic and rigid, and therefore had become increasingly an ideology, and, despite its successes, science had started to attain some oppressive features, and it was not possible to come up with an unambiguous way to distinguish science from religion, magic, or mythology. He felt the exclusive dominance of science as a means of directing society was authoritarian and ungrounded.

The movement of universal models from Aristotelian to Newtonian physics to Einstein's relativity theory, where each preceding theory has been refuted as entirely universal model of reality, illustrates for the epistemological anarchist that scientific theories do not correspond to truth, as they are in part cultural manifestations, and ergo not objective...Feyerabend contended, with Imre Lakatos, that the demarcation problem of distinguishing on objective grounds science from pseudoscience was irresolvable and thus fatal to the notion of science run according to fixed, universal rules.

...the notion that there is no knowledge outside science is a 'convenient fairy-tale' held only by dogmatists who distort history for the convenience of scientific institutions. For instance, Copernicus was heavily influenced by Pythagoras, whose view of the world had previously been rejected as mystical and irrational. Hermetic writings played an important role in the works of Copernicus as well as Newton.

Feyerabend also criticized science for not having evidence for its own philosophical precepts, particularly the notions of Uniformity of Law and of Uniformity of Process across time and space.




--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. --  Bob Dylan
fireworks_god said:
It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblecez
 User Gallery
Registered: 08/04/09
Posts: 5,856
Re: "scientism" [Re: clam_dude]
    #18373284 - 06/05/13 03:46 PM (10 years, 9 months ago)

I think its not necessarily the scientists who cling to "scientism" but the defenders of science.
People defend science like people defend religion.
My ideology is right and yours is wrong and here's why.

The marriage of the two is a nice thought :thumbup:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineparanavar
Male


Registered: 10/18/09
Posts: 84
Loc: Flag
Last seen: 6 years, 5 months
Re: "scientism" [Re: cez] * 1
    #18376748 - 06/06/13 08:25 AM (10 years, 9 months ago)

Sadly most scientifically minded people have a very naive understanding of the historical context and epistemological basis and thus limitations inherit to their accepted metaphysical models, that is if they're even aware of them at all.

If you really do believe the scientific establishment is any less dogmatic than other institutionalised ways of thinking then please look into the continued resistance put up against the work of Dr Rupert Sheldrake and get back to me.


--------------------
nar mar mar

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblequinn
some kinda love
 User Gallery

Registered: 01/02/10
Posts: 6,799
Re: "scientism" [Re: Poid] * 2
    #18376796 - 06/06/13 08:39 AM (10 years, 9 months ago)

WTF Poid is back??

:woooaaahhh:


--------------------
dripping with fantasy

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblequinn
some kinda love
 User Gallery

Registered: 01/02/10
Posts: 6,799
Re: "scientism" [Re: Poid]
    #18376799 - 06/06/13 08:39 AM (10 years, 9 months ago)

hi :wave:


--------------------
dripping with fantasy

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisiblehTx
(:
Male User Gallery


Registered: 03/27/13
Posts: 5,724
Loc: Space-time
Re: "scientism" [Re: clam_dude]
    #18376801 - 06/06/13 08:40 AM (10 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

clam_dude said:
Quote:

hTx said:
Scientism: the view that the characteristic inductive methods of the natural sciences are the only source of genuine factual knowledge and, in particular, that they alone can yield true knowledge about man and society.

Yupp. sounds like scientism to me. If this is the worldview you hold, why are you pissed when people call you out on it? Do you not believe it to be a point of view? You view it to be the whole truth, nothing but the truth, so help you god?

gtfo.

Your sole reason for starting this thread is to ignite the same exact debate thats going on in your "atheism is the only rational position" thread.

Take it back over there ffs.




Your definition of the word "scientism" is probably not something that Richard Dawkins, or Daniel Dennett would subscribe to (and they are the ones who are constantly accused of "scientism").  But they, or I, for that matter, might actually be ok with it, depending on the definition of "inductive methods of natural sciences".  You might say someone is using the scientific method as evidence that their spouse loves them.  You can blame me all you want for taking the magic out of love, but if someone doesn't specifically show signs in the real world - body language, words, actions, etc.. then there is no reason to believe this person loves you.  And all of the people accused of "scientism", enjoy art, poetry, music, love, etc, just like everyone else. 

So what you're doing is implying that some people only believe something if they can run an experiment, the "scientific method" as you learn it in science class.  But the truth is that the scientific method is used by everyone constantly to make decisions, weather we are conscious of it or not.  The decision to stop at a red light instead of go through is the scientific method.  And indeed, the decision weather or not to have kids is based on the scientific method.

My point is that you too, hTx, use the "inductive methods of the natural sciences" constantly.  Because, even you live in the real world.



I do, I love science, and the scientific method. Scientism ignores all metaphysical aspects of reality and therefore will never see them, nor be able to apply the scientific method to them.


--------------------
zen by age ten times six hundred lifetimes
Light up the darkness.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblequinn
some kinda love
 User Gallery

Registered: 01/02/10
Posts: 6,799
Re: "scientism" [Re: paranavar]
    #18376813 - 06/06/13 08:45 AM (10 years, 9 months ago)

i have found this to be true too... history of science is more an arts type thing, not really needed for a scientist


--------------------
dripping with fantasy

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblequinn
some kinda love
 User Gallery

Registered: 01/02/10
Posts: 6,799
Re: "scientism" [Re: quinn]
    #18376827 - 06/06/13 08:49 AM (10 years, 9 months ago)

scientism =/= science

yes get over it people. im pretty sure noone thinks they are equivalent (hence the different words)


--------------------
dripping with fantasy

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblequinn
some kinda love
 User Gallery

Registered: 01/02/10
Posts: 6,799
Re: "scientism" [Re: hTx]
    #18376842 - 06/06/13 08:53 AM (10 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

Scientism ignores all metaphysical aspects of reality and therefore will never see them, nor be able to apply the scientific method to them.




example?


--------------------
dripping with fantasy

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisiblehTx
(:
Male User Gallery


Registered: 03/27/13
Posts: 5,724
Loc: Space-time
Re: "scientism" [Re: quinn]
    #18376848 - 06/06/13 08:54 AM (10 years, 9 months ago)

What would you like an example of? It is contained within the definition of scientism x)


--------------------
zen by age ten times six hundred lifetimes
Light up the darkness.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineparanavar
Male


Registered: 10/18/09
Posts: 84
Loc: Flag
Last seen: 6 years, 5 months
Re: "scientism" [Re: quinn]
    #18376849 - 06/06/13 08:55 AM (10 years, 9 months ago)

Yep.. Show me a die hard Dawkins fan that's read any Wittgenstein or Heidegger and I'll show you a Klan member from the African Congo.


--------------------
nar mar mar

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineparanavar
Male


Registered: 10/18/09
Posts: 84
Loc: Flag
Last seen: 6 years, 5 months
Re: "scientism" [Re: quinn]
    #18376857 - 06/06/13 08:57 AM (10 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

quinn said:
Quote:

Scientism ignores all metaphysical aspects of reality and therefore will never see them, nor be able to apply the scientific method to them.




example?




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1TerTgDEgUE


--------------------
nar mar mar

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblequinn
some kinda love
 User Gallery

Registered: 01/02/10
Posts: 6,799
Re: "scientism" [Re: hTx]
    #18376862 - 06/06/13 08:59 AM (10 years, 9 months ago)

metaphysical aspect of reality that can have scientific method applied to it (and for bonus points is ignored by scientism as well)


--------------------
dripping with fantasy

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineparanavar
Male


Registered: 10/18/09
Posts: 84
Loc: Flag
Last seen: 6 years, 5 months
Re: "scientism" [Re: quinn]
    #18376870 - 06/06/13 09:01 AM (10 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

quinn said:
metaphysical aspect of reality that can have scientific method applied to it (and for bonus points is ignored by scientism as well)




Watch the video.


--------------------
nar mar mar

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleCyclohexylamine
Turn on, Tune in, Drop out
 User Gallery


Registered: 09/08/10
Posts: 14,327
Re: "scientism" [Re: paranavar]
    #18376873 - 06/06/13 09:01 AM (10 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

paranavar said:
Sadly most scientifically minded people have a very naive understanding of the historical context and epistemological basis and thus limitations inherit to their accepted metaphysical models, that is if they're even aware of them at all.




Do you like to string words together to pretend like they have inherent meaning?

Quote:


If you really do believe the scientific establishment is any less dogmatic than other institutionalised ways of thinking then please look into the continued resistance put up against the work of Dr Rupert Sheldrake and get back to me.




You don't seem to understand something. Dr. Rupert Sheldrake made all sorts of outlandish claims regarding the metaphysical. The basis of science and the scientific method is something that can be testable and proven through testing and experiments. His metaphysical pseudoscience can't be - hence it's not science.
And no, the "scientific establishment" (wtf does that even mean?) is not dogmatic - the definition of dogma is as follows:

Quote:


Dogma is a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true.[1] It serves as part of the primary basis of an ideology or belief system, and it cannot be changed or discarded without affecting the very system's paradigm, or the ideology itself.





Science is constantly updated and changed as things come out. That is what makes it different than dogma.. See the difference?


--------------------
:brainondrugs:

You are not special :haha:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblequinn
some kinda love
 User Gallery

Registered: 01/02/10
Posts: 6,799
Re: "scientism" [Re: paranavar]
    #18376879 - 06/06/13 09:03 AM (10 years, 9 months ago)

i agree with your taste of people :toast:

*starts watching video*

its 1 am and i have to b up at 7 wtf am i doing, where am i? :crankey:


--------------------
dripping with fantasy

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleCyclohexylamine
Turn on, Tune in, Drop out
 User Gallery


Registered: 09/08/10
Posts: 14,327
Re: "scientism" [Re: paranavar] * 1
    #18376883 - 06/06/13 09:03 AM (10 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

paranavar said:
Watch the video.




Why don't you argue your point instead of pointing off to youtube videos?
Quote:

Argumentum ad Videbimus (Argument by YouTube Video)

This is when an arguer is unable to counter a line of reasoning with a rational rebuttal and instead posts a video (or numerous videos or even links to entire books) while refusing to argue a position himself. Strangely, the presenter expects his opponents to do his job by having them sift through a video or book to find HIS point of argument rather than expressing it himself directly. This refusal to express directly what he finds persuasive in the video or book renders his argument null.




--------------------
:brainondrugs:

You are not special :haha:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineparanavar
Male


Registered: 10/18/09
Posts: 84
Loc: Flag
Last seen: 6 years, 5 months
Re: "scientism" [Re: Cyclohexylamine]
    #18376888 - 06/06/13 09:05 AM (10 years, 9 months ago)

I've been having this same discussion for years. I guess it's all getting rather tedious.


--------------------
nar mar mar

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblequinn
some kinda love
 User Gallery

Registered: 01/02/10
Posts: 6,799
Re: "scientism" [Re: paranavar]
    #18376902 - 06/06/13 09:09 AM (10 years, 9 months ago)

paint a picture, dance a jig, shake things up, cmon man that's terrible


--------------------
dripping with fantasy

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisiblehTx
(:
Male User Gallery


Registered: 03/27/13
Posts: 5,724
Loc: Space-time
Re: "scientism" [Re: quinn]
    #18376904 - 06/06/13 09:09 AM (10 years, 9 months ago)

Take synchronicity for example. This is a metaphysical aspect of reality that can have the scientfic method applied to it and is ignored by scientism.

I am reiterating an experiment I came up with in another thread, as applied to synchronicity.

The experiment would be to follow the participants around their normal everyday lives and record and monitor all brain activity, record and monitor all events (video camera, tape recorder, etc), than have the participants keep a journal, specifically keeping track of when they thought their consciousness or thought had a direct effect on reality in the form of synchronicity. This will test the phenomena of synchronicity as being a real phenomena or simply a coincidence that we give to much credit towards.

I volunteer myself for this study, as synchronicity is a moment-to-moment experience for myself and I'm sure for others. This is a verifiable, testable thing.


--------------------
zen by age ten times six hundred lifetimes
Light up the darkness.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineparanavar
Male


Registered: 10/18/09
Posts: 84
Loc: Flag
Last seen: 6 years, 5 months
Re: "scientism" [Re: Cyclohexylamine]
    #18376907 - 06/06/13 09:10 AM (10 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:


Do you like to string words together to pretend like they have inherent meaning?




Wow. So much for intelligent discussion. I'm out.


--------------------
nar mar mar

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblequinn
some kinda love
 User Gallery

Registered: 01/02/10
Posts: 6,799
Re: "scientism" [Re: hTx]
    #18376915 - 06/06/13 09:11 AM (10 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

Take synchronicity for example.




lol nice try, g'night.


--------------------
dripping with fantasy

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisiblehTx
(:
Male User Gallery


Registered: 03/27/13
Posts: 5,724
Loc: Space-time
Re: "scientism" [Re: quinn]
    #18376941 - 06/06/13 09:16 AM (10 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

paranavar said:
Quote:


Do you like to string words together to pretend like they have inherent meaning?




Wow. So much for intelligent discussion. I'm out.



I know that feels. Stick around, its fun pointing out ignorance, even if ignorance remains.


--------------------
zen by age ten times six hundred lifetimes
Light up the darkness.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisiblehTx
(:
Male User Gallery


Registered: 03/27/13
Posts: 5,724
Loc: Space-time
Re: "scientism" [Re: quinn]
    #18376949 - 06/06/13 09:18 AM (10 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

quinn said:
Quote:

Take synchronicity for example.




lol nice try, g'night.



:rolleyes:

Did you even read my post? lol I can and will test this. May even prove it, scientifically. Carl Jung, what a guy...


--------------------
zen by age ten times six hundred lifetimes
Light up the darkness.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleIcelander
The Minstrel in the Gallery
Male


Registered: 03/15/05
Posts: 95,368
Loc: underbelly
Re: "scientism" [Re: hTx]
    #18377095 - 06/06/13 10:00 AM (10 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

hTx said:
Quote:

paranavar said:
Quote:


Do you like to string words together to pretend like they have inherent meaning?




Wow. So much for intelligent discussion. I'm out.



I know that feels. Stick around, its fun pointing out ignorance, even if ignorance remains.




Oh I agree. :lol:


--------------------
"Don't believe everything you think". -Anom.

" All that lives was born to die"-Anom.

With much wisdom comes much sorrow,
The more knowledge, the more grief.
Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezzripz
Stranger


Registered: 12/23/08
Posts: 8,292
Loc: Manchester, UK
Last seen: 4 years, 9 months
Re: "scientism" [Re: hTx]
    #18386545 - 06/08/13 05:04 AM (10 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

“The scientific community formally adopted materialism as the basis of its belief system in 1667 when Thomas Sprat wrote a letter to King Charles II on behalf of the Royal Society. To protect English scientists from the persecutions that were rampaging in Europe, the Royal Society solemnly promised that its scientists would not "meddle . . . with Divine things," and would limit their studies of humans to "their bodies" and "the products of their hands." The Royal Society thus promised that, while scientists would avoid the subjects of God and the Soul, "in all the rest, [they] wander at their pleasure."
With this oath, Scientism became the religion of materialism, and the basic tenets of materialism became the Scientist's Creed.
From our perspective today, Scientism's covenant with the Church looks like a pact with the devil. In exchange for the safety of scientists, the Royal Society agreed to blind scientists to one half of the observable universe. With this self-inflicted hemianopsia (half-blindness) scientists can see the world objectively, but not subjectively. This is a severe disability because subjective observation is the only way that leads to understanding the origins of life and consciousness. Thus, the dogmas and canons of Scientism limit basic studies of life to molecular biology, and aside from certain branches of psychology, preclude studies of the "self" altogether.”
“…All perceptions are subjective, including those of behaviorists, because they occur in the mental apparatus of the "self." As a result, scientists who embrace the myth of objectivity fail to appreciate their most important instrument—themselves and their mental operations. That's one reason they can't see the cultural and psychological impediments to their science.”



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: 1 | 2 | 3  [ show all ]

Shop: Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Myyco.com Isolated Cubensis Liquid Culture For Sale


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* is scientism a kind of dogma?
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 all )
DividedQuantumM 3,881 103 02/05/14 06:32 PM
by lessismore
* Scientism Debunked
( 1 2 3 4 5 all )
teknix 2,975 82 09/02/13 03:10 AM
by teknix
* Solipsism and synchronicities
( 1 2 3 all )
Ryanleafasaurus 3,772 40 01/12/12 06:56 PM
by millzy
* Synchronicity
( 1 2 3 4 ... 14 15 )
blinkybill 12,805 284 07/31/10 11:36 PM
by MarkostheGnostic
* I hate Scientism
( 1 2 all )
Sclorch 2,718 23 11/29/02 12:47 AM
by Sclorch
* scientists are like kids playing video games
( 1 2 3 4 all )
Sophistic Radiance 3,890 60 11/16/07 09:27 AM
by Icelander
* Scientists Prove DNA Can Be Reprogrammed by Words and Frequencies pablokabute 1,014 8 09/03/12 10:16 AM
by Icelander
* Scientism Debunked hTx 491 2 10/20/14 04:06 PM
by blingbling

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Middleman, DividedQuantum
2,296 topic views. 3 members, 11 guests and 26 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.04 seconds spending 0.013 seconds on 14 queries.