Saint Teresa

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Careful with all that straw, Vlad: I made no claims but simply commented on your gripe, asking if you had an approach to explaining stuff that wasn't science.

So, do you?

Scientism is not connected in any way to the presence or absence of any methodology.
It is a philosophical stance unevidenced by the very methodology it purports to be founded on.
One can only say that science doesn't know something. If you say science will eventually know all things that contains prophetic/unscientific elements since you are predicting a future not based on evidence.

The next port of call for scientism is to declare things that cannot be explained by science as non existent.

These are all mistakes you are making Gordon.

[Gordon]

Non sequitur and to be frank an example of using words shamanically.
Can you say for sure that everything will be answered by science?

I see you've updated your post since my recent reply: so to add following your update, I take it 'shamanically' is code for me daring to ask you a question that follows from your earlier post when you said;

What I an unhappy with is calling ALL EVENTS that have no explanation in science or natural laws ''things which science has NOT YET explained''.

[ProfessorDavey]

The next port of call for scientism is to declare things that cannot be explained by science as non existent.

Not at all - I've freely accepted that a phenomenon that is unexplainable by reference to natural physical law is 'supernatural'.

Problem is, of course, that you cannot provide any example of something that fits that bill - note note just not explained, but unexplainable.

Over to you.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Oh get off your rather predictable high horse.

I'm not sure I even mentioned science.

What I said is that for something to have a sustainable claim to be supernatural it must not be explainable by reference to natural physical laws. And further I have (quite reasonably) said that suggesting that there is a sustainable claim for supernatural where a phenomenon is merely not explained rather than not explainable is deeply faulty thinking.

I don't believe I was referring to you....are you a follower of scientism?
My position is this. Some questions are amenable to science and some aren't. My Beef is with the scientismatists or whatever you call these people who declare or suggest that all unknown things will be known by science. That reeks of the very type of supernatural prophesy they purport to be against.

Also I find myself between Gordon ........who is asking me to show that these things happen.......and Wigginhall and Nearly Sane who are asking me to show that these things don't happen more often?

But somehow they never seem to criticise each others position.

[ProfessorDavey]

I don't believe I was referring to you....are you a follower of scientism?

I've no idea - the whole concept seems to be something you throw at others. Is there anyone here you claims to be a follower of scientism?

[Gordon]

Scientism is not connected in any way to the presence or absence of any methodology.

I'll leave 'scientism' to you, but I think you'll find that science regards method as being rather important.
 

It is a philosophical stance unevidenced by the very methodology it purports to be founded on.

The methodologies used in science, which aren't tablets of stone, work well enough for science: such as the technology we are both currently using - no doubt this technology was developed using methods appropriate to how computers and the internet work.
 

One can only say that science doesn't know something.

Scientists, and reasonable people, would agree with you.

If you say science will eventually know all things that contains prophetic/unscientific elements since you are predicting a future not based on evidence.

I'm not saying this, so you are misrepresenting me via your straw man,

The next port of call for scientism is to declare things that cannot be explained by science as non existent.

You are the expert on 'scientism', Vlad: but this just looks like you are overwhelmed by straw.

These are all mistakes you are making Gordon.

I'm just asking you a question, Vlad - one you seem reluctant to answer, hence your straw-filled evasion.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I've no idea - the whole concept seems to be something you throw at others. Is there anyone here you claims to be a follower of scientism?

You haven't heard of scientism? Look it up Laddy.

[ProfessorDavey]

You haven't heard of scientism? Look it up Laddy.

I did - it seems to be a redundant notion.

It doesn't seem to any more valuable than creating an 'ism' for people who don't believe that there is an invisible magic teapot orbiting saturn. There is no onus on someone to prove or justify that position and therefore there is no relevant 'ism'. So just as the onus is on those claiming there to be an invisible magic teapot orbiting saturn to justify that claim, the onus is on those claiming there to be 'supernatural' things - i.e. not explainable by reference to natural physical laws to justify that claim.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

What I an unhappy with is calling ALL EVENTS that have no explanation in science or natural laws ''things which science has NOT YET explained''.

And the king of the straw men has returned. No-one did say that - what they did say though was that your "if it can't be explained with naturalistic means then it must be supernatural" nonsense is a busted flush.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I'll leave 'scientism' to you, but I think you'll find that science regards method as being rather important.
 
The methodologies used in science, which aren't tablets of stone, work well enough for science:

Your just piously waffling now Gordon IMHO.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

One can only say that science doesn't know something.

One can. What one cannot say though unless one wants to look like an idiot is that when science cannot explain something that something must therefore be supernatural.

And that was your claim remember?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

My position is this. Some questions are amenable to science and some aren't. My Beef is with the scientismatists or whatever you call these people who declare or suggest that all unknown things will be known by science.

A near straw man but for its hat. Pretty much no-one does say that.

[bluehillside Retd.]

lad,

You haven't heard of scientism? Look it up Laddy.

I think perhaps that you should, if only to allow the Canadians to put this year's crop of straw to better use.

[Gordon]

Your just piously waffling now Gordon IMHO.

If that is your opinion, Vlad, then I'm greatly reassured that I'm doing alright!

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Ah.....The Bob Guccionne of promissory scientism.

And the lies just keep coming don't they. As your version of scientism is not something I've ever said, implied or even hinted at it seems the Canadians had better keep shipping I guess.

Incidentally, as you've gone all quiet on your "if science can't explain it, it must be supernatural" daftness can we take your silence and diversionary tactics now to mean that you've resiled from that, or do you cleave to it nonetheless?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

If that is your opinion, Vlad, then I'm greatly reassured that I'm doing alright!

That's waffle with a cherry on the top.

[Gordon]

That's waffle with a cherry on the top.

You're too kind, Vlad: one does one's best y'know, but praise like this - it just makes it all so worthwhile.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You're too kind, Vlad: one does one's best y'know, but praise like this - it just makes it all so worthwhile.

Youre welcome.

[Gordon]

Youre welcome.

Good stuff: I seem to have run out of mickey for the taking of, so I'll amble off to check that everyone has been behaving themselves.

[ProfessorDavey]

You haven't heard of scientism? Look it up Laddy.

Actually reading a little more, it would appear that scientism is a term coined by people who aren't scientismists (is that even a word) to throw at people who don't consider themselves as scientismists. It is a classic derogatory term used effectively to insult others who don't consider themselves advocates of the term used as an insult.

So are there any people who actively describe themselves as followers of scientism, rather than have that term thrown at them by non followers of scientism.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Prof,

Actually reading a little more, it would appear that scientism is a term coined by people who aren't scientismists (is that even a word) to throw at people who don't consider themselves as scientismists. It is a classic derogatory term used effectively to insult others who don't consider themselves advocates of the term used as an insult.

So are there any people who actively describe themselves as followers of scientism, rather than have that term thrown at them by non followers of scientism.

"Scientism" is one of a suite of terms that Vlad either inadvertently or wilfully misunderstands in order to construct a straw man argument. He uses it to mean "the belief that science can or will eventually answer everything" or similar, rather than its true meaning of placing undue weight on the methods of science.

As it happens even in its correct meaning as a criticism it's problematic I think. Science may or may not at least in principle be able to answer everything, but it's the only method we have that constructs working models of the universe that are testable and validated by inter-subjective experience. There could for all I know be phenomena that are "supernatural" (whatever that means) but how anyone would reliably access and investigate such phenomena is anyone's guess. This is when the religious will tend to play the "faith" card, though I've never yet found one who can explain the difference between faith beliefs and just guessing about stuff. Vlad in particular has spent years running away from that question for example.

And speaking of running away, I see that he's disappeared again when asked whether he sticks to his, "if science can't explain it it must be supernatural then" daftness of a few posts back. Ah well, 'twas ever thus I guess.             

[ProfessorDavey]

"Scientism" is one of a suite of terms that Vlad either inadvertently or wilfully misunderstands in order to construct a straw man argument. He uses it to mean "the belief that science can or will eventually answer everything" or similar, rather than its true meaning of placing undue weight on the methods of science.

Indeed.

But on a more general point I am very suspicious of terms than no-one uses to describe themselves, but are only used (usually in a derogative or dismissive manner) to describe others. Scientism seems a classic example - frankly I've never heard anyone claim to be a follower of scientism (and remember I spend my life with scientist, who one might argue are the most likely people to be scientism-ists). And reading about it it seems to be a term only used to be then knocked down - but if no-one actually stands up and says they are advocates of scientism then to attack it is classic straw man territory.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Prof,

Indeed.

But on a more general point I am very suspicious of terms than no-one uses to describe themselves, but are only used (usually in a derogative or dismissive manner) to describe others. Scientism seems a classic example - frankly I've never heard anyone claim to be a follower of scientism (and remember I spend my life with scientist, who one might argue are the most likely people to be scientism-ists). And reading about it it seems to be a term only used to be then knocked down - but if no-one actually stands up and says they are advocates of scientism then to attack it is classic straw man territory.

Well, we’re edging into hermeneutics here (“the understanding of understanding”). The proponent of hermeneutics would say something like, “science can explain the universe but only human perceptions can understand it”. Thus, say, science can tell me how my car works, but it cannot say whether using it to visit a friend in hospital is a morally good act.

To put it another way, truths aren’t objectively “out there” just waiting to be found, but rather they’re culturally determined and so we cannot approach the world as if we are blank pages waiting to be filled.

Increasingly these days people working in science take the same view (“I’m providing a truth, not the truth”) but the problem for the religious in particular I think is that their truths are subjective – there’s no method akin to the methods of science which at least has inter-subjective experience to underpin its narratives. Gravity for example is testable by jumping out of the window and seeing what happens. “God loves you” on the other hand is white noise for this purpose.

Anyways, yes – “scientism” (and in particular Vlad’s personal re-definition of it) is used as a point of attack. For those who would claim ultimate, foundational truths (if such people exist at all) that would have some merit, but for the most part the very provisionality of scientific theories tells you that the charge is misplaced.           

[jeremyp]

Prof,

Well, we’re edging into hermeneutics here (“the understanding of understanding”). The proponent of hermeneutics would say something like, “science can explain the universe but only human perceptions can understand it”. Thus, say, science can tell me how my car works, but it cannot say whether using it to visit a friend in hospital is a morally good act.

To put it another way, truths aren’t objectively “out there” just waiting to be found, but rather they’re culturally determined and so we cannot approach the world as if we are blank pages waiting to be filled.

I don't see how your "another way" is the same as the first paragraph. It's absolute bollocks that there are no truths "out there". No amount of cultural determination is going to make the Sun orbit the Earth rather than the other way around.

[ProfessorDavey]

Anyways, yes – “scientism” (and in particular Vlad’s personal re-definition of it) is used as a point of attack. For those who would claim ultimate, foundational truths (if such people exist at all) that would have some merit, but for the most part the very provisionality of scientific theories tells you that the charge is misplaced.         

Sure - but I think that Vlad is also confusing science with the original discussion which was about the distinction between natural and supernatural.

So lets take an example - music. Sure science can explain exactly how music 'works' in terms of vibrational energy. Further it can tell us how we perceive music in a physiological manner - auditory function, nerve stimulation etc. It can even measure aspects of the emotional response, through measuring brain activity, endorphin release. What it struggles to do is to measure the importance music has to individuals, even if can measure aspects of the physiology - why because that importance is subjective and human specific.

So science can tell me why I feel in a particular way when I listen to a piece of music, physiologically, but that isn't really the important thing to me - what is important are the emotional effects on me.

So there are areas of emotion, philosophy, morality etc why lie beyond the useful realms of science.

But, and here is the important but - just because there are aspect of listening to music which are more importantly described outside of the sphere of science doesn't mean that music is somehow outside of the natural physical laws. Quite the opposite music is very obviously governed by those physical laws. So the importance of music may lie outside of the world of science, but music remains very much of the natural not the supernatural.

I think Vlad wants to confuse the two - somehow implying that because science doesn't tell us everything and because science is about the natural physical laws, then there must be things which are outside of those natural physical laws, i.e. supernatural. That, as with so much of vlad's arguments, is muddled thinking.