by cofty 147 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
I don't understand you cofty.
Your position is scientism does not exist? Yes or not?
Even if great philosophers of science like Karl Popper and Hilary Putnam recognized the dangers of scientism?
Can't you see you personally is a follower of scientism in denial?
Everything we know, we know because of science.
Everything we know, we know in spite of religion.
Religion is willful ignorance of facts and closed-minded arrogance.
Science is humble acknowledgement and open-minded humility.
Religiots think they already have all the answers ... usually from an old book.
Scientists generally try to discover new things and continually build on the body of knowledge we've accumulated over countless lifetimes.
Your position is scientism does not exist? Yes or not? - J_M
Perhaps somewhere there is somebody who deserves the label - I don't know I have never encountered such a person. Nobody even seems able to agree on a concise definition of the word.
Can't you see you personally is a follower of scientism in denial?
That is total nonsense. You have yet to show one single example of anything I have ever said in over 20,000 posts that would justify your accusation.
You claimed that anybody who asks for scientific evidence of god is guilty of scientism. By that definition almost everybody who has ever lived is that group. It is the most foolish thing I have ever read from a theist on this forum. You just keep redefining science until it is so narrow it excludes everything you find inconvenient.
You are also a hypocrite because you said your faith was built at least in part on three specific miracles. All such events are subject to examination of the evidence. As soon as somebody asks for evidence you scream "scientism". It is pure intellectual dishonesty and cowardice.
You also avoid every difficult question you are asked.
Again:
Scientism = a metaphysical claim about the scientific method being the only valid way to get knowledge about the universe. And also the universal applicability of the scientific method.
One example of scientism is demanding scientific evidence to things beyond the scope of the scientific method.
Scientism = a metaphysical claim about the scientific method being the only valid way to get knowledge about the universe.
I asked you for a specific example of something we could learn "about the universe" from a source other than the application of science. You refused to give one so we are no further forward.
One example of scientism is demanding scientific evidence to things beyond the scope of the scientific method
Yes that does sound like it would be a foolish thing to do. I haven't encountered anybody who does that. Do you mean like expecting science to tell us whether we ought to prefer pistachio or chocolate ice cream?
On the other hand when theists claim that god acts in the physical world - as you have - it is entirely reasonable to turn to science to investigate those claims. That would be a proper application of science.
I asked you for a specific example of something we could learn "about the universe" from a source other than the application of science. You refused to give one so we are no further forward.
Music is one example.
Do you mean like expecting science to tell us whether we ought to prefer pistachio or chocolate ice cream?
Exactly.
On the other hand when theists claim that god acts in the physical world - as you have - it is entirely reasonable to turn to science to investigate those claims. That would be a proper application of science.
Even if we have a physical evidence like a medical cure for instance it's not possible to consider this physical evidence as scientific evidence because repeatability.
If someone claims to have been cured then we can scientifically investigate if such cure indeed had occurred. But we can't put a scientific evidence about the cause of such cure.
The Catholic Church for instance demands a scientific evidence about cures. The scientific evidence will only states that some improbable cure had occurred and that's it. The scientific evidence can't say if was a paranormal cure. Usually the scientific conclusion is just "no natural explanation found".
There's a very defined line when science ends and metaphysical claims can be made upon it.
Particularly I think clinical cures are rare and only occurs in a Catholic context.
Music is one example.
What information about the universe do we acquire from music?
If someone claims to have been cured then we can scientifically investigate if such cure indeed had occurred. But we can't put a scientific evidence about the cause of such cure.
Of course science can investigate such claims. It belongs to the scientific field of epidemiology. In fact the pro-faith Discovery Institute did exactly that. Turns out prayer for healing doesn't work. It's not for you to tell scientists what they can and cannot achieve. If god acts in the world he is fair game for the scrutiny of science.
Wow. Music is probably one of the easiest examples to refute.
Music is a combination of notes which is a vibration of air, this vibration goes into your ears which then (simplistically for simpletons) converts it into electrical signals for your brain. "Listening and recognizing music" can be thought to machines (Shazam anyone?) therefore it is a completely physical process.
You can actually use music to investigate the Universe (sonar) etc.
You bring up the Catholic Church which has one of the lowest standards for a miracle. The claims are never rigorously tested (and if you can, there is a $1M price for you), even the latest Mother Theresa's miracle, the husband of the supposed 'cured' said it was all made up.
There is no defined line where science ends, that's the most laughable, childish, lazy approach to science you can take.
Your definition of scientism is self-contradictory.
If you make an observation after investigating a portion of the Universe, it is by definition not metaphysical. If something is metaphysical, you cannot make an observation or calculation about it therefore you cannot make a hypothesis or theory and in and off itself should be considered a falsehood (Bertrand's teapot).
Scientists do not go about making up theories about things they have not prior investigated. They create a hypothesis (a well-informed "claim") and then go about investigating it, the model that best fits ALL your observations is called a theory. If you're looking for axioms, then you're in the field of mathematics and there too, you're not just going to be making up axioms without a significant amount of proof.
Religious and metaphysical claims are the only axioms that do not require proof and are therefore well outside the realm of what can be considered true or valid. You cannot have the rest of the world make decisions on things that can't be proven.
One example of scientism is demanding scientific evidence to things beyond the scope of the scientific method.
Like what?
