Scientism - Nothing But a Childish Insult?

by cofty 147 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • Rainbow_Troll
    Rainbow_Troll

    What a lot of people label metaphysics is nonsense; but I blame the new agers for co-opting the term to talk about their crystals and channeled entities. In the popular sense of the word, metaphysics in a synonym for pseudo-science and even superstition. When I use the word metaphysics, I mean the branch of philosophy that deals with issues like ontology, causality, identity, teleology and the question of free will. Wikipedia has an informative article on it if you need clarification.

  • Landy
    Landy

    I just pity the poor bastards who lived in the periods of time when Drs didn't know shit. Thankyou to all those guinea pig patients and mentally ill people and soldiers and gay people who were subjected to medicinal "torture" in the name of advancing knowledge.

    It's called progress.

    In a hundred years we'll be viewed as primitive and our current medical techniques will be looked back at with disdain.

  • John_Mann
    John_Mann
    I am deeply suspicious of a lot of what people label as metaphysics.

    Most of the time my specif topic from metaphysics is ontology.

    What is matter?

    What is matter without an observer?

    What is exactly the difference between something that went out of existence from something that has drastically changed?

    Throughout our lifetimes we change drastically (even losing vital organs) but we dont cease to exist. Is clinical death the exit from existence or just an extreme change?

    What's the difference between a perfect description of something from the thing in itself?

    These are not scientific questions. So we access knowledge from universe beyond the scientific method. That's metaphysics.

  • Ruby456
    Ruby456

    Plato researched knowledge and how to obtain it pretty thoroughly and his view still applies today - basically as humans we cannot obtain perfect knowledge therefore we ought to make the best of what we do have - and this is circular thinking in order to obtain coherence.

    cofty you will find and you prolly have found that you can knock down any argument even your own - this indicates the circular nature of our thinking

  • John_Mann
    John_Mann
    So basically just maths then?

    Actually we use more the heuristic method than the scientific method.

    And it works.

    The scientific method is very very limited. Even between areas of science the scientific method must be adapted. The scientific method is not even universal among the areas of science.



  • Ruby456
    Ruby456

    rule of thumb based on intuition

  • John_Mann
    John_Mann

    Lately there's a better awareness about scientism like these funny memes around the Internet:


  • John_Mann
    John_Mann
    rule of thumb based on intuition.

    Exactly!

    Totally unscientific but it works.



  • cofty
    cofty

    Interesting but none of this justifies John_Mann's frequent and unjustified use of "scientism" as an insult in this forum.

  • John_Mann
    John_Mann
    Interesting but none of this justifies John_Mann's frequent and unjustified use of "scientism" as an insult in this forum.

    Actually I don't use scientism as an insult because ultimately scientism is a metaphysical position. I just consider scientism logically flawed.

    Catholicism for instance is a metaphysical position too and is non-scientific. But the problem of scientism is that are not just unscientific but pseudoscience. Scientism tries to pass as science.

    When you demand scientific evidence for the existence of God you are mixing up science with metaphysics in a very messy way and this is scientism. Liking you or not.

    But my intention it's not to insult you, I'm trying to help you.

    I recognize a searcher of truth in you but you're following a very contradictory path.

    If you want to refute the existence of God you must do that with philosophy and not by demanding scientific evidence.

    You could start by refuting the St. Anselm's ontological argument for instance and not just calling it sophistry.