slimboyfat

Joined

• started 538 topics
• posted 17,592 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by slimboyfat

• 
  51

  To those taking a stand and not attending the Memorial tonight

  by doubtfull1799 in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  i salute you.

  many of you, like me, are probably under enormous emotional pressure, whether from a lingering false sense of guilt from your indoctrination, whether from "invitations," and assumptions that you'll naturally be coming, or whether from outright emotional blackmail, even begging and pleading.

  i am thinking of you whoever you are, all of you, even though i don't know you in person.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  slimboyfat

  I took a seat and attended.
• 
  147

  Scientism - Nothing But a Childish Insult?

  by cofty in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  it is not uncommon for theists to accuse rational people on this forum of "scientism".. in my opinion it is nothing but a cheap shot from those who know they lack evidence for their beliefs.

  if something like "scientism" actually does exist then i have never encountered it.. here is part of an exchange from another thread - i have brought it here as it was off-topic.... scientism = claim of scientific method being universal and the only valid method of knowledge.

  followers of scientism always demand scientific evidence to anything.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  slimboyfat

  So basically just maths then?

  Does history count as knowledge? For example.
• 
  3

  US Holocaust Memorial Museum Statement: JW's in Russia

  by darkspilver in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  fyi.

  april 07, 2017. united states holocaust memorial museum expresses deep concern over treatment of jehovah’s witnesses in russia.

  https://www.ushmm.org/information/press/press-releases/museum-statement-on-jehovahs-witnesses-in-russia.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  slimboyfat

  Good for them.
• 
  147

  Scientism - Nothing But a Childish Insult?

  by cofty in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  it is not uncommon for theists to accuse rational people on this forum of "scientism".. in my opinion it is nothing but a cheap shot from those who know they lack evidence for their beliefs.

  if something like "scientism" actually does exist then i have never encountered it.. here is part of an exchange from another thread - i have brought it here as it was off-topic.... scientism = claim of scientific method being universal and the only valid method of knowledge.

  followers of scientism always demand scientific evidence to anything.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  slimboyfat

  Saethydd thanks for an actual response. You've largely opted for the "they are not real knowledge" option. Apart from sociology, which describe as a science. I think you could only really maintain that sociology is a science by stripping out many qualitative approaches that are commonly viewed as being key parts of sociology: discourse analysis, semiotics, ethnography, action research and so on. Sociology isn't a branch of psychology. "Margin of error" in sociology is a term that's only applicable to some quantitative approaches of the discipline.

  The problem with the proposition that science offers "knowledge" whereas other disciplines only deliver "beliefs" is twofold. On the one hand it ignores the fact that science is empirical and is therefore based on inductive reasoning. And inductive reasoning cannot deliver definitive "knowledge" since its propositions are always provisional and by definition vulnerable to future disconfirmation. The other problem is the idea that different subjective approaches to knowledge don't count as knowledge presents an impoverished and unworkable view of the world.

  Newtonian physics may be wrong in some particulars for example, but in many practical situations we'd be glad to use it rather than guessing.

  Similarly history may not always deliver reliable results, but in the face of Holocaust deniers we'd be glad to rely on its approach to knowledge than abandon any sort of knowledge about the past.

  Science and non-science approaches to knowledge turn out not to be all that different after all. They all rely on unprovable assumptions (in the case of science, induction), they are all subject to theoretical developments, and they are all only as good as the practical uses to which they can be put.
• 
  147

  Scientism - Nothing But a Childish Insult?

  by cofty in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  it is not uncommon for theists to accuse rational people on this forum of "scientism".. in my opinion it is nothing but a cheap shot from those who know they lack evidence for their beliefs.

  if something like "scientism" actually does exist then i have never encountered it.. here is part of an exchange from another thread - i have brought it here as it was off-topic.... scientism = claim of scientific method being universal and the only valid method of knowledge.

  followers of scientism always demand scientific evidence to anything.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  slimboyfat

  How about an actual answer to the points I raised... ever?
• 
  147

  Scientism - Nothing But a Childish Insult?

  by cofty in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  it is not uncommon for theists to accuse rational people on this forum of "scientism".. in my opinion it is nothing but a cheap shot from those who know they lack evidence for their beliefs.

  if something like "scientism" actually does exist then i have never encountered it.. here is part of an exchange from another thread - i have brought it here as it was off-topic.... scientism = claim of scientific method being universal and the only valid method of knowledge.

  followers of scientism always demand scientific evidence to anything.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  slimboyfat

  Of course I could have misunderstood Cofty and he actually does not know of those disciplines you have referred to.

  
  

  I never said Cofty was unaware of these disciplines. (A straw man if ever there was one)

  Cofty's question inevitably implies either: 1) these disciplines are included within "science" or 2) they don't count as knowledge at all. Neither of which seems sustainable.

  
  
• 
  147

  Scientism - Nothing But a Childish Insult?

  by cofty in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  it is not uncommon for theists to accuse rational people on this forum of "scientism".. in my opinion it is nothing but a cheap shot from those who know they lack evidence for their beliefs.

  if something like "scientism" actually does exist then i have never encountered it.. here is part of an exchange from another thread - i have brought it here as it was off-topic.... scientism = claim of scientific method being universal and the only valid method of knowledge.

  followers of scientism always demand scientific evidence to anything.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  slimboyfat

  I am interested in examples of ways to know things by means that are not available to the scientific method. I strongly suspect such examples exist but I can't think of any.

  Amazing. Even more so because you apparently don't realise what a huge admission it is. Other ways of knowing things include philosophy, history, sociology, experience, poetry.

  I like the example of a river. Scientific accounts of a river may include: geology, meteorology, physical geography, biology, chemistry, physics and so on.

  Other types of knowledge about the river include accounts that are: historical, anthropological, poetic, economic, experiential (I mean playing it in, or fishing, and so on, in case it's not clear), theological, narrative, sociological, political and so on.

  Scientism is when people argue or imply that only scientific accounts of a subject are "real" or, that at a fundamental level, other approaches to knowledge don't matter, or can be collapsed in their essentials into scientific terms.

  But it takes a pretty stupid person to argue that historical, poetic or political accounts of a river either don't matter or that they can be reduced to science.

  And scientific reductionists should watch their back too, because reductionists don't tend to want to stop at just eliminating non-science from knowledge. Even within science reductionists insist on a hierarchy, saying biology isn't really a hard science, and that chemistry is really physics in its essentials.

  
  
• 
  103

  What will you be doing on the evening of the 11th ?

  by Phizzy in

  1. jw
  2. experiences

  mrs phizzy and myself will be eating out, sure in the knowledge we will not have jw's using the same restaurant.. i may have a cigar along with my brandy at the meal's end to celebrate my (our) freedom..

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  slimboyfat

  No hang about that's the following Tuesday. Good job I checked!

  Maybe I'm going to the Memorial after all,
• 
  103

  What will you be doing on the evening of the 11th ?

  by Phizzy in

  1. jw
  2. experiences

  mrs phizzy and myself will be eating out, sure in the knowledge we will not have jw's using the same restaurant.. i may have a cigar along with my brandy at the meal's end to celebrate my (our) freedom..

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  slimboyfat

  Going to hear an interview with Jo Nesbo at the Mitchell Library.
• 
  80

  President Trump launches missile strike against Syria

  by jwleaks in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  pesident trump authorized the missile strike because “it is in the vital, national security interest of the united states to prevent and deter the use of deadly chemical weapons.” .

  59 tomahawk missiles were launched from two us navy ships.. russia has condemned the action.. https://youtu.be/4svp3yfneyq.

  .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  slimboyfat

  Trying to work out why Trump bombs people is a bit like trying to work out why the Governing Body dumped the Book Study.

  First they gave one reason. Then they gave a different reason. You suspect it might be an entirely different reason but people have conflicting theories and you can't be sure. The real reason might leak out one day. Or it might never leak out. In fact are they even clear about the reason in their own mind? Who knows?