Posts by slimboyfat

147

Scientism - Nothing But a Childish Insult?

by cofty in

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.

slimboyfat

Sometimes I wonder if it's simply trolling. Like this exchange of comments on the second page where one poster made a long thoughtful post citing the example of mathematics, but also saying:

There are many examples I could offer, but the arguments are complex and I fear they might lead to off topic detours, so instead of discussing Leibniz, I will use a simple example that anyone can understand and agree with: mathematics... I could give you other examples but I trust I have made my point.

Cofty didn't respond to any of the part of the post discussing mathematics, instead simply making the comment:

I get the impression that the only example of things that cannot be known through empirical scientific evidence is pure mathematics.
Is that correct?

That's more than simply being obtuse, is it not? That's got to be deliberate trolling.

147

Scientism - Nothing But a Childish Insult?

by cofty in

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.

slimboyfat

I made the above post yesterday in reply to a post a few pages back. It only just arrived so it's a bit out of context now.

147

Scientism - Nothing But a Childish Insult?

by cofty in

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.

slimboyfat

It was you who asked if there is knowledge outside scientific method. Well there is. History is one example, there are others. Lesson learned.

You do have a rather amusing tendency to call any point you don't agree with "semantics". You can call anything semantics if you like, it doesn't change the situation.

There are important ways in which science and history (and other forms of knowledge) are distinct, not simply part of a continuum. For example emotion and empathy are no help and likely a hinderance to a chemistry experiment. The same is not true of history. If you remove emotion and empathy you don't get better history you get worse history. Science and history are different kinds of knowledge with different procedures and results. Scientism is the attitude that other forms of knowledge don't really count as knowledge. That attitude certainly does exist and is worth describing as such. Frankly I don't know if you have a scientistic outlook or not because your position changes from post to post. I'm not sure even you know what you think.

Many theists would say God acts through the physical world or that the physical world is an expression of God rather than that God acts "in" the physical world. As if he's yet another empirical object that could be captured and defined. It's by no means a necessary part of theism that God should break his own laws to make himself somehow conspicuous.

147

Scientism - Nothing But a Childish Insult?

by cofty in

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.

slimboyfat

I don't think he's clear in his own mind. To Cofty the whole world can be divided into other opinions that are either "ignorant" and "bullshit" or else "unimportant" or "true but trivial". Often he switches from one to the other in the middle of the discussion!

147

Scientism - Nothing But a Childish Insult?

by cofty in

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.

slimboyfat

Well I'd be interested if there are any contemporary textbooks that categorise history as a science. They make the distinction as Tosh does as quoted above. Certainly adopting rigorous methods as far as possible but recognising it's a different kind of knowledge.

If you are simply saying history follows rigorous methods and can produce reliable results then I mostly agree with that.

I thought the debate was whether history is a "science". Clearly it is not a science for the reason above and others beside. But it is a legitimate form of knowledge.

Which I thought was the point of the thread.

147

Scientism - Nothing But a Childish Insult?

by cofty in

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.

slimboyfat

For example one of the most popular introductions to history for undergraduates is John Tosh. If you can access a copy of The Pursuit of History he explains the difference between history and science in a chapter called "The Limits of Historical Knowledge" (Page 185: pages differ in the 6 different editions of the book).

Tosh explains: "although history and the natural sciences may converge in some of their fundamental methodological assumptions, important differences remain." He alaborates and explains many differences in the pages that follow, including greater role for imagination, empathy, impossibility of consensus, uniqueness of hisrical events, and much more.

"The rigid segregation of fact and value demanded by the positivists is unworkable in history. In this sense, historical knowledge is not, and cannot be, 'objective' (that is, empirically derived in its entirety from the object of the enquiry). This does not mean, as sceptics might suppose, that it is therefore arbitrary or illusory. But it does follow that the assumptions and attitudes of historians themselves have to be carefully assessed before we can come to any conclusion about the real status of historical knowledge." (Page 188-189 in 5th edition of The Pursuit of History by John Tosh)

147

Scientism - Nothing But a Childish Insult?

by cofty in

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.

slimboyfat

Post-processual archaeologists would disagree archaeology is a science, and others bedside. But I thought we were talking about history?

And of course new, other, things can be discovered in science. But on the question what conducts electricity better plastic or copper the answer will not change. You can't say the same for: what caused the collapse of the Soviet Union? It's a different kind of knowledge with different methods and different kind of results. But no less knowledge.

I should confess I have dozens of books on historical theory on my shelf and I've read most of them. Even the most empirical of current scholars like Richard Evans would not claim history is a science. Maybe in the old days positivists like Marwick and conservatives like Elton might have claimed history is a science I would need to go back and check. Probably Marwick, if anyone. I do tend to focus on postmodern history, but I've read Evans and Marwick too.

I am interested to know if you have actually read any contemporary academic work on history that categorises history as a "science". I would be surprised, but I could certainly have missed something!

147

Scientism - Nothing But a Childish Insult?

by cofty in

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.

slimboyfat

Another obvious difference between science and history is that there are clearly different expectations about what kinds of answers can be acheieved.

In science for example a question such as "which substance conducts electricity better"'can be tested and solved.

In history typical questions such as "what caused the French Revolution" are asked and answered continuously. Participants in such debates can't expect their solutions to be the final word on the matter, even if they reasonably think their solution is the best available. There is endless nuance, revision, complexity and uncertainty.

Because history is not a science but it is a form of knowledge.

147

Scientism - Nothing But a Childish Insult?

by cofty in

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.

slimboyfat

Are you arguing that history is a science? I think this is a minority view among historians.

And I think you yourself point to at least one of the reasons why history is not a science. History only happens once. We cannot rerun history and change certain conditions to determine causes. (Would there have been a Holocaust without Hitler? For example, is not testable using scientific method)

Historical reasoning is based on deduction on the basis of available sources. Whereas scientific method is inductive and relies on changing conditions and repeated observation.

You argue that new evidence can come along and change the historical perception. That is certainly true and there is some similarity to scientific method and falsifiability here. But it does not make history a science. Because we are not running experiments or establishing general rules from specific examples. (It becomes complicated here because some historians do try to establish general rules such as "what conditions cause a revolution" and so on, but this is stepping outside history into social theory. History is about establishing the particular in a given situation including causes and effects, rather than discovering general rules)

History has a different way of approaching and establishing knowledge from the sciences. That doesn't make it in any sense less "knowledge" than science.

Hence my conclusion that there is knowledge outside science and that history is a good example.

31

UK Memorial attendances up this year?!

by Isambard Crater in

jw
friends

my congregation had around 25 more people at the memorial last night than last year, and the two other congregations i have family in all experienced a similar increase in about 25 more people present.

umm, i'm surprised, having thought this year would see a memorial decline again.

and i'm kind of disappointed..

slimboyfat

Many of the people at my hall moved in during the last 10 years. Many I don't recognise. Lots of the old ones I knew have died off or stopped going. And I'm not old. I was active in the 1990s.

There were some young people there, but mostly submarine Memorial attenders as far as I could make out. The congregation itself consists mainly of people over 60.

I heard the biggest ever Memorial attendance at our hall was around 170 in the mid 1980s. It used to be around 120 when I was active in the 1990s. And my guess is about 90 were there this year.