Indeed most often a complex mixture of both.
slimboyfat
JoinedPosts by slimboyfat
-
10
Indoctrination or insistence on being right?
by OutsiderLookingIn innobody likes to be wrong.
so after being taught that they have "the truth" for so long, is it that jws just don't want to admit that they are wrong so they'll keep going in the same direction rather than reversing course?
this is different from indoctrination when you truly believe what you're saying.
-
-
-
43
Who is B.W. Schulz? Anyone know?
by ILoveTTATT2 ini am writing an article on whether c.t.
russell was a mason.
i am of the opinion that he was not, given the evidence.. i just bought b.w.
-
-
slimboyfat
Wasn't Richard Rawe a well known apostate? Did Nathan Natas say B W Schulz was friends with Rawe?
-
147
Scientism - Nothing But a Childish Insult?
by cofty init 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
"Scientism" tends to be used as a pejorative rather than a self-designation, we can probably agree on that. But the question is whether it can be well defined and has valid application. I think it can and it does. The original question was whether scientism is "nothing but" an insult. I would agree it's mostly used as an insult, but that it also has substance.
Scientism is the view that only science or the scientific method can deliver real knowledge. Other kinds of knowledge are either either collapsed into science or else they are not classed as real knowledge. Dawkins tends to do this when he disparages philosophy. And Harris does this when he claims ethics can be reduced to a branch of science. Dennett does this when he says consciousness can be reduced to physical properties. It's an extreme form of materialist reductionism. It is a fundamentalist position held by people who claim to oppose fundamentalism.
-
147
Scientism - Nothing But a Childish Insult?
by cofty init 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 init 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 init 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 init 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 init 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 init 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 init 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!