Total Posts:79|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Scientism

Dirty.Harry
Posts: 1,585
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2016 2:16:14 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
I've been reading an excellent book (God's Undertaker) by John Lennox - he's a Prof. of mathematics at Oxford and a noted historian of science and holds a doctorate in the Philosophy of Science.

He points out stunning flaws of logic in people like Atkins and Dawkins (even Russell). These people claim that science alone is the route to truth.

As Lennox points out this statement is not a statement OF science, it is a statement ABOUT science, meta-science.

It's truth (if it were true) could not possibly be established BY science - so by definition if it be true we have a truth that's not accessibly BY science - a contradiction.

Views like those of Dawkins and Atkins are classified as "scientism" something I'll be posting more about in the coming weeks.

Discuss...

Harry.
Floid
Posts: 751
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2016 5:17:28 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/25/2016 2:16:14 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
He points out stunning flaws of logic in people like Atkins and Dawkins (even Russell). These people claim that science alone is the route to truth.

As Lennox points out this statement is not a statement OF science, it is a statement ABOUT science, meta-science.

It's truth (if it were true) could not possibly be established BY science - so by definition if it be true we have a truth that's not accessibly BY science - a contradiction.

Views like those of Dawkins and Atkins are classified as "scientism" something I'll be posting more about in the coming weeks.

I have no idea what the views of Dawkins and Atkins are but I would guess you strawmanning their positions in order to make this point. For one, truth in the context of science has a very different meaning than truth in philosophy and the way you are using it. In science, truth does not imply certainty. Something is scientifically true if it fits with our current observations and with the strong disclaimer that new observations or ideas are likely to prove that "truth" wrong. In this way, science (since science is just a process to establish scientific truth) can be used to evaluate science without the need of the fictitious idea of "meta-science".

Any easy way to scientifically disprove the statement "science is the only route to truth" would be to state another route to truth that has been demonstrated to work. If that is done, science itself has been used to disprove a statement about science.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,623
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2016 5:31:13 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/25/2016 2:16:14 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
I've been reading an excellent book (God's Undertaker) by John Lennox - he's a Prof. of mathematics at Oxford and a noted historian of science and holds a doctorate in the Philosophy of Science.

He points out stunning flaws of logic in people like Atkins and Dawkins (even Russell). These people claim that science alone is the route to truth.

As Lennox points out this statement is not a statement OF science, it is a statement ABOUT science, meta-science.

It's truth (if it were true) could not possibly be established BY science - so by definition if it be true we have a truth that's not accessibly BY science - a contradiction.

Views like those of Dawkins and Atkins are classified as "scientism" something I'll be posting more about in the coming weeks.

Discuss...

Lennox merely trots out Intelligent Design nonsense attempting to redefine it as valid science. Old news.

Harry.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2016 5:49:08 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/25/2016 2:16:14 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
I've been reading an excellent book (God's Undertaker) by John Lennox - he's a Prof. of mathematics at Oxford and a noted historian of science and holds a doctorate in the Philosophy of Science.

He points out stunning flaws of logic in people like Atkins and Dawkins (even Russell). These people claim that science alone is the route to truth.

As Lennox points out this statement is not a statement OF science, it is a statement ABOUT science, meta-science.

It's truth (if it were true) could not possibly be established BY science - so by definition if it be true we have a truth that's not accessibly BY science - a contradiction.

Views like those of Dawkins and Atkins are classified as "scientism" something I'll be posting more about in the coming weeks.

Discuss...

Harry.

Wow. Thats way too oversimplified.

First off, when people say "Science alone is the route to truth", they are talking about it in very simple terms. What theyre talking about is that science is the most accurate, most demonstrated method of deriving fact from fiction.

Secondly, "Truth" in science carries a different meaning than "Truth" in philosophy. Generally, we will say that something is "True" in science, but this is something that is necessarily dependent and contingent on evidence. So you cannot use this word in the same context between science and philosophy.

So no. Mr Lennox is wrong.
Dirty.Harry
Posts: 1,585
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2016 3:36:46 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
Floid and Tkubok - I told you that Atkins subscribes to scientism then you proceed to disregard this and instead tell me what you believe!

Go and find out what scientism is before you defend it.

Harry.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2016 6:31:50 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/26/2016 3:36:46 AM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
Floid and Tkubok - I told you that Atkins subscribes to scientism then you proceed to disregard this and instead tell me what you believe!

Go and find out what scientism is before you defend it.

Harry.

They both pointed out the inherent flaw in the argument. Lennox makes a complete hash of understanding what truth is in a scientific context. Science isn't about truth, as much as separating fact from fiction in the context of working out what is definitely not true, from what is true. Science doesn't deal with absolute truth (that's only religion, and they fake that), it deals with merely more accuracy and more certainty.

And as pointed out, science can disprove statements about science; which I found the most beautifully ironic part of the response.

I'm not entirely sure why you've ignored these two completely relevant points on the topic (indeed was going to reply with something similar).

You talked mainly about science; and it's relationship to truth; and it's pointed out that this position you posted is pretty absurd because it doesn't understand what science really is.
Dirty.Harry
Posts: 1,585
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2016 9:23:49 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/26/2016 6:31:50 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 1/26/2016 3:36:46 AM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
Floid and Tkubok - I told you that Atkins subscribes to scientism then you proceed to disregard this and instead tell me what you believe!

Go and find out what scientism is before you defend it.

Harry.

They both pointed out the inherent flaw in the argument. Lennox makes a complete hash of understanding what truth is in a scientific context. Science isn't about truth, as much as separating fact from fiction in the context of working out what is definitely not true, from what is true. Science doesn't deal with absolute truth (that's only religion, and they fake that), it deals with merely more accuracy and more certainty.

And as pointed out, science can disprove statements about science; which I found the most beautifully ironic part of the response.

I'm not entirely sure why you've ignored these two completely relevant points on the topic (indeed was going to reply with something similar).

You talked mainly about science; and it's relationship to truth; and it's pointed out that this position you posted is pretty absurd because it doesn't understand what science really is.

Once again, we're discussing scientism I'm not sure why you've ignored this relevant point. Do you even know what scientism means? Tell us all here so we can at least understand your own position?

Do you hold that scientism is true? give me reasons for your answer please.

Finally what exactly did Lennox say that you take issue with? do you have his book to hand? if not then on what grounds do you assess his position?

Harry.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2016 12:27:41 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/25/2016 2:16:14 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
He points out stunning flaws of logic in people like Atkins and Dawkins (even Russell). These people claim that science alone is the route to truth.
I'd be interested to see a quote where any of the scientists mentioned says science alone is the sole route to truth. I'm not saying that no scientist contends this, but in my experience it's more often a straw-man put into the mouths of scientists than something scientists actually say.

I think the straw-man arises because people of faith who won't validate what they claim to be knowledge, want to fight independent validation and verification methods entirely. So they may conflate no-knowledge-without-validation (a legitimate epistemological position) with no-knowledge-without science (a largely confected 'scientism' position), and the two ideas are subtly different.

With that said, science has been the only game in town on independent validation and verification for some centuries, however that doesn't mean it must always be. A scientist might be overstepping to argue that science shall always be the only legitimate validation, but I still don't see that argued much.

However even less do I see religious dogmatists, theocrats and patriarchs rushing to seek independent methods to make them more accountable for ignorance, error and unfalsifiable conjectures.

And that's really the problem making some scientists so critical of religious dogma. in the first place. It's a more legitimate criticism to say that theocrats worship their own presupposed revelatory inerrance than that scientists worship a discipline devoted to falsifying and replacing their own ideas. :D
v3nesl
Posts: 4,494
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2016 3:23:46 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/25/2016 2:16:14 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
I've been reading an excellent book (God's Undertaker) by John Lennox - he's a Prof. of mathematics at Oxford and a noted historian of science and holds a doctorate in the Philosophy of Science.

He points out stunning flaws of logic in people like Atkins and Dawkins (even Russell). These people claim that science alone is the route to truth.

As Lennox points out this statement is not a statement OF science, it is a statement ABOUT science, meta-science.

It's truth (if it were true) could not possibly be established BY science - so by definition if it be true we have a truth that's not accessibly BY science - a contradiction.

Views like those of Dawkins and Atkins are classified as "scientism" something I'll be posting more about in the coming weeks.

Discuss...

Harry.

Yeah, it's a great term - "scientism".

A lot of people don't get it - the first science is philosophy. The very act of attempting physical science involves truckloads of philosophical assumption.

To put it another way - the first and ultimately only evidence we have is the awareness of our own awareness. All other knowledge comes through that gateway. So until we have some idea who we are, we can know nothing else. Which is why the hard sciences are a theistic undertaking, and why modern scientism is a train wreck in progress.
This space for rent.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2016 3:46:31 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/26/2016 9:23:49 AM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 1/26/2016 6:31:50 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 1/26/2016 3:36:46 AM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
Floid and Tkubok - I told you that Atkins subscribes to scientism then you proceed to disregard this and instead tell me what you believe!

Go and find out what scientism is before you defend it.

Harry.

They both pointed out the inherent flaw in the argument. Lennox makes a complete hash of understanding what truth is in a scientific context. Science isn't about truth, as much as separating fact from fiction in the context of working out what is definitely not true, from what is true. Science doesn't deal with absolute truth (that's only religion, and they fake that), it deals with merely more accuracy and more certainty.

And as pointed out, science can disprove statements about science; which I found the most beautifully ironic part of the response.

I'm not entirely sure why you've ignored these two completely relevant points on the topic (indeed was going to reply with something similar).

You talked mainly about science; and it's relationship to truth; and it's pointed out that this position you posted is pretty absurd because it doesn't understand what science really is.

Once again, we're discussing scientism I'm not sure why you've ignored this relevant point. Do you even know what scientism means? Tell us all here so we can at least understand your own position?

Do you hold that scientism is true? give me reasons for your answer please.

Finally what exactly did Lennox say that you take issue with? do you have his book to hand? if not then on what grounds do you assess his position?

Harry.

Yes, I know what Scientism means; it's effectively the statement or belief that following scientific methodology is the best way of gaining knowledge in all area's of inquiry.

I think so far, every indication is that it's true; because there has been no other methodology that seems to be even close to as effective. Of course, using that scientific methodology, I could determine that I am wrong by finding another methodology that works better.

Science isn't really about finding the definitive truth; but concerns itself by striving for greater accuracy: becoming more correct. And if you're wrong, you have a way of finding out. With that, the premise of Lennox's argument falls apart in two ways.

Of course, this was pointed out twice; you ignored it; I pointed out that you ignored it, and summarized the problem again; and you ignored that too, and for some reason accused ME of ignoring your position.

Lets hope this time you may actually seek to understand the fundamental flaw in Lennox's argument, and in summary:

Science doesn't deal with "true", it just deals with being "more true" than before. If science is not the best way of gaining knowledge, you can use scientific methodology to show it by finding something better.

Lennox is confusing truth with being "more true", and ignoring that if it's not true, that same methodology can be used to determine it.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2016 9:41:15 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/25/2016 5:17:28 PM, Floid wrote:
At 1/25/2016 2:16:14 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
He points out stunning flaws of logic in people like Atkins and Dawkins (even Russell). These people claim that science alone is the route to truth.

As Lennox points out this statement is not a statement OF science, it is a statement ABOUT science, meta-science.

It's truth (if it were true) could not possibly be established BY science - so by definition if it be true we have a truth that's not accessibly BY science - a contradiction.

Views like those of Dawkins and Atkins are classified as "scientism" something I'll be posting more about in the coming weeks.

I have no idea what the views of Dawkins and Atkins are but I would guess you strawmanning their positions in order to make this point. For one, truth in the context of science has a very different meaning than truth in philosophy and the way you are using it. In science, truth does not imply certainty. Something is scientifically true if it fits with our current observations and with the strong disclaimer that new observations or ideas are likely to prove that "truth" wrong. In this way, science (since science is just a process to establish scientific truth) can be used to evaluate science without the need of the fictitious idea of "meta-science".

So then there are truths that are not scientific truths?

Any easy way to scientifically disprove the statement "science is the only route to truth" would be to state another route to truth that has been demonstrated to work. If that is done, science itself has been used to disprove a statement about science.

Is the claim 'Science is the only route to truth' a scientific principle? Falsifiable? Established by peer review papers?

If not then that statement is a view held by people and is called scientism. A view that despite it's name is not the derived by or from science but an ideological view held about science.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2016 10:32:27 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/26/2016 6:31:50 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
Science isn't about truth, as much as separating fact from fiction in the context of working out what is definitely not true, from what is true. Science doesn't deal with absolute truth (that's only religion, and they fake that), it deals with merely more accuracy and more certainty.

Nicely put. Anyone who thinks otherwise is either misunderstanding what science does, or misrepresenting what it claims to do.
slo1
Posts: 4,350
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2016 3:21:35 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/26/2016 9:41:15 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 1/25/2016 5:17:28 PM, Floid wrote:
At 1/25/2016 2:16:14 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
He points out stunning flaws of logic in people like Atkins and Dawkins (even Russell). These people claim that science alone is the route to truth.

As Lennox points out this statement is not a statement OF science, it is a statement ABOUT science, meta-science.

It's truth (if it were true) could not possibly be established BY science - so by definition if it be true we have a truth that's not accessibly BY science - a contradiction.

Views like those of Dawkins and Atkins are classified as "scientism" something I'll be posting more about in the coming weeks.

I have no idea what the views of Dawkins and Atkins are but I would guess you strawmanning their positions in order to make this point. For one, truth in the context of science has a very different meaning than truth in philosophy and the way you are using it. In science, truth does not imply certainty. Something is scientifically true if it fits with our current observations and with the strong disclaimer that new observations or ideas are likely to prove that "truth" wrong. In this way, science (since science is just a process to establish scientific truth) can be used to evaluate science without the need of the fictitious idea of "meta-science".

So then there are truths that are not scientific truths?

No there are not truths that are not scientific truths. There, however, are truths which can not be validated by the scientific process. Some may over time as technology is developed and some other truths may never be approachable by the scientific method.

Any easy way to scientifically disprove the statement "science is the only route to truth" would be to state another route to truth that has been demonstrated to work. If that is done, science itself has been used to disprove a statement about science.

Is the claim 'Science is the only route to truth' a scientific principle? Falsifiable? Established by peer review papers?

There are many routes to the truth, however, none of them have the discipline or ability to evaluate the validity of opinions/hypothosis which get portrayed as truths. I could out right guess at the truth and have odds I am right.

If not then that statement is a view held by people and is called scientism. A view that despite it's name is not the derived by or from science but an ideological view held about science.

scientism is a valid view point because it contains methods to evaluate the reliability and validity of opinion/hypothosis which no other method can match in terms of accuracy.
Dirty.Harry
Posts: 1,585
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2016 3:34:07 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/26/2016 9:41:15 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 1/25/2016 5:17:28 PM, Floid wrote:
At 1/25/2016 2:16:14 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
He points out stunning flaws of logic in people like Atkins and Dawkins (even Russell). These people claim that science alone is the route to truth.

As Lennox points out this statement is not a statement OF science, it is a statement ABOUT science, meta-science.

It's truth (if it were true) could not possibly be established BY science - so by definition if it be true we have a truth that's not accessibly BY science - a contradiction.

Views like those of Dawkins and Atkins are classified as "scientism" something I'll be posting more about in the coming weeks.

I have no idea what the views of Dawkins and Atkins are but I would guess you strawmanning their positions in order to make this point. For one, truth in the context of science has a very different meaning than truth in philosophy and the way you are using it. In science, truth does not imply certainty. Something is scientifically true if it fits with our current observations and with the strong disclaimer that new observations or ideas are likely to prove that "truth" wrong. In this way, science (since science is just a process to establish scientific truth) can be used to evaluate science without the need of the fictitious idea of "meta-science".

So then there are truths that are not scientific truths?

Any easy way to scientifically disprove the statement "science is the only route to truth" would be to state another route to truth that has been demonstrated to work. If that is done, science itself has been used to disprove a statement about science.

Is the claim 'Science is the only route to truth' a scientific principle? Falsifiable? Established by peer review papers?

If not then that statement is a view held by people and is called scientism. A view that despite it's name is not the derived by or from science but an ideological view held about science.

Refreshing to read a post from someone who's honest and informed in this forum!

Harry.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2016 3:37:18 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/26/2016 3:46:31 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 1/26/2016 9:23:49 AM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 1/26/2016 6:31:50 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 1/26/2016 3:36:46 AM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
Floid and Tkubok - I told you that Atkins subscribes to scientism then you proceed to disregard this and instead tell me what you believe!

Go and find out what scientism is before you defend it.

Harry.

They both pointed out the inherent flaw in the argument. Lennox makes a complete hash of understanding what truth is in a scientific context. Science isn't about truth, as much as separating fact from fiction in the context of working out what is definitely not true, from what is true. Science doesn't deal with absolute truth (that's only religion, and they fake that), it deals with merely more accuracy and more certainty.

And as pointed out, science can disprove statements about science; which I found the most beautifully ironic part of the response.

I'm not entirely sure why you've ignored these two completely relevant points on the topic (indeed was going to reply with something similar).

You talked mainly about science; and it's relationship to truth; and it's pointed out that this position you posted is pretty absurd because it doesn't understand what science really is.

Once again, we're discussing scientism I'm not sure why you've ignored this relevant point. Do you even know what scientism means? Tell us all here so we can at least understand your own position?

Do you hold that scientism is true? give me reasons for your answer please.

Finally what exactly did Lennox say that you take issue with? do you have his book to hand? if not then on what grounds do you assess his position?

Harry.

Yes, I know what Scientism means; it's effectively the statement or belief that following scientific methodology is the best way of gaining knowledge in all area's of inquiry.

I think so far, every indication is that it's true; because there has been no other methodology that seems to be even close to as effective. Of course, using that scientific methodology, I could determine that I am wrong by finding another methodology that works better.

Can you cite a scientific paper that quantifies a metric of accuracy and effectiveness of science compared to other methodologies?

Thanks once I see the scientific paper then it will be irrefutable proof of Science's superiority.


Science isn't really about finding the definitive truth; but concerns itself by striving for greater accuracy: becoming more correct. And if you're wrong, you have a way of finding out. With that, the premise of Lennox's argument falls apart in two ways.

Of course, this was pointed out twice; you ignored it; I pointed out that you ignored it, and summarized the problem again; and you ignored that too, and for some reason accused ME of ignoring your position.

Lets hope this time you may actually seek to understand the fundamental flaw in Lennox's argument, and in summary:

Science doesn't deal with "true", it just deals with being "more true" than before. If science is not the best way of gaining knowledge, you can use scientific methodology to show it by finding something better.

Lennox is confusing truth with being "more true", and ignoring that if it's not true, that same methodology can be used to determine it.
Dirty.Harry
Posts: 1,585
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2016 3:42:13 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/27/2016 3:21:35 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 1/26/2016 9:41:15 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 1/25/2016 5:17:28 PM, Floid wrote:
At 1/25/2016 2:16:14 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
He points out stunning flaws of logic in people like Atkins and Dawkins (even Russell). These people claim that science alone is the route to truth.

As Lennox points out this statement is not a statement OF science, it is a statement ABOUT science, meta-science.

It's truth (if it were true) could not possibly be established BY science - so by definition if it be true we have a truth that's not accessibly BY science - a contradiction.

Views like those of Dawkins and Atkins are classified as "scientism" something I'll be posting more about in the coming weeks.

I have no idea what the views of Dawkins and Atkins are but I would guess you strawmanning their positions in order to make this point. For one, truth in the context of science has a very different meaning than truth in philosophy and the way you are using it. In science, truth does not imply certainty. Something is scientifically true if it fits with our current observations and with the strong disclaimer that new observations or ideas are likely to prove that "truth" wrong. In this way, science (since science is just a process to establish scientific truth) can be used to evaluate science without the need of the fictitious idea of "meta-science".

So then there are truths that are not scientific truths?

No there are not truths that are not scientific truths. There, however, are truths which can not be validated by the scientific process. Some may over time as technology is developed and some other truths may never be approachable by the scientific method.

Any easy way to scientifically disprove the statement "science is the only route to truth" would be to state another route to truth that has been demonstrated to work. If that is done, science itself has been used to disprove a statement about science.

Is the claim 'Science is the only route to truth' a scientific principle? Falsifiable? Established by peer review papers?

There are many routes to the truth, however, none of them have the discipline or ability to evaluate the validity of opinions/hypothosis which get portrayed as truths. I could out right guess at the truth and have odds I am right.

If not then that statement is a view held by people and is called scientism. A view that despite it's name is not the derived by or from science but an ideological view held about science.

scientism is a valid view point because it contains methods to evaluate the reliability and validity of opinion/hypothosis which no other method can match in terms of accuracy.

But the claim that scientism is true is not itself the result of scientific inquiry, therefore (if true) there are truths which cannot be scientifically demonstrated - contradicting the claim that scientism is true.

It leads to a contradiction, but by all means believe it if you gives you comfort.

Harry.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2016 3:52:35 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/27/2016 3:21:35 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 1/26/2016 9:41:15 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 1/25/2016 5:17:28 PM, Floid wrote:
At 1/25/2016 2:16:14 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
He points out stunning flaws of logic in people like Atkins and Dawkins (even Russell). These people claim that science alone is the route to truth.

As Lennox points out this statement is not a statement OF science, it is a statement ABOUT science, meta-science.

It's truth (if it were true) could not possibly be established BY science - so by definition if it be true we have a truth that's not accessibly BY science - a contradiction.

Views like those of Dawkins and Atkins are classified as "scientism" something I'll be posting more about in the coming weeks.

I have no idea what the views of Dawkins and Atkins are but I would guess you strawmanning their positions in order to make this point. For one, truth in the context of science has a very different meaning than truth in philosophy and the way you are using it. In science, truth does not imply certainty. Something is scientifically true if it fits with our current observations and with the strong disclaimer that new observations or ideas are likely to prove that "truth" wrong. In this way, science (since science is just a process to establish scientific truth) can be used to evaluate science without the need of the fictitious idea of "meta-science".

So then there are truths that are not scientific truths?

No there are not truths that are not scientific truths. There, however, are truths which can not be validated by the scientific process. Some may over time as technology is developed and some other truths may never be approachable by the scientific method.

OH so.. there are no truths that can not be described be answered by science... just truths that haven't been answered yet, or my remain unapproachable by science.

So tell me if a truth is discernible by the scientific method wouldn't that make it "True" but not scientific!


Any easy way to scientifically disprove the statement "science is the only route to truth" would be to state another route to truth that has been demonstrated to work. If that is done, science itself has been used to disprove a statement about science.

Is the claim 'Science is the only route to truth' a scientific principle? Falsifiable? Established by peer review papers?

There are many routes to the truth, however, none of them have the discipline or ability to evaluate the validity of opinions/hypothosis which get portrayed as truths. I could out right guess at the truth and have odds I am right.

Oh so science is never wrong. At least not wrong like guesses are wrong.


If not then that statement is a view held by people and is called scientism. A view that despite it's name is not the derived by or from science but an ideological view held about science.

scientism is a valid view point because it contains methods to evaluate the reliability and validity of opinion/hypothosis which no other method can match in terms of accuracy.

Scientism is indeed a view -about- science. It's not scientific itself. If it were then there should be some scientific paper extolling the capability of science to answer every inquiry.

Is the statement "I love my wife" a statement that can be true or false?
Is there a scientific formula that can discern if that statement is true or not?

The universe was once an open system. Is that statement true or false?
Can Science answer if it is true or false?

Science can answer all questions. Is that statement true or false?
Can Scientist discern whether it is true or false.

let's get something straight. Science isn't about True or False. Logic helps determine true or false. Science is concerned with explaining observations in natural terms based upon previous specific observations. If you don't see the difference, you should read on the problem of induction. Science is by it's methodology concerned with consistency. Relying upon consistency (internal and external with other theories) to settle truth value.
Floid
Posts: 751
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2016 4:00:32 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/26/2016 9:41:15 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 1/25/2016 5:17:28 PM, Floid wrote:
At 1/25/2016 2:16:14 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
He points out stunning flaws of logic in people like Atkins and Dawkins (even Russell). These people claim that science alone is the route to truth.

As Lennox points out this statement is not a statement OF science, it is a statement ABOUT science, meta-science.

It's truth (if it were true) could not possibly be established BY science - so by definition if it be true we have a truth that's not accessibly BY science - a contradiction.

Views like those of Dawkins and Atkins are classified as "scientism" something I'll be posting more about in the coming weeks.

I have no idea what the views of Dawkins and Atkins are but I would guess you strawmanning their positions in order to make this point. For one, truth in the context of science has a very different meaning than truth in philosophy and the way you are using it. In science, truth does not imply certainty. Something is scientifically true if it fits with our current observations and with the strong disclaimer that new observations or ideas are likely to prove that "truth" wrong. In this way, science (since science is just a process to establish scientific truth) can be used to evaluate science without the need of the fictitious idea of "meta-science".

So then there are truths that are not scientific truths?

Any easy way to scientifically disprove the statement "science is the only route to truth" would be to state another route to truth that has been demonstrated to work. If that is done, science itself has been used to disprove a statement about science.

Is the claim 'Science is the only route to truth' a scientific principle? Falsifiable? Established by peer review papers?

If not then that statement is a view held by people and is called scientism. A view that despite it's name is not the derived by or from science but an ideological view held about science.

All I can say is reread what I originally wrote as answers to everything you bring up were already there. If you have something new to add by all means do, but I see little point in repeating myself.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2016 4:01:59 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/27/2016 4:00:32 AM, Floid wrote:
At 1/26/2016 9:41:15 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 1/25/2016 5:17:28 PM, Floid wrote:
At 1/25/2016 2:16:14 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
He points out stunning flaws of logic in people like Atkins and Dawkins (even Russell). These people claim that science alone is the route to truth.

As Lennox points out this statement is not a statement OF science, it is a statement ABOUT science, meta-science.

It's truth (if it were true) could not possibly be established BY science - so by definition if it be true we have a truth that's not accessibly BY science - a contradiction.

Views like those of Dawkins and Atkins are classified as "scientism" something I'll be posting more about in the coming weeks.

I have no idea what the views of Dawkins and Atkins are but I would guess you strawmanning their positions in order to make this point. For one, truth in the context of science has a very different meaning than truth in philosophy and the way you are using it. In science, truth does not imply certainty. Something is scientifically true if it fits with our current observations and with the strong disclaimer that new observations or ideas are likely to prove that "truth" wrong. In this way, science (since science is just a process to establish scientific truth) can be used to evaluate science without the need of the fictitious idea of "meta-science".

So then there are truths that are not scientific truths?

Any easy way to scientifically disprove the statement "science is the only route to truth" would be to state another route to truth that has been demonstrated to work. If that is done, science itself has been used to disprove a statement about science.

Is the claim 'Science is the only route to truth' a scientific principle? Falsifiable? Established by peer review papers?

If not then that statement is a view held by people and is called scientism. A view that despite it's name is not the derived by or from science but an ideological view held about science.

All I can say is reread what I originally wrote as answers to everything you bring up were already there. If you have something new to add by all means do, but I see little point in repeating myself.

Is the claim 'Science is the only route to truth' a scientific principle? Falsifiable? Established by peer review papers?

Please cite the paper I did not see it in your original post.
Floid
Posts: 751
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2016 1:05:39 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
In a general effort to try to promote basic levels of intelligence I will waste a few minutes of my time:

At 1/27/2016 4:01:59 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
Is the claim 'Science is the only route to truth' a scientific principle? Falsifiable?

From my original post:

"Any easy way to scientifically disprove the statement "science is the only route to truth" would be to state another route to truth that has been demonstrated to work. If that is done, science itself has been used to disprove a statement about science."

By providing a way to scientifically disprove the claim, I am demonstrating it is falsifiable. I suggest reading up on what falsifiable means.

It is a scientific CLAIM in that its truth can be verified through the scientific method as I proposed above. An interesting exercise might be to break down the steps of the scientific method and figure out how each would apply to the claim "science is the only route to truth" (or whatever the original statement entailed). This is easily doable.

Established by peer review papers?
Please cite the paper I did not see it in your original post.

This is the real face palm moment. The peer-review process is a form of self regulation used to maintain quality and provide credibility to research. It has become standard in many fields due to the specialization necessary to evaluate research in that field. I.e. if you don't have a PhD in physics it is unlikely you would be able to understand a paper on cutting edge quantum physics research at a level necessary to evaluate its claims and their implications.

But that being said, it has absolutely nothing to do with whether an claim is scientific (i.e. can be investigated by the scientific method) or not.
Dirty.Harry
Posts: 1,585
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2016 2:05:29 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/27/2016 1:05:39 PM, Floid wrote:
In a general effort to try to promote basic levels of intelligence I will waste a few minutes of my time:

At 1/27/2016 4:01:59 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
Is the claim 'Science is the only route to truth' a scientific principle? Falsifiable?

From my original post:

"Any easy way to scientifically disprove the statement "science is the only route to truth" would be to state another route to truth that has been demonstrated to work. If that is done, science itself has been used to disprove a statement about science."

By providing a way to scientifically disprove the claim, I am demonstrating it is falsifiable. I suggest reading up on what falsifiable means.

It is a scientific CLAIM in that its truth can be verified through the scientific method as I proposed above. An interesting exercise might be to break down the steps of the scientific method and figure out how each would apply to the claim "science is the only route to truth" (or whatever the original statement entailed). This is easily doable.

Scientism isn't about the ability for science to uncover truths, its the claim that science, naturalism is the only way to discover or approach truths about reality.

Nobody disputes the merits of science, it is scientism we're discussing, why do you keep conflating these?

This conviction is relatively recent and Atkins, Dawkins and Hawking, Dennet and others are all on record endorsing this in one guise or another.

This claim that science, the scientific method, naturalism is the ONLY way to ever discover or approach truth is not itself verifiable, the truth of the claim itself cannot be established by science.

It arises as a result of a conviction, a belief - dare I say "faith" that the universe is wholly material and naturalism is all there is - but once again, that claim isn't itself scientifically demonstrable.

Established by peer review papers?
Please cite the paper I did not see it in your original post.

This is the real face palm moment. The peer-review process is a form of self regulation used to maintain quality and provide credibility to research. It has become standard in many fields due to the specialization necessary to evaluate research in that field. I.e. if you don't have a PhD in physics it is unlikely you would be able to understand a paper on cutting edge quantum physics research at a level necessary to evaluate its claims and their implications.

But that being said, it has absolutely nothing to do with whether an claim is scientific (i.e. can be investigated by the scientific method) or not.

You talk about disproving scientism by demonstrating an alternative, but failure to present an alternative does not prove there is no alternative does it? is this how you promote intelligence by trying to pass of poor logic?

Finally scientism amounts to the claim that supernatural revelation, revealed knowledge, does not take place and I see no way to prove that either.

Do you personally subscribe to scientism? can you answer that simple question?

Harry.
Floid
Posts: 751
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2016 3:31:47 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/27/2016 2:05:29 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
This claim that science, the scientific method, naturalism is the ONLY way to ever discover or approach truth is not itself verifiable, the truth of the claim itself cannot be established by science.

It is easily verifiable:

1. Science is a means to discover scientific truth.
2. There is no other way to discover truth.
3. Therefore science is the ONLY means to discover truth.

Point 1 is established by science, just look at the past 300 years of scientific progress.

I have yet to see the people railing against "scientism" to provide an alternative so point 2 seems to hold.

It therefore would follow that point 3 is true.

You talk about disproving scientism by demonstrating an alternative, but failure to present an alternative does not prove there is no alternative does it? is this how you promote intelligence by trying to pass of poor logic?

Of course it doesn't prove an alternative exist does not exist, but it also means you have a very weak argument if you can't identify an alternative. Silly semantics don't really make for an interesting discussion of the issue.

Do you personally subscribe to scientism? can you answer that simple question?

Entering the discussion I would have said "scientisim" is the best way to establish truth but possibly not the only way. The more I hear from the opponents to scientism the more I am beginning to think that it may be the only way.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2016 5:04:48 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/27/2016 1:05:39 PM, Floid wrote:
In a general effort to try to promote basic levels of intelligence I will waste a few minutes of my time:

At 1/27/2016 4:01:59 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
Is the claim 'Science is the only route to truth' a scientific principle? Falsifiable?

From my original post:

"Any easy way to scientifically disprove the statement "science is the only route to truth" would be to state another route to truth that has been demonstrated to work. If that is done, science itself has been used to disprove a statement about science."

By providing a way to scientifically disprove the claim, I am demonstrating it is falsifiable. I suggest reading up on what falsifiable means.

It is a scientific CLAIM in that its truth can be verified through the scientific method as I proposed above. An interesting exercise might be to break down the steps of the scientific method and figure out how each would apply to the claim "science is the only route to truth" (or whatever the original statement entailed). This is easily doable.

Established by peer review papers?
Please cite the paper I did not see it in your original post.

This is the real face palm moment. The peer-review process is a form of self regulation used to maintain quality and provide credibility to research. It has become standard in many fields due to the specialization necessary to evaluate research in that field. I.e. if you don't have a PhD in physics it is unlikely you would be able to understand a paper on cutting edge quantum physics research at a level necessary to evaluate its claims and their implications.

But that being said, it has absolutely nothing to do with whether an claim is scientific (i.e. can be investigated by the scientific method) or not.

Is it true that 1+1=2?

If it is how was this proven by the scientific process?

If it wasn't but still accepted as truth, then the statement 'science is the only route to truth' has been falsified by logic not science.

Scietism is an ideology derived not from science but zealous faith in a singular process.

To further falsify the statement with logic, we only need to look at other methods of discerning truth. Science is inductive. But a dedutive logical investigation would arive at an acceptance of truth as well. Again affirming that science'is notthe only route to truth.

As for your repeated claims that science is more reliable or demonstratably so, I haven't seen this demonstrated so. How would you measure such a claim with what metric?

Even a superficial review of scientific thought in the last 100 years show many ideas now discreditted. Was science right or wrong with luminous aether, stagnant universe, infinite universe, ect...

How do you justify that science is more reliable than deductive logical arguments?
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2016 5:52:57 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/27/2016 3:31:47 PM, Floid wrote:
At 1/27/2016 2:05:29 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
This claim that science, the scientific method, naturalism is the ONLY way to ever discover or approach truth is not itself verifiable, the truth of the claim itself cannot be established by science.
It is easily verifiable:
1. Science is a means to discover scientific truth.
2. There is no other way to discover truth.
3. Therefore science is the ONLY means to discover truth.
Point 1 is established by science, just look at the past 300 years of scientific progress.
I have yet to see the people railing against "scientism" to provide an alternative so point 2 seems to hold.

There's no reason to exclude non-scientific methods, so long as they're accountable for falsification and methodological failure, acknowledge the consequences of opacity and dishonesty, and don't claim more than they deliver.

But sure, pointing out that other methods -- intuitions, claims to revelation, divinations and philosophy -- have repeatedly produced error, isn't scientistm; it's independently corroborated fact.

Pointing out that such fallacies are a product of human psychology, and correlate more with ego and ignorance than they do with insight isn't scientism either -- it's just a result of independent study.

And highlighting the benefits of scientific methods with respect to monitoring, containing and improving on imprecision, inaccuracy and bias isn't scientism either -- it's simply pointing out the purpose for which science was constructed, and against which its performance is measured.

So when you eliminate what scientism is not, it's hard to identify who specifically is a er... scientismist. :p There might be some people who overstate what science is for and what it can do, but it's not usually the people so accused.
Dirty.Harry
Posts: 1,585
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2016 4:25:55 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/27/2016 3:31:47 PM, Floid wrote:
At 1/27/2016 2:05:29 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
This claim that science, the scientific method, naturalism is the ONLY way to ever discover or approach truth is not itself verifiable, the truth of the claim itself cannot be established by science.

It is easily verifiable:

1. Science is a means to discover scientific truth.
2. There is no other way to discover truth.
3. Therefore science is the ONLY means to discover truth.

Point 1 is established by science, just look at the past 300 years of scientific progress.

I have yet to see the people railing against "scientism" to provide an alternative so point 2 seems to hold.

It therefore would follow that point 3 is true.


You talk about disproving scientism by demonstrating an alternative, but failure to present an alternative does not prove there is no alternative does it? is this how you promote intelligence by trying to pass of poor logic?

Of course it doesn't prove an alternative exist does not exist, but it also means you have a very weak argument if you can't identify an alternative. Silly semantics don't really make for an interesting discussion of the issue.


Do you personally subscribe to scientism? can you answer that simple question?

Entering the discussion I would have said "scientisim" is the best way to establish truth but possibly not the only way. The more I hear from the opponents to scientism the more I am beginning to think that it may be the only way.

What's your argument that leads to the conclusion 2. above?

Define "weak" here, can you? You asserted that if a counter example of a route to truth was not currently known to you then it's valid to conclude that no counter example exists but if we permit this then mathematics will fall apart since proof of some conjecture would simply require an absence of counter examples.

It's not for me to demonstrate alternatives, proof requires more than that.

You have no idea what your talking about just like Dawkins, Atkins, Hawking and so on.
Dirty.Harry
Posts: 1,585
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2016 4:31:11 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/27/2016 5:52:57 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 1/27/2016 3:31:47 PM, Floid wrote:
At 1/27/2016 2:05:29 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
This claim that science, the scientific method, naturalism is the ONLY way to ever discover or approach truth is not itself verifiable, the truth of the claim itself cannot be established by science.
It is easily verifiable:
1. Science is a means to discover scientific truth.
2. There is no other way to discover truth.
3. Therefore science is the ONLY means to discover truth.
Point 1 is established by science, just look at the past 300 years of scientific progress.
I have yet to see the people railing against "scientism" to provide an alternative so point 2 seems to hold.

There's no reason to exclude non-scientific methods, so long as they're accountable for falsification and methodological failure, acknowledge the consequences of opacity and dishonesty, and don't claim more than they deliver.

But sure, pointing out that other methods -- intuitions, claims to revelation, divinations and philosophy -- have repeatedly produced error, isn't scientistm; it's independently corroborated fact.

Pointing out that such fallacies are a product of human psychology, and correlate more with ego and ignorance than they do with insight isn't scientism either -- it's just a result of independent study.

And highlighting the benefits of scientific methods with respect to monitoring, containing and improving on imprecision, inaccuracy and bias isn't scientism either -- it's simply pointing out the purpose for which science was constructed, and against which its performance is measured.

So when you eliminate what scientism is not, it's hard to identify who specifically is a er... scientismist. :p There might be some people who overstate what science is for and what it can do, but it's not usually the people so accused.

Lots of stawmen here telling me what isn't scientism when I never argued any of those things were !

Do you believe that knowledge of reality can only be discovered through scientific analysis - yes or no please.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2016 7:00:18 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/28/2016 4:31:11 AM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 1/27/2016 5:52:57 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 1/27/2016 3:31:47 PM, Floid wrote:
At 1/27/2016 2:05:29 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
This claim that science, the scientific method, naturalism is the ONLY way to ever discover or approach truth is not itself verifiable, the truth of the claim itself cannot be established by science.
It is easily verifiable:
1. Science is a means to discover scientific truth.
2. There is no other way to discover truth.
3. Therefore science is the ONLY means to discover truth.
Point 1 is established by science, just look at the past 300 years of scientific progress.
I have yet to see the people railing against "scientism" to provide an alternative so point 2 seems to hold.

There's no reason to exclude non-scientific methods, so long as they're accountable for falsification and methodological failure, acknowledge the consequences of opacity and dishonesty, and don't claim more than they deliver.

But sure, pointing out that other methods -- intuitions, claims to revelation, divinations and philosophy -- have repeatedly produced error, isn't scientistm; it's independently corroborated fact.

Pointing out that such fallacies are a product of human psychology, and correlate more with ego and ignorance than they do with insight isn't scientism either -- it's just a result of independent study.

And highlighting the benefits of scientific methods with respect to monitoring, containing and improving on imprecision, inaccuracy and bias isn't scientism either -- it's simply pointing out the purpose for which science was constructed, and against which its performance is measured.

So when you eliminate what scientism is not, it's hard to identify who specifically is a er... scientismist. :p There might be some people who overstate what science is for and what it can do, but it's not usually the people so accused.

Lots of stawmen here telling me what isn't scientism when I never argued any of those things were !

Firstly, Harry, my response was to another member. Secondly, whether you have argued it or not, I've seen it argued that if you point out the weaknesses of fallacious methods, or the strengths of science, it's scientism. My contention is that it's not, and from your protests I understand that you agree.

Do you believe that knowledge of reality can only be discovered through scientific analysis - yes or no please.
I have no opinion on that, however I am willing to entertain any predictive method that is as independent, transparent, accountable and falsifiable as is science.

While I'm not aware of one, anyone is welcome to propose and test it. However, we know that many alternative methods have been inadequate, generally either due to poor accuracy, lack of falsifiability, or both.
chui
Posts: 507
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2016 10:38:57 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/25/2016 2:16:14 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
I've been reading an excellent book (God's Undertaker) by John Lennox - he's a Prof. of mathematics at Oxford and a noted historian of science and holds a doctorate in the Philosophy of Science.

He points out stunning flaws of logic in people like Atkins and Dawkins (even Russell). These people claim that science alone is the route to truth.

As Lennox points out this statement is not a statement OF science, it is a statement ABOUT science, meta-science.

It's truth (if it were true) could not possibly be established BY science - so by definition if it be true we have a truth that's not accessibly BY science - a contradiction.

Views like those of Dawkins and Atkins are classified as "scientism" something I'll be posting more about in the coming weeks.

Discuss...

Harry.

Scientism is a very abused word meaning anything from being in favour of science to extreme logical positivism. Generally it is a term that is meant as an insult and used to cause doubt without using a structured argument. This makes discussion of scientism problematic. So my comments below don't make direct reference to scientism but hopefully convey my opinion of how science compares to other academic endeavours.

Is science the 'only' method of learning about the world? I think this wrong since, for example, mathematics has produced knowledge.

Are there areas of knowledge that science cannot be applied to? Yes for example economics and politics are areas of study that it is difficult to apply the scientific method to.

Does the importance of science get overstated? Yes, the conclusions of science are subject to error and uncertainty and sometimes plain lack of evidence so it is important to question the conclusions.

However I would claim that:
science has produced reliable knowledge about the world,
it has produced more knowledge than previously existed prior to its invention.
it has influenced many other forms of learning,
it has had a very significant, mostly beneficial, effect on the lives of everyone.

As supporting evidence of these statements I would point to the progress made before 1660* and the progress made after that date. Before this date we had mathematics, philosophy, history, Ptolemaic astronomy, astrology, alchemy, demonology (including witchcraft and other supernatural beliefs), Galen's medicine, Aristotelian 'science' and theology. After 1660 only mathematics, philosophy, history and theology survived. Even so they were greatly affected by science while the rest was shown to be false. Since that date we have a vast array of new subjects, many of which are either sciences or heavily influenced by science: biology, physics, chemistry, meteorology, geology, economics, sociology, psychology....

So because of the undoubted success of science it is tempting to overstate the case for science, hence scientism. However it is also possible to do the opposite and be overly critical, even dismissive of science, which is why many scientists feel that science must be defended. But when I defend science I find that I am then accused of a 'knee jerk reaction' in defending something that I have not 'understood'.

*I am making the assumption that science as we know it was invented at around that date.
Floid
Posts: 751
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2016 1:57:01 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/28/2016 4:25:55 AM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 1/27/2016 3:31:47 PM, Floid wrote:
1. Science is a means to discover scientific truth.
2. There is no other way to discover truth.
3. Therefore science is the ONLY means to discover truth.

What's your argument that leads to the conclusion 2. above?

2. may well be false, but you have been unwilling to try to provide any analysis to demonstrate it so other than semantics. At least it appears Mhykiel has actually been willing to engage in a debate on that point. You seem content to provide conjecture and argue semantics.

Define "weak" here, can you? You asserted that if a counter example of a route to truth was not currently known to you then it's valid to conclude that no counter example exists but if we permit this then mathematics will fall apart since proof of some conjecture would simply require an absence of counter examples.

The reason it is a weak argument is the "argument from ignorance" claim doesn't hold up well to an idea that has empirical support. All you are really doing is stating the obvious by restating an idea science already freely admits and embraces (doubt and uncertainty). For example, if I claim all atoms have a nucleus and your only objection is "just because we haven't found an atom that does not have a nucleus yet means it does not exist" you are just blowing hot air. That may well be true (remember science reserves plenty of doubt and uncertainty in its statements) but if you don't have anything specific in mind then there is no content to your position and nothing worth discussing.

It's not for me to demonstrate alternatives, proof requires more than that.

Providing an alternative is a perfectly valid way to disprove an "X is the ONLY" assertion.

You have no idea what your talking about just like Dawkins, Atkins, Hawking and so on.
Dirty.Harry
Posts: 1,585
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2016 2:40:45 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/28/2016 7:00:18 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 1/28/2016 4:31:11 AM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 1/27/2016 5:52:57 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 1/27/2016 3:31:47 PM, Floid wrote:
At 1/27/2016 2:05:29 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
This claim that science, the scientific method, naturalism is the ONLY way to ever discover or approach truth is not itself verifiable, the truth of the claim itself cannot be established by science.
It is easily verifiable:
1. Science is a means to discover scientific truth.
2. There is no other way to discover truth.
3. Therefore science is the ONLY means to discover truth.
Point 1 is established by science, just look at the past 300 years of scientific progress.
I have yet to see the people railing against "scientism" to provide an alternative so point 2 seems to hold.

There's no reason to exclude non-scientific methods, so long as they're accountable for falsification and methodological failure, acknowledge the consequences of opacity and dishonesty, and don't claim more than they deliver.

But sure, pointing out that other methods -- intuitions, claims to revelation, divinations and philosophy -- have repeatedly produced error, isn't scientistm; it's independently corroborated fact.

Pointing out that such fallacies are a product of human psychology, and correlate more with ego and ignorance than they do with insight isn't scientism either -- it's just a result of independent study.

And highlighting the benefits of scientific methods with respect to monitoring, containing and improving on imprecision, inaccuracy and bias isn't scientism either -- it's simply pointing out the purpose for which science was constructed, and against which its performance is measured.

So when you eliminate what scientism is not, it's hard to identify who specifically is a er... scientismist. :p There might be some people who overstate what science is for and what it can do, but it's not usually the people so accused.

Lots of stawmen here telling me what isn't scientism when I never argued any of those things were !

Firstly, Harry, my response was to another member. Secondly, whether you have argued it or not, I've seen it argued that if you point out the weaknesses of fallacious methods, or the strengths of science, it's scientism. My contention is that it's not, and from your protests I understand that you agree.

Do you believe that knowledge of reality can only be discovered through scientific analysis - yes or no please.
I have no opinion on that, however I am willing to entertain any predictive method that is as independent, transparent, accountable and falsifiable as is science.

As am I but it seems we agree on a limitation of science - it cannot be used to show that science is the only way to discover knowledge about reality.

While I'm not aware of one, anyone is welcome to propose and test it. However, we know that many alternative methods have been inadequate, generally either due to poor accuracy, lack of falsifiability, or both.

In which case cosmology's Big Bang hypothesis must be rejected since we're in no position to observe a repetition.

Once again your unawareness of an alternative means to knowledge does not show that there is no such alternative does it, do you agree with this rather elementary point of logic?

Harry.