Why Scientism is a Faith

[tonyrey]

So would I. But let’s not hold our breath. There will be no answer - since there is no answer. And it takes a fair amount of intergity to admit it.

Integrity is not to be found in the world of things…

 

[vz71]

“Faith” is belief in the absence of sufficient evidence (if one had sufficient evidence, one would not need faith, obviously).

“Sufficient” is a subjective term.
Some require absolute proof before they will believe.
others do not have such strict standard.

But between the proof positive and the sufficient evidence is a leap of faith.

 

[vz71]

You are reading this message on a computer. That tells us that our model of how electrons work must be fairly accurate because it enables us to do things like send messages over long distances.

I’m saying that the fact that we can do things with electrons tells us that the model we have for how they work must be a pretty accurate model. If we were completely off base, it stands to reason that our attempts to manipulate electrons would be unsuccessful.

The computer is tangible evidence that we have a solid knowledge of electrons.

Your terminology is creeping.
Which is it? “Fairly accurate” “Pretty accurate” or “solid knowledge”?

My question still stands, what exactly is fairly accurate?

 

[tonyrey]

There is no way of refuting the fact that scientism - the belief that science explains everything there is to know about the world (including human beings) - reduces values, morality, beauty and purpose to manifestations of matter. In other words they don’t really exist! Fortunately it is a belief that cannot be proved to be true and does not correspond to the way any rational person lives…

 

[vz71]

I’m asking you to explain your method for determining truth and to put on display the results that verify this method.

My children accept what I teach them as truth.
There is no scientific method involved, it is simply a statement accepted.

Is there a problem with accepting what God has told us as truth in this same way?

 

[AntiTheist]

My children accept what I teach them as truth.
There is no scientific method involved, it is simply a statement accepted.

Is there a problem with accepting what God has told us as truth in this same way?

I would say that accepting something as true merely on one person’s say-so – or on the say-so of some ancient book – is a really bad way of determining what’s true and false.

And no, to head off your inevitable objection, accepting the findings of bodies of experts who peer-review one another’s work based on evidence isn’t at all the same thing.

 

[vz71]

There is no way of refuting the fact that scientism - the belief that science explains everything there is to know about the world (including human beings) - reduces values, morality, beauty and purpose to manifestations of matter. In other words they don’t really exist! Fortunately it is a belief that cannot be proved to be true and does not correspond to the way any rational person lives…

Scientism fails under the rules of its own scientific method.

It cannot be tested.

Delicious irony.

 

[Rocinante]

Scientism fails under the rules of its own scientific method.

It cannot be tested.

Delicious irony.

if only the thought of actual people was as easy to refute as straw man philosophies like scientism.

 

[Betterave]

If you would be familiar with probability theory, you would immediately understand that the random answers will yield a correct response about 50% of the time.

That’s nice (I do understand that). So I guess you meant to include the stipulation that the questioner in your setup knows the answers to the questions he is asking??..anyway, which still leaves the original question completely unanswered: how is this ‘method’ ‘epistemological’??

Very true. But that is a given, not an assumption based on some “faith”. One does not need “faith” to realize that putting one’s hand into fire is painful. Of course this is a simple example, but when push comes to shove, all of our measurements boil down to some personal experience.

Sure, it’s a given. I never suggested it was an assumption based on faith. It’s basic and prior to any apprehension of anything, regardless of what it is based on, including whether that apprehension is based on faith or not. But when you make a claim like “all of our measurements boil down to some personal experience,” why do you invoke the notion of ‘measurements’? That’s a very strange term to use to describe something that happens when we are burned. Same for “personal experience” - what is ‘personal’ about such an experience? What work is the term ‘personal’ supposed to be doing for you?

Why on Earth are these “mysterious”? What is the “mystery” about putting one’s hand into fire will be a painful experience? I see no need for overcomplicating these simple observations. And the so-far neglected question: “what else is there?” is the pertinent one. What else can you (or anyone else) offer instead the tested “observe-measure-verify” concept? I can see no reason for the avoidance, unless, of course, there is nothing to offer, and it does not “feel good” to come clean and admit it.

But I’ve just answered your question… and so you respond by calling it “the so-far neglected question”?? What are you talking about? Or do you think that apprehension-conceptualization-interpretation is somehow unproblematically built into ‘observe-measure-verify’? How does that work then? Or do you think that ‘observe-measure-verify’ actually unambiguously designates something, such that we can reasonably say, “that’s IT! - and gosh, what else could there BE?”? It’s easy to claim that there’s nothing mysterious going on if you ignore what I say and replace it with your pat little hand-in-fire example (the relevance of which is rather mysterious at this point) and completely ignore the issues I’ve raised.

[And here’s a concrete place where it gets a little mysterious: you might *just not get it! And there might be nothing I can do about it! Sometimes explanations just end at this kind of blank wall: S just doesn’t get it, he just can’t seem to understand the argument presented to him.]

 

[vz71]

I would say that accepting something as true merely on one person’s say-so – or on the say-so of some ancient book – is a really bad way of determining what’s true and false.

I see. Well, you are welcome to opinion.
What evidence do you have that this is really bad?

 

[tonyrey]

if only the thought of actual people was as easy to refute as straw man philosophies like scientism.

You are obviously not acquainted with many of the posts on this forum…

 

[_Locke]

I see. Well, you are welcome to opinion.
What evidence do you have that this is really bad?

It’s an argument from authority (in other words, defective induction)

 

[tonyrey]

I would say that accepting something as true merely on one person’s say-so – or on the say-so of some ancient book – is a really bad way of determining what’s true and false.

And no, to head off your inevitable objection, accepting the findings of bodies of experts who peer-review one another’s work based on evidence isn’t at all the same thing.

The truth shines by its own light - and the most important truths are not to be found in peer-reviewed articles…

“experts” in what domain? Science no doubt!

 

[tonyrey]

It’s an argument from authority (in other words, defective induction)

Perhaps scientific authority…

 

[Betterave]

Spock:
If you want some more mysterious, try to explain how this:

1. We consider a claim about the world around us to be “true” when it corresponds to the world around us.
2. We define “evidence” as “data drawn from the world around us.”
3. The more data drawn from the world around us (i.e. evidence) that supports the claim about the world around us, the more likely this claim is to correspond to the world around us (i.e. be true).
4. The more evidence that supports a claim, the more likely the claim is to be true.

Now, this isn’t just some empty syllogism that I’m asserting. This is a method that we have actually put into practice and determined that its correct practice yields results that verify the practice.

I’m asking you to explain your method for determining truth and to put on display the results that verify this method.

…is an answer to this:
Okay… so what is your answer to the general question?: how do we ever know that our methods are sound and that our conclusions are actually true?

Then if you could take a shot at answering this question yourself, that might be interesting too.

 

[AntiTheist]

I see. Well, you are welcome to opinion.
What evidence do you have that this is really bad?

Well, in addition to it being a logical fallacy, as Locke points out (argument from authority), we can point to examples of people getting really bad information from this method. Take, for instance, militant Islamists who take the word of their holy scriptures and/or leaders at face value.

Not only do they get bad information, they go on to do dangerous and destructive things on the basis of this information.

 

[Betterave]

Well, yes, but deductino and induction – along with the scientific method – fall under the broader heading of “evidence-based inquiry.”

There are people who are asserting that evidence-based inquiry is not absolute and probably cannot answer all questions. I agree with that. However, I disagree with the next idea that they leap to: "Well, there must be some other method that does answer all of those other questions!’

That doesn’t follow. It might be that those “other questions” are unanswerable or flawed (i.e. nonsensical).

That is true, and if there is anyone here who really takes the view that there must be some other method that answers *whatever *questions we might have, please, please, speak up. Otherwise, let’s not pretend to discuss this absurd view any further.

 

[_Locke]

Perhaps scientific authority…

No.

It’s only a fallacy when “it is claimed or implied that the authority is infallible in principle and can hence be exempted from criticism.” (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority) Which is true in the case of vz71 who wanted to know why “accepting something as true merely on one person’s say-so” is bad.

A lot of the debate in the forum could stay more directed if people were aware of even the basic logical fallacies. theskepticsguide.org/resources/logicalfallacies.aspx

 

[Betterave]

So would I. But let’s not hold our breath. There will be no answer - since there is no answer. And it takes a fair amount of intergity to admit it.

I find that open-mindedness is usually a helpful ingredient for rational inquiry. Grandiose dogmatism and gratuitous ad hominem insinuations, not so much.

 

[Betterave]

No.

It’s only a fallacy when “it is claimed or implied that the authority is infallible in principle and can hence be exempted from criticism.” (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority) Which is true in the case of vz71 who wanted to know why “accepting something as true merely on one person’s say-so” is bad.

A lot of the debate in the forum could stay more directed if people were aware of even the basic logical fallacies. theskepticsguide.org/resources/logicalfallacies.aspx

True, but… The problem is, fallacies sometimes compete with each other: A says, “Fallacious appeal to authority!” Fine. But B might just reply, “Begging the question!”