Originally posted by Cow Poke
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Natural Science 301 Guidelines
This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.
As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.
Forum Rules: Here
As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.
Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less
Our universe maybe a little younger than previously thought
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
Yes, it is longer than just the two posts, and yes, it is addressed to you. But he's not REFERRING to anything you wrote however, but to post #6 that Seeker wrote. In post #8 Rogue is saying that post #6 is an example of scientism and in post #10 he's explaining how post #6 is an example of scientism.
I'm always still in trouble again
"You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
"Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
"Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman
Comment
-
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostWhy would ReformedApologist post this if it were not an accusation based on a religious agenda using scientism as a 'stone' word to throw at science? It was not related to the topic.
I'm always still in trouble again
"You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
"Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
"Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman
Comment
-
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostA lot of folks, like who?!?!?!?!
Shall I continue?
Oh, and please note that I specifically listed atheist critics so that you can't dismiss them as having religious motivations for their objections.
I'm always still in trouble again
"You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
"Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
"Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman
Comment
-
Originally posted by rogue06 View PostFor one Karl Popper who was FWICT either an atheist or at least agnostic called scientism "the aping of what is widely mistaken for the method of science" in his Objective Knowledge: An Evolutionary Approach. The atheist Professor of Philosophy and Law Emeritus at New York University, Thomas Nagel, criticized New Atheist Sam Harris for conflating all empirical knowledge with that of scientific knowledge in the "The Facts Fetish." Another atheist, the Distinguished Professor in the Humanities, Cooper Senior Scholar in Arts and Sciences, Professor of Philosophy, and Professor of Law at the University of Miami, Susan Haack, has written extensively about the pitfalls of scientism (for instance, her Six Signs of Scientism). And another atheist, Philip Kitcher, the Mark Van Doren Professor of Humanities and John Dewey Professor of Philosophy at Columbia, lays out several objections in his "The Trouble with Scientism."
Shall I continue?
Oh, and please note that I specifically listed atheist critics so that you can't dismiss them as having religious motivations for their objections.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Seeker View PostSpeaking of which, Carl Sagan was an agnostic or atheist?
I'm always still in trouble again
"You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
"Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
"Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman
Comment
-
Originally posted by rogue06 View PostHe denied being an atheist saying "An atheist is someone who is certain that God does not exist, someone who has compelling evidence against the existence of God. I know of no such compelling evidence." But he didn't speak very highly of religion
Comment
-
Originally posted by rogue06 View PostFor one Karl Popper who was FWICT either an atheist or at least agnostic called scientism "the aping of what is widely mistaken for the method of science" in his Objective Knowledge: An Evolutionary Approach. The atheist Professor of Philosophy and Law Emeritus at New York University, Thomas Nagel, criticized New Atheist Sam Harris for conflating all empirical knowledge with that of scientific knowledge in the "The Facts Fetish." Another atheist, the Distinguished Professor in the Humanities, Cooper Senior Scholar in Arts and Sciences, Professor of Philosophy, and Professor of Law at the University of Miami, Susan Haack, has written extensively about the pitfalls of scientism (for instance, her Six Signs of Scientism). And another atheist, Philip Kitcher, the Mark Van Doren Professor of Humanities and John Dewey Professor of Philosophy at Columbia, lays out several objections in his "The Trouble with Scientism."
Shall I continue?
Oh, and please note that I specifically listed atheist critics so that you can't dismiss them as having religious motivations for their objections.
You, as yet, have not responded to the problem of fundamentalist Christians using 'scientism' as an accusation against science such as cosmology, abiogenesis and evolution that do not fit their religious agenda as 'reformedapologist' did, which is the main problem with the word as often misused as a club word.
Again, I am not concerned about the worldview of materialists, or Ontological Naturalists who make claims that may be called scientismists, as long as their science conforms to Methodological Naturalism. The problem with the fundamentalist Christians is their science does not pass muster.
As with the comments concerning Karl Popper, the religious or none religious view gets vague to categorize scientists like nailing a Jellyfish to the wall.
Comment
-
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostPlease continue with your short sound bites without a full explanation of the context of their view toward scientism. Since the range of beliefs among scientists is very diverse and broad accusations of scientism is meaningless as far as science is concerned.
You, as yet, have not responded to the problem of fundamentalist Christians using 'scientism' as an accusation against science such as cosmology, abiogenesis and evolution that do not fit their religious agenda as 'reformedapologist' did, which is the main problem with the word as often misused as a club word.
Again, I am not concerned about the worldview of materialists, or Ontological Naturalists who make claims that may be called scientismists, as long as their science conforms to Methodological Naturalism. The problem with the fundamentalist Christians is their science does not pass muster.
As with the comments concerning Karl Popper, the religious or none religious view gets vague to categorize scientists like nailing a Jellyfish to the wall.
I'm always still in trouble again
"You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
"Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
"Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman
Comment
-
Keep in mind the history of this
Which I answered[1] and you responded like you are trying to down every rabbit hole. Simultaneously.
1. Here's a couple more:
Massimo Pigliucci, Professor of Philosophy at CUNY-City College and holder of multiple degrees is a Stoic and advocate for secularism, is a staunch opponent of the New Atheist movement and scientism (see his The Problem with Scientism). Another atheist, Michael Shermer, who founded The Skeptics Society and editor-in-chief of its magazine Skeptic, and senior research fellow at Claremont Graduate University is another critic of scientism.
You wanted examples which I gave and as I noted
Originally posted by rogue06 View PostOh, and please note that I specifically listed atheist critics so that you can't dismiss them as having religious motivations for their objections.Last edited by rogue06; 05-03-2019, 08:21 PM.
I'm always still in trouble again
"You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
"Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
"Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman
Comment
-
Originally posted by rogue06 View Post[ATTACH=CONFIG]36851[/ATTACH] Shuny, shuny, shuny.
Still you have not responded. I see only the Duck, Bob, and Weasel act.
Please continue with your short sound bites without a full explanation of the context of their view toward scientism. Since the range of beliefs among scientists is very diverse and broad accusations of scientism is meaningless as far as science is concerned.
You, as yet, have not responded to the problem of fundamentalist Christians using 'scientism' as an accusation against science such as cosmology, abiogenesis and evolution that do not fit their religious agenda as 'reformedapologist' did, which is the main problem with the word as often misused as a club word.
Again, I am not concerned about the worldview of materialists, or Ontological Naturalists who make claims that may be called scientismists, as long as their science conforms to Methodological Naturalism. The problem with the fundamentalist Christians is their science does not pass muster.
As with the comments concerning Karl Popper, the religious or none religious view gets vague to categorize scientists like nailing a Jellyfish to the wall.
Comment
-
Originally posted by rogue06 View PostKeep in mind the history of this
Which I answered[1] and you responded like you are trying to down every rabbit hole. Simultaneously.
1. Here's a couple more:
Massimo Pigliucci, Professor of Philosophy at CUNY-City College and holder of multiple degrees is a Stoic and advocate for secularism, is a staunch opponent of the New Atheist movement and scientism (see his The Problem with Scientism). Another atheist, Michael Shermer, who founded The Skeptics Society and editor-in-chief of its magazine Skeptic, and senior research fellow at Claremont Graduate University is another critic of scientism.
You wanted examples which I gave and as I noted
Comment
Comment