Our universe maybe a little younger than previously thought

[shunyadragon]

But, when the dust clears, it's all about me.

Yes!

[rogue06]

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.

That

[rogue06]

Why 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.

A lot of folks have issues with scientism that has nothing to do with a religious agenda. I can not speak for RA but you are presuming that this is the case.

[shunyadragon]

A lot of folks have issues with scientism that has nothing to do with a religious agenda. I can not speak for RA but you are presuming that this is the case.

Did not respond to my post.

[shunyadragon]

A lot of folks have issues with scientism that has nothing to do with a religious agenda. I can not speak for RA but you are presuming that this is the case.

A lot of folks, like who?!?!?!?!

[rogue06]

A lot of folks, like who?!?!?!?!

For 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.

[Seeker]

For 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.

Speaking of which, Carl Sagan was an agnostic or atheist?

[rogue06]

Speaking of which, Carl Sagan was an agnostic or atheist?

He 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

[Seeker]

He 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

So he wasn't an atheist. Thank you.

[shunyadragon]

For 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.

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.

[rogue06]

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.

facepalm3.gif Shuny, shuny, shuny.

[shunyadragon]

I like Sean Carroll description of the problem with the use of the wrod.

Source: https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2013/08/14/lets-stop-using-the-word-scientism/

Let’s Stop Using the Word “Scientism”

Posted on August 14, 2013 by Sean Carroll

Steven Pinker has kicked up a cloud of dust with a seemingly mild claim, addressed to people in the humanities: Science Is Not Your Enemy. And he’s right, it’s not! Science is merely an extremely effective method for gaining empirical knowledge of the world, and empirical knowledge of the world should not strike fear into any self-respecting intellectual person. Or if it does, perhaps you should contemplate a different form of employment, like U.S. Senator.

The devil is in the details, of course, and plenty of people have objected to the specific ways in which Pinker has argued that science is your friend, and others have defended him. Here are takes by Jerry Coyne, Eric MacDonald, and Massimo Pigliucci. I don’t mean to add anything deep or comprehensive to the debate, but I do want to make a suggestion that, if adopted, would make the world a better place: the word “scientism” should be dropped from the vocabulary of this discussion.

Now (like Pinker), I am a descriptivist rather than a prescriptivist when it comes to language. Word usage is not “right” or “wrong,” it’s just “useful” or “unhelpful.” So the point here is that use of the word “scientism” is unhelpful, not that people are using the “wrong” definition. It’s unhelpful because it’s ill-defined, and acts as a license for lazy thinking. (It wasn’t too long ago that I acknowledged the potential usefulness of the term, but now I see the error of my ways.)

The working definition of “scientism” is “the belief that science is the right approach to use in situations where science actually isn’t the right approach at all.” Nobody actually quotes this definition, but it accurately matches how the word is used. The problem should be obvious — the areas in which science is the right approach are not universally agreed upon. So instead of having an interesting substantive discussion about a real question (“For what kinds of problems is a scientific approach the best one?”) we instead have a dopey and boring definitional one (“What does the word `scientism’ mean?”).

I don’t know of anyone in the world who thinks that science is the right tool to use for every problem. Pinker joins Alex Rosenberg, who has tried to rehabilitate the word “scientism,” claiming it as a badge of honor, and using it to mean a view that “the methods of science are the only reliable ways to secure knowledge of anything.” But even Alex firmly rejects the idea that science can be used to discover objective moral truths — and others think it can, a view which is sometimes labeled as “scientism.” You can see the confusion.

Someone might respond, “but `scientism’ is a useful shorthand for a set of views that many people seem to hold.” No, it’s not. Here are some possible views that might be described as “scientism”:

Science is the source of all interesting, reliable facts about the world.
Philosophy and morality and aesthetics should be subsumed under the rubric of science.
Science can provide an objective grounding for judgments previously thought to be subjective.
Humanities and the arts would be improved by taking a more scientific approach.
The progress of science is an unalloyed good for the world.
All forms of rational thinking are essentially science.
Eventually we will understand all the important questions of human life on a scientific basis.
Reductionism is the best basis for complete understanding of complicated systems.
There is no supernatural realm, only the natural world that science can investigate.

The problem is that, when you use the word “scientism,” you (presumably) know exactly what you are talking about. You mean to include some of the above supposed sins, but not necessarily all of them. But if you aren’t completely explicit about what you mean every time you use the term, people will misunderstand you."

© Copyright Original Source

[rogue06]

Keep in mind the history of this

A lot of folks have issues with scientism that has nothing to do with a religious agenda. I can not speak for RA but you are presuming that this is the case.

A lot of folks, like who?!?!?!?!

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

Oh, and please note that I specifically listed atheist critics so that you can't dismiss them as having religious motivations for their objections.

[shunyadragon]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]36851[/ATTACH] Shuny, shuny, shuny.

rogue06, rogue06, rogue06

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.

[shunyadragon]

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

More meaningless sound bits and not answering the major issue I presented.