Originally posted by Adrift
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
Need Help With Reading Comprehension
Collapse
X
-
"The man from the yacht thought he was the first to find England; I thought I was the first to find Europe. I did try to found a heresy of my own; and when I had put the last touches to it, I discovered that it was orthodoxy."
GK Chesterton; Orthodoxy
-
Originally posted by Adrift View PostYes, I mentioned that in post #5.
Originally posted by Adrift View PostHe is defending scientism from its critics. It seems to me that he embraces the label for himself, but maybe you're right. In this article he suggests that Exclusivist Liberal Scientism is one of the seven viable varieties of naturalism, but ultimately believes that there are only two great naturalisms, Reductive Physicalism (which basically sounds like scientism to me) and Perspectival Pluralism.
Hmm. That isn't the impression I got. I had assumed that he was simply pointing out that debate between naturalists exists, but it appears my reading comprehension might not be what I thought it was.βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃
Comment
-
Originally posted by Darth Executor View PostYou are correct. "Science, or more accurately “scientism,” " is a snide remark that implies the individuals involved in the subsequent meeting are not real scientists.βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃
Comment
-
Originally posted by robrecht View PostIt is obvious that the AIG author would consider the people at the conference to be proponents of scientism, using his own pejorative label, but it is not clear to me that the people at the conference would embrace the label and consider themselves to be proponents of scientism. One has to read between the lines to interpret the AIG author to be applying the label of scientism to proponents of evolutionary theory. It is likely but, as lilpixieofterror says, it is hard to say based on this single interjection in a single paragraph."As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths." Isaiah 3:12
There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Darth Executor View PostI don't think it needs much reading between the lines. It's how I read it the first time and see no reason to change my mind, even though usually when lilpixie or shuny say something, you can take it to the bank.βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃
Comment
-
scientism = religion based on science?
To avoid confusion by a thread I have started days ago; there, scientism = a particular kind of epistemology.The greater number of laws . . . , the more thieves . . . there will be. ---- Lao-Tzu
[T]he truth I’m after and the truth never harmed anyone. What harms us is to persist in self-deceit and ignorance -— Marcus Aurelius, Meditations
Comment
-
Originally posted by robrecht View PostIt is obvious that the AIG author would consider the people at the conference to be proponents of scientism, using his own pejorative label, but it is not clear to me that the people at the conference would embrace the label and consider themselves to be proponents of scientism.
One has to read between the lines to interpret the AIG author to be applying the label of scientism to proponents of evolutionary theory. It is likely but, as lilpixieofterror says, it is hard to say based on this single interjection in a single paragraph.
In another of this author's articles on Carl Sagan, he (in my opinion) more or less accurately describes scientism as,
He goes on to say,
In both articles he's obviously no proponent of the theory of evolution, but it doesn't occur to me that he thinks the theory itself is any sort of scientism. Rather, it appears to me that his view is that a scientistic worldview may lead to "evolutionary indoctrination". Again, that's something that needs to be read between the lines, because neither article comes right out and says that. As someone who leans towards theistic evolution, I of course, disagree with that assessment.
Comment
-
Originally posted by robrecht View PostThat was only my initial impression. Later on I was not so sure. I still have not read all of your links, and probably will not be able to. Do you have a clear sentence where he explicitly embraces scientism or reductive physicalism as a label for himself?
Comment
-
Originally posted by Truthseeker View Postscientism = religion based on science?
"the view that the characteristic inductive methods of the natural sciences are the only source of genuine factual knowledge and, in particular, that they alone can yield true knowledge about man and society." or, "In essence, scientism sees science as the absolute and only justifiable access to the truth."
Originally posted by Truthseeker View Postscientism = a particular kind of epistemology.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Adrift View PostNo, not exactly. A good working definition is the sort you can read on the Wikipedia article,
"the view that the characteristic inductive methods of the natural sciences are the only source of genuine factual knowledge and, in particular, that they alone can yield true knowledge about man and society." or, "In essence, scientism sees science as the absolute and only justifiable access to the truth."
Yes.The greater number of laws . . . , the more thieves . . . there will be. ---- Lao-Tzu
[T]he truth I’m after and the truth never harmed anyone. What harms us is to persist in self-deceit and ignorance -— Marcus Aurelius, Meditations
Comment
-
Originally posted by Truthseeker View PostIt's possible (to me at least) that this universe was created by a creator, and he created it in such a way that science cannot confirm his existence and nature.
Comment
-
In this paragraph AIG describes science as scientism. The theology of AIG opposes evolution and cosmology, and includes this in his view of science.
Science=scientism includes evolution and cosmology.Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:
go with the flow the river knows . . .
Frank
I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Adrift View PostNo, not exactly. A good working definition is the sort you can read on the Wikipedia article,
"the view that the characteristic inductive methods of the natural sciences are the only source of genuine factual knowledge and, in particular, that they alone can yield true knowledge about man and society." or, "In essence, scientism sees science as the absolute and only justifiable access to the truth."Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:
go with the flow the river knows . . .
Frank
I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.
Comment
-
I read the topic sentence (the first one) in this paragraph as saying "where science impinges on religion, it is scientism." The remainder of the paragraph reads as intended to be an illustration of the assertion in the topic sentence. Seems pretty clear to me that the author has provided three illustrations of scientism according to his usage: evolutionary theory, "ecotheology", and any brain study that purports to equate religion with a brain process. So all three of these ARE "scientism" as intended here.
However, I do NOT read this paragraph as saying that science itself is always scientism. Only the "naughty bits" are scientism, such as evolutionary theory. These bits are naughty because AiG's doctrine simply does not allow them to be a valid part of science.
Comment
-
Originally posted by phank View PostI read the topic sentence (the first one) in this paragraph as saying "where science impinges on religion, it is scientism." The remainder of the paragraph reads as intended to be an illustration of the assertion in the topic sentence. Seems pretty clear to me that the author has provided three illustrations of scientism according to his usage: evolutionary theory, "ecotheology", and any brain study that purports to equate religion with a brain process. So all three of these ARE "scientism" as intended here.
However, I do NOT read this paragraph as saying that science itself is always scientism. Only the "naughty bits" are scientism, such as evolutionary theory. These bits are naughty because AiG's doctrine simply does not allow them to be a valid part of science.βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-18-2024, 12:15 PM
|
48 responses
135 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Sparko
03-20-2024, 09:13 AM
|
||
Started by Sparko, 03-07-2024, 08:52 AM
|
16 responses
74 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by shunyadragon
03-08-2024, 03:12 PM
|
||
Started by rogue06, 02-28-2024, 11:06 AM
|
6 responses
47 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by shunyadragon
03-08-2024, 03:25 PM
|
Comment