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
See more
See less

Need Help With Reading Comprehension

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Adrift View Post
    So, you also believe that the paragraph cited says that science is scientism?

    Wow. Well I guess its my reading comprehension that needs work.
    Hard to say, just based on that one paragraph. I tend not to read most of what AIG writes anyway. I find they can be 'less than honest' with some of their presentations.
    "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

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Adrift View Post
      Yes, I mentioned that in post #5.
      I see that now. I was reading and posting at the same time.

      Originally posted by Adrift View Post
      He 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.
      That 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?
      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


      • #18
        Originally posted by Darth Executor View Post
        You are correct. "Science, or more accurately “scientism,” " is a snide remark that implies the individuals involved in the subsequent meeting are not real scientists.
        It 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.
        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


        • #19
          Originally posted by robrecht View Post
          It 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.
          I 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.
          "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


          • #20
            Originally posted by Darth Executor View Post
            I 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.
            Curious then that you did not mention that reading in your post. I say it is 'between the lines' because you have to take into account that AIG is the source and know that is their attitude toward evolutionary theory. This is not spelled out in the text, which only takes up the more extreme form of viewing evolutionary theory as the foundation of a new religion.
            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


            • #21
              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


              • #22
                Originally posted by robrecht View Post
                It 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.
                I doubt they would, but then, that wasn't really mine or shunyadragon's point. Nor has it ever been my view that the term scientism can not be used pejoratively (just to clear that up).

                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.
                Now that's more on point. I don't believe this single paragraph supports shunyadragon's assertion that the "common accusations of those who object to the science [of] evolution and cosmology describe these sciences as 'scientism,'", which is why I started the poll. Scientism, as far as this paragraph is concerned (and perhaps the whole article), only has to do with how it philosophically informed the members of this conference to come up with a new religion.

                In another of this author's articles on Carl Sagan, he (in my opinion) more or less accurately describes scientism as,

                Source: http://www.skepticfiles.org/science/sagansci.htm

                the belief that the assumptions, methods and even the speculations of science are equally appropriate, if not essential, for the proper understanding of all knowledge including religion. Scientism explicitly denies both the special revelation of truth and the existence of a sovereign, supernatural and eternal being. In the religion of Scientism, the Cosmos (matter, energy, time and space) is believed to be eternal and the only ultimate reality. Scientism teaches that all things have their being and origin in the intrinsic properties of nature. It follows that if gods were to exist, they too would only be a part and product of nature. The social and philosophical implications of Scientism for man are embodied in the religion of Secular Humanism.

                © Copyright Original Source



                He goes on to say,

                Source: http://www.skepticfiles.org/science/sagansci.htm

                Sagan freely admits that "science has itself become a kind of religion." In fairness to legitimate science it should be emphasized that it is Sagan's Scientism that has become a
                religion. Empirical science must depend on observability, repeatablility and testability of all phenomena it would seek to explain. True science of this kind has never been found to be in conflict with the Bible.

                © Copyright Original Source



                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


                • #23
                  Originally posted by robrecht View Post
                  That 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?
                  No. Not in so many words. Though I have found an interview with him on the subject, but its rather long. I'll let you know if I find anything concrete.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Truthseeker View Post
                    scientism = religion based on science?
                    No, 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."

                    Originally posted by Truthseeker View Post
                    scientism = a particular kind of epistemology.
                    Yes.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Adrift View Post
                      No, 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.
                      It'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. Hence, we have all those atheist science-minded people: No evidence means no creator. In vain do we attempt to say that absence of evidence for the existence of a given thing is not evidence of its non-existence. And we have historical evidence, but, no, they say it's not scientific evidence.
                      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


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Truthseeker View Post
                        It'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.
                        Sounds like you're describing a sort of deism. As a Christian, how would you square that with Paul's words in Romans 1:19-20?

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          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


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Adrift View Post
                            No, 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."
                            This definition defines scientism=metaphysical naturalism.
                            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


                            • #29
                              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


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by phank View Post
                                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.
                                From this paragraph alone, I think the author only considers evolutionary theory to be an example of scientism when used by a theologian as a source for a new religion. So, although I'm sure he does not like evolutionary theory, he doesn't call it scientism, at lease not in this paragraph.
                                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 Sparko
                                by Sparko
                                 
                                Started by Sparko, 03-07-2024, 08:52 AM
                                16 responses
                                74 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by rogue06, 02-28-2024, 11:06 AM
                                6 responses
                                47 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Working...
                                X