Printable View
"In esssence, scientism sees science as the absolute and only justifiable access to the truth." In other words, scientism is no substitute for religion. It is in fact a faith, a fiction, a fantasy of faith. The philosophy of science allows for doubt, theology allows for conviction. It is a poor thinker who is convinced of his own theories.
I'm so poor here....wedged firmly between my beliefs, convictions and self-doubts.....oh what to do, what to do!
You could come over to the dark side, Delta40.Quote:
Originally Posted by Delta40
Wha? I thought I was! Or maybe it's because I didn't pay my power bill...
I am quite sure that The Romantic movement was all about that, denouncing the cold enlightenment which thought that reason and science and logic were the only truths. Romanticism said, yes I have reason and logic, but I shall not tie myself solely to it; like a swan that chooses only to swim and not to fly.
If only the master of the universe would tell us what percentage of reality is beyond human intelligence, then we could decide which worldview is the best way forward. If he, the master of the universe, told us that 90% of reality is and will always be beyond our ken, we could go back to charming snakes and doing stuff like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MwHWbsvgQUE
Albert Einstein was overall a very poor thinker.
You're getting to the stage now where, to quote Hobbes, you're making "language an impediment to understanding".Quote:
Originally Posted by G L Wilson
I don't think Albert Einstein was a poor thinker at all. He was very self doubting and even self loathing at times. He had confidence in his cognitive abilities, but recognized that they were still limited. He constantly questioned everything. He was a sexual deviant, and I doubt he would have claimed to be a man of convictions.
That comment smacks of penis envy to me. :nod: How should I write that mathematically?Quote:
Originally Posted by G L Wilson
Nice of you to come up with a description that flies in the face of the accepted meaning, but I guess it's harder to build a strawman out of.Quote:
Originally Posted by G L Wilson
I'll accept this description of scientism rather than yours, thanks:
My bolding should give the obvious clue to where the problem is.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wikipedia
But it's helluva fun doing it is my guess. Like this:Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkBastable
Comments like that hardly bear reading, let alone answering.Quote:
Originally Posted by G L Wilson
Einstein was a deist, a determinist and a drag on physics in the end.
Look at a selection of quotes by the guy. I understand what he means but very few others would.
Hume was more on the money, that you couldn't determine cause: it was bad for history but a closer proof of the doctrine of free will as you are ever likely to get.
I never met an adherent to 'scientism'. I think the term is a pathetic straw-man designed by people who feel cornered in arguments and thus come up with relativism nonsense. It's quite annyoing, whenever you try to have a serious discussion, you gotta spend at least 75% of the time arguing about epistemology instead of just talking about the issue directly. What's up with all those amateur philosophers and their anti-science attitude??
Scientism is not science, it's religion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dodo25
...ah, there's the problem. Very few people are as bright as you. Frankly, we should be flattered that you deign to speak to us at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by G L Wilson
I agree. Does this mean G L Wilson is a Great Deign?Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkBastable
You never fail to be presumptous and rude. Why you have never been called for trolling is beyond me.Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkBastable
I don't know much about Hume. Do you have a reference?Quote:
Originally Posted by G L Wilson
Was he saying that there is no cause whatsoever within the space-time matter-energy universe for some events, such as spontaneous radioactive decay, or that we will not be able to know all the causes no matter how hard we look?
Oh, but Mark's comment was amusing, and much needed in this thread. :)
Part of the problem with "serious discussions" is that people engaging in them get too serious about what is going on. They want the other person to agree with them more than they want to use the other person's comments as a prompt to clarify their own position.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dodo25
One of the things that politicians, missionaries and advertisers have in common is the desire to "talk about the issues directly". What that means to them is they want the opportunity to get a vote, a convert or a person ready to buy their product. They don't want to be distracted by responses that disagree with their positions. That is all "nonsense". For them, communication is a one-way street and they direct the traffic.
Hume said, "There is no such thing as chance in the world," which means in his philosophy that there was a cause but it couldn't be known.Quote:
Originally Posted by YesNo
How can it be beyond you? Nothing else is.Quote:
Originally Posted by G L Wilson
If that was a joke, the joke's on me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Silas Thorne
I have learnt over time that I know very little. But one thing that I do know is that you live to annoy people.Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkBastable
Which one of you will be Alpha male? I can't wait to see!
Albert Einstein was brilliant. Emotionally, he was nearly crushed and devastated by the society he was born into. I'm surprised you don't feel you can relate to that, G L.
That's a good point, but I don't think it's an argument against the point I was making. (My point was that 'scientism' in the dogmatic sense has virtually no adherents, and that there are, nevertheless, good reasons to think that science is the best way to learn anything.)Quote:
Originally Posted by YesNo
People should be HAPPY to be convinced of something. It's not about 'winning or loosing' the argument, if someone changes their mind, both parties won. As soon as people get too attached to their view, this becomes an irrational bias. The goal should be 'truth', not 'being the one that wins'.
(And btw, I define 'truth' as whatever accurately predicts future outcomes.)
I agree that science is the best system we have for explaining the physical world. It's beautiful, and complex, and it frequently challenges its own established theories. I think the possibility exists for any conviction to be dismissed.
Checking Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hume, I see he lived in the 18th century. If he did not believe in chance, I think that would make him a determinist, but didn't you mention that he promoted free will? Perhaps I missed the point you were making.Quote:
Originally Posted by G L Wilson
Anyway, I think I'll see if I can find something in the library by him this evening.
Very carefully selected people, and only in retaliation.Quote:
Originally Posted by G L Wilson
In retaliation for the wounding of your sense of justice or pride? I see you as having no stake in anything of great importance, hence why the rage?Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkBastable
He is very good, I assure you.Quote:
Originally Posted by YesNo
I am not saying that he wasn't a human being. I am saying that his thinking was poor overall.Quote:
Originally Posted by Varenne Rodin
GL...I'm seeing a part of you that I haven't seen before...
Good thread...
G L, what gives? Are you trying to fly under the radar of dominionism? You have BienvenuJDC in your corner. Um...mission accomplished?
Nah - in direct retaliation to having been annoyed. You're annoying.Quote:
Originally Posted by G L Wilson
And you're vain.Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkBastable
You know, G.L., I've admired (and mentioned this elsewhere) the fact that you always went your own way and never responded to the attacks. Don't change that philosophy. People may question the value of some of your postings, but why give them postings that there's no question about?
Mark, unless I haven't been paying attention (no reason I should be, I guess), this isn't typical of you either.
I'm reasonable.Quote:
Originally Posted by Varenne Rodin
I didn't mean to imply otherwise, Bien. It's just that your type of Christian philosophy tends to be in line with dominionism. You and G L have often been at odds. Now that he has taken to bashing Einstein, you're having a change of heart, it seems. Correct me if I'm wrong. It's tough for me to wrap my head around the idea of an atheist like G L disliking a man who has made great scientific contributions. Ridiculing Einstein is like a goal of dominionism. It just seems counterproductive, and I wonder what the motivation is.Quote:
Originally Posted by BienvenuJDC
For the record, I don't think anyone in this debate sucks. You're all super sweethearts and I thank you for the dynamic conversation. :D
I've discovered that GL doesn't reside in any particular camp. I don't either.Quote:
Originally Posted by Varenne Rodin
Thankyou Varenne :)
I've met many an over-philosophising type, and have learnt to avoid them - they all aggravate at minimum exposure (in my first hand experience), and I'm sure they're very clever in their loopy way, but genuine laughter's lost on them and socially they're mere experts of the superior smirk
Philosophy is only a single aspect of a full life, and will lead to defeatism quicker than anything else, and forget the argument that philosophy is a language to be studied - it should be, but not to the exclusion of everything else
That's my philosophy anyway