"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!
Before sunlight can shine through a window, the blinds must be raised - American Proverb
You could come over to the dark side, Delta40.Originally Posted by Delta40
Wha? I thought I was! Or maybe it's because I didn't pay my power bill...
Before sunlight can shine through a window, the blinds must be raised - American Proverb
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".
Last edited by MarkBastable; 08-24-2011 at 03:13 AM.
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.How should I write that mathematically?
Before sunlight can shine through a window, the blinds must be raised - American Proverb
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.
I'll accept this description of scientism rather than yours, thanks:
My bolding should give the obvious clue to where the problem is.
But it's helluva fun doing it is my guess. Like this:
Comments like that hardly bear reading, let alone answering.
Go to work, get married, have some kids, pay your taxes, pay your bills, watch your tv, follow fashion, act normal, obey the law and repeat after me: "I am free."
Anon
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.
Last edited by G L Wilson; 08-24-2011 at 05:53 AM.
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.
...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.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
