Scientism = dumb dogmatism

[Delta40]

...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.

I agree. Does this mean G L Wilson is a Great Deign?

[G L Wilson]

...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.

You never fail to be presumptous and rude. Why you have never been called for trolling is beyond me.

[YesNo]

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 don't know much about Hume. Do you have a reference?

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?

[Silas Thorne]

Oh, but Mark's comment was amusing, and much needed in this thread.

[YesNo]

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??

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.

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.

[G L Wilson]

I don't know much about Hume. Do you have a reference?

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?

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.

[MarkBastable]

You never fail to be presumptous and rude. Why you have never been called for trolling is beyond me.

How can it be beyond you? Nothing else is.

[G L Wilson]

Oh, but Mark's comment was amusing, and much needed in this thread.

If that was a joke, the joke's on me.

[G L Wilson]

How can it be beyond you? Nothing else is.

I have learnt over time that I know very little. But one thing that I do know is that you live to annoy people.

[Varenne Rodin]

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.

[Dodo25]

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.

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.

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.)

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.)

[Varenne Rodin]

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.

[YesNo]

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.

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.

Anyway, I think I'll see if I can find something in the library by him this evening.

[MarkBastable]

I have learnt over time that I know very little. But one thing that I do know is that you live to annoy people.

Very carefully selected people, and only in retaliation.

[G L Wilson]

Very carefully selected people, and only in retaliation.

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?