Merged Is Scientism Really Justified?

[theprestige]

it is amazing how universal this pattern of troll posting is: if they get explained why their ideas are flawed, instead of trying to learn, they slightly rephrase the question and start again.
As if no one but them had any memory.

Free versions of LLMs don't maintain a lot of state between sessions. So it's kind of on brand, here.

 

[Carrot Flower King]

Oh, for ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ ◊◊◊◊'s ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ sake, will you stop using "scientism"?

Call it science or just ◊◊◊◊ off with your obvious attempts to play the "Hur hur, science is just really another religion, hur hur!" card.

Despite other "definitions" posted in the other thread, most of us know fine well who uses "scientism" or "evolutionism" and why: just stop the disingenuous nonsense and come out and say what you appear to be getting at?

 

[Darat]

I would like to propose a short epistemological question.

Radical scientism claims that only empirical science yields valid knowledge.

However, this faces a clear logical issue:

• The claim "only testable statements are valid" is not itself testable. It is a philosophical claim.
• Science relies on logic and mathematics, which are non-empirical foundations.

My question:Is your core premise a testable empirical fact or a philosophical position?

If philosophical, non-empirical reasoning is necessary. If empirical, how do you test it without circular reasoning?

It works.

 

[Dave Rogers]

I feel I'm missing something here...

"Factual truths"...Explain please?

There are also tautologies, which are tautological truths.

Dave

 

[Gubiosak]

I write and formulate my own arguments. English is not my native language, so I use translation tools to refine my grammar before posting, which might make the phrasing sound overly structured. But the reasoning is entirely mine.

That said, focusing on AI or calling an epistemological question a "gotcha" doesn't address the contradiction.

@theprestige argued that empirical science can test its own validity using its own tools. However, using empirical science to prove that only empirical science yields valid knowledge is a textbook example of begging the question (circular reasoning).

If a rule is allowed to validate itself, any worldview can claim the same authority. Is there a non-circular justification for radical scientism, or are we agreeing that its foundation is an unprovable philosophical assumption?

 

[Gubiosak]

Which AI will you be using to generate your posts in this thread? You do need to provide that information under the terms of your membership - https://internationalskeptics.com/f...eement-explanatory-notes.168641/#post-5669795

I formulate and write my own arguments. Since English is not my native language, I use a translation tool (Google Translate) and language software to check grammar and phrasing before posting.

No automated bot is generating my ideas or my positions—the epistemological reasoning is entirely my own.

Now that this is clarified, can we return to the actual logical argument regarding circular reasoning in radical scientism?

 

[The Great Zaganza]

so what is, in principle, is inaccessible to the Scientific Method - in your opinion?

 

[JayUtah]

I write and formulate my own arguments.

At this point no one believes you. In your last thread you obviously copy pasted entire responses from your AI, including the engagement-maintaining platitudes. You've insisted that you use AI only as a translation device, but at this point that's just not credible.

That said, focusing on AI or calling an epistemological question a "gotcha" doesn't address the contradiction.

Correct. No one wants to engage you on any actual points you might raise because you're obviously just a go-between for your AI, and your posts are rhetorically coded to indicate a hidden agenda. You want us to overlook the historically supported reasons why engaging you on a topic is fruitless, and instead just engage you.

Nope.

 

[catsmate]

Oh, for ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ ◊◊◊◊'s ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ sake, will you stop using "scientism"?

It's a useful warning sign for pseudo-scientific drivel.

 

[catsmate]

I write and formulate my own arguments. English is not my native language, so I use translation tools to refine my grammar before posting, which might make the phrasing sound overly structured. But the reasoning is entirely mine.

That said, focusing on AI or calling an epistemological question a "gotcha" doesn't address the contradiction.

@theprestige argued that empirical science can test its own validity using its own tools. However, using empirical science to prove that only empirical science yields valid knowledge is a textbook example of begging the question (circular reasoning).

If a rule is allowed to validate itself, any worldview can claim the same authority. Is there a non-circular justification for radical scientism, or are we agreeing that its foundation is an unprovable philosophical assumption?

This is rubbish.

 

[theprestige]

@theprestige argued that empirical science can test its own validity using its own tools.

I argued no such thing.

I claimed that the claim, "the scientific method is the only reliable way to test claims, that we know of" can be tested using the scientific method.

I haven't bothered to argue it, since (a) demonstrations of the principle have already been provided to you in this thread; (b) the method's tools have already been provided to you in this thread, so you can try it for yourself*; and (c) whenever an argument is made, you seem to hand off all the responsibilities to an AI and mentally check out of the conversation, so why bother?

However, using empirical science to prove that only empirical science yields valid knowledge is a textbook example of begging the question (circular reasoning).

That is the claim.

Also, you are confused about your own ideas. You have already made a distinction between empirical science and logical proofs.

I have never claimed that one or the other should be used for this question. I have only claimed that the toolset they share in common, which I call "the scientific method" can be used for this question.

[Does your AI detect and understand text formatting for emphasis? Will it read the phrases "should be" and "can be" and realize that their emphasis strongly indicates that they embody a core concept that should be focused on and studied carefully?]

You know what? I'm going to do it. For my own amusement, and hopefully the amusement of others in this thread. I know you won't read or understand it, so it's not like I'll be doing your homework for you.

The Scientific Method (after theprestige): Observe, Predict, Test, Observe.

Question: Is the scientific method the only way of knowing things, that we know of?

The Method in action:

Observation: When people know a way of knowing things, they talk about it and use it to know new things.
Prediction: If we know of another way of knowing things, we should see people talking about and using it.
Testing: Do we see people talking about and using other methods of knowing things?
Observation: Yes, we do see people talking about and using other methods of knowing things. Divine revelation, for example. Received wisdom, for another example.

Question: Is the scientific method the most reliable way of knowing things, that we know of?

The definition of reliable, and the application of the scientific method to the question, are left as exercises for the reader.

My conclusion is that received wisdom is marginally more reliable than divine revelation, but not nearly as reliable as the scientific method. YMMV.

If a rule is allowed to validate itself, any worldview can claim the same authority. Is there a non-circular justification for radical scientism, or are we agreeing that its foundation is an unprovable philosophical assumption?

I'm happy to agree that this foundation is an unprovable philosophical assumption.

I already believe that all foundations are unprovable philosophical assumptions. Keep digging deeper, keep distilling further, and inevitably you'll get to a foundation of unprovable philosophical assumption.

That's why I find philosophical questions so boring. They're always dead ends.

And in this case, we don't even have to dig or distill at all, to find the dead end to your idea. It's already obvious that you have no alternatives to suggest, no concept of how to apply the scientific method or any other method to the questions you raise, and no interest in remedying any of these deficiencies in your thinking on this subject.

In conclusion, I'll leave you with this:

It's no accident that the world's natural philosophers have always preferred the scientific method over divine revelation and received wisdom, when looking for truths that are measurable, predictable, and repeatable, even in the hands of someone else.

How many times has the end of the world been predicted by divine revelation, only to be proven wrong by events? How many times has the scientific method made the same mistake?

---

*One thing I've noticed in these threads is that you show no interest in actually trying out anything for yourself. You could try the scientific method's toolset, and tell us your results, but you won't. You won't try anything for yourself. You won't do any of the work you could and should be doing, to contribute to this topic. Your entire effort seems to be focused only on getting to a philosophical dead end as fast as possible, with as few "distractions" as possible.

 

[theprestige]

I mean, ◊◊◊◊. I've already thought of two other ways of knowing, and compared their reliability to that of the scientific method. Which is ten times more than @Gubiosak has done, and he's been "cheating" the whole time.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

I just summon a powerful Demon and force it to tell me what I want to know.
But I am open to other ideas.

 

[JayUtah]

I just summon a powerful Demon and force it to tell me what I want to know.
But I am open to other ideas.

And this is different from AI, how?

 

[Gubiosak]

At this point no one believes you. In your last thread you obviously copy pasted entire responses from your AI, including the engagement-maintaining platitudes. You've insisted that you use AI only as a translation device, but at this point that's just not credible.


Correct. No one wants to engage you on any actual points you might raise because you're obviously just a go-between for your AI, and your posts are rhetorically coded to indicate a hidden agenda. You want us to overlook the historically supported reasons why engaging you on a topic is fruitless, and instead just engage you.

Nope.

If the argument is sound, its origin doesn't matter—it could come from a parrot! Just confess that you are unable to refute it!

Se o argumento é bom, não importa a sua origem — ela poderia vir até de um papagaio! Confesse que você simplesmente não consegue refutá-lo!
You accuse me of using AI simply because you are unable to refute my arguments! You have to prove that these arguments aren't mine. Furthermore, AI detectors are deeply unreliable and frequently yield false positives!
Vocês me acusam de usar IA simplesmente porque não conseguem refutar meus argumentos! Vocês têm que provar que esses argumentos não são meus. Além disso, detectores de IA erram com frequência!

Evaluating an argument by where it comes from instead of what it proves is a Genetic Fallacy.
Julgar um argumento pela sua origem em vez da sua lógica é a essência da Falácia Genética.

 

[Gubiosak]

And this is different from AI, how?

A diferença é trivial: uma metáfora não resolve uma contradição lógica. Quer uma ideia venha de uma ferramenta de tradução, de um livro ou de um demônio imaginário, sua validade depende exclusivamente de sua lógica interna — não da sua fonte. Você pode focar na fonte o quanto quiser, mas o raciocínio circular do cientificismo radical continua sem refutação.

 

[Gubiosak]

And this is different from AI, how?

The difference is trivial: a metaphor doesn't resolve a logical contradiction. Whether an idea comes from a translation tool, a book, or an imaginary demon, its validity depends solely on its internal logic—not its source. You can focus on the source all you want, but the circular reasoning of radical scientism still remains unrefuted

 

[Gubiosak]

it is amazing how universal this pattern of troll posting is: if they get explained why their ideas are flawed, instead of trying to learn, they slightly rephrase the question and start again.
As if no one but them had any memory.

Claiming someone is "rephrasing instead of learning" assumes that the original argument was actually refuted, which never happened. Repeating that an idea is "flawed" without addressing its logical structure is not a refutation—it is a refusal to engage. Accusing me of trolling simply because you disagree with the premise is just another iteration of the Genetic Fallacy. If the argument is invalid, demonstrate the logical flaw; otherwise, calling it a troll post is just an exit strategy.

Afirmar que alguém está "reformulando em vez de aprender" pressupõe que o argumento original foi realmente refutado, o que nunca aconteceu. Repetir que uma ideia é "falha" sem enfrentar sua estrutura lógica não é uma refutação — é apenas uma recusa em debater. Acusar-me de "troll" simplesmente por discordar da premissa é apenas mais uma variação da Falácia Genética. Se o argumento é inválido, demonstre a falha lógica; caso contrário, rotulá-lo como trollagem é apenas uma estratégia de fuga.

 

[theprestige]

Claiming someone is "rephrasing instead of learning" assumes that the original argument was actually refuted, which never happened. Repeating that an idea is "flawed" without addressing its logical structure is not a refutation—it is a refusal to engage. Accusing me of trolling simply because you disagree with the premise is just another iteration of the Genetic Fallacy. If the argument is invalid, demonstrate the logical flaw; otherwise, calling it a troll post is just an exit strategy.

Afirmar que alguém está "reformulando em vez de aprender" pressupõe que o argumento original foi realmente refutado, o que nunca aconteceu. Repetir que uma ideia é "falha" sem enfrentar sua estrutura lógica não é uma refutação — é apenas uma recusa em debater. Acusar-me de "troll" simplesmente por discordar da premissa é apenas mais uma variação da Falácia Genética. Se o argumento é inválido, demonstre a falha lógica; caso contrário, rotulá-lo como trollagem é apenas uma estratégia de fuga.

It's obvious that someone told you that ghosts aren't real, and now you're trying to rebuild epistemology from first principles in a way that admits claims like "ghosts are real", without admitting to your predetermined conclusion.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

And this is different from AI, how?

The demon cares if I torture and main it.