Merged Is Scientism Really Justified?

[Gubiosak]

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.

Assuming my motives or inventing a backstory about "ghosts" is just another way to avoid the logical problem. An epistemological question about the circularity of radical empiricism stands or falls on its own logic, regardless of why anyone asks it. The question remains completely untouched: is the claim that "only empirical statements yield valid knowledge" itself an empirical statement, or a philosophical premise?

 

[Gubiosak]

The demon cares if I torture and main it.

Moving from logical arguments to absurdist jokes only highlights the refusal to engage with the actual query. The question about the circularity of radical scientism remains unanswered.

 

[JayUtah]

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!

Yeah, you say this same thing every time someone tells you why your AI usage is off-putting. At this point you're just groveling for attention.

Assuming my motives or inventing a backstory about "ghosts" is just another way to avoid the logical problem.

"Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain."

 

[theprestige]

Assuming my motives or inventing a backstory about "ghosts" is just another way to avoid the logical problem.

I haven't avoided the logical problem at all. I've addressed it head-on.

But it doesn't surprise me at all that you've skipped over those posts. My assumption of your motives, and my creation of a plausible backstory that's consistent with my observations so far, is a direct result of your observed behavior so far.

 

[JayUtah]

My assumption of your motives, and my creation of a plausible backstory that's consistent with my observations so far, is a direct result of your observed behavior so far.

See, there you go drawing conclusions based on observation, hypothesization, and more observation. If you would instead simply deduce logically that he's completely serious...

 

[EHocking]

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?

While you’re fiddling with ChatGPT or similar, punch in, “What is strawmanning?”

 

[Darat]

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.

You are accused of using AI because you are using AI, all of us here can access AIs, if we wanted to have an exchange with an AI we could. This is meant to be a forum in which humans discuss things with other humans.

And I don't know about others but I had no need to use an AI detector to detect that you are using AI, I used my knowledge.

 

[Darat]

Assuming my motives or inventing a backstory about "ghosts" is just another way to avoid the logical problem. An epistemological question about the circularity of radical empiricism stands or falls on its own logic, regardless of why anyone asks it. The question remains completely untouched: is the claim that "only empirical statements yield valid knowledge" itself an empirical statement, or a philosophical premise?

As I have replied to you I think three times already, the scientific method can be used on the scientific method to test if the scientific method provides accurate descriptions of reality or not.

 

[arthwollipot]

Since the claim 'only empirical science provides reliable knowledge' cannot be proven empirically, by which of these two standards do you justify it?

Define "justified" as you are using it here.

Radical scientism claims that only empirical science yields valid knowledge.

Nobody is making that claim except you.

The question remains completely untouched: is the claim that "only empirical statements yield valid knowledge" itself an empirical statement, or a philosophical premise?

It's a claim that only you are making.

 

[Ryan O'Dine]

Surely maths models the physical world so well because that's what it was invented to do?

I guess this gets into the 'is math invented or discovered?' question. I think the fact that obscure mathematics can be found to have practical applications decades after being formulated suggests that the question isn't a simple one.

 

[Gubiosak]

As I have replied to you I think three times already, the scientific method can be used on the scientific method to test if the scientific method provides accurate descriptions of reality or not.

Using the scientific method to validate the scientific method is the textbook definition of begging the question (circular reasoning). You cannot use a framework to prove its own foundational validity without presupposing the very thing under test.

 

[Gubiosak]

Define "justified" as you are using it here.


Nobody is making that claim except you.


It's a claim that only you are making.

Claiming 'nobody holds this position' is simply a denial of a well-documented epistemological stance (scientism). If you don't hold the claim that only empirical science yields valid knowledge, then you already agree that non-empirical philosophical premises are valid. The question answers itself.

 

[Ryan O'Dine]

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.

Remind me, what's your original argument? Could you state it again? I seem to remember you started with a question, not an argument.

 

[JayUtah]

Using the scientific method to validate the scientific method is the textbook definition of begging the question (circular reasoning).

Ask your AI what a "virtuous circle" is.

 

[Carrot Flower King]

Ooooooooh, "radical scientism"...How on earth did I get through years of studying and qualifying in sciences without ever hearing this term?

This is beyond silly now.

What stops you calling it "science", like everyone else, aside from...

 

[JayUtah]

Ooooooooh, "radical scientism"...How on earth did I get through years of studying and qualifying in sciences without ever hearing this term?

Oh, darn. Calling attention to his obviously coded language means you can't refute his proposition. You have to play his game by his rules.

 

[theprestige]

Assuming my motives or inventing a backstory about "ghosts"

To be fair, you haven't really given us any other options.

 

[Steve]

Ooooooooh, "radical scientism"...How on earth did I get through years of studying and qualifying in sciences without ever hearing this term?

This is beyond silly now.

What stops you calling it "science", like everyone else, aside from...

But Gubiosak is "not attacking the scientific method". No, not at all.

 

[Steve]

Oh, darn. Calling attention to his obviously coded language means you can't refute his proposition. You have to play his game by his rules.

Do we have an actual proposition yet?

 

[arthwollipot]

Claiming 'nobody holds this position' is simply a denial of a well-documented epistemological stance (scientism). If you don't hold the claim that only empirical science yields valid knowledge, then you already agree that non-empirical philosophical premises are valid. The question answers itself.

Which means that your entire argument is vacuous and built on a false premise. Show me one person who advocates for "scientism" as you have defined it. Just one. I'll wait.

Oh, and speaking of definitions, you still haven't defined "justify".