JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
How does that work in a discussion forum if someone does not take up the contrary position?
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
Merged Is Scientism Really Justified?
- Thread starter Gubiosak
- Start date
No. I'm examining the position itself, whether or not anyone here defends it.
Helen
Implicitly explicit
So what are your conclusions?
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
Which sidesteps the point. The question you were asked is why you ask other people to reveal their position before engaging them? If you're not looking for opponents to defend your straw man, what are you looking for by asking people their predispositions?
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
Does that require the attention or intervention of other people?
That's exactly what I'm doing. My question is whether the strong scientistic claim — that scientific knowledge is the only valid form of knowledge — can itself be justified.
Do you yourself defend the strong scientistic position — that scientific knowledge is the only valid form of knowledge?
Helen
Implicitly explicit
Do you? Since you say you are examining it, you are better placed to answer that question.
I was simply trying to establish whether anyone here actually holds the strong position I'm examining, rather than attributing that position to anyone without justification. That's all.
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
What do you imagine the role of the other people posting in this thread ought to be?
See, there you go again—apparently hunting for people to take up a contrary position. Are you "examining" the question, or are you just itching for a fight?
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
It's abundantly clear no one here advocates the particular brand of scientism that you want to argue against. So what shall we do?
No. I don't defend the strong scientistic position. I'm examining and challenging it.
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
Do you expect other people in this forum to defend it against your challenges?
Helen
Implicitly explicit
How do you challenge it? Can you give me an example, a question, which you think challenges that position?
Carrot Flower King
Janitor of Lunacy
I already quoted Popper...
Mojo
Mostly harmless
Go on then.
Mojo
Mostly harmless
Is this necessary?
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
So then, yes, you are looking for opponents to debate. You're not just "examining" the subject.
As you've seen, no one here believes in the kind of "strong scientism" you oppose. Therefore no one is likely to defend it against your challenges. The approach to scientific methodology most common around here is pragmatic. It's the best method we know of for answering certain types of questions and thereby developing certain kinds of knowledge. That is why you've been asked to come up with a better method, if you can.
It's clear you don't want to be forced to challenge pragmatic empiricism. Conversely it follows that no one here wants to be forced to defend dogmatic empiricism—they don't believe in it.
The reason for what you might interpret as a hostile response is because many fringe claimants begin with pinning "strong scientism" on critics of the paranormal in an attempt to portray those critics as irrational. It's not clear that isn't what you're trying to do here, given that we have ample examples of you referring to the paranormal as a class of claims that you believe to be rejected inappropriately according to empirical methods.
So now what are you going to do?
Helen
Implicitly explicit
Who's on first?