Merged Is Scientism Really Justified?

[Reformed Offlian]

I am a real person, not an AI. I am Brazilian and English is not my first language, so I use translation tools to communicate. The arguments are mine, and I am responsible for them. If you disagree with the argument, I am happy to discuss the evidence and reasoning.

We're not stupid, and you are not the first, nor even the tenth, person on this forum to try to pass off AI slop as your own work. Since English is not your first language, it is possible that you do not fully appreciate just how obvious your AI slop offerings are, how clear it is that those posts are *not* simply awkward machine translation, notwithstanding your insistence that they are.

The best way to convince people that you are genuine is to be genuine, to engage with their arguments honestly and genuinely. So far, you haven't done that. Nobody here is going to change how they respond to you. If you don't like the responses, change your rhetoric. Or keep doing the same thing while hoping for different results.

 

[Gubiosak]

Nope - I can rub two sticks together and make fire - what logic or maths did that require?

(Plus I said "a" foundation not "the" foundation.)

The distinction is between using a method and justifying the knowledge produced by that method. A person can rub two sticks together without consciously applying logic or mathematics, just as a person can speak without knowing grammar rules. But explaining why that observation counts as reliable knowledge, or why the same result should be expected in similar conditions, already involves reasoning principles. My point is not that every human action requires explicit mathematics or logic, but that the justification of empirical claims depends on logical structures that are not themselves obtained by empirical testing.

 

[JayUtah]

On the definition and "Straw Man" (@carrot, @Jay Utah): Let's drop the label "scientism" altogether if it causes semantic deadlocks.

The label is not the issue.

The core epistemological question is simple: Is empirical science the only valid standard for determining truth?

It is not.

No one here is claiming that it is, despite your multiple, sometimes frantic attempts to say they do.

If your answer is No (because math, formal logic, and rational coherence are valid non-empirical foundations), then we agree that empirical science has clear boundary conditions.

Correct. We all agree that.

Either way, the logical point holds.

Yes, you made your point pages ago and we all agree. Do you expect a cookie?

 

[JayUtah]

The laws of logic (like non-contradiction) are a priori conditions required for the scientific method to function in the first place, not outputs of empirical observation.

Asked and answered. While we do not derive logical or mathematical conclusions empirically (except perhaps once as cave men), they nevertheless often describe causes and effects that are empirically observable. A proposed logical law may be refuted by empirical means.

Similarly science does not become circular when the flaws in some particular form of empiricism are themselves resolved empirically. As we explained to you the last time you tried to raise this issue, this is a problem feared only by philosophers, not by scientists. Because empirical sciences are tethered to an observable reality, the feared circle is broken.

Am I any closer to getting an answer to the contradiction I noted in your most recent claim?

You asked what type of evidence should support beliefs such as mathematics and logic that you say lie outside scientific methods. If you agree that mathematics and logic do not require empiricism, then what sense does it make for you to ask what type of evidence supports them?

 

[JayUtah]

My point is not that every human action requires explicit mathematics or logic, but that the justification of empirical claims depends on logical structures that are not themselves obtained by empirical testing.

You say that logic and mathematics are examples of the part of your post that I have highlighted below.

What types of evidence are appropriate to justify beliefs about realities that, by definition, may be beyond the reach of scientific methods?

If you agree that such things are not the product of empirically-obtained evidence, then what do you mean by asking what types of evidence are appropriate to justify them?

 

[JayUtah]

I think we are addressing different questions. I am not disputing that empirical science works or that its results are valuable. My point is about foundations: is empirical science the only valid basis of knowledge?

No. But it remains the best science for testing claims of the paranormal.

If logic and mathematics are valid non-empirical foundations, then science has clear limits.

Practitioners of empirical methods are the most outspoken on this point. They apply the method only when it is the proper method according to its limitations.

Logic and mathematics have even more severe limits in determining the state of the observable world. They are not the solution to the limits of empiricism. When you ask what type of evidence justifies belief in things that lie beyond the limits of empiricism, what are you really trying to ask?

As others have noted, it's common for advocates of the paranormal to withhold any specific claims and rely instead on a roundabout categorical argument that tries to equivocally foist its propositions as necessarily following from the proposition that empirical science has limits. Convince me that's not what you're doing.

 

[Gubiosak]

We're not stupid, and you are not the first, nor even the tenth, person on this forum to try to pass off AI slop as your own work. Since English is not your first language, it is possible that you do not fully appreciate just how obvious your AI slop offerings are, how clear it is that those posts are *not* simply awkward machine translation, notwithstanding your insistence that they are.

The best way to convince people that you are genuine is to be genuine, to engage with their arguments honestly and genuinely. So far, you haven't done that. Nobody here is going to change how they respond to you. If you don't like the responses, change your rhetoric. Or keep doing the same thing while hoping for different results.

Fair enough. Let's drop the meta-discussion entirely and keep it simple.My argument remains: any empirical observation (like rubbing sticks) already presumes logical principles like non-contradiction to make sense of the data. How do you validate those logical principles empirically without circular reasoning?

 

[Gubiosak]

Nope - I can rub two sticks together and make fire - what logic or maths did that require?

(Plus I said "a" foundation not "the" foundation.)

Do you mean methodological naturalism, or the stronger epistemological claim that empirical science is the only source of genuine knowledge?

 

[JayUtah]

...or the stronger epistemological claim that empirical science is the only source of genuine knowledge?

Dude, give it up.

No one in this thread has ever claimed that empirical science is the only source of genuine knowledge.

 

[JayUtah]

How do you validate those logical principles empirically without circular reasoning?

Who is claiming that logical principles can or must be validated empirically?

 

[Gubiosak]

No. But it remains the best science for testing claims of the paranormal.


Practitioners of empirical methods are the most outspoken on this point. They apply the method only when it is the proper method according to its limitations.

Logic and mathematics have even more severe limits in determining the state of the observable world. They are not the solution to the limits of empiricism. When you ask what type of evidence justifies belief in things that lie beyond the limits of empiricism, what are you really trying to ask?

As others have noted, it's common for advocates of the paranormal to withhold any specific claims and rely instead on a roundabout categorical argument that tries to equivocally foist its propositions as necessarily following from the proposition that empirical science has limits. Convince me that's not what you're doing.

You are equivocating on the word 'evidence'. In empirical science, it means observational data; in logic, it means deductive proof and internal consistency. Saying empirical data can refute a logical law is circular, as you must use logical laws (like non-contradiction) to interpret the data in the first place.I have no interest in defending the paranormal or any pseudo-scientific claims. My point was purely epistemological: empirical science requires a priori logical foundations to function.The core thesis stands on its own merits without any hidden agenda.

 

[Gubiosak]

Dude, give it up.

No one in this thread has ever claimed that empirical science is the only source of genuine knowledge.

Then we are in complete agreement, and the point is fully established. Thank you for the discussion.

 

[Gubiosak]

Who is claiming that logical principles can or must be validated empirically?

Then we are in full agreement. That completes the point: empirical science relies on non-empirical logical foundations that cannot be validated empirically. Thank you for the discussion.

 

[Darat]

Fair enough. Let's drop the meta-discussion entirely and keep it simple.My argument remains: any empirical observation (like rubbing sticks) already presumes logical principles like non-contradiction to make sense of the data. How do you validate those logical principles empirically without circular reasoning?

No it doesn't. The observation stands on whether rubbing two sticks together makes fire or not.

 

[JayUtah]

You are equivocating on the word 'evidence'.

No, I'm trying to get you to say what you mean by evidence.

Accusing someone of equivocation when your question explicitly asks about vague, unspecified categories of the thing allegedly being equivocated about doesn't seem very good-faith. I asked you to describe your contemplated taxonomy precisely so we could have some shared framework for drawing helpful distinctions. You refused to answer.

In empirical science, it means observational data; in logic, it means deductive proof and internal consistency.

Then that's the answer to your question. No need to bother us with it.

Saying empirical data can refute a logical law is circular, as you must use logical laws (like non-contradiction) to interpret the data in the first place.

No.

First of all, I said a proposed logical law. The distinction is important. Something is a law when it describes something that is universally true. A proposition in logic may still be valid or invalid. You can propose something that seems to follow logically according to sound reasoning. But if the prediction of that premise is contradicted by an observation, the proposition fails no matter how internally consistent your argument seems. Science is full of superseded propositions that were once held to be logical necessities.

Logic especially has abstract structures which can achieve deductive strength. But they generate knowledge only when applied to facts which may themselves be indistinct or wrong. Without that application, abstract logical knowledge has no meaningful value.

Second: as @Darat points out, not all empirical observation requires laborious, philosophy-driven interpretation or analysis. Trying to wrap empiricism in some pseudo-philosophical magic to deny its obvious strength does not form an argument that scientists care about. Scientist realize that tethering their methods to an observable outcome breaks the circularity that philosophers are so worried about.

I have no interest in defending the paranormal or any pseudo-scientific claims.

Then why did you post your question in the paranormal section of the forum? Why are you using paranormal-coded language to illustrate your points? You're running the paranormal playbook.

My point was purely epistemological: empirical science requires a priori logical foundations to function.

You made that point. We all agree. Move on.

Is empirical science therefore invalid?

If so, why is it so universally successful? If not, what's your further point?

 

[JayUtah]

Then we are in full agreement.

We were in full agreement many pages ago.

That completes the point: empirical science relies on non-empirical logical foundations that cannot be validated empirically.

No one ever disputed that. Why must you raise the question over and over again?

Thank you for the discussion.

Thank you for wasting my time.

 

[JayUtah]

No it doesn't. The observation stands on whether rubbing two sticks together makes fire or not.

Two cave men—Thag and Og—hunched on the ground.

Og: "Og cold. Og rub sticks together. Make fire."
Thag: "Og can't. Must invent non-contradiction principle first."

 

[theprestige]

Then we are in full agreement. That completes the point: empirical science relies on non-empirical logical foundations that cannot be validated empirically. Thank you for the discussion.

We covered foundational axioms over a month ago. How did you miss this?

 

[Carrot Flower King]

Does Sao Paulo not have a university? Colleges of higher or further education (to use a classification that I know from the UK)? Are there not departments of philosophy? What would stop someone applying to take a course in one of them, where they could argue to their heart's content with folk who like this sort of "argument", rather than a set of people which includes folk who regard the whole set up as tosh?

Or just heading off to their nearest good bookshop and purchasing a couple of philosophy text books and reading those?

Why not any of those?

 

[Thermal]

Does Sao Paulo not have a university? Colleges of higher or further education (to use a classification that I know from the UK)? Are there not departments of philosophy? What would stop someone applying to take a course in one of them, where they could argue to their heart's content with folk who like this sort of "argument", rather than a set of people which includes folk who regard the whole set up as tosh?

Or just heading off to their nearest good bookshop and purchasing a couple of philosophy text books and reading those?

Why not any of those?

They might be haunted?