Merged Is Scientism Really Justified?

[Darat]

I'm using the standard epistemological definition. Whichever one you pick, the question remains: is the claim that 'only empirical science yields knowledge' itself an empirical fact? I'll leave that to the readers. Thanks for the chat!

That’s a non-answer.

And yes as I said the ability of science to test if a description of reality is true or not can be empirically tested.

 

[Darat]

Spot on, @Roger Ramjets. Thank you for the clarity. You’ve hit the core of the issue: treating empirical science as the only valid path to knowledge completely ignores how logic, trust, and practical reasoning actually function.

Brilliantly put, @Roger Ramjets. Showing how science depends on non-empirical tools like logic and math without being identical to them is the exact clarity this thread needed.

I see you are still feeding posts to AI and posting its responses rather than posting your translated words.

 

[Darat]

Think you missed his point.

They will have done as the response is from an LLM AI not their own words translated.

I am more sanguine about AI usage than I was but if I want an AI to formulate a reply to a post I can do that for myself.

 

[Mojo]

That’s a non-answer.

And yes as I said the ability of science to test if a description of reality is true or not can be empirically tested.

The idea that we can obtain knowledge of the world by observation is an assumption of science, not a conclusion. And it's an assumption that we all use and rely on every day, if we're sane.

 

[Darat]

The idea that we can obtain knowledge of the world by observation is an assumption of science, not a conclusion. And it's an assumption that we all use and rely on every day, if we're sane.

25 years ago I had much more patience with the solipsists and nihilists and those arguments, these days I’m with Philip K Dick.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

Mathematical proofs are used to establish the existence of mathematical objects. A prime number doesn't, in and of itself, exist in the world as an observable object. So a mathematical proof is only giving you knowledge of things that exist in the universe of mathematics.

The deeper question is: why do the discoveries of math work so well as tools in modelling the physical behavior of the world? Why does the world act as if math underlies it? And can those questions be answered using science?

If they can't, then maybe there is another path to knowledge.

Let us all meditate, Ommmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

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

 

[Axxman300]

I am not arguing against the scientific method. I am asking about the justification of the claim that it is the only reliable way of knowing. Is that claim itself established by the scientific method, or by philosophical reasoning about the method?

Your question fails because there is a difference between the scientific method establishing a set facts leading to a theory, and "knowing" something. The scientific method exists because claims are testable by any scientific body, anywhere in the world. But as Ernest Lawrence once said, "Theory will only take you so far", and he said this to Robert Oppenheimer, who often quoted it too. In fact the movie Oppenheimer is the perfect model to separate empirical knowledge, and wisdom (which is what I think you might be driving at if you'd stop using AI, since there is no wisdom in AI.). The scientific method split the atom, and lead to the creation of the atomic bomb. But what the scientific method could not do was provide Washington DC, and the Pentagon the wisdom to NOT build such weapons. Oppenheim wrote, "They won't fear it until they understand it. And they won't understand it until they've used it." This is the perfect bridge between empirical knowledge and wisdom, or "knowing" as you call it.

But you can't change the rules because the things you "know" are not supported by science.

Science works only when the right questions are asked, and in all of your threads you constantly ask the wrong questions.

 

[Gubiosak]

If rationality is limited to belief in factual truths, is the very premise you defend a testable empirical fact or a philosophical position?

 

[Gubiosak]

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?

 

[theprestige]

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

One of my favorite science communicators is Lindsay Nikole (YouTube). Her special interest is the lore of evolution, and one of her catchphrases is "... that we know of."

I'm happy to claim that empirical science is the only reliable way to get knowledge, that we know of.

That phrase is a big part of what makes the scientific method so reliable: It gives us an open-ended method for building on what we already know, and for correcting what we thought we knew.

And yes, I think this claim can be tested using the tools of the scientific method. I think demonstrations along those lines have already been provided in this thread.

So once again, you're not reading and understanding the answers people are giving you.

 

[JayUtah]

We get it. You don’t like evidence-based science. Stop groping for the gotcha!

 

[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?

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

 

[JayUtah]

So once again, you're not reading and understanding the answers people are giving you.

He should think about using the paid version of his AI.

 

[catsmate]

I would like to propose a short epistemological question.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

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.

 

[Steve]

Mods: maybe a quick merge is in order before this duplicate thread gets too long.

 

[Garrison]

We should also consider logic, mathematics, and philosophy.Is science the only way to gain knowledge?

Well two out of those three are used in science and arguably the scientfic method is a philosophy. To date not everything has been explained by science, but there is no reason to suppose any other approach will fill in the gaps.

 

[theprestige]

He should think about using the paid version of his AI.

I think we're already through the looking glass, into a parasocial twilight zone, where we should probably say, "he should ask his AI to think about using the paid version of his AI."

 

[Carrot Flower King]

If rationality is limited to belief in factual truths, is the very premise you defend a testable empirical fact or a philosophical position?

I feel I'm missing something here...

"Factual truths"...Explain please?

 

[theprestige]

I've already reported the thread for merge (or perhaps AAH, since it's redundant with the other thread already).