Merged Is Scientism Really Justified?

[Mojo]

Yes.

 

[Gubiosak]

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?

Fair enough. I'll call this pragmatic third-order skepticism and leave the matter there.

 

[Axxman300]

I am not against science; I believe the scientific method is extremely important, but there are questions that may be beyond the current reach or scope of science.

And there it is. He said it out loud.

This guy doesn't read the posts.

 

[catsmate]

I am not against science; I believe the scientific method is extremely important, but there are questions that may be beyon?d the current reach or scope of science.

What are these questions?

 

[Axxman300]

Before continuing the discussion, I think it would help to clarify your position. Do you think science is the only valid way of obtaining knowledge, or do you think it is simply the best method for answering empirical questions?

This question has been directly answered multiple times. How about you stepping up to make your point, and then defend it?

 

[catsmate]

Do you defend the stronger claim that science is the only valid way of obtaining knowledge, or the more moderate claim that science is simply our best method for investigating the empirical world?

You're evading the question.

 

[catsmate]

Before answering your question, I think it would help to clarify something: do you defend a strong form of scientism (that science is the only valid way of obtaining knowledge), or a more moderate view (that science is the best method for investigating the empirical world, while other forms of reasoning may have a role in other areas)?

Oh look, more evasion......

 

[W.D.Clinger]

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.

If and when you figure it out, I suggest you let yourself know.

It's abundantly clear no one here advocates the particular brand of scientism that you want to argue against. So what shall we do?

I have a suggestion, outlined below.

I'm asking because I'm opposed to strong scientism. I want to know whether anyone here actually defends that position, so I know whether there is someone arguing for the other side.

Why don't you just state, as a working hypothesis (sorry, that's something that comes up in science, but maybe you can ask AI to explain it to you), that somewhere in the world is a somebody who would actually defend that position. Let's give that hypothetical somebody a name: Astoundingly Stupid Doofus.

You can then pretend you know someone who is arguing for the other side, and proceed to argue with A Stupid Doofus.

Oh, and if A Stupid Doofus never posts to this thread, the obvious explanation is that Doofus isn't a member of this forum and has no interest in becoming your straw man, because he's already upset about the name we gave him.

Fair enough. I'll call this pragmatic third-order skepticism and leave the matter there.

Call it whatever you want. But will it come when you do call?

 

[catsmate]

I will answer,

Then do so and stop evading.

 

[catsmate]

My point is not that every question beyond the current scope of

You still haven't shown that such questions actually exist.

 

[Axxman300]

The point is to examine whether the claim is justified, not to find a particular person to argue with.

You are 298 posts into this thread but you have yet to make your case. You are just looking for a fight.

 

[catsmate]

I'm specifically examining the strong form of scientism here: the claim that scientific knowledge is the only valid form of knowledge. I'm not arguing against science or against the weaker claim that science is the best method for investigating empirical questions.

You still haven't answered the question.

 

[JayUtah]

…but there are questions that may be beyond the current reach or scope of science.

Give me an example of such a question.

 

[Gubiosak]

Give me an example of such a question.

Here are three examples:

Mathematics: “What is 17 × 23?”
Logic: “If all A are B, and X is A, does it follow that X is B?”
Ethics: “Is it morally wrong to torture an innocent person for fun?”
These are examples of questions where the relevant justification is not itself a scientific experiment. My point is not that science is useless, but that its success does not by itself establish that science is the only valid way of obtaining knowledge.

 

[Axxman300]

Fair enough. I'll call this pragmatic third-order skepticism and leave the matter there.

Coward.

As a paranormal researcher I've run into plenty of folks like you. You are not looking for answers or even the truth. You want a rubber stamp for your belief system. You've missed the whole point of philosophy class, which is to challenge your mind, your way of thinking, and even the system. But you have yet, after multiple threads, to state your case, and defend it.

At no point in this thread, or in any of your other threads has anyone stated, "The Scientific Method is the only way to know something", and it drives you crazy. Science, unlike religion or philosophy, has never been a fixed belief system. Science evolves as new information is added, and tested. Science is not handed down from on high. Papers are written, their conclusions are disseminated, and tested, and re-tested, and those conclusions validated, or tossed out.

If there was a better process we'd all tell you about it. But there isn't, and you don't think so either, otherwise you'd state your position, and defend it. The fact is you don't know what to believe. The fight is with yourself, not us.

 

[Gubiosak]

Just to be clear: I'm not a spiritualist, and I'm not opposed to science. I'm interested in the philosophical question of what science can establish, and whether that necessarily exhausts all forms of knowledge or value.

 

[Axxman300]

Here are three examples:

Mathematics: “What is 17 × 23?”
Logic: “If all A are B, and X is A, does it follow that X is B?”
Ethics: “Is it morally wrong to torture an innocent person for fun?”
These are examples of questions where the relevant justification is not itself a scientific experiment. My point is not that science is useless, but that its success does not by itself establish that science is the only valid way of obtaining knowledge.

So...you don't understand science on any level.

 

[JayUtah]

Here are three examples:

Those are discussed already and shown to be poor examples. Might you really be thinking of claims of the paranormal?

 

[Gubiosak]

Coward.

As a paranormal researcher I've run into plenty of folks like you. You are not looking for answers or even the truth. You want a rubber stamp for your belief system. You've missed the whole point of philosophy class, which is to challenge your mind, your way of thinking, and even the system. But you have yet, after multiple threads, to state your case, and defend it.

At no point in this thread, or in any of your other threads has anyone stated, "The Scientific Method is the only way to know something", and it drives you crazy. Science, unlike religion or philosophy, has never been a fixed belief system. Science evolves as new information is added, and tested. Science is not handed down from on high. Papers are written, their conclusions are disseminated, and tested, and re-tested, and those conclusions validated, or tossed out.

If there was a better process we'd all tell you about it. But there isn't, and you don't think so either, otherwise you'd state your position, and defend it. The fact is you don't know what to believe. The fight is with yourself, not us.

Let's keep this calm and separate the issues.

I'm not a spiritualist, and I'm not opposed to science. I'm questioning a philosophical claim about the limits of scientific knowledge; I'm not attacking science itself.

I also haven't insulted or attacked anyone personally in this forum. I've been asking questions and trying to clarify positions. If my questions have been misunderstood, I'm happy to clarify them, but I don't think personal accusations help the discussion.

I'm not looking for a "rubber stamp" for my beliefs. I'm trying to examine the issue and I'm willing to have my arguments challenged.

 

[catsmate]

Just to be clear: I'm not a spiritualist, and I'm not opposed to science. I'm interested in the philosophical question of what science can establish, and whether that necessarily exhausts all forms of knowledge or value.

I am not against science; I believe the scientific method is extremely important, but there are questions that may be beyond the current reach or scope of science.

What are these questions?