No, I'm not a spiritualist. My examples were not intended as claims about the paranormal. I was using them to illustrate a broader epistemological question about whether all valid knowledge must ultimately be scientific or empirical.
-
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
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
Your issue is a straw man and no one will defend it. There, finished.
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
What makes claims of the paranormal especially illustrative of your challenge to science?
I'm not looking for a rubber stamp for my beliefs. I'm genuinely open to being persuaded. If someone can give me a convincing argument for strong scientism — that scientific knowledge is the only valid form of knowledge — I may change my mind.
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
Stop trying to redirect the debate back to your desired talking points. Are paranormal claims also examples of questions you think empirical science answers poorly?
Last edited:
Nothing in particular. I wasn't using paranormal claims as an example. My three examples were mathematics, logic, and ethics. The paranormal is a separate issue, and I'm not arguing for it here.
Looking forward to your argument that it isn't.
No. That's not the point I'm making. I'm not a spiritualist, and I'm not arguing that empirical science is inadequate for investigating paranormal claims. My examples were mathematics, logic, and ethics. The question I'm examining is whether scientific knowledge is the only valid form of knowledge.
When will you start to challenge it?
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
If they are not particularly illustrative, why do you say they illustrate problems with scope of empirical science? Such a claim only makes sense if those questions are believed to lie outside the accepted scope.
Just answer the question. Do you believe paranormal claims illustrate what you say are problems with the scope of the scientific method? If so, how? If not, what exactly did you bring them up to illustrate?
Last edited:
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
Answer my question.
There is only one "world".
Logic and maths are languages humans invented to try and described aspects of the world, ethics is simply a way to describe some aspects of human behaviour (there is no is or ought issue when you correctly identify what ethics is). The scientific method can be used to test many of the descriptions of reality we describe in the languages of maths and logic. Like all our languages however both logic and maths can be used to describe a fiction and we are such an amazing ape that some very clever people can use maths and logic to describe limitations in both logic and mathematics (and for other languages). The real world is amazing.
I'm currently opposed to strong scientism, but I'm open to being convinced. If someone can give me a strong enough argument that scientific knowledge is the only valid form of knowledge, I could change my mind and become a defender of strong scientism
You said you wanted to challenge Scientism when will you start to challenge it?
Carrot Flower King
Janitor of Lunacy
"Not a spiritualist"?
Hang on a minute: who's brought up Kardek and his beliefs several times?
Just calling it "spiritism" doesn't make it not spiritualist.
More Humpty Dumpty et alia taking over the thread...
Hang on a minute: who's brought up Kardek and his beliefs several times?
Just calling it "spiritism" doesn't make it not spiritualist.
More Humpty Dumpty et alia taking over the thread...
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
You're not engaging.
Today you have simply spouted this same post over and over again as an evasion to a real dialogue. This is another reason why people distrust you. You talk big about how people who don't want to play your game are incapable of refuting your points. And then when cornered, you simply stick your fingers in your ears and spew the same straw man over and over.
Carrot Flower King
Janitor of Lunacy
How about "strong scientism", as you define it - a definition I don't accept as existing in the real world, as opposed to some philosophical mental masturbation exercise - does not really exist, but is a place holder for other things?
Science is another matter...
I'm opposed specifically to strong scientism because I think the claim is self-undermining. The claim that scientific knowledge is the only valid form of knowledge is itself an epistemological claim, not a scientific finding. So I don't see how science alone could establish the principle that science is the only valid source of knowledge.
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
No one here believes that science is the only valid source of knowledge.
How many times are you going to eviscerate this same straw man today?