Merged Is Scientism Really Justified?

[JayUtah]

Irony aside, accusing me of ignoratio elenchi while completely ignoring my thesis on scientism is the ultimate textbook example of missing the point.

Your thesis is pointless because it's a straw man. No one here advocates what you call scientism. This has been explained to you countless times.

You just admitted that identifying logical flaws is valid argumentation.

No, I carefully distinguished when it is appropriate and when it is inappropriate, and I described how your fallacy-spotting is inappropriate. You use it to distract from your apparent unwillingness to address the merits of your claims. As I just explained, here you are accusing me of fallacy for not believing the straw man is real.

My thesis is straightforward: Scientism—the claim that empirical science is the ONLY source of valid knowledge—is self-refuting, because that claim itself cannot be proven empirically.

We've spent thirty pages trying to explain to you that no one here holds the position you're trying to get them to defend—that empirical science is the only valid source of knowledge. No one here believes that.

No one is "ignoring" your argument. They simply don't want to take your bait to defend a position they don't agree with. And because they don't agree with it, they're only mildly interested in why you think it fails for philosophical reasons. If you want someone to defend "scientism" against your withering epistemological rebuttal, go find someone who actually believes in it.

Now address my rebuttal regarding your latest question, which you've ignored three times.

You ask what type of evidence might support certain beliefs you say are beyond the grasp of the scientific method. When pressed, you identify those beliefs as things like math and logic. We already agree that those bodies of knowledge don't require empirical justification. So what's the point in your asking us to tell you what type of evidence would support them?

 

[theprestige]

The Genetic Fallacy of the "AI accusation"

Dismissing an argument simply by claiming it was written by or assisted by AI is a classic example of the genetic fallacy. This informal fallacy occurs when the logical validity or truth value of a claim is rejected based solely on its origin rather than its content.

In any debate rooted in scientific skepticism and critical thinking, the relevant questions are:

1. Are the premises true?
2. Is the logical structure sound?
3. Do the presented sources and evidence support the conclusion?

I have no interest in discussing those questions with an AI.

 

[theprestige]

The genetic fallacy occurs when someone evaluates a claim solely based on its origin

Based on an AI origin, I am refusing to evaluate the claim.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

I have no interest in discussing those questions with an AI.

Based on an AI origin, I am refusing to evaluate the claim.

It may well be that the most interesting question posed by this AI is not a claim of any sort, but the (implicit) question of whether the AI is more intelligent than the human who is relying upon it. Even if that were so, however, it is my opinion that this particular AI would have to demonstrate more ability to generate intelligent output before intelligent humans would bother to evaluate its output.

 

[arthwollipot]

It is, in fact, the only think that you can know for absolute certain.

Thing. The only thing. I can't believe I missed a t7po like that.

 

[Axxman300]

If he is doing as you say, what's the harm? Are you worried that a philosophical argument could cause you to lose faith in science and start believing in the paranormal? Of course not. So why not just enjoy the debate?

I'm waiting for him to make an actual argument.

 

[Darat]

The Genetic Fallacy of the "AI accusation"

Dismissing an argument simply by claiming it was written by or assisted by AI is a classic example of the genetic fallacy. This informal fallacy occurs when the logical validity or truth value of a claim is rejected based solely on its origin rather than its content.

In any debate rooted in scientific skepticism and critical thinking, the relevant questions are:

1. Are the premises true?
2. Is the logical structure sound?
3. Do the presented sources and evidence support the conclusion?

Whether a text was drafted by a human, run through a translation tool, polished by grammar software, or formatted with the help of an LLM, the factual correctness and logical integrity of the points made do not change. Focusing on the presumed tool of creation rather than refuting the actual argument or evidence is a departure from critical inquiry and an avoidance of the actual topic.

That is AI slop.

Care to put it in your own words.

 

[Darat]

...snip...


Not speaking the same language is a big handicap, and using AI isn't helping (another example of how it doesn't live up to its claims). Reasonable people would gave him some slack for that, but skeptics are not reasonable people.

Several of us have said to him by all means use AI to translate your words and ours but not to formulate your responses. Don't think anyone would be against using an "AI" to translate stuff.

 

[Carrot Flower King]

And we are back to that "definition" of "scientism" that some of us just plain do not accept, which tends to be used by those of a certain, errrr, philosophical persuasion (many, many posts passim).

And I got snark for referring to Ouroboros...

 

[Gubiosak]

And we are back to that "definition" of "scientism" that some of us just plain do not accept, which tends to be used by those of a certain, errrr, philosophical persuasion (many, many posts passim).

And I got snark for referring to Ouroboros...

Acknowledging the points raised across the recent replies:

On the AI/Language issue (@Darat, @Roger Ramjets): English is not my first language, so I have relied on tools to polish grammar and clarity. I understand how the formal structure comes across as "AI slop." I’ll keep my replies direct, raw, and unformatted from now on.

On the definition and "Straw Man" (@carrot, @Jay Utah): Let's drop the label "scientism" altogether if it causes semantic deadlocks. The core epistemological question is simple: Is empirical science the only valid standard for determining truth?

The Core Thesis:

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.

If your answer is Yes, then that statement itself must be empirically proven—which is logically impossible without circular reasoning.

Either way, the logical point holds. Which of those two positions do you actually stand behind?

 

[Darat]

Acknowledging the points raised across the recent replies:

On the AI/Language issue (@Darat, @Roger Ramjets): English is not my first language, so I have relied on tools to polish grammar and clarity. I understand how the formal structure comes across as "AI slop." I’ll keep my replies direct, raw, and unformatted from now on.

...snip...

Brilliant.

 

[Darat]

...snip...

The Core Thesis:

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.

If your answer is Yes, then that statement itself must be empirically proven—which is logically impossible without circular reasoning.

...snip...

Of course it does: it can only be applied to things that exist. And equally of course it can provide the empirical foundations for tools such as logic and maths.

 

[Dave Rogers]

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.

If your answer is Yes, then that statement itself must be empirically proven—which is logically impossible without circular reasoning.

Either way, the logical point holds. Which of those two positions do you actually stand behind?

You may remember, some way upthread, me pointing out that neither of these answers is tenable, and that your question is specifically formulated to be unanswerable. The answer, then, is neither Yes nor No, but that there is no answer. Therefore, I'm happy to continue to use empirical science because its benefits are universal, tangible and obvious, compared to the harmful results that have been obtained by other means (such as religious or political dogma, augury or, in the case of many historically significant leaders, bare assertion). As for the best way to obtain information on things that don't exist, I'm happy to proceed on the basis that such a system is as nonexistent as the things it purports to study, which at the very least has a nice conceptual symmetry to it.

Dave

 

[Gubiosak]

I have no interest in discussing those questions with an AI.

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.

 

[Dave Rogers]

If you disagree with the argument, I am happy to discuss the evidence and reasoning.

What evidence and reasoning? All you have is a question I've already demonstrated to be unanswerable that you nevertheless keep asking.

Dave

 

[Gubiosak]

You may remember, some way upthread, me pointing out that neither of these answers is tenable, and that your question is specifically formulated to be unanswerable. The answer, then, is neither Yes nor No, but that there is no answer. Therefore, I'm happy to continue to use empirical science because its benefits are universal, tangible and obvious, compared to the harmful results that have been obtained by other means (such as religious or political dogma, augury or, in the case of many historically significant leaders, bare assertion). As for the best way to obtain information on things that don't exist, I'm happy to proceed on the basis that such a system is as nonexistent as the things it purports to study, which at the very least has a nice conceptual symmetry to it.

Dave

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? If logic and mathematics are valid non-empirical foundations, then science has clear limits. If they are not, then the claim that only empirical methods produce knowledge needs a justification that cannot itself be purely empirical. So the question remains: do you consider logic and mathematics to be knowledge independent of empirical science, or not?

 

[Gubiosak]

What evidence and reasoning? All you have is a question I've already demonstrated to be unanswerable that you nevertheless keep asking.

Dave

The question is not the whole argument; it is a way to identify the assumptions behind the position. The point is that any claim about the limits of knowledge requires some foundation. If you say the question has no answer, that is itself a philosophical position that needs justification. I am asking about that justification, not only repeating the question.

 

[Gubiosak]

Of course it does: it can only be applied to things that exist. And equally of course it can provide the empirical foundations for tools such as logic and maths.

That second point is where the core disagreement lies, Darat.Claiming that empirical science provides the foundation for logic and math creates a classic circular reasoning problem (begging the question).You cannot design an empirical experiment or interpret observational data without already assuming the validity of formal logic and mathematics beforehand. 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.If empirical science is required to validate logic, how do you empirically test the Law of Non-Contradiction without using logic in your test?

 

[Gubiosak]

I would like to clarify something about my use of AI. I am not using AI to debate in my place or to generate opinions that I do not hold. I am a real person from Brazil, and English is not my first language. Because of this language barrier, I use AI tools as a translator, grammar checker, and language assistant to help me express my own ideas more clearly in English. The arguments, questions, and reasoning are mine. I choose what to write, I understand the content, and I take responsibility for what I post. The use of a language tool does not mean that the tool is the author of the argument. I respect concerns about AI-generated content, but it is important to distinguish between using AI as a replacement for human participation and using it as a language-accessibility tool. I would therefore appreciate it if people stopped treating any use of AI as proof that the person on the other side is an AI or that their arguments are not their own.

 

[Darat]

That second point is where the core disagreement lies, Darat.Claiming that empirical science provides the foundation for logic and math creates a classic circular reasoning problem (begging the question).You cannot design an empirical experiment or interpret observational data without already assuming the validity of formal logic and mathematics beforehand. 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.If empirical science is required to validate logic, how do you empirically test the Law of Non-Contradiction without using logic in your test?

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.)