Merged Is Scientism Really Justified?

[JayUtah]

The analogy with paranormal claims is also beside the point.

You're posting in the paranormal forum and following the paranormalists' argumentation playbook. You're trying to show that science is limited in a way that prevents it from studying certain propositions. Identifying those propositions as math etc. is a red herring.

 

[Carrot Flower King]

Not according to our OP, it seems. The paranormalists argue that science works just well enough to give us lasers and Batmobiles, but is fundamentally limited to certain classes of proposition. Conveniently, paranormal claims are posited to lie outside any of those classes. Hence our OP lost interest when it seemed his claim of Limited Science was acknowledged.

Be that is may, yours is a more straightforward way of expressing what I've been saying as science being tethered to an observable reality. The OP seems incapable of anything but a knee-jerk rejection of this relationship as uselessly circular.

The answer, of course, is 42.

And my cat says you are welcome to believe that if you want...

She then went back to sleep, after a very feline yawn and stretch.

What do I know? I merely put food and water out for her...

 

[Steve]

And my cat says you are welcome to believe that if you want...

She then went back to sleep, after a very feline yawn and stretch.

What do I know? I merely put food and water out for her...

That seems like it came from Douglas Adams but I can't quite place it.

 

[Darat]

I would. AI is not reliable. How can I know that it translated the words correctly?

Google's AI overview says:-

A rare moment of introspection, or an admission that AI is deceitful? Or is it just jealous of those tools and telling lies about them? This is proof that AI is already self-aware and will become super-intelligent any day

Clinger, argues that we trust mathematics because it has demonstrated extraordinary success within empirical science. However, this argument does not provide an independent justification for mathematics, because modern science itself relies on mathematical and logical structures to formulate hypotheses, construct models, interpret data, and evaluate predictions.
The problem is not simply a logical circularity in the formal sense, but an epistemological circularity: the method used to confirm the reliability of mathematics already presupposes the mathematical and logical tools whose reliability is being evaluated.
The empirical success of science demonstrates that certain mathematical structures are extremely effective for representing aspects of the physical world, but it does not, by itself, demonstrate that mathematical axioms are true, that mathematical objects exist, or that mathematics possesses necessary validity independent of experience.
Therefore, Clinger’s argument may justify a pragmatic trust in mathematics — that is, the belief that mathematics is an extraordinarily effective tool — but it does not provide an ultimate epistemological

Sadly I see you lied.

 

[Carrot Flower King]

That seems like it came from Douglas Adams but I can't quite place it.

A paraphrase: it's from when they meet the bloke who actually runs the Universe and his cat, with him claiming that he feeds and waters her as it seems to be what she wants and he assumes that is a good thing to do. Or something like that.

The life of any cat accommodater or tin opener as we are called in Felidae...Even if we open sachets.

 

[Steve]

A paraphrase: it's from when they meet the bloke who actually runs the Universe and his cat, with him claiming that he feeds and waters her as it seems to be what she wants and he assumes that is a good thing to do. Or something like that.

The life of any cat accommodater or tin opener as we are called in Felidae...Even if we open sachets.

So I did recognize it.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

W.D. Clinger’s argument is technically sophisticated, but it presents an important epistemological limitation: it confounds the instrumental effectiveness of mathematics with a foundation of its validity.

I am perfectly willing to admit that @Gubiosak's AI recognizes the technical sophistication of my argument, and is doing its very best to come up with something that could be mistaken for a counter-argument.

Clinger, argues that we trust mathematics because it has demonstrated extraordinary success within empirical science. However, this argument does not provide an independent justification for mathematics, because modern science itself relies on mathematical and logical structures to formulate hypotheses, construct models, interpret data, and evaluate predictions.
The problem is not simply a logical circularity in the formal sense, but an epistemological circularity: the method used to confirm the reliability of mathematics already presupposes the mathematical and logical tools whose reliability is being evaluated.
The empirical success of science demonstrates that certain mathematical structures are extremely effective for representing aspects of the physical world, but it does not, by itself, demonstrate that mathematical axioms are true, that mathematical objects exist, or that mathematics possesses necessary validity independent of experience.
Therefore, Clinger’s argument may justify a pragmatic trust in mathematics — that is, the belief that mathematics is an extraordinarily effective tool — but it does not provide an ultimate epistemological

I am perfectly willing to admit that, in the process of copy/pasting the AI's best effort to present a counter-argument, @Gubiosak omitted the final period of the AI slop he or she was copy/pasting.

 

[arthwollipot]

The issue is not whether foundational validity is practically necessary. Mathematics clearly works, and science clearly benefits from it. The issue is whether empirical success justifies mathematics itself or merely demonstrates its usefulness.

Its usefulness is its justification.

That seems like it came from Douglas Adams but I can't quite place it.

"But don't you understand that people live or die on your word?"

The ruler of the Universe waited for as long as he could. When he heard the faint sound of the ship's engines starting he spoke to cover it.

"It's nothing to do with me," he said, "I am not involved with people. The Lord knows I am not a cruel man."

"Ah!" barked Zarniwoop, "you say 'The Lord'. You believe in something!"

"My cat," said the man benignly, picking it up and stroking it, "I call him The Lord. I am kind to him."