on metacrok's blog





Scientism is the understanding that science is the only valid form of knowledge . It's an ideology and permeates  real scientific circles. When thinkers whose understanding is colored by this ideology their defense of science against valid ordinary critique is ideological and programmed, We can always spot this kind of thinking immediately because they invulnerably see any valid criticism as an attack upon the very notion of science, This tendency to think of science as some fragile sacred truth that dare not be questioned is emblematic of ideological reverence, This attitude An example is fond in the essay by Marcel Kuntz is at the Laboratoire de Physiologie Cellulaire Végétale, CNRS/Université Joseph Fourier/CEA/INRA in Grenoble, The essay entitled "The Postmodern assault on  Science"[1]

Comments

im-skeptical said…
Religionism is the understanding that God is the only valid form of knowledge . It's an ideology and permeates real religious circles. When thinkers whose understanding is colored by this ideology their defense of religion against valid ordinary critique is ideological and programmed, We can always spot this kind of thinking immediately because they invulnerably see any valid criticism as an attack upon the very notion of religion, This tendency to think of religion as some fragile sacred truth that dare not be questioned is emblematic of ideological reverence ...

Need we go on about this?

Joe Hinman said…
im-skeptical said...
Religionism is the understanding that God is the only valid form of knowledge .

you think scientism i a term made up by
christian apologists in the last couple of years don't you? I am the one who started using the term in the context of internet apologetic, I think I am responsible for a bunch of people using it who don't know what it means. It is an old term it was not invented by apologists.My brother was using that term in the mid 1970s that's when I learned it,who I learned it from. He was not a Christian at that time he was an atheist,I was too. I can show you the term in use in a 1964 issue of bulletin of atomic scientists.

trying make up a term like religiomnists is silly there is a term already for that; the religious analogue to scientism, it;s called "fundamentalism."



It's an ideology and permeates real religious circles.

yes but I'm not part of it,


When thinkers whose understanding is colored by this ideology their defense of religion against valid ordinary critique is ideological and programmed, We can always spot this kind of thinking immediately because they invulnerably see any valid criticism as an attack upon the very notion of religion, This tendency to think of religion as some fragile sacred truth that dare not be questioned is emblematic of ideological reverence ...

that is probably true, you didn't actually apply it to showing how it disperses what I said,
im-skeptical said…
trying make up a term like religiomnists is silly there is a term already for that; the religious analogue to scientism, it;s called "fundamentalism."

I don't think you are a fundamentalist. But I do think you are a religionist. My definition of religionism sounds so much like your definition of scientism, because that ARE analogs of one another. You may protest, "that doesn't represent the way I actually think". Then good. You're finally starting to get the point.
Joe Hinman said…
I don't think you are a fundamentalist. But I do think you are a religionist. My definition of religionism sounds so much like your definition of scientism, because that ARE analogs of one another. You may protest, "that doesn't represent the way I actually think". Then good. You're finally starting to get the point.

yes that is not cleaver, even though it's a ploy. it's also totally wrong because there's a huge difference,in my view and scinetisim. Scientism says there's only one valid form of knowledge: science. I do not say religion is the only valid form of knowledge my standard is universal global knowledge. use everything that is valid by reason.
im-skeptical said…
Scientism says there's only one valid form of knowledge

Which is a straw man. I don't know anybody who thinks that.

The religionist wants to paint a picture of the scientific-minded as being devoid of humanity, and rejecting any knowledge that doesn't come from a test tube - and this seems to be because science leads us to reject knowledge that is not epistemically justified, including religious superstition, in favor of knowledge that is verifiable. There is a middle ground. We can reject superstition without rejecting our humanity.
Joe Hinman said…
Scientism says there's only one valid form of knowledge

Which is a straw man. I don't know anybody who thinks that.

you are not very observant because they sway it all the time. My blog peice o "is since one gene way from defeating religion" I quoted several who say it.

The religionist wants to paint a picture of the scientific-minded as being devoid of humanity, and rejecting any knowledge that doesn't come from a test tube - and this seems to be because science leads us to reject knowledge that is not epistemically justified, including religious superstition, in favor of knowledge that is verifiable. There is a middle ground. We can reject superstition without rejecting our humanity.

I don;t have a trope called "the scientific mind" I have never vilified scientific thinking. Stop trying to copy what I'm saying,I have legitimate argument about scinetism you don't have one about relegion.

Deal with that 1964 article in bulletin of atomic scientists, that is a pro science publication. In it's day quite prestigious, those were science people they were talking aboutsoemthing when they used that term
Anonymous said…
JH: you are not very observant because they sway it all the time. My blog peice o "is since one gene way from defeating religion" I quoted several who say it.

I guess I am not observant either. I have just reread that blog post, and can see no quotes by anyone saying science is the only valid form of knowledge.

Here is the post if anyone wants to enlighten me:
http://religiousapriori.blogspot.co.uk/2013/11/is-science-one-gene-away-from-defeating.html

Pix
Joe Hinman said…
this is one of Pixie's standard tricks, It's called get literal. Because
Blackmore doesn't say: "yes science is the only form of knowledge" he must not think that,we can read between the lines, He clearly thinks religion is shit, it's not likley he's going to think poetry or literature or philosophy are just as good as science.

quoting:

"Charles Darwin's theory of evolution was certainly a vital move in that chess game - if not checkmate. In an interview for God and the Scientists, to be broadcast tonight in Channel 4's series on Christianity, Richard Dawkins declares: "Darwin removed the main argument for God's existence."[2]

Of course it's Dawkins that prompted him to think this way. He admits that wasn't Darwin's intention. He's probably thinking religion means fundamentalism, inerrancy, conservative views.

"Science has rampaged over the landscape of divine explanation, provoking denial or surrender from the church. Christian leaders, even the Catholic church, have reluctantly accommodated the discoveries of scientists, with the odd burning at the stake and excommunication along the way."

in comparisom i have neversaid scinece is stupid rleioigus rampages over scinece,
im-skeptical said…
i have neversaid scinece is stupid rleioigus rampages over scinece,

Joe, the statement "Science has rampaged over the landscape of divine explanation" means that science has proven to be superior to religion as a means of explaining the things we see in our world (which is quite true). It does not mean that science is the ONLY valid form of knowledge. Your picture of "scientism" is false. Nobody thinks that.
Joe Hinman said…
Joe, the statement "Science has rampaged over the landscape of divine explanation" means that science has proven to be superior to religion as a means of explaining the things we see in our world (which is quite true). It does not mean that science is the ONLY valid form of knowledge. Your picture of "scientism" is false. Nobody thinks that.


that attitude is indicative of scientism , thinking that it's the only aspect of relaoityso that can be known or that matters to know the physical is to know all reality is scientism. to think that being Superior is scinetiism,
Joe Hinman said…
you think that way your very words prove it,
Joe Hinman said…
you say no one thinks that way, there is no such thing as scinetism.

Does the Author of
this book think that way?Do you deny this guy is into scinetism?
im-skeptical said…
Does the Author of
this book think that way?Do you deny this guy is into scinetism?


I deny that he defines scientism the way you do. You should probably read the book to get a more realistic view of the way scientific-minded people actually think about science.
Anonymous said…
This is my standard trick of getting literal again. I cannot help it, it someone makes a statement and that statement is not true or is misleading, I call them on it. The deception here is in the meaning of scientism.

One definition is the view that that a third person verifiable approach is the only means of gaining truly justifiable knowledge about the universe.

A second definition is the view that science is the only way to get any knowledge of the universe.

The former is probably pretty common among scientists, and rightly so in my opinion. It is not restricted to science, but includes anything we can share the experience of. How else can I tell if this thing in front of me is just a figment of my imagination?

The latter definition, on the other hand, is very rare among scientists.

When people around here rail against scientism, they are invariably railing against the latter definition. However, when asked to give examples of scientists who subscribe to scientism, they flip to the first definition, such as Dawkin and Jennings (the author of the above linked book).

I have challenge Joe several times (eg here) to find a scientist who thinks science is the only way to gain knowledge, and he has yet to find a single one.

Pix
Joe Hinman said…

Blogger im-skeptical said...
Does the Author of
this book think that way?Do you deny this guy is into scinetism?

I deny that he defines scientism the way you do. You should probably read the book to get a more realistic view of the way scientific-minded people actually think about science.


you are the one who doesn't read the material, your little bull shit trick of denial is not going to work. You are dogmatically refusing to accept there is an ideology at work anyone with ay reasonable approach to he issues knows there is,
Joe Hinman said…
Anonymous said...
This is my standard trick of getting literal again. I cannot help it, it someone makes a statement and that statement is not true or is misleading, I call them on it. The deception here is in the meaning of scientism.

you not only get literal but you knit pick

One definition is the view that that a third person verifiable approach is the only means of gaining truly justifiable knowledge about the universe.

no not really that, this is not scientist, but if one makes it to a certain extent it's not different enough from the second one to matter,

A second definition is the view that science is the only way to get any knowledge of the universe.

closer and it's just a more clearly defied version of the fist one,

The former is probably pretty common among scientists, and rightly so in my opinion. It is not restricted to science, but includes anything we can share the experience of. How else can I tell if this thing in front of me is just a figment of my imagination?

scientists are not authorities on realty or on argument or ideology,so they are not authorities on scinetism, they did not invent the often resit the idea of it,

The latter definition, on the other hand, is very rare among scientists.

doesn't matter

When people around here rail against scientism, they are invariably railing against the latter definition. However, when asked to give examples of scientists who subscribe to scientism, they flip to the first definition, such as Dawkin and Jennings (the author of the above linked book).

I've told you meany times before the point is not about scientists being scioetisiic but atheists apologists,you keep lodging the notion that that 1964 article was about something,

I have challenge Joe several times (eg here) to find a scientist who thinks science is the only way to gain knowledge, and he has yet to find a single one.

you keep imploring the examples i give, you will knit pick until your dying day because you can;t admit anyone has a point, if he's not atheists,

It's just like the way atheists used to deny they have a moment,until they had the big split over atheism+ then everyone started saying I;'m worried about the movement" kind of blew thier deniel

Or it may be that your bad on verbal intelligence, Tate would fit the profile of a scientist, so you can't deal with argument and ideas as well as you can with math,you ate tryig to match up the kind of perscion you have in math in logical argument,you need mnoreliberal arts,

Anonymous said…
JH: you not only get literal but you knit pick

You call it nitpicking, I calling pointing out equivocation.

JH: no not really that, this is not scientist, but if one makes it to a certain extent it's not different enough from the second one to matter,

Well, yes, this is a question of degree. We have the hard scientism that says only science can tell us anything about the universe, and we have the soft scientism that say only third-person verifiable knowledge can be considered reliable; these are two extremes on a spectrum.

Nevertheless you cannot rail against hard scientism, and then use adherents to soft scientism to uphold your view that hard scientism is a real problem.

JH: scientists are not authorities on realty or on argument or ideology,so they are not authorities on scinetism, they did not invent the often resit the idea of it,

Sure.

You throw the term around a lot, why do you not define it clearly? That way we can be sure there is no equivocation here.

JH: doesn't matter

Would it matter if I started to say all Christians are creationist? Or do we only have to be precise when it comes to your views?

JH: I've told you meany times before the point is not about scientists being scioetisiic but atheists apologists,you keep lodging the notion that that 1964 article was about something,

And yet you quote scientists, not atheists.

So find some atheists to quote. And tell us why their opinions are more important.

JH: you keep imploring the examples i give, you will knit pick until your dying day because you can;t admit anyone has a point, if he's not atheists,

If you are making a claim, and you try to support that claim by a quote that says something else, of course I will call you on it.

If you want to claim that a certain scientist believes only science can tell us about the universe, you need to find a quote that makes that clear. You do not get to quote him saying something vaguely related, and pretend, well actually what he meant was...

Pix
Joe Hinman said…
f you want to claim that a certain scientist believes only science can tell us about the universe, you need to find a quote that makes that clear. You do not get to quote him saying something vaguely related, and pretend, well actually what he meant was...


I read the guy;s book you did not, you go read then try todisaree
im-skeptical said…
you keep imploring the examples i give, you will knit pick until your dying day because you can;t admit anyone has a point, if he's not atheists,
- Maybe you should quote from Boghossian. Or even from me. But it is doubtful you will find a goo example of the point you are trying to make, because NOBODY I know of (scientist or otherwise) abides by your definition of scientism.


I read the guy;s book you did not, you go read then try todisaree
- What is the definition of scientism that he gives? Would you be willing to admit that it's not the same as yours?
Anonymous said…
What definition of scientism are you using, Joe?

Can you actually state it, or are you hiding behind vagueness so you can change it as required?

Pix
Joe Hinman said…
stop expecting the kind of literal word for word exactitude you get in science. you know the general concept and all the knit pick version you are naming are just degrees of the same idea, they are all wrong.
Anonymous said…
Pix: What definition of scientism are you using, Joe?
Can you actually state it, or are you hiding behind vagueness so you can change it as required?


Joe: stop expecting the kind of literal word for word exactitude you get in science. you know the general concept and all the knit pick version you are naming are just degrees of the same idea, they are all wrong.

So hiding behind vagueness so you can change it as required.

Pix
Joe Hinman said…
hegemony of science over other forms of knowledge in a general sense,

Popular posts from this blog

How Many Children in Bethlehem Did Herod Kill?

Martin Luther King, Jr., Jesus, Jonah and U2’s Pride in the Name of Love

Where did Jesus say "It is better to give than receive?"

How Should I Be A Sceptic -- belief and reason

Bayes Theorem And Probability of God: No Dice!

Kierkegaard's Knights of Faith and the Account of Abraham

The Meaning of the Manger

The Origin of Life and the Fallacy of Composition

If Christianity were true, would you become a Christian?