Scientism

Post Reply New Topic

Is natural science the most authoritative worldview or aspect of human education, superior to all other interpretations of life?

Yes, next question.

To conclude this as true, you would have to show that all important questions can be answered scientifically and that no questions that cannot be answered scientifically are worth asking.

Should Autism Speaks fund research that aims to 'cure' autism?

Answer scientifically, please.

It's the most authoritative in that it actually generates meaningful and objective results. Any other field is ultimately just people spouting their BS opinions with little to no real basis for their claims.

"Superior" is a subjective notion, so I'll leave that judgment to someone working in a fake field like philosophy.

Yes and no.

Yes, because the best way that we can understand the world around us is to look at every available piece of evidence and come to reasonable conclusions.

No, because even our best interpretations of the evidence isn't 100% accurate. Part of the beauty of science is that it is a constantly evolving phenomenon, but the added effect is that information can become outdated in a fairly short period of time.

My conclusion: draw your own conclusions. Don't believe something because your (priest, pastor, rabbi, imam, etc) told you so, and don't believe something just because a teacher or scientist told you so.

Does drawing our own conclusions even apply to your conclusion?

First off, 100% accuracy isn't the question. The question is "What is the best source of information?". If the best source of information leads us to a conclusion, then that's where we should go.(note: don't take me too literally here, as it is still possible to use a consensus of less good sources against the "best source", and it also could be that the "best source" is really a contextual issue, rather than there being a source that is universally good)

Is the moon made of cheese?

well, yes and no, the issue is that I find that conclusion too simplistic, the problem with that is that anyone can reject whatever theory and study just because they don't like it or because it conflicts with their ideology or activism, and even for any reason, whatever that can be, (ie I hate this physicist so much....... I disbelief physics) not to mention the lack of qualification from the layman to come up with a different conclusion and defend it, so the drawing your own conclusions conclusion seems questionable, at least in a simplistic way.

Last edited by greenblue on 04 Oct 2010, 6:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Obviously.

Better question: who was the author of 20,000 leagues under the sea?

Aquaman.

Right... Prove, scientifically, that "Aquaman" was the author of Jules Verne's novel, please.

Einstein told me that Aquaman was the author of 20,000 Leagues under the Sea. Einstein is a scientist. He (probably) has a labcoat somewhere. QED

Science dwells in the realm of theory: it is useful in that it's information is verifiable, although never with 100% certainty, and that it can be applied to many things. However science cannot give us any answers to the questions that are most meaningful and it's answers may ultimately be proven false. Thus, living your life solely on science is facile and pitiable.

Philosophy dwells in the realm of fact: the answers it gives us are 100% certain even when the the iron hammer that is solipsism comes crushing down on our petty assumptions. furthermore, it can answer more meaningful questions than science can. and it is FAR from a fake field *glares at orwell*. unfortunately, philosophy is rather limited in what it can answer.

Finally we have religion. Religion dwells in the realm of faith. It can answer all the biggest and most important questions in life, but as religion must, at some point, be taken on faith, it doesn't offer the certainty that science and philosophy do and comes down to what you personally believe. However, I would argue finding out what you personally believe is one of the most meaningful answers you can get.

I believe all three are very important and valid, but if I had to pick one to be the least important, I would say science, because although it has high levels of certainty and application, it has a low level of meaning. And if you ask me, meaning is more important than certainty.

As someone who's studying philosophy academically, I completely disagree. The best way of seeing that you're wrong is to simply note the vast number of philosophical ideas which have been shown to be incorrect (even if you restrict yourself to the philosophical orthodoxy over the ages). It's obviously not 100% certain.

Taking 'fact' to mean 'something which is the case', which is the conventional philosophical definition as far as I'm aware, I would say that science, not philosophy, is primarily the realm of fact. If something exists in this world, it should be open to empirical study.

Meaning is subjective, so I don't think it's useful to use meaning as a way of demarcating the two subjects.

.

Last edited by you_are_what_you_is on 04 Oct 2010, 8:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.

while philosophies can be rejected, (such as nihilism, which was debunked) the ones that can't be are indeed certain since they do not require any data other than fundamental logic to work, thus new data won't affect them. they are in stasis.