Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 50 (9179 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,216 Year: 5,473/9,624 Month: 498/323 Week: 138/204 Day: 8/4 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Difference between Science and Scientism
subbie
Member (Idle past 1368 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 9 of 29 (451063)
01-25-2008 9:50 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Cold Foreign Object
01-25-2008 7:49 PM


Re: More explanation
My sources have said that Scientism is the belief that Science is the ONLY way to arrive at truth and explain reality.
Well, depending on how literally you want us to read this, it is demonstrably false.
Nobody (to my knowledge) has ever claimed that science is the best way to get to truths in many different areas. Aesthetics, for example. Some may claim an ability for science to get to truths in morals and ethics, but I've never seen a compelling argument in favor of the idea, and the vast majority of those who have considered the idea have rejected it.
Most scientists, I think, would reject the notion that science has anything relevant to say about whether gods exist. The question of the existence of god is one of faith and, as such, is outside the realm of scientific inquiry.
1. Science is actually the investigation of reality via paradigmS or presuppositions. Before Darwin, Creationism-Design was the paradigm of science. After Darwin, Materialism-Naturalism has been the majority paradigm of science. Creationism-Design is now the minority paradigm of science.
2. Materialism-Naturalism DOES CLAIM to explain the supernatural. The material process of evolution eventually produced the human brain. In turn the material brain invented the idea of gods, spirits and demons (= supernatural phenomena explained).
Here, I think, you are relying on a shifting of meaning.
Science "explains" the supernatural by, in effect, showing how the same result can be achieved without appeal to the supernatural. In essence, science explains the supernatural by eliminating it. As applied to your example, science attempts to show how the idea of gods can appeal to humans even in the absence of any such being.
In addition, I think that your thesis is vulnerable to attack by pointing out that it appears you are trying to make a boogie man out of Darwinism. You are broadly correct when you point out that pre-Darwin, science was based on a creation paradigm. (BTW, I'm quite unclear exactly what you mean by paradigm. In a few places, your usage is inconsistent with any definition of the term that I've ever seen.) And, you are broadly correct when you point out that post-Darwin, science instead is empirically based and incorporates the idea of methodological naturalism. However, by saying it in the way that you do, it appears that you are attempting to lay the "blame" for this shift at the feet of Darwinism. You certainly offer no argument in support of this thesis, and it's not one that is obviously true. Instead, science gradually moved away from the idea of attributing causes to gods, replacing that with methodological naturalism, and evolution was part of that movement. But it certainly wasn't the only, or even necessarily the main, driving force. It was a realization that goddidit was unsatisfying as an explanation and useless as a basis for predictions, but that empirical investigation was superior for both purposes.
If you do intend to blame Darwin for this shift, either exclusively or primarily, you need to provide support for that claim. If you do not, you need to rework your thesis to avoid giving the impression that you are trying to blame Darwin.

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 01-25-2008 7:49 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Zucadragon, posted 01-26-2008 5:59 AM subbie has not replied
 Message 15 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 01-27-2008 5:31 PM subbie has replied
 Message 18 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 01-27-2008 5:48 PM subbie has not replied

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1368 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 19 of 29 (451438)
01-27-2008 5:51 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Cold Foreign Object
01-27-2008 5:31 PM


Re: More explanation
Every once in a while, you write something that makes it sound like you actually want to have a constructive conversation with someone. Then you go and ruin it all with swill like this:
Subbie: I just obtained controlling interest in a bridge in Brooklyn; email me quickly if you want in.
This is your unwarranted misinterpretation and paranoia based on these misinterpretation(s).
You'd be a lot more likely to get people to engage you in an intelligent exchange of ideas if you could refrain from sounding like an arrogant ass.

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 01-27-2008 5:31 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 01-28-2008 12:27 PM subbie has replied

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1368 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 23 of 29 (451696)
01-28-2008 1:39 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Cold Foreign Object
01-28-2008 12:27 PM


Re: sbbie
I apologize.
Please accept?
Tentatively. This is hardly your first time here, or the first time you'd acted this way, so we'll see how long you behave.
(see how I craftily shift blame on the victim )
Yes, you frequently rely on shifting things around, as we see later on in the very same post.
Subbie said that scientists have no bias for or against the supernatural, but are largely neutral.
No one person speaks for scientists, and the same are the most opinionated concerning God.
I didn't say that. I said Science explains supernatural phenomenon only to the extent that it is capable of showing how a claimed example of a supernatural phenomenon is actually quite mundane.
The greatest lies ever told in behalf of biological sciences:
Evolution: our theory says nothing about God.
I refuse to go down that rabbit hole with you again unless and until you provide specific examples from scientific publications where a scientist working in the field of biology claims that any statement about the existence or non-existence of god is a necessary part of the ToE. Too many people have tried too hard in the past to engage you on this topic and found there was nothing there to refute but your own idiosyncratic ideas about what the ToE and science consist of and, quite frankly, I have no interest in discussing your idiosyncracies any longer.
Subbie said that I was "blaming" Darwin and Darwinism for the shift in paradigm that occurred between 1859 and 1874.
False!
I was simply giving positive legitimate credit where credit was due. Origin of Species (1859) singlehandedly caused paradigm shift from Creationism-Design to Materialism-Naturalism to occur. Again, like I have pointed out, there were MAYBE two respected creationist biologists practicing in North America before Darwin's book celebrated twenty years in release. According to Darwin, before publication, he did not know of any biologists who were evolutionists.
Even assuming the figures you provide at the end of that quote are true, that rather misses the larger point that I was making.
I will agree with you for purposes of this thread that Darwin's work effected an overhaul of biology, but this thread is about science as a whole, not just biology. The fact that there was one seminal piece in one field of science is completely insufficient to show that it was single handedly responsible for a complete revolution in all of science. All you have here is a fuzzy description of a rather small piece of the history of scientific investigation to which you have grafted a particularly egregious example of post hoc, ergo propter hoc.
There simply are no conclusions to be drawn from your tiny little slice absent a much fully exploration of the topic, including an in depth analysis of what was happened at the same time, and many generations before and after that, in other fields of science.

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 01-28-2008 12:27 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1368 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 27 of 29 (452212)
01-29-2008 6:28 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Cold Foreign Object
01-29-2008 6:01 PM


Most evolutionists actually believe Science is neutral toward the supernatural.
Quite to be expected, since in fact it is.
You really need to ponder your statement for a time. Those who are most informed about the ToE believe that it is neutral toward the supernatural. In other words, they believe it takes no position on the existence or nonexistence of god.
You don't suppose you could have been in error all this time when you thought otherwise, do you?

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 01-29-2008 6:01 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024