Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 80 (8898 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-26-2019 5:53 AM
25 online now:
PaulK, Porkncheese, Pressie, vimesey (4 members, 21 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,657 Year: 3,694/19,786 Month: 689/1,087 Week: 58/221 Day: 12/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
2
Author Topic:   Difference between Science and Scientism
Modulous
Member (Idle past 184 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 16 of 29 (451433)
01-27-2008 5:37 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Cold Foreign Object
01-27-2008 4:49 PM


Re: More explanation
False.

The major paradigm of Science today is Materialism-Naturalism.

That would be the philosophy of science, not the methodology. I tried to make it clear I was talking about the methodology of science.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 01-27-2008 4:49 PM Cold Foreign Object has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by CK, posted 01-27-2008 5:42 PM Modulous has not yet responded
 Message 20 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 01-27-2008 5:52 PM Modulous has not yet responded

  
CK
Member (Idle past 2208 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 17 of 29 (451435)
01-27-2008 5:42 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Modulous
01-27-2008 5:37 PM


Re: More explanation
quote:
I tried to make it clear I was talking about the methodology of science.

And by it's very...em.... nature (and if we are strict on how we define it), the Supernatural is unmeasurable - Paradigm incommensurability is a bit of a red herring in the context of practising science.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Modulous, posted 01-27-2008 5:37 PM Modulous has not yet responded

  
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1128 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 18 of 29 (451437)
01-27-2008 5:48 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by subbie
01-25-2008 9:50 PM


Re: More explanation
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.

Darwinism singlehandedly caused Science to forsake Creationism-Design paradigm and in its place accept Materialism. Within 15 years of publication 98 percent of all biologists in England had converted to Materialism-Naturalism. I say "98 percent" because scholarship says 100 percent which is simply too unbelievable.

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.

This comment falsely presupposes a negative ("blame") for the truth: "legitimate success".

Ray


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by subbie, posted 01-25-2008 9:50 PM subbie has not yet responded

    
subbie
Member (Idle past 40 days)
Posts: 3508
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 responded

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

  
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1128 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 20 of 29 (451439)
01-27-2008 5:52 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Modulous
01-27-2008 5:37 PM


Re: More explanation
That would be the philosophy of science, not the methodology. I tried to make it clear I was talking about the methodology of science.

I will keep this in mind when I address your outstanding post (ASAP).

Ray


This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Modulous, posted 01-27-2008 5:37 PM Modulous has not yet responded

    
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1128 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 21 of 29 (451679)
01-28-2008 12:27 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by subbie
01-27-2008 5:51 PM


sbbie
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:

[Big SNIP of me being an ass - R.M.]

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.

I apologize.

Please accept?

As for your points, which caused me to become an ass (see how I craftily shift blame on the victim :)) I will now re-address (rather quickly):

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.

The greatest lies ever told in behalf of biological sciences:

Evolution: our theory says nothing about God.

DI IDism: our theory says nothing about God.

Biological origin theories are all about God, whether species owe their existence to Divine causation, or whether species owe their existence to material causation.

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.

Ray


This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by subbie, posted 01-27-2008 5:51 PM subbie has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by subbie, posted 01-28-2008 1:39 PM Cold Foreign Object has not yet responded

    
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1128 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 22 of 29 (451695)
01-28-2008 1:34 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Modulous
01-27-2008 3:38 AM


I've seen scientism used in a variety of ways. I'm not going to change my mind on that.

How could "best way to arrive at truth" make any sense compared to "only way to arrive at truth"? The ISM denotes negativity which corresponds to the latter and not the former.

The 'Creationism-Design paradigm' doesn't explain the supernatural, it just utilizes it.

I realize your point but I must say that Creationism-Design presupposes the supernatural to exist in reality. And there is no issue here that harms anything that I have said. Technically, Creationism-Design does explain the supernatural in any sense that the word "explain" is understood.

Ray writes:

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).

Modulous responding writes:

That is not an explanation of the supernatural. That is an explanation for a natural phenomenon (the belief in the supernatural). The two things are very different. You decided not to quote where I said this:

Science cannot explain the supernatural itself, though it can be employed to examine the phenomena of belief in the supernatural

What you describe is not explaining the supernatural itself. It is examining the phenomena of belief in the supernatural.

Word or understanding play - Modulous - there is no difference worth arguing over since the pay-off will certainly not justify the effort.

Ray writes:

Materialism is a philosophy used to interpret scientific evidence.

Modulous responding writes:

Materialism is a school of metaphysics upon which is built an epistemology of rational empiricism (where evidence has primacy over ideas).

In defense of my upper blue box: Materialism is a presupposition; it presupposes that causation is always material in origin (hence Materialism).

Your lower blue box: Materialism cannot be a school, it is a philosophy or even an ideology used by any given school, whether biological or metaphysical: reality owes its existence to material causation. As for "rational empiricism" and "evidence has primacy over ideas" these are not statements of fact, but predictable claims since all philosophies or ideologies could say, and do say, the same thing concerning itself.

I'm not sure using the words "paradigm", "philosophy" and "presupposition" as synonyms is going to alleviate confusion, but rather cause it. If you must, by all means press on with your point: but I'm just flagging this as a possible cause of communication problems.

Good point. I will not forget.

Modulous: Can I not say that you and I have come to the mutual understanding and agreement that Science does indeed address the supernatural?

Our views, without being nitpicky, agree that Materialism-Naturalism claims to explain supernatural phenomena, and of course Creationism-Design presupposes the same to be true.

Please think hard here. I feel we are close enough to say we agree.

Ray


This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Modulous, posted 01-27-2008 3:38 AM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Modulous, posted 01-28-2008 2:01 PM Cold Foreign Object has responded

    
subbie
Member (Idle past 40 days)
Posts: 3508
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 yet responded

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 184 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 24 of 29 (451700)
01-28-2008 2:01 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Cold Foreign Object
01-28-2008 1:34 PM


How could "best way to arrive at truth" make any sense compared to "only way to arrive at truth"? The ISM denotes negativity which corresponds to the latter and not the former.

They both make sense, but one wouldn't use the word to mean both. There is no conflict in words being used in different ways by different people in different contexts. I don't see this disagreement as particularly important though, since it isn't particularly large.

I realize your point but I must say that Creationism-Design presupposes the supernatural to exist in reality.

Yes, of course. That is what I meant when I said "The 'Creationism-Design paradigm' doesn't explain the supernatural, it just utilizes it."

Word or understanding play - Modulous - there is no difference worth arguing over since the pay-off will certainly not justify the effort.

When someone says science has nothing to say about the supernatural they mean it in the way I described it. If you choose to interpret their words to mean that they are saying that science does not give explanations for beliefs in the supernatural or claimed supernatural events then you are going to end up in trouble. It isn't that they are lying when they say science says nothing about the supernatural, it's that you simply don't understand their meaning.

There are several scientific hypotheses for a variety of claimed supernatural beliefs and experiences. A trivial example is epilepsy which was thought to be a supernatural event, but which science now has an explanation for that is not supernatural. If a certain fit, that was truly supernatural in origin, then science would be unable to investigate or comment on it. It could say, "their are a number of possible explanations, for example...", but it could not investigate the supernatural itself.

Your lower blue box: Materialism cannot be a school, it is a philosophy or even an ideology used by any given school, whether biological or metaphysical: reality owes its existence to material causation.

Perhaps you misunderstand 'school'. There are various 'schools' of metaphysis: idealism (reality is the ideal world), dualism (two realities, the ideal or non material and the material) and materialism (no reality beyond the physical).

As for "rational empiricism" and "evidence has primacy over ideas" these are not statements of fact, but predictable claims since all philosophies or ideologies could say, and do say, the same thing concerning itself.

Incorrect. Rationalism for instance holds that the criterion of truth is not how it holds up to sensory evidence (empiricism) but whether or not it can be deduced rationally. If a piece of evidence says one thing, and deductive intellectual reasoning says another: then the evidence is misleading and the reasoning should be held to.

Our views, without being nitpicky, agree that Materialism-Naturalism claims to explain supernatural phenomena, and of course Creationism-Design presupposes the same to be true.

In the context of your criticism of the claim 'Science doesn't explain the supernatural' no - we don't agree. Science doesn't, cannot explain the supernatural since the supernatural is not material by definition and science is the methodology for exploring the material world through empiricism and rationalism. One can be a dualist scientist. One can believe that their are two realms and there are two methods for understanding each of them. One does not need to be a materialist to engage in science.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 01-28-2008 1:34 PM Cold Foreign Object has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 01-29-2008 6:01 PM Modulous has responded
 Message 28 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 01-29-2008 6:38 PM Modulous has responded

  
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1128 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 25 of 29 (452204)
01-29-2008 6:01 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by Modulous
01-28-2008 2:01 PM


Yes, of course. That is what I meant when I said "The 'Creationism-Design paradigm' doesn't explain the supernatural, it just utilizes it."

Yes.

When someone says science has nothing to say about the supernatural they mean it in the way I described it.

No they do not. They do not share your view or mine.

If you choose to interpret their words to mean that they are saying that science does not give explanations for beliefs in the supernatural or claimed supernatural events then you are going to end up in trouble.

But that is exactly what is meant most of the time. Modulous: your understanding is far removed from the false understanding of Science. Most evolutionists actually believe Science is neutral toward the supernatural. They do not share your view or mine which are very close.

I will finish reply ASAP.

Ray


This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Modulous, posted 01-28-2008 2:01 PM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Modulous, posted 01-29-2008 6:09 PM Cold Foreign Object has not yet responded
 Message 27 by subbie, posted 01-29-2008 6:28 PM Cold Foreign Object has not yet responded

    
Modulous
Member (Idle past 184 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 26 of 29 (452206)
01-29-2008 6:09 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Cold Foreign Object
01-29-2008 6:01 PM


No they do not. They do not share your view or mine.

Can you find evidence of this position uttered by someone on this board? Perhaps you can start searching here


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

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 40 days)
Posts: 3508
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 yet responded

  
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1128 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 28 of 29 (452216)
01-29-2008 6:38 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by Modulous
01-28-2008 2:01 PM


`
When someone says science has nothing to say about the supernatural they mean it in the way I described it. If you choose to interpret their words to mean that they are saying that science does not give explanations for beliefs in the supernatural or claimed supernatural events then you are going to end up in trouble.

As I was saying: most persons DO NOT share our similar (and correct view). They really believe the propaganda that Science is neutral concerning the supernatural.

It isn't that they are lying when they say science says nothing about the supernatural, it's that you simply don't understand their meaning.

It is you who do not understand the popular false perception of Science. When persons say that Science says nothing about the supernatural they are saying that they believe that Science is neutral. They are not holding to our similar view, Modulous.

There are several scientific hypotheses for a variety of claimed supernatural beliefs and experiences.

Most people believe the party line (perpetrated by evolutionists) that the above true statement is false.

In the context of your criticism of the claim 'Science doesn't explain the supernatural' no - we don't agree. Science doesn't, cannot explain the supernatural since the supernatural is not material by definition and science is the methodology for exploring the material world through empiricism and rationalism. One can be a dualist scientist. One can believe that their are two realms and there are two methods for understanding each of them. One does not need to be a materialist to engage in science.

This paragraph negates just about everything we have generally agreed upon and not agreed upon. Look, I have the flu and I do not have the patience to go any further.

When I started this topic I knew it would not attract a lot of attention. I believed that one evolutionist would engage but I didn't know who. I was glad to see that it was you. I see you as the quintessential evolutionist, Modulous. Your participation here has aided me in understanding how to go about expressing my views for future publication. Your replies have shown me that what is clear to myself is not so evident to others. I will read your reply if you choose to respond. Thanks for your time.

Ray


This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Modulous, posted 01-28-2008 2:01 PM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Modulous, posted 01-29-2008 7:23 PM Cold Foreign Object has not yet responded

    
Modulous
Member (Idle past 184 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 29 of 29 (452234)
01-29-2008 7:23 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by Cold Foreign Object
01-29-2008 6:38 PM


I see you as the quintessential evolutionist, Modulous. Your participation here has aided me in understanding how to go about expressing my views for future publication. Your replies have shown me that what is clear to myself is not so evident to others. I will read your reply if you choose to respond. Thanks for your time.

Thanks Ray. I think if we want to move on from this point the question I asked in my last post requesting an example of an evolutionist saying this in a way that makes it clear they mean it in the way you suggest they mean it rather than in the way I suggest they mean it. That way we can advance a little further in our exploration of this topic.

I have the flu and I do not have the patience to go any further.

But there's no rush. This topic, as you observed, is not exploding with responses. It'll still be here when you've had some bed rest and some soup :)

Get well Ray.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 01-29-2008 6:38 PM Cold Foreign Object has not yet responded

  
Prev1
2
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019