Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8951 total)
390 online now:
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 866,776 Year: 21,812/19,786 Month: 375/1,834 Week: 375/315 Day: 53/78 Hour: 5/21


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Difference between Science and Scientism
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1383 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 1 of 29 (450880)
01-24-2008 3:08 PM


Science is a general term or even an incomplete term. Unless understood correctly it can give a false impression by persons who want it defined to reflect a (= their) bias.

Historically, Science attempts to explain reality according to paradigmS, also known as presupposition(s). Before the rise of Darwinism, in the latter half of the nineteenth century, the reigning scientific paradigm was Creationism-Design. Its presuppositions accepted reality to be the product or effect of direct Divine power, mind and intelligence. But between 1859 and 1874, that is, when Darwin's Origin of Species converted biology to evolutionism, scientific paradigm change occurred. Science abandoned the presuppositions of Creationism-Design and adopted the presuppositions of Materialism-Naturalism. These suppositions assume the exact opposite of Creationism-Design, that reality is not the product or effect of Divine mind, intelligence or power, but unguided material processes.

In essence, paradigm change shifted from Divine causation to material causation based on the evidence of evolution.

Evolutionists, basking in their victory, have claimed sole title to the word "science". They equate their theory to be science and science to be their theory. But all they are really saying is that "our paradigm best explains reality". Evolutionists reject Creationism to be science. But, as I have already pointed out, before Darwin, Creationism was science.

Therefore, the best-objective definition of science is that science is the investigation of reality via paradigmS. This is why I said that science was an incomplete term. It can only be understood in view of the quick history lesson just provided.

Both major paradigms claim to have an explanation for the other paradigm:

Materialism: claims that material causation (evolution) created the human brain which in turn imagined the idea of gods, spirits and demons.

Creationism-Design: claims acceptance of material causation is a reality defying choice based on anti-religious reasons (this explanation is deliberately ambiguous based on the fact that I do not want to borrow from my forth-coming paper).

What is Scientism?

Scientism is the belief or proposition that either major paradigm excludes ANY phenomena or evidence for explanation.

We assume that the best paradigm is the one that explains ALL of the phenomena or evidence best. Therefore, when any evolutionist says "science excludes or cannot address the supernatural" (for any reason) THIS is advocating Scientism because Science exists to explain reality and all of its phenomena (via paradigms).

Scientism is the exclusion of evidence, phenomena or knowledge of any kind for any reason, since we know that Science seeks to explain reality via paradigms.

Ray


Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Modulous, posted 01-24-2008 5:37 PM Cold Foreign Object has responded

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12653
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 2 of 29 (450884)
01-24-2008 3:30 PM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
grandfather raven
Junior Member (Idle past 3781 days)
Posts: 27
From: Alaska, USA
Joined: 11-20-2007


Message 3 of 29 (450891)
01-24-2008 4:42 PM


science is empirical. it does NOT exclude empirical evidence of the supernatural, because there is none

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 01-24-2008 8:03 PM grandfather raven has not yet responded

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 440 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 4 of 29 (450896)
01-24-2008 5:37 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Cold Foreign Object
01-24-2008 3:08 PM


Therefore, the best-objective definition of science is that science is the investigation of reality via paradigmS.

Sounds like a general way of describing much of philosophy, not just the philosophy of science. The philosophy of science was revolutionized by people such as Popper. He writes: "Science must begin with myths, and with the criticism of myths; neither with the collection of observations, nor with the invention of experiments, but with the critical discussion of myths, and of magical techniques and practices. The scientific tradition is distinguished from the pre-scientific tradition in having two layers. Like the latter, it passes on its theories; but it also passes on a critical attitude towards them. The theories are passed on, not as dogmas, but rather with the challenge to discuss them and improve upon them."

Yes, the nature of philosophy of science has changed. Many scientists were already practising such discipline, but at the time of Popper many scientific ideas were emerging that were a little 'wild'. He argued for integrating falsifiability into explanations, to reign in some wild inductions.

Popper wasn't the only influence of course, and many of his ideas were criticised.

Scientism is the belief or proposition that either major paradigm excludes ANY phenomena or evidence for explanation.

I'm not sure I follow. Scientism is the (often perjoritive) term used for the idea that science is the best method for explaining all things. It is a sort of a claim of dogma.

We assume that the best paradigm is the one that explains ALL of the phenomena or evidence best. Therefore, when any evolutionist says "science excludes or cannot address the supernatural" (for any reason) THIS is advocating Scientism because Science exists to explain reality and all of its phenomena (via paradigms).

I wouldn't say it was scientism to say that science cannot explain a certain realm: that would be the opposite of scientism which claims science can explain all existing realms. What 'evolutionists' mean when they say science has nothing to say on supernatural is that science can only comment about evidence - and the supernatural is notorious in its lack of evidence. Any evidence that is supposed to be for the supernatural can be discussed scientifically, but if any theory appears that is unfalsifiable - then it isn't science.

Scientism is the exclusion of evidence, phenomena or knowledge of any kind for any reason, since we know that Science seeks to explain reality via paradigms.

It sounds like the argument Behe put forward at Dover. Your proposal ushers in astrology as science. With that in mind, we could try living with that but we'd need a name for a specific kind of science - the kind you feel that has been hijacked by 'evolutionists'. I don't think scientism cuts it, since that is already used for something else.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 01-24-2008 3:08 PM Cold Foreign Object has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 01-24-2008 7:38 PM Modulous has responded

  
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1383 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 5 of 29 (450909)
01-24-2008 7:38 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Modulous
01-24-2008 5:37 PM


More explanation
I'm not sure I follow. Scientism is the (often perjoritive) term used for the idea that science is the best method for explaining all things. It is a sort of a claim of dogma.

Almost correct.

Traditionally, Scientism is the term used to describe the belief that Science is the ONLY way (not the "best way") to arrive at, or determine truth, or explain reality.

Do you see the difference? (Also, the "ISM" denotes an undesired and negative connotation.)

I wouldn't say it was scientism to say that science cannot explain a certain realm....

I am attempting to show and explain why we need to adjust the meaning of scientism based on the arguments presented in the OP. These arguments evidence the fact that Science has always claimed to explain ALL phenomena of reality since the rise of Darwin and Darwinism. Please review the OP?

....that would be the opposite of scientism which claims science can explain all existing realms.

Based on the stipulated definition of scientism that I am offering, and based on your understanding of scientism that was corrected above, which I ASK you to accept for the sake of the argument, ANY "realm" (as you put it) or phenomena as I have described it (in the OP) which is asserted to not be explainable IS SCIENTISM because Science, like I explained in the OP DOES attempt to explain ALL realms and phenomena of reality via paradigms?

The paradigm of Materialism does claim to explain Creationism, God, Christianity, Islam, Flying Spaghetti Monster, etc.etc. (see OP).

While you may disagree, do you understand my argument?

What 'evolutionists' mean when they say science has nothing to say on supernatural is that science can only comment about evidence -and the supernatural is notorious in its lack of evidence.

But based on the fact that Science has had two major biological paradigms in Western society, both of which claim to explain the existence of the other, it is right and just to say that Science, that is the investigation of reality via paradigms (see OP) does claim to explain supernatural phenomena, as it claims to explain the phenomena of excluding the supernatural (for whatever reason).

I am saying that if ANYONE says that their paradigm does not explain or say anything about ANY realm of reality (includes supernatural) then THIS perception is advocating Scientism because both major biological paradigms do CLAIM to explain ALL phenomena.

Modulous: the paradigm of evolution is Materialism-Naturalism, it CLAIMS to explain the supernatural. This is a historical fact. I am saying if you or anyone says or claims that Science has no opinion about the supernatural you are wrong. Science, defined as the investigation of reality via paradigms, which is an uncontested fact, paradigms do exist to explain scientific reality, says the supernatural is explained by both major paradigms.

Ray writes:

Scientism is the exclusion of evidence, phenomena or knowledge of any kind for any reason, since we know that Science seeks to explain reality via paradigms.

Modulous responds and writes:

It sounds like the argument Behe put forward at Dover. Your proposal ushers in astrology as science.

False.

Behe did not. He was misunderstood, and I am certainly not. We both know that no one wants astrology to be part of science or education. Astrology is a gimmick to make money from bored persons and stupid persons.

Based on everything explained, if any evolutionist were to say that "Science has nothing to say concerning the supernatural" this is false and I have the evidence to back it up. Since said belief is not going away (for whatever reason) I propose that we adjust the meaning of Scientism to describe the belief just quoted or ANY belief that thinks that Science does not claim to explain all phenomena.

Ray


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Modulous, posted 01-24-2008 5:37 PM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Modulous, posted 01-24-2008 8:23 PM Cold Foreign Object has responded

  
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1383 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 6 of 29 (450912)
01-24-2008 8:03 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by grandfather raven
01-24-2008 4:42 PM


science is empirical. it does NOT exclude empirical evidence of the supernatural, because there is none

Welcome to EvC Forum. We hope you stick around.

Science has always, since the rise of Darwin, claim to explain supernatural phenomena.

Notice I said "phenomena" and not "empirical evidence" or "evidence".

Materialism-Naturalism (the paradigm of evolution) does claim to explain the phenomena of belief in God.

Ray


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by grandfather raven, posted 01-24-2008 4:42 PM grandfather raven has not yet responded

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 440 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 7 of 29 (450914)
01-24-2008 8:23 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Cold Foreign Object
01-24-2008 7:38 PM


Re: More explanation
Traditionally, Scientism is the term used to describe the belief that Science is the ONLY way (not the "best way") to arrive at, or determine truth, or explain reality.

I don't think we disagree, though there are many variations on the same theme: it doesn't just mean one thing.

I am attempting to show and explain why we need to adjust the meaning of scientism based on the arguments presented in the OP. These arguments evidence the fact that Science has always claimed to explain ALL phenomena of reality since the rise of Darwin and Darwinism. Please review the OP?

In the OP you claimed that 'when any evolutionist says "science excludes or cannot address the supernatural"...[they are] advocating Scientism'. I disagreed with this claim. If you want to say that it is true, if we change the meaning of the word scientism in a specific fashion, then I'd agree (it's trivially true).

Based on the stipulated definition of scientism that I am offering, and based on your understanding of scientism that was corrected above, which I ASK you to accept for the sake of the argument, ANY "realm" (as you put it) or phenomena as I have described it (in the OP) which is asserted to not be explainable IS SCIENTISM because Science, like I explained in the OP DOES attempt to explain ALL realms and phenomena of reality via paradigms?

If scientism is saying that science cannot explain the supernatural, then so be it. It seems entirely at odds with any sane usage of the word scientism which normally holds that all things can be explained with science.

Science cannot explain the supernatural itself, though it can be employed to examine the phenomena of belief in the supernatural. This is contrary to the scientism as I've seen it described.

While you may disagree, do you understand my argument?

I believe I get the gist of it though the language you use is far from clear so there maybe things you are trying to communicate that aren't getting through. How would I know, if I didn't challenge where I thought we disagreed in order to provoke clarification?

For example:

the paradigm of evolution is Materialism-Naturalism, it CLAIMS to explain the supernatural.

Materialism-Naturalism does not explain the supernatural, it rejects its existence. Materialism is a school metaphysics - it would probably be best if we didn't use the word paradigm if you are talking about metaphysics since paradigm can be used ambiguously and cause confusion.

False.

Behe did not. He was misunderstood, and I am certainly not.

Well, I'll let him speak on that:

quote:
Under my definition, a scientific theory is a proposed explanation which focuses or points to physical, observable data and logical inferences. There are many things throughout the history of science which we now think to be incorrect which nonetheless would fit that -- which would fit that definition. Yes, astrology is in fact one, and so is the ether theory of the propagation of light, and many other -- many other theories as well.

You seem to proposing a similar thing, though I might be wrong.

We both know that no one wants astrology to be part of science or education. Astrology is a gimmick to make money from bored persons and stupid persons.

So you agree, on the educational issue, that we should be careful with how we define science so that we don't inadvertently include pseudo-science, proto-science, philosophy and any other ideas that might creep in? Neither of us wants conmen running around claiming they are scientists and cashing in on that authority at the expense of Joe Public.

After all - there was once a time when everybody took the paradigm that leads to astrology very seriously. As you mentioned in the OP, there was a time when everybody took the Creationism-Design paradigm seriously. If you want to include Creationism-Design as a paradigm, one would have to also include the paradigm that we can understand truths about reality through astrological studies.

Now, obviously you don't think Creationism-Design and Astrology are equally correct paradigms, but it is certainly in there.

Based on everything explained, if any evolutionist were to say that "Science has nothing to say concerning the supernatural" this is false and I have the evidence to back it up.

Science, the methodology, has nothing to say concerning the supernatural - other than 'there is no convincing evidence of its existence'. It is perfectly possible, however, to be a dualist about this issue. One can hold that there are two realms, the natural and the ideal/supernatural (whatever) and that science is the best methodology for uncovering truths about the natural realm but that science is silent regarding issues in the other realm.

I would be keen on what evidence you have to back this up, since this kind of dualism is rather common these days.

Since said belief is not going away (for whatever reason) I propose that we adjust the meaning of Scientism to describe the belief just quoted or ANY belief that thinks that Science does not claim to explain all phenomena.

To be clear: You propose to adjust the meaning of scientism to the exact opposite of its current common usage? Why bother? Why not just create a new word to describe this position. I believe it has been called noma or perhaps: scientific dualism.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 01-24-2008 7:38 PM Cold Foreign Object has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 01-25-2008 7:49 PM Modulous has responded
 Message 13 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 01-27-2008 4:48 PM Modulous has not yet responded
 Message 14 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 01-27-2008 4:49 PM Modulous has responded

  
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1383 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 8 of 29 (451052)
01-25-2008 7:49 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Modulous
01-24-2008 8:23 PM


Re: More explanation
I don't think we disagree, though there are many variations on the same theme: it doesn't just mean one thing.

My sources have said that Scientism is the belief that Science is the ONLY way to arrive at truth and explain reality.

Your variation suggested "the BEST way" - and that does not make sense because when we compare the two "variations" (as you describe it) the existence of the coinage is not justified. Nobody would propagate a negative connotation coinage to demean something for being "the best way". But they would for "the only way" - do you see my point?

I hope to change your mind on this particular point.

I also hope you do not lose interest in this topic. I need to run these ideas past an evolutionist, and I need a couple more exchanges. I am discovering, through your thoughts and points, problems my argument might face before publication. I have also stated the entire argument rather badly in the OP from the outset. I am not attempting to explain the difference between these two words; rather, I am attempting to prove that Science, since the rise of Darwinism, has always CLAIMED to explain the supernatural via paradigms.

In the OP you claimed that 'when any evolutionist says "science excludes or cannot address the supernatural"...[they are] advocating Scientism'. I disagreed with this claim. If you want to say that it is true, if we change the meaning of the word scientism in a specific fashion, then I'd agree (it's trivially true).

I was confused.

I do not want to depart from the definition of Scientism argued just above (which, of course, I await your next response).

If scientism is saying that science cannot explain the supernatural, then so be it.

No, scientism is the term used to describe the belief that science is the only way to arrive at truth. Again, I await your response.

I am putting forth the idea that Science, since the rise of Darwinism, claims to explain supernatural phenomena (notice I said "phenomena" and not "evidence").

Before Darwin, Science presupposed the supernatural as manifest in nature. After Darwin, Science reversed itself.

Science cannot explain the supernatural itself....SNIP

But it does.

Facts:

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).

Materialism-Naturalism does not explain the supernatural, it rejects its existence.

I can reference facts number one and two (above) from scholarship ad nauseum.

I agree that Materialism-Naturalism rejects the existence of the supernatural in reality, but, however, it also claims to explain the phenomena?

Materialism is a school metaphysics - it would probably be best if we didn't use the word paradigm if you are talking about metaphysics since paradigm can be used ambiguously and cause confusion.

We are far apart here.

Materialism is a philosophy used to interpret scientific evidence.

A paradigm is simply a synonym for a philosophy that is used to explain reality and evidence, more literally, a paradigm is simply presupposition(s). In the case of Materialism the presupposition is that causation is always material and never supernatural.

I have to log off. Will finish ASAP.

Ray

Edited by Cold Foreign Object, : spelling


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Modulous, posted 01-24-2008 8:23 PM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by subbie, posted 01-25-2008 9:50 PM Cold Foreign Object has responded
 Message 12 by Modulous, posted 01-27-2008 3:38 AM Cold Foreign Object has responded

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 80 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 responded

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

  
Zucadragon
Member (Idle past 1892 days)
Posts: 61
From: Netherlands
Joined: 06-28-2006


Message 10 of 29 (451092)
01-26-2008 5:59 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by subbie
01-25-2008 9:50 PM


Re: More explanation
Isn't it so that the greeks of around 500 before to 500 after christ started up a scientific way of thinking and research but it was thrown down by the christian church around 700 - 1450 after christ.

Or am I completely wrong in that ?


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

  
Grizz
Member (Idle past 3807 days)
Posts: 318
Joined: 06-08-2007


Message 11 of 29 (451103)
01-26-2008 9:59 AM


I think the difference becomes clear when one separates individuals from institutions. Science is an institution, and unlike individuals, has no opinions, emotions, thoughts, or feelings. Science is not a philosophy, nor is it a school of though; rather, it is a method of inquiry that is used and shared by individuals to objectively investigate phenomenon available to the senses(either directly or indirectly.) The goal of this institution is to create inductive models than are used to explain, predict, and categorize these phenomenon.

Scientism, based on the definition given, is a philosophical position held by individuals who, like all other people, have opinions and philosophical and ideological preferences. Such a position is not part of the institution of science, nor is it a position that is capable of being falsified or verified by the method of science.


  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 440 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 12 of 29 (451294)
01-27-2008 3:38 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by Cold Foreign Object
01-25-2008 7:49 PM


The three Ps.
I hope to change your mind on this particular point.

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

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.

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

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).

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:

quote:
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.

Materialism is a philosophy used to interpret scientific evidence.

Materialism is a school of metaphysics upon which is built an epistemology of rational empiricism (where evidence has primacy over ideas). This epistemology lends itself towards certain kinds of enquiry: namely the gathering of evidence, and the trying to explain it using ideas (if the ideas don't explain the evidence, throw out the ideas). As time has gone on, various methods of evidence gathering - and the discipline of explanations has changed through natural philosophy culminating in modern science.

A paradigm is simply a synonym for a philosophy that is used to explain reality and evidence, more literally, a paradigm is simply presupposition(s).

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.


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

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 01-28-2008 1:34 PM Modulous has responded

  
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1383 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 13 of 29 (451420)
01-27-2008 4:48 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Modulous
01-24-2008 8:23 PM


Re: More explanation
double post; content deleted - sorry.

Ray

Edited by Cold Foreign Object, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Modulous, posted 01-24-2008 8:23 PM Modulous has not yet responded

  
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1383 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 14 of 29 (451421)
01-27-2008 4:49 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Modulous
01-24-2008 8:23 PM


Re: More explanation
I am picking up where I left off in your previous message.

Science, the methodology, has nothing to say concerning the supernatural - other than 'there is no convincing evidence of its existence'.

False.

The major paradigm of Science today is Materialism-Naturalism. This paradigm or episteme or simply presupposition to interpret reality says the supernatural is not manifest in reality; and the same, that is, supernatural phenomena is an effect or by-product of material causation.

Materialism means causation is always material.

Naturalism means causation is always natural.

Both are synonyms; both presuppose the non-existence of God in reality and explain "Divine" phenomena to be caused by the human imagination produced by material evolution.

Therefore, the paradigm of science (Materialism-Naturalism), contrary to your assertion that it "has nothing to say concerning the supernatural" is proven false.

Ray


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Modulous, posted 01-24-2008 8:23 PM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Modulous, posted 01-27-2008 5:37 PM Cold Foreign Object has responded

  
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1383 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 15 of 29 (451432)
01-27-2008 5:31 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by subbie
01-25-2008 9:50 PM


Re: More explanation
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.

I didn't say "best way" (that was Modulous) I and my sources said "only way". Scientism is the term used to describe the belief that Science is the ONLY way to arrive at truth.

The explication (and condemnation) of this view was published by Professor Huston Smith (taught at MIT for fifteen years) in a book called "Why Religion Matters" (2001).

Smith posits that Western society is living a tunnel controlled by Scientism: Floor = Naturalism Science; both Walls = Law and Higher Education (are comprised of persons who accept Naturalism science); Roof = Media (mouthpiece of Naturalism). The common denominator is the acceptance of Naturalism and total fanatical rejection of God to explain reality.

Modulous holds to a definition of Scientism that does not make sense. He says it means many things including the "best way" but like I told him, no one would coin a word to condemn something for being the "best way" but they would for the "only way" which is how Smith defines Scientism.

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.

Subbie: I just obtained controlling interest in a bridge in Brooklyn; email me quickly if you want in.

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.

Then your last sentence above is in agreement: Science, or more precisely, Materialism-Naturalism, the predominant paradigm since Darwin, explicitly says that supernatural phenomena is the product of the material brain "created" by material evolution.

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.

False. This is your unwarranted misinterpretation and paranoia based on these misinterpretation(s). Darwinism, defined here, simply means the majority view of Science - nothing else. It is, in these context, a synonym for Materialism or Naturalism. I use these words interchangeably for this very reason.

You are broadly correct when you point out that pre-Darwin, science was based on a creation paradigm.

Okay.

(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.)

It simply denotes that a certain philosophy is being used to interpret scientific evidence. After 1859, paradigm change was in full swing completed by 1874 (references available upon request).

And, you are broadly correct when you point out that post-Darwin, science instead is empirically based and incorporates the idea of methodological naturalism.

Never said any such thing. I never used the word "methodological". I never presupposed that Creationism was not empirically based. Since I am a Creationist why would I do that?

"Methodological" anything never existed in Darwin's time. Darwin practiced vicious pro-Atheism Materialism.

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

This makes no sense.

It is a fact that Darwinism-Materialism-Naturalism or whatever you want to call it conquered Science. That is all that I have said - period. It is a historical fact. Are you contesting that Darwin did not conquer science? Again, this is why I have condemned this particular commentary as a [gross] misinterpretation.

Ray


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by subbie, posted 01-25-2008 9:50 PM subbie has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by subbie, posted 01-27-2008 5:51 PM Cold Foreign Object has responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019