Question for Opposes Scientism Group

[help3434]

I admit that I don't know much about the topic but is seems like a straw-man. Can you give some examples of scientism as it exists today and explain why it is a problem?

[Goat]

Well, I ask for an alternative, and rather than supply one, you go on the 'you have to justify vericitionism'.

This is remarkably like the complaint Christians often make against atheists.
"I asked for an alternative, and you go on the 'you have to justify Christianity'."

I assume you wouldn't accept that complaint as valid, and the same applies here.

In fact, I'm doing more than "not believing" in verificationism, as atheists tend to claim with respect to God. I've given positive reasons why it is false. Once it is accepted that verificationism is false, I'd be more than happy to discuss other alternatives.

In fact, that is the part of the discussion I'm looking forward to, but it simply can't be had until verificationism is exposed as false.

That is totally avoiding my question.

That is because the question is off-topic.
My position is that verificationism is false. If you want to debate some other position, this is not the place.

Does that mean you don't have an alternative to figure out if you are barking up the wrong tree, or blow smoke rings?

We'll get to my epistemology once we finish with verificationism.

The way I know why I require verification is that vast number of times, I make assumptions, and DO test, and find out my assumptions were wrong to begin with.

This does not remotely support verificationism. Rather, it supports two things:
1. Testing is a good way to learn, and
2. Assumptions are not

Nothing I've claimed contradicts either of these things. And almost no epistemology disagrees with them.

from a pragmatic point of view, that's good enough for me.

It's good enough for me, too. I simply reject your assumptions about what constitutes testing.

Now, will you keep avoiding that and trying to get ME to justify things, or will you ignore my question , yet again, and not tell me 'How do you know your assumptions are true'?

What assumptions are you talking about?

The only "assumptions" I've presented here are claims about the falsehood of verificationism, and I presented direct support for those claims.

Could you please name an assumption? Then, I will tell you whether I know it is true.

But, because the "assumption" I suspect you are driving toward is my theism, I'll start there:
1. That is completely off topic, and
2. The first step in explaining that one is to demonstrate that verificationism is false.

So, if that is the assumption you've been trying to get me to support, I've been doing exactly that. I feel as if you want to jump from step one in the argument to step 8, all the while assuming step one fails.

I'm going to keep demonstrating why step one is correct, however. When that is agreed upon, we'll move on to the other steps.

In case that was not clear:
I completely agree that theism is false if verificationism is true. That is why it is important that I start with the reasons why verificationism fails (and abysmally, at that).

So, I'm answering your question (at least, what I think is your question, you won't tell me what "assumptions" you're talking about), but my answer is going ignored.

Just like I get an avoidence of the issue about your claim that you can sense objective morals.

Again, showing that verificationism is false is step one in that argument. As such, I'm not avoiding it in the slightest.

I keep trying to get back onto these arguments by pointing out that they are reasonable, so long as one realizes that verificationism is a self-contradictory philosophy that has been disconfirmed by the evidence.

To ignore those statements in order to complain about my not making the argument that those statements are directly making seems counterproductive. This is over and above the fact that the validity of the moral sense is not the topic of conversation here.

So, let me make that more clear:
If one realizes that verificationism is completely false (counter to the evidence, and counter to itself), then one will see that there are good reasons to believe many of my off-topic positions.

However, that is all off topic. And it strikes me as question-dodging to be demanding support for moral objectivity and unnamed assumptions when the point is over scientism (and the fact that it is completely false).

I see.. again.. instead of giving an alternative, you avoid the issue by making the claim 'That is the complaint I have against atheists.

I can give the precise reason I am an atheist. No one has given me any objective evidence there is any deity, and all the arguments are fraught with logical fallacies, assumptions that are circular, that are decieded on by the conclusion.

I have answered the questions I have been asked.. and yet.. you ignore many of those responses, or retreat into a sophism. Sorry.. but I can't respect that.

[Jester]

I see.. again.. instead of giving an alternative,

I gave an alternative, in spite of the fact that it is off topic. I underlined it.
But, let me state it in a different way, maybe it will be more clear:

It makes sense to trust one's experience until we have a reason not to.

This is the basic approach of human beings who haven't been locked in an academic tower for too long (as opposed to verifcationism). But, it is also off topic. The on topic point is that verificationism is false.

Do you have any arguments relevant to this topic?

you avoid the issue by making the claim 'That is the complaint I have against atheists.

I haven't made any complaints against atheists. I've said that verificationism is false. And it is: demonstrably false and completely unsupported by evidence.

That is not avoiding the issue, that is the issue. That is the specific topic up for discussion.

I can give the precise reason I am an atheist.

That is off topic.

No one has given me any objective evidence there is any deity

Even though it is off topic, I've actually addressed this directly.
This is only true if verificationism is true. Since I've already shown that verificationism is false, this reason is no good.

And this is what I call avoiding the issue. I've been explaining why claims about a lack of evidence are based on fallacious thinking (verifcationism), but those explanations have gone unaddressed.

I have answered the questions I have been asked..

I disagree on this point.
So, let me make them more clear:

Why should we continue using a verificationist approach when it is self-contradictory?
What is the evidence supporting verificationism?

I really need these directly answered.

and yet.. you ignore many of those responses, or retreat into a sophism. Sorry.. but I can't respect that.

This is simply ad hominem.
Obviously, I don't see rejecting self-contradictory approaches as sophism. Rather, I see continuing to embrace self-contradicotry approaches as exactly that. Hence, verificationism is clearly and demonstrably sophistry.

Instead, I'm taking the common-sense attitude that our concept of evidence shouldn't contradict experience or itself.

[Goat]

I see.. again.. instead of giving an alternative,

I gave an alternative, in spite of the fact that it is off topic. I underlined it.
But, let me state it in a different way, maybe it will be more clear:

It makes sense to trust one's experience until we have a reason not to.

This is the basic approach of human beings who haven't been locked in an academic tower for too long (as opposed to verifcationism). But, it is also off topic. The on topic point is that verificationism is false.

Do you have any arguments relevant to this topic?

you avoid the issue by making the claim 'That is the complaint I have against atheists.

I haven't made any complaints against atheists. I've said that verificationism is false. And it is: demonstrably false and completely unsupported by evidence.

That is not avoiding the issue, that is the issue. That is the specific topic up for discussion.

I can give the precise reason I am an atheist.

That is off topic.

No one has given me any objective evidence there is any deity

Even though it is off topic, I've actually addressed this directly.
This is only true if verificationism is true. Since I've already shown that verificationism is false, this reason is no good.

And this is what I call avoiding the issue. I've been explaining why claims about a lack of evidence are based on fallacious thinking (verifcationism), but those explanations have gone unaddressed.

I have answered the questions I have been asked..

I disagree on this point.
So, let me make them more clear:

Why should we continue using a verificationist approach when it is self-contradictory?
What is the evidence supporting verificationism?

I really need these directly answered.

and yet.. you ignore many of those responses, or retreat into a sophism. Sorry.. but I can't respect that.

This is simply ad hominem.
Obviously, I don't see rejecting self-contradictory approaches as sophism. Rather, I see continuing to embrace self-contradicotry approaches as exactly that. Hence, verificationism is clearly and demonstrably sophistry.

Instead, I'm taking the common-sense attitude that our concept of evidence shouldn't contradict experience or itself.

No, it isn't an ad homeinine.. it is describing your behavior.. And, with that.. I will withdraw from this fruitless discussion... not unless, you,, well actually answer the questions. As for 'self contradictory.. your claims it is self contradictory is not what is being pointed out.. and , of course, just because you claim something is self contradictory doesn't mean it is.

[Jester]

And, with that.. I will withdraw from this fruitless discussion...

The choice is always yours, of course, but I thought we were finally getting somewhere.

not unless, you,, well actually answer the questions.

I'll do my best, but first, I don't know what questions you mean. I've responded to everything you've written, very specifically. I've given you an alternative epistemology (trust of basic experience when lacking a reason not to) even though it is off-topic. I honestly have no idea what questions you think I haven't answered. But, if you ask me some direct questions, I will answer them.

Second, you really need to answer my questions as well:

1. Why should we continue to embrace verficationism now that it has been shown to be self-contradictory?
2. What evidence is there for verificationism?

To those, I'll add
3. Do you have evidence for consciousness – or do you reject the idea that consciousness exists?

I understand that you start to answer the first of these questions

As for 'self contradictory.. your claims it is self contradictory is not what is being pointed out.. and , of course, just because you claim something is self contradictory doesn't mean it is.

That may not be what you are pointing out, but it is the topic of this discussion.

But I agree that my saying it does not make it so. Rather, what makes it so is that verificationism claims that we shouldn't accept anything without tangible evidence, but there is no tangible evidence for it.

As such, according to verificationism itself, we should reject verificationisim.

There are several other reasons to reject it, but I'm mostly interested in the fact that there is no good reason to accept it.

That being the case, I have no idea why we should try to defend atheism with verificationism. Both logic and common sense tells us that verificationism is false.

[help3434]

3. Do you have evidence for consciousness – or do you reject the idea that consciousness exists?

You keep up bringing up consciousness when asked about metaphysics. In the 1600's Descartes said, "I think, therefore I am." Has metaphysics made any progress since the 1600's?

[Jester]

You keep up bringing up consciousness when asked about metaphysics. In the 1600's Descartes said, "I think, therefore I am." Has metaphysics made any progress since the 1600's?

Apologies for the delay.

But, to answer
Consciousness is an important reason to reject the metaphysical position of materialism (which is the basis of scientism). It is, therefore, relevant to the subject.

And, yes, metaphysics has made progress since the 1600's, but I don't see how this is relevant.

Mostly, I'd like to underline that this is not an answer to my question.
I've not yet received any good reason to accept scientism, and have seen many good reasons to reject it. Whatever one's level of interest in issues of consciousness and metaphysics, materialism has not been defended in this discussion.

[help3434]

[Replying to post 86 by Jester]

The topic of the thread is "is scientism a real problem. I don't think that there are many that deny that consciousness exists.

[Jester]

The topic of the thread is "is scientism a real problem. I don't think that there are many that deny that consciousness exists.

That is precisely why I bring up consciousness. Scientism is an epistemology that (if applied consistently) would lead one to the conclusion that we should reject the idea that consciousness exists.

This is all to say that the New Atheists have demanded that all claims be verified through the senses – they often say information must be sharable or testable, and reject abstract reasoning and personal experience outright. Yet, at the same time, they agree that consciousness exists. This makes the position self-referentially incoherent, which is exactly my point.

That being the case, scientism should be thrown out as an epistemology. To simply say "consciousness isn't part of this discussion", then, is to say "we're not going to look at your argument against scientism because we agree with it's major premise (consciousness exists)". Agreeing with this is a reason to accept my argument, not to ignore it.

Last, and most importantly, I've still seen no reason at all to accept scientism. This doesn't address the other ways that it is incoherent, nor is there any support here for it.

So, whether or not one personally wishes to discuss my argument from consciousness, I don't see why I should accept scientism if no reason can be given in support of it.

But, if you agree that scientism is a terrible standard of judging evidence, and merely wish to argue that very few people actually use that method, let me know. I'll agree that it would be pointless to argue against it in that case.

[help3434]

[Replying to post 88 by Jester]

Consciousness is the exception because every who can think has it. Why should I believe anything else without verification?

[Jester]

Consciousness is the exception because every who can think has it. Why should I believe anything else without verification?

This is the point that keeps being missed:
I'm not arguing against "verification"; I'm fine with looking for verification. I'm arguing against the idea that the physical senses are the only valid form of verification.

Consciousness is proof positive that the physical senses aren't the end-all be-all of verification. We have experience of things (like consciousness) that are not physically verifiable, but are still rational to believe. But Scientism simply ignores this fact.

This is over and above the fact that no one has ever given any good reason why the senses are the only way to verify things. To say that this is "the exception" is to assume anyone ever gave a reason why we should take "only the senses" as a rule in the first place. This is not the case.

And, as I've pointed out previously, the very idea is self-contradictory. If one accepts Scientism as valid, then one is accepting something which is not verified by the senses (there is no physical evidence for Scientism). "Scientism is true.", therefore, is as incoherent as "No sentence has five words.".

But, if you agree that personal experience trumps Scientism's demand for physical evidence with regard to consciousness, then you've already rejected Scientism. It would be experience, not sensory data, that we are using as our source of knowledge.