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?

[Jester]

And, of course, when it comes to philosophy and metaphysics you are so fond of of thinking they can actually answer questions about reality ..

To repeat past arguments:
1. You need to demonstrate that your metaphysics of verificationism is telling us the truth about reality–else the insinuation here is completely unsupported.
2. This is a metaphysical question. When we're discussing another subject, I'll refer to that subject.
3. I'm simply applying logic to the question at hand. Whether or not you want to call that metaphysics, your insistence that I not use logic to answer questions is not a reasonable position.

Without a method of verification, how can you show that the assumptions and the conclusions of metaphysics have anything to do what so ever to how things are in this little thing known as reality???

Who said I didn't have a method of verification?
Are you demanding that the verification be of a particular type? That it be physical?
If so, I'll apply logic to that demand (and show that it contradicts itself).

That is one question I have yet to see answered. Could it be that Ayer is right about metaphysics??

No, it could not.

Ayer could never answer the challenge that his theory contradicts itself. Nor could he answer the charge that his theory required rejecting the idea that one has thoughts or consciousness.

It is not simply that there is evidence that Ayer is wrong (though there is). There is something very much like a mathematical proof that he is wrong. His position contradicts itself. And, if memory serves, Ayer himself abandoned the position late in his life. Guiness quoted him as summarizing Verficationism with these words:

"Any debunker ought to be forced in public to wield his own debunking sword against his own cherished beliefs."

Beyond this, I see no support at all for Ayer's position. If you are supporting it, how have you verified it?

[Jester]

Okay, greetings again!

Your view is that the first cause will never be found out by science. My view is that we don't know if it can or not, but we won't ever found out if we don't try.

If that is your view, then it is not scientism.
It is false, of course (we can demonstrate already that the first cause is not a question for science), but it is not scientism.

Do you think that God is the direct cause of the Big Bang, or could the Big Bang have a physical cause?

I'm unsure on that matter.
I'm speaking only of the first cause.

I guess I am assuming that it is supposed to be a revelation from God about what He did and what happened.

In a scientific sense? I don't see any reason to make this assumption.
The point of what is being said in the passage is hardly scientific.

The Pentateuch has lot of long lists of begats, which seems to show that it is meant to read as history.

It is not a valid inference that genealogies from all cultures are meant to be read literally.
More importantly, it is not a valid to claim that the entirety of the Pentateuch should be read as a single genre.

If Dawkins is right, and the existence of God is a scientific question, then scientism would still be false because there would still be things that fall outside the scope of science.

Scientism is false regardless of what Dawkins says.
But, yes, this is not a direct statement of scientism. Still, it is a clearly scientistic approach (attempting to apply science to non-scientific questions).

Personally, I find materialism an equally extraordinary claim–and with far less evidence than Christianity, but that is off this topic.

Well, I don't "claim" physicalism, (it is my understanding that the term "materialism" is considered out of date) but I don't see any reason to believe that there is anything more (I mean logically rather than emotionally)

Yes, the term materialism is getting rather old.
Either way, I wasn't suggesting that you were claiming this. I was pointing out that it is an extraordinary claim. As such, it shouldn't be used as a sort of default position in the way that you suggest here.

And there are reasons why there is more, but that would take us far off topic.

I'm not sure that I need to. The fact that he claims science can discover morality is, itself, a sign of scientism (again, whether one happens to agree or not).

Science can't discovery morality, but it definitely can inform morality. Was he really that clumsy with his wording?

No, he was not clumsy with his wording.
Rather, he claimed that moral truth can be discovered scientifically, and has clarified that he meant it. He did not mean that we can take non-scientific moral convictions, and use science to determine the best means of reaching the goals our morals give us. He claimed that science can tell us what moral convictions we should have.

So, yes, this is scientistic. You aren't remotely required to agree with him, of course, but this is what he has claimed.

The question of what "God" means is a metaphysical one. The claims made about God can be within the scope of science.

This is only true for claims that are themselves scientific.
With the exception that God made the universe, I can't think of any claims about God made by theologians that are scientific in any sense. The overwhelming majority are metaphysical.

As such, it is scientistic to suggest that metaphysics should be set aside in favor of science in considering God's existence.

Well, since I have not heard of any symbolic meaning behind saying that God created the Earth and the plants before he created the sun, how else am I supposed to read it?

I've Jesterlisted six symbolic meanings[/url] previously.

Are all the "days" just filler to make the creation story longer?

I've already made suggestions. Rather than add to that list, I'll simply ask how we know that there is no point to these sections except literal reporting.

That would need to be established in order to justify this line of argument.

In fact, I'm not sure how this question either:

1. Supports scientism, or
2. Supports the idea that the New Atheists don't tend toward scientism.

Presumably, it is the former. But, if anything, this serves to highlight that proper theology is vital to the conversation.

You presume incorrectly. I am discussing scientism as a pejorative. It is by definition fallacious. The issue is what is part of this fallacy, and what is not.

In which case, I certainly don't understand how this refutes anything I've said.

My position is that scientism is a false theory of knowledge and that the New Atheists have a tendency toward it.

I know that you have said that you are moving on from this forum, but I invite you to participate in my "Non-circular reasons for believing in the Bible" thread in the Christianity and Apologetics forum and justify your belief in the Bible.

It sounds genuinely interesting, and I definitely appreciate invitations.
I'm trying to wrap things up with this discussion, so I'm a bit torn on that.

But, whether I end up there or no, best to you.

[help3434]

Who said I didn't have a method of verification?

What method of verification do you have?

[Jester]

What method of verification do you have?

That depends on the subject.

To throw out a quick example:
If you are asking about, say, the existence of thought, then the fact that I experience it directly is a good method (this comes up quite a bit in discussing the problems with scientism, actually).

[help3434]

What method of verification do you have?

That depends on the subject.

To throw out a quick example:
If you are asking about, say, the existence of thought, then the fact that I experience it directly is a good method (this comes up quite a bit in showing the problems with scientism, actually).

I was hoping for something more than that.

[Goat]

And, of course, when it comes to philosophy and metaphysics you are so fond of of thinking they can actually answer questions about reality ..

To repeat past arguments:
1. You need to demonstrate that your metaphysics of verificationism is telling us the truth about reality–else the insinuation here is completely unsupported.

Ah yes.. shifting the burden of proof.. this is avoiding the issue is 'HOW DO YOU KNOW WHAT YOU KNOW'. The question is 'Without some kind of verification, how do you know what you are doing has anything to do with reality , or is even reasonable.'. All I get is avoidence of that issue, and shifting the burden of proof.

I want to know what is your alternative. Instead, you try to shift the burden of proof. Sorry, that's dishonest.

[Jester]

I was hoping for something more than that.

I'm genuinely sorry to disappoint.

In my defense, however, it was a pretty vague question. We've covered a vast range of topics, each with its own methods of verification.

The only thing that really matters for the sake of my argument is that the physical senses are not the only means of verification–and the example I gave was pertinent to that.

That being the case, I thought it was a good answer.

[Jester]

Ah yes.. shifting the burden of proof..

Asking "how do you know that verificationism is true?" is shifting the burden of proof?

I honestly don't understand this. Both sides need to make a case; the person supporting verificationism isn't exempt from this.

Beyond that, I've given very specific reasons why it is false. The fact that they haven't been addressed is a problem. In fact, that completely establishes my position in this debate until some response is given.

'HOW DO YOU KNOW WHAT YOU KNOW'.

How do I know that scientism is false (which is my position in this debate)?
1. It is self-contradictory.
2. It rules out things that obviously exist (such as consciousness).

The question is 'Without some kind of verification, how do you know what you are doing has anything to do with reality , or is even reasonable.'.

I've never claimed to know things without verification. I've simply rejected the idea that the physical senses is the only kind of verification.

That being the case, this is a loaded question.

I want to know what is your alternative. Instead, you try to shift the burden of proof. Sorry, that's dishonest.

My burden of proof in this debate is to show that scientism is not reasonable.

So, at the risk of being too repetitious, my support for that is:
1. It is self-contradictory.
2. It rules out things that obviously exist (such as consciousness).

That is not an avoidance, shifting, dodging, or anything else other than directly answering the question.

What strikes me as avoidance is to continue to respond as if I've not made these points. I've seen no attempt to deal with the fact that scientism is self-contradictory; nor have I seen any reason to think the things it cannot explain don't exist.

The verification principle supported by Ayer has been shown to be false. To simply assume that it is true, while avoiding my arguments against it, is not debating the point.

Scientism is clearly false, I've given specific reasons for that. Simply claiming that those reasons haven't been given does not answer them.

[Goat]

Ah yes.. shifting the burden of proof..

Asking "how do you know that verificationism is true?" is shifting the burden of proof?

I honestly don't understand this. Both sides need to make a case; the person supporting verificationism isn't exempt from this.

Beyond that, I've given very specific reasons why it is false. The fact that they haven't been addressed is a problem. In fact, that completely establishes my position in this debate until some response is given.

'HOW DO YOU KNOW WHAT YOU KNOW'.

How do I know that scientism is false (which is my position in this debate)?
1. It is self-contradictory.
2. It rules out things that obviously exist (such as consciousness).

The question is 'Without some kind of verification, how do you know what you are doing has anything to do with reality , or is even reasonable.'.

I've never claimed to know things without verification. I've simply rejected the idea that the physical senses is the only kind of verification.

That being the case, this is a loaded question.

I want to know what is your alternative. Instead, you try to shift the burden of proof. Sorry, that's dishonest.

My burden of proof in this debate is to show that scientism is not reasonable.

So, at the risk of being too repetitious, my support for that is:
1. It is self-contradictory.
2. It rules out things that obviously exist (such as consciousness).

That is not an avoidance, shifting, dodging, or anything else other than directly answering the question.

What strikes me as avoidance is to continue to respond as if I've not made these points. I've seen no attempt to deal with the fact that scientism is self-contradictory; nor have I seen any reason to think the things it cannot explain don't exist.

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

That is totally avoiding my question. Does that mean you don't have an alternative to figure out if you are barking up the wrong tree, or blow smoke rings?

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.

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

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'? I get a whole bunch of gobblegook, and avoidance of that issue.

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

[Jester]

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).