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]

When have the new atheists said that non scientific forms of investigation are irrelevant? Aren't they just against arbitrarily limiting the role of science?

I've never known the New Atheists, or any of their fans I've encountered, to accept any support other than scientific evidence.

Moreover, insisting that God's existence is a scientific hypothesis (as Dawkins does) is treating non-scientific investigation as irrelevant.

Nor am I aware of anyone in the debate over God's existence asking for an arbitrary limitation to science. The investigative limits of science have been well defined for centuries. Those who argue that science is far from the best tool for answering this question are simply pointing out those long-standing limits.

That is to say:
1. To make claims about the likelihood of God's existence based solely on scientific considerations,
2. to insist that sensory evidence is the only legitimate support for theistic claims, or
3. to act as if science can be expanded to answer metaphysical questions
is to adopt a scientistic attitude.

And these are all common approaches among the New Atheists.

And, I have yet to see any 'believer' give any evidence other than 'Because I said so'. or appeal to 'arguments', or emotions.

The problem with an entity that has such a strong lack of tangible evidence for it you can make up ANYTHING you want about it.. ANYTHING at all. And people do.

[Jester]

And, I have yet to see any 'believer' give any evidence other than 'Because I said so'. or appeal to 'arguments', or emotions.

That is a separate topic. Obviously, I disagree, but I don't see how that runs counter to anything I've said.

The problem with an entity that has such a strong lack of tangible evidence for it you can make up ANYTHING you want about it.. ANYTHING at all. And people do.

This is simply a distortion of my claim. Really, it is a false dichotomy, wherein scientism and a complete willingness to accept any wild claim are the only options given.

Actual metaphysical arguments are based in accepted premises, and restricted by laws of inference. This is an idea that is conspicuously absent from the dichotomy above.

Yes, people make up all kinds of things, but that is no more a reason to abandon an entire field of inquiry than believers in alien abduction stories are a reason to abandon science.

In short, I simply don't see any reason whatsoever to think that the fact that people sometimes make wild claims about the metaphysical is a rational reason to embrace scientism.

In fact, I've never seen any reason to embrace scientism. And that is the point. Supporters of scientism can't seem to present anything that would hold up to the standard of evidence they demand of other positions.

[Goat]

And, I have yet to see any 'believer' give any evidence other than 'Because I said so'. or appeal to 'arguments', or emotions.

That is a separate topic. Obviously, I disagree, but I don't see how that runs counter to anything I've said.

The problem with an entity that has such a strong lack of tangible evidence for it you can make up ANYTHING you want about it.. ANYTHING at all. And people do.

This is simply a distortion of my claim. Really, it is a false dichotomy, wherein scientism and a complete willingness to accept any wild claim are the only options given.

Actual metaphysical arguments are based in accepted premises, and restricted by laws of inference. This is an idea that is conspicuously absent from the dichotomy above.

Yes, people make up all kinds of things, but that is no more a reason to abandon an entire field of inquiry than believers in alien abduction stories are a reason to abandon science.

In short, I simply don't see any reason whatsoever to think that the fact that people sometimes make wild claims about the metaphysical is a rational reason to embrace scientism.

In fact, I've never seen any reason to embrace scientism. And that is the point. Supporters of scientism can't seem to present anything that would hold up to the standard of evidence they demand of other positions.

Well, .. I have seen plenty of unsupported claims. and plenty of times on this site where people tried to get out of questions by saying "God does blah blah blah,, without supporting that claim, even with scripture.

Is it a false dichotomy? I have yet to see an argument that didn't rely on trying to justify an already held belief. I have not seen any argument that wasn't what you label (and I think incorrectly) 'scientism', and irrationalism.

[Jester]

Well, .. I have seen plenty of unsupported claims. and plenty of times on this site where people tried to get out of questions by saying "God does blah blah blah,, without supporting that claim, even with scripture.

Yes, theists have made unsupported claims (like every other group). But I don't see how we get from this to "scientism is true".

Is it a false dichotomy?

Yes.
I pointed out a third alternative that hasn't remotely been addressed. That is, by definition, what a false dichotomy is.

I have yet to see an argument that didn't rely on trying to justify an already held belief.

This is the genetic fallacy. The reasons for giving an argument have nothing to do with its validity.
As such, I don't see a relevant point in discussing this.

I have not seen any argument that wasn't what you label (and I think incorrectly) 'scientism', and irrationalism.

Again, I have no idea what this has to do with my claims.

I've only said two things here:
1. Scientism is an unsupported and self-contradictory position, and
2. The New Atheists (usually implicitly) argue from a scientistic perspective.

I personally think it is pointless to have a conversation with a fan of scientism on any other subject until one has shown him why this position is unsupported and demonstrably false. As such, I'm not concerned to argue about whether or not theists have offered any good arguments until this issue is settled.



That being the case, is there any reason (at all) to think that scientism is valid?

If so, what is that reason?

If not, do you agree that we shouldn't be using that approach?

[Goat]

Well, .. I have seen plenty of unsupported claims. and plenty of times on this site where people tried to get out of questions by saying "God does blah blah blah,, without supporting that claim, even with scripture.

Yes, theists have made unsupported claims (like every other group). But I don't see how we get from this to "scientism is true".

Is it a false dichotomy?

Yes.
I pointed out a third alternative that hasn't remotely been addressed. That is, by definition, what a false dichotomy is.

I have yet to see an argument that didn't rely on trying to justify an already held belief.

This is the genetic fallacy. The reasons for giving an argument have nothing to do with its validity.
As such, I don't see a relevant point in discussing this.

I have not seen any argument that wasn't what you label (and I think incorrectly) 'scientism', and irrationalism.

Again, I have no idea what this has to do with my claims.

I've only said two things here:
1. Scientism is an unsupported and self-contradictory position, and
2. The New Atheists (usually implicitly) argue from a scientistic perspective.

I personally think it is pointless to have a conversation with a fan of scientism on any other subject until one has shown him why this position is unsupported and demonstrably false. As such, I'm not concerned to argue about whether or not theists have offered any good arguments until this issue is settled.



That being the case, is there any reason (at all) to think that scientism is valid?

If so, what is that reason?

If not, do you agree that we shouldn't be using that approach?

I don't see 'metaphysical claims' with unsupported premises as any better than unsupported claims, and I don't see that as a separate category.

[Jester]

I don't see 'metaphysical claims' with unsupported premises as any better than unsupported claims, and I don't see that as a separate category.

With regard to my statements, this is both a straw man fallacy and a red herring.

That is:
1. I've never suggested that claims need not have supported premises (straw man), and

2. This does not lead to the conclusion "scientism is true" (red herring).

It may not be the latter, of course, if you are trying to claim that it is literally impossible to support any premise to a metaphysical argument. The first problem with this is that there is no reason to believe that. The second is much bigger: scientism itself is a metaphysical position (are its premises unsupported?).

It is also obviously false. To grab a simple example "I experience thoughts" is a well supported premise to the metaphysical argument that "My mind exists". As Rosenberg has pointed out, there is no tangible evidence whatsoever that one is actually having thoughts–there are only behavior patterns.

This is one reason why he rightly argues that it is inconsistent for scientistic thinkers to believe that they have thoughts, as most of them do, and claims that no one actually thinks about anything.

Also, it contradicts science. Science is based on certain metaphysical arguments, such as the metaphysical principle of sufficient reason (or "out of nothing, nothing comes") and Ockham's Razor. It does not function otherwise. And, if scientism contradicts science, I find the latter the more credible position.

And, last, this doesn't deal with the fact that scientism is self-contradictory.

[help3434]

And, I have yet to see any 'believer' give any evidence other than 'Because I said so'. or appeal to 'arguments', or emotions.

That is a separate topic. Obviously, I disagree, but I don't see how that runs counter to anything I've said.

The problem with an entity that has such a strong lack of tangible evidence for it you can make up ANYTHING you want about it.. ANYTHING at all. And people do.

This is simply a distortion of my claim. Really, it is a false dichotomy, wherein scientism and a complete willingness to accept any wild claim are the only options given.

.

I don't think that goat is making that false dichotomy. When I think of scientism I think of being trying to claim that science alone is prescriptive rather than descriptive, like the Venus Project. I don't thing that asking for scientific evidence for interaction with the physical world from a being such as God is scientism.

[Jester]

I don't think that goat is making that false dichotomy. When I think of scientism I think of being trying to claim that science alone is prescriptive rather than descriptive, like the Venus Project. I don't thing that asking for scientific evidence for interaction with the physical world from a being such as God is scientism.

That may be our problem:
Scientism is the position that science alone provides (descriptive) knowledge of reality.
(Nor, incidentally, would this other definition make Goat's statement not a false dichotomy, as my position would still be excluded from his two-item list).


Thus, I completely agree that the simple asking for such evidence, in itself, is not scientism. However, the strong implication in Goat's statement that, if tangible evidence is not provided, then the suggestion can be dismissed as "making up anything you want" is scientism.

That is, it has moved from a simple asking whether there is such evidence, to the claim that such evidence can answer a metaphysical question without considering non-scientific inquiry.

And that is scientism.




Now, if Goat was simply wondering whether there was scientific evidence, but was completely willing to accept that a rationally compelling reason could be given apart from scientific evidence, then:

1. His comment is wildly misleading, and
2. This only confirms my claim that the question of scientific evidence is the only question the New Atheists seem interested in.

All requests for support for God's existence would be off topic, of course, but I don't think it is insignificant to the topic that I've received multiple requests for scientific evidence, and no requests at all for metaphysical demonstrations.

The latter is much more relevant to the issue of God, but (as I have said) is ignored by the New Atheists in favor of insisting on scientific evidence.

This, by definition, is a scientistic approach. But, whatever one's personal definitions lead one to call it, it is an unsupported and self-contradictory approach.

As such, I think it is fair to say that it is a hindrance to clear thinking.

[help3434]

[Replying to post 28 by Jester]
Goat's post may have been a strawman since he claimed it was unsupported, but it is not a false dichotomy since he never said those were the only possibilities. That would make your post a strawman.

Anyway, what is metaphysical evidence?

[Goat]

[Replying to post 28 by Jester]
Goat's post may have been a strawman since he claimed it was unsupported, but it is not a false dichotomy since he never said those were the only possibilities. That would make your post a strawman.

Anyway, what is metaphysical evidence?

As far as I can see the term 'metaphysical evidence' is an oxymoron.

Now there might be metaphysical arguments, but arguments are not evidence.