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]

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?

Personally, I'm not terribly interested in discussing the particular logical semantics. If it is agreed that the argument doesn't go through, I'll leave it at that.

As far as metaphysical evidence, I've already pointed out that this is off topic. I mentioned the lack of questioning merely to demonstrate the point that there is an arbitrary focus on scientific evidence (which was on topic).

I'd be willing to move on to the actual arguments if it is agreed that the scientism implicitly supported by the New Atheists should be rejected.

Please let me know if that is the case.

[Jester]

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

You are certainly allowed that opinion, but we've yet to see any reason at all to believe that.

And, of course, we've seen several good reasons to reject that idea. Unless you are willing to claim that the metaphysical principles underlying science (such as Sufficient Reason and Ockham's Razor) are the opposite of evidence, this statement doesn't make sense.

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

Indeed, arguments are not evidence. However, this does not mean that metaphysical arguments universally lack supporting evidence.

But my main issue here is the implication that arguments are somehow inferior to evidence. As arguments contain evidence, and are the only reason evidence is of any use whatsoever, this implication is clearly a false one.

If I simply misunderstood, however, and there was no implication here that arguments are inferior to evidence, I'll not bother pointing out the reasons that this would be more implicit scientism (and, therefore, circular reasoning).

But, to get back onto topic, is there any reason, other than the unsupported claims that arguments are worthless and that evidence is somehow useful apart from arguments, to embrace scientism?

If one is going to stress the importance of evidence so strongly, it is important to note that we haven't seen any evidence at all that scientism is correct.

[Goat]

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

You are certainly allowed that opinion, but we've yet to see any reason at all to believe that.

And, of course, we've seen several good reasons to reject that idea. Unless you are willing to claim that the metaphysical principles underlying science (such as Sufficient Reason and Ockham's Razor) are the opposite of evidence, this statement doesn't make sense.

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

Indeed, arguments are not evidence. However, this does not mean that metaphysical arguments universally lack supporting evidence.

But my main issue here is the implication that arguments are somehow inferior to evidence. As arguments contain evidence, and are the only reason evidence is of any use whatsoever, this implication is clearly a false one.

If I simply misunderstood, however, and there was no implication here that arguments are inferior to evidence, I'll not bother pointing out the reasons that this would be more implicit scientism (and, therefore, circular reasoning).

But, to get back onto topic, is there any reason, other than the unsupported claims that arguments are worthless and that evidence is somehow useful apart from arguments, to embrace scientism?

If one is going to stress the importance of evidence so strongly, it is important to note that we haven't seen any evidence at all that scientism is correct.

For that mere fact, without any kind of verification.. the claim has not semantic value.

You can claim anything you want.. and you would never know if it was right or not.

As far as I can see, things either exist physically, or conceptually. When someone makes claims about the physical world, like something objectively exists, I want to see that verified.

When someone claims there is an objective moral, I want something more than' I can sense that'. I want to know HOW they sense it. I want to know how this 'sensing of morals exists'.

I know how all the other senses work, so I want something similar.

What metaphysics is most used for these days is irrationalism, and to try to justify preheld beliefs.

[Jester]

For that mere fact, without any kind of verification.. the claim has not semantic value.

This is simply another declaration of scientism.

We need to show, not merely assert, that tangible evidence and "without any kind of verification" are the only options.

Otherwise, the reasoning here is circular.

You can claim anything you want.. and you would never know if it was right or not.

Again, this is simply declaring scientism. It is assuming the thing it should be trying to prove.

As far as I can see, things either exist physically, or conceptually. When someone makes claims about the physical world, like something objectively exists, I want to see that verified.

I completely agree that physical tests are often the best method in determining the truth of a claim. When we are discussing the nature of the physical world, I'll side with you on this.

When, however, we are discussing the non-physical, demanding physical tests doesn't make any sense at all.

When someone claims there is an objective moral, I want something more than' I can sense that'. I want to know HOW they sense it. I want to know how this 'sensing of morals exists'.

When have I ever presented "I can sense that" as evidence?

This is a straw man argument, and one used after many clarifications that this is NOT what I am claiming.

I know how all the other senses work, so I want something similar.

You may have to get over that.

In fact, to borrow a line from above. When someone claims that metaphysical questions can be answered by appeals to tangible evidence, I want something more than "I can sense that " this is the right method. I want to know how this person knows this is the right way to go about it.

That is, I want some kind of support for scientism, and have yet to receive any other than "it would be really great if we could test physically for everything".

Well yes, it would be, but reality doesn't work this way.

What metaphysics is most used for these days is irrationalism, and to try to justify preheld beliefs.

Not only is this a massive and unsupported claim, it is also off topic.

However metaphysics is generally used, we are talking about how it should be used.

So, unless you are actually claiming that the metaphysical foundations of science are less valid than your own personal desire for "something more than that", this position is self-contradictory.

[help3434]

[Replying to post 34 by Jester]

The problem here is the word "scientism" is a pejorative, and so everyone, with the exception of the few that embrace the term, has a different idea of where to draw the line at when the line is crossed from correct use of scientific inquiry to "scientism". You asserting that certain claims are beyond the scope of science without supporting why is the circular argument.

[Jester]

The problem here is the word "scientism" is a pejorative, and so everyone, with the exception of the few that embrace the term, has a different idea of where to draw the line at when the line is crossed from correct use of scientific inquiry to "scientism". You asserting that certain claims are beyond the scope of science without supporting why is the circular argument.

Definitions do seem to be a problem.

However, there are clear reasons why certain claims are beyond the scope of science. This position is not circular at all.

To explain:

1. Science has long since had well defined limits of inquiry. It describes only those things in the physical world subject to mathematical modeling. This is not a raw assertion; it is part of the definition of science.

2. It is not simply that I am arguing this, but that others have asserted the opposite or (more often) make statements that are only true if science is applicable to all questions. This is the assertion that has not been supported.

Hence, it is perfectly reasonable for me to point out that no support at all has been provided for this position.

3. Science itself depends on a set of very specific metaphysical positions. To reject metaphysics, then, is to reject science. Hence, the rejection of metaphysics in favor of "science alone" is self-contradictory.


So, whatever term we use for this position, it is both common and very poor reasoning. I think it is perfectly understandable that some, such as myself, make a point of refuting it.

[Goat]

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.

Well.. the one thing the metaphysics that science relies on , and the vast amount of metaphysics out there is 'VERIFICATION'.

It's not MY fault you can not show that your premise's are true, your chain of argument is accurate, or your conclusion might have anything to do with anything.

Just because someone challenges the accuracy of your argument doesn't mean it's scienitism.. that just seems to me to be a key phrase to deflect being able to back up the claims you made.

[help3434]

[Replying to post 36 by Jester]

The origin of the universe is part scientific inquiry.

[Jester]

Well.. the one thing the metaphysics that science relies on , and the vast amount of metaphysics out there is 'VERIFICATION'.

This assumes two false things:
1. That claiming that scientific verification for the basic assumptions of science is not circular reasoning (though it is), and
2. That the metaphysical arguments I've offered are not supported (though they are).

Using caps lock does not change these facts.

It's not MY fault you can not show that your premise's are true, your chain of argument is accurate, or your conclusion might have anything to do with anything.

These are bold claims, particularly given the fact that I'm the only person in this debate who has offered non-question begging support for a claim.

I've taken the position that scientism should be rejected. As support, I've pointed out that it is self-contradictory, unsupported, and opposed to science.

In response, I've received the completely unsupported claim that other ideas don't have "VERIFICATION", by which you seem to mean empirical verification. That is to say, these other claims are false, according to scientism.

Why, yes they are, and that would be very important if scientism weren't false.


This being the case, I'm very comfortable with the strength of my position in debate. In fact, given that scientism contradicts science, the success of science itself is a mountain of evidence in my favor.

But, just to pile on one more thing, I'll point out that scientism is also opposed to the idea that people actually have thoughts. Since thought doesn't have "VERIFICATION" (as you put it) through the senses, then scientism must conclude that thoughts don't exist.

Unless, of course, there is a form of verification that doesn't rely on the physical senses. But accepting that would be to reject scientism.

Personally, I'm much more confident that thought actually exists than that scientism is true.

Just because someone challenges the accuracy of your argument doesn't mean it's scienitism.

When my argument was "scientism is false", it is hard to imagine what other reason there would be to disagree with me.

But, this seems like a third false assumption:
3. Demanding physical verification for non-physical claims is not scientism.

This is exactly what scientism is, exactly what is being done in response to my statements, and exactly why it is so easy to show why scientism is a false position.

that just seems to me to be a key phrase to deflect being able to back up the claims you made.

What claims are those? I've been arguing that scientism is false.

Are you referring to my claim that the New Atheist arguments tend to be based in scientism (as that is the only other claim I've made here)?


I don't think it is unreasonable of me to ask that, if you are defending scientism, that you offer some reason to believe scientism is true and that, if you are not defending scientism, you not insist that I "back up" claims that I've not made.

But, if you agree that scientism is false, I'd be happy to move on to a different subject. I'll even make some new claims that you can demand that I support. But I'm not about to do this until it is settled that scientism is false.

[Jester]

Greetings once again!

The origin of the universe is part scientific inquiry.

I'm not sure I understand why this was said.
Are you following that with a:

1. Therefore, everything is part of scientific inquiry
2. Therefore, nothing other than science can inquire into reality
3. Therefore, science looks into more than the physical
or perhaps
4. All of the above
?


I really don't see how science's looking into the earliest moments of the universe is support of the idea that science has no limits of inquiry, let alone support of scientistic metaphysics.

Perhaps I just misunderstood. In fact, I'm not entirely certain whether you take the position that science is the only legitimate source of knowledge. Would you mind clarifying for me?