after reading about him in the book, i looked up Ota Benga’s tragic story. a Congolese pygmy who was purchased from slave traders and displayed in Bronx at a “human zoo”. Not being able to return to Africa, he committed suicide at the age of 32. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ota_Benga?wprov=sfti1 …
-
-
A critique of evo psych can not be: they find the genders to be different and that is a horrible outcome. That is scientism. Only two valid critiques are possible: 1. genders are not different, the data is wrong; 2. causal link between differences to other observations is wrong.
-
I've a feeling we don't agree on the definition of scientism.
-
It can mean a few things, I am using it more like this: "An example of this second usage is to label as scientism any attempt to claim science as the only or primary source of human values or as the source of meaning and purpose" – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism
-
But regardless, the moment science and it's results are not viewed objectively, it becomes a political or philosophical expression. And can, and should, be critically interpreted there. But science can only be criticized when it failed to stay objective or when shown incorrect.
-
I've actually written this on Scientism http://sjwiki.org/wiki/Scientism
-
Would you agree that we can and should use science to keep our beliefs, our stories, our examples, our morality realistic? (The stories and examples insofar they claim to be portraying reality, fiction/fantasy is fine, of course.)
-
Highly loaded question which itself is philosophical position.
-
It's not a science question indeed. 1. But can we? Eg. say something about homeopath? Say something about Gilgamesh and if it is fantasy or history? 2. If a person applies science that way (for themselves and whoever is interested), is that scientism?
- 19 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.