haha, sorry, that was not my intention, I am merely establishing our common ground, see where our thinking diverges. Since you were just explaining to me your views on science …
-
-
But then it does go back to my question, when is something scientism, what are the criteria? Because using science to make sure other fields (philosophy/politics/morality) are realistic is not scientism, imho. But using science to prescribe things for those fields is.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
I think we agree on the things you are saying in your last two sentences.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
So not everybody using science to say something about these other fields is necessary committing scientism. And I assume a subjective criteria, basically “I disagree, therefor scientism”, is not how we want to identify scientism either. So what objective criteria to use?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
There is no such thing as objective criteria. It's not a coincidence an extreme right ideology is called Objectivism. Assuming these is one true way to do something is the same trap scientism falls into.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
But surely something else then “it feel this way to me”? You wrote a whole article about it, what main indicators would you use?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
I did. Feel free to check it out. Twitter isn't idea too expound on my views, so I wrote an article.
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
'[scientism] is equated with lunatic positions, such as that “science is all that matters” or that “scientists should be entrusted to solve all problems”' quote from Pinker from the article. So he does not think "only truth is that which can be reached via the scientific method".
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
No, that's the point. He doesn't REALLY think that. But he also does. It's an illogical position so it's not like anybody genuinely believes that science is the only path to truth. But many claim it is. That's the crux of the issue.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
I have a feeling you think that by latching on to specific quotes from Pinker or Harris that you can "prove" they are not scientismists.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
This is like saying that because a Christian isn't repenting for every single sin that they can't logically be Christian as why would anybody "rational" not repent if they sinned and if they believed in hell? This is not how to discover who is and is not Christian
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.