(July 14, 2016 at 7:52 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote: I'm curious about your statement I bolded above.   How did you come to that conclusion?   My understanding of natural selection is that it is a filtering mechanism not a creative one.  That variations which are more likely to cause death or reduce reproduction are removed from the gene pool.  There are some who deal in population genetics who question the limits of natural selection.  How much of a role does the size of the population affect natural selection?   And also, how much of an advantage, is required in order for natural selection to become a contributing factor in the non-diversification of genetic information.

(July 14, 2016 at 10:57 am)Alex K Wrote: Scientism, hm. What is scientism again, why is it bad and who could be accused of it?

Quote:Scientism is a belief in the universal applicability of the scientific method and approach, and the view that empirical science constitutes the most "authoritative" worldview or the most valuable part of human learning—to the exclusion of other viewpoints. Accordingly, philosopher Tom Sorell provides this definition of scientism: "Scientism is a matter of putting too high a value on natural science in comparison with other branches of learning or culture."[1] It has been defined as "the view that the characteristic inductive methods of the natural sciences are the only source of genuine factual knowledge and, in particular, that they alone can yield true knowledge about man and society".[2] The term "scientism" frequently implies a critique of the more extreme expressions of logical positivism[3][4] and has been used by social scientists such as Friedrich Hayek,[5] philosophers of science such as Karl Popper,[6] and philosophers such as Hilary Putnam[7] and Tzvetan Todorov[8] to describe (for example) the dogmatic endorsement of scientific methodology and the reduction of all knowledge to only that which is measurable.[9] Philosophers such as Alexander Rosenberg have also appropriated "scientism" as a name for the view that science is the only reliable source of knowledge.[10]

(July 14, 2016 at 10:57 am)Alex K Wrote: Scientism, hm. What is scientism again, why is it bad and who could be accused of it?

(July 14, 2016 at 11:09 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote:

(July 14, 2016 at 10:57 am)Alex K Wrote: Scientism, hm. What is scientism again, why is it bad and who could be accused of it?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism

Quote:Scientism is a belief in the universal applicability of the scientific method and approach, and the view that empirical science constitutes the most "authoritative" worldview or the most valuable part of human learning—to the exclusion of other viewpoints. Accordingly, philosopher Tom Sorell provides this definition of scientism: "Scientism is a matter of putting too high a value on natural science in comparison with other branches of learning or culture."[1] It has been defined as "the view that the characteristic inductive methods of the natural sciences are the only source of genuine factual knowledge and, in particular, that they alone can yield true knowledge about man and society".[2] The term "scientism" frequently implies a critique of the more extreme expressions of logical positivism[3][4] and has been used by social scientists such as Friedrich Hayek,[5] philosophers of science such as Karl Popper,[6] and philosophers such as Hilary Putnam[7] and Tzvetan Todorov[8] to describe (for example) the dogmatic endorsement of scientific methodology and the reduction of all knowledge to only that which is measurable.[9] Philosophers such as Alexander Rosenberg have also appropriated "scientism" as a name for the view that science is the only reliable source of knowledge.[10]

(July 14, 2016 at 12:51 pm)Alex K Wrote: Ok, so my cynical impression is that scientism seems to be butthurt contemporary philosophers and woo peddlers fearing for their relevance. It all smells like an elaborate way of whining about science being mean to their cherished beliefs. Meh.
Long gone are the days of Hume, it seems.

The above definition also kind of begs the question, saying that scientism is when science as a source of knowledge is emphasized too much.

(July 14, 2016 at 1:11 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Good thing we have folks like you to tell us where science belongs.  Off the cuff, I'm guessing as far away from your religious beliefs as possible, but all over other people's silly superstitions?