"The New Atheists are back — and dumber than ever"

[Bob Kelso]

"scientism" /thread

[Easy Guns]

"scientism" /thread

^^^^

Pretty much did it for me too.

[LadyForCamus]

It's kind of tautological. If something is a way of reliably gaining knowledge, it is science. Science is what works. Science is not some fixed set of tools, it is entirely dynamic.

If all these other BS methods actually produced any results, they would also be science.

Thank you, Rob. Exactly this. Theists keep talking about these alternative methods outside of empirical science to gain knowledge about reality, but no one is ever able to explain:

1. What exactly these methods are (other than the general "it's philosophy!") or-

2. What this knowledge is that they have gained, and how they are convinced that it is true.

Sure, It is easy to say "there are things in this world that lie outside of science," when you don't have to actually detail or articulate what they are.

[Crossless2.0]

But math, all on its own, produces knowledge.

It produces analytical truths. A first rate logician and student of philosophy such as yourself must know that.

[robvalue]

LadyforCamus:

Thank you

Indeed, science never claims to have all the answers. But the idea that these "other methods" take over where science leaves off is absurd. Do these methods produce reliable results about reality, or not? If they do, they are science. If they don't, they are worthless.

I think the very word "science" has some stigma attached, like it's some evil corporation. It's simply a method, which adapts and improves. I've tried to coin the phrase "science-esque" for any kind of method which attempts to use evidence and reason to reach results, even if it's not formally science.

Not knowledge about reality. Knowledge about abstract concepts, which may or may not have anything to do with reality.

I don't know what this has to do with anything. If "other methods" produce reliable results in gaining knowledge about reality, they would be science. By definition. You can't just say they do what science does but aren't science.

Why think the concepts in question don't figure in our reality, such that knowledge of the concepts amounts to knowledge about reality?

Because mathematics is not required to have anything to do with reality. All that is required is internal consistency. Of course a lot of mathematics has been set up to mirror reality, so that the results do indeed provide very useful results. And the evidence that this is the case is usually incredibly obvious: we can test addition of integers for example, to our heart's content.

However, any abstract system that may appear to start off resembling reality and then produces a "result" has to be checked to see whether that result still resembles reality. It is extremely likely simplifying assumptions have been made, and this may mean the answer ends up being relevant only to an ideal reality where all these assumptions are true.

There have literally been areas of mathematics that were developed that had no use. They had no practical application. It wasn't until much later that anyone found a use for them. There isn't any guarantee that any new piece of maths will have any use ever. I started a PhD in a weird mathematical system where "lengths" were measured in a very nonstandard way. It didn't appear to resemble reality in any shape or form, but it was internally consistent. It wasn't even based on it in the first instance.

So basically, when maths (or any abstract system) is trying to model reality, we are taking a virtual artificial model and then manipulating it. We then achieve some "results". These results are true for our idealised version of reality that follows just the rules we have set up for the system. But is it close enough to reality to mean anything and be accurate? The only way to find out is to compare results. Make predictions, collect evidence and see how accurate the model is. It may be extremely accurate, it may be vaguely accurate or it may be way off. It may even produce nonsensical results if you're not careful, and don't apply real restraints to abstract problems, such as lengths having to be positive.

This is why philosophical arguments can never be considered evidence. They produce a model of reality, manipulate it in an abstract space, and produce a result that is as true as the initial assumptions. If those assumptions simplify reality too much, or are simply wrong, the results are useless. How to find out? Collect evidence.

How to check what one person is saying is true, without just believing them or not believing them? Collect evidence.

If you're interested in reality, then you have to go back to reality to check your results. This is science.

[Reforged]

Sam Harris? Insulting? Hes as cold as ice, he doesn't bother with insults. Just data and facts.
Hes as detached as it gets.

[Edwardo Piet]

Sam Harris? Insulting? Hes as cold as ice, he doesn't bother with insults. Just data and facts.
Hes as detached as it gets.

He's fucking awesome.

Have you watched that video yet?

[robvalue]

I tend to mostly agree with Harris. The thing is, if people are taking a sceptical and scientific approach, you would expect people to reach similar conclusions regarding objective subjects. That's the whole point of it. But when they move into subjects where value judgements are concerned, such as morality, there's no guarantee I'm going to agree. I probably agree with the main thrust of it, but I can certainly have substantial objections.

I hope Delicate can start to appreciate the fact that myself and most atheists do not in fact automatically agree with or even give any credence to what one of these prominent atheists has to say. Delicate said he was curious; if he can learn this lesson, I will be impressed.

I generally consider what is being said, not who says it. I may agree, I may not. If it's regarding a subject I have absolutely no clue about, then all I can do is trust the authority or not. But on the whole, what these guys talk about I can understand just fine. They don't ever even claim to "represent" atheists, as far as I'm aware. I'm sure there are a few dogmatically minded atheists, it takes all sorts after all. They are, in my opinion, stupid for being that way.

Of course, for menial day-to-day claims, such formal scepticism is not appropriate. I don't pin down my wife and shine a light in her eyes if she tells me she is going to the shops.

[Reforged]

Sam Harris? Insulting? Hes as cold as ice, he doesn't bother with insults. Just data and facts.
Hes as detached as it gets.

He's fucking awesome.

Have you watched that video yet?

To be honest I've been busy with taking care of that guest? Its been nice but time consuming.
I would right now but I very, very high right now.
On life. And nothing else. (Fuck you internet, you got nothing on me.)

[Edwardo Piet]

He's fucking awesome.

Have you watched that video yet?

To be honest I've been busy with taking care of that guest? Its been nice but time consuming.
I would right now but I very, very high right now.
On life. And nothing else. (Fuck you internet, you got nothing on me.)

Fuck I was like that for days recently. High on life. SOoooo high on life. It's fucking awesome isn't it?

I'm back on a downer again now though. At the moment.