(April 25, 2017 at 7:13 am)Tazzycorn Wrote:(April 24, 2017 at 12:49 pm)SteveII Wrote: You are not clear on your definitions (and probably shouldn't mock people until you are):
So, your comments are not based on anything I said nor accurately reflect...well...anything.
Steve, protip: When you qoute mine, don't link to where you're quote mining from because it confirms you as the shitty little idiot liar and slanderer that you are.
Even from the wikipedia article it is onvious that the term scientism has a secondary meaning, used by the opponents of knowledge (e.g. Austruan schoolers like Hayek or cratards like you), viz "scientism is a belief, and scientists evil because it refuses to take our beliefs into account despite the fact that we have nithing to support our beliefs".
Where did you get that from, in the article? The dictionary entry at the end, does include a secondary meaning, referencing the methods or techniques used by a scientist. However the main part of the article is about what Steve was discussing. It's also how I have normally seen the term used. But in the end, it is really about how Steve meant the term to be applied; wouldn't you agree?
By the way, I've noticed an increase in just flat out insults (apart from the discussion lately). I don't know about the others, but I find that encouraging.
It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. - Alexander Vilenkin
If I am shown my error, I will be the first to throw my books into the fire. - Martin Luther
If I am shown my error, I will be the first to throw my books into the fire. - Martin Luther
