Scientism & Philosophical Arguments

[SteveII]

Well, philo and meta naturalism aren't actually scientism, nor are they the notion that only science can judge truth.  So..I guess that pretty much shits on your OP and I'm done on that count.

As regards the value of philosophy - you need some tool to decide whether or not your propositions are sound, and this is required by the system we've organized to describe proper or informative argumentation.  We know that you don't get to vomit up any old statement, as you did above, and then claim to be approaching or seeking truth.  We knew that long before we ever got into science, and science can't draw conclusions without reference to philosophy - as a largely inductive system itself.  Science sans philosophy is a nonsensical statement, and philosophy without science is merely an exhibition of structural method.  This, ofc..is what Hawking very clearly expressed.  That philosophy, without hard data, is insufficient.  Hardly a revelation.

I stand corrected on the terms philosophical and metaphysical naturalism. There is overlap in definitions but they are not the same.

[The Grand Nudger]

You also stand corrected on scientism as a choice between science and philosophy.

[SteveII]

What has been excluded?  Not philosophy, obviously.  "Faithing" for truth?  When someone makes a truth claim regarding the nature of this or that..should we consult our oracles?  Throw sticks?  Cast bones?  Read the cards?  Check a magic book?  Calculate the position of the stars?  Slaughter a goat for it's entrails?  Brew a cup of tea?  Post a letter to the spirit world?

Get to the money shot.

Take inference of design from the fine tuning of the universe or the data within a cell.

[The Grand Nudger]

Take what, again? Are you requesting that I consider science to be authoratative /w regards to some god? Sounds like scientism to me. I mean...if you want me to I will....just say the word and I'll pull that trigger, lol.

[Kingpin]

Hawking states in his book, “Philosophy is dead. It has not kept up with modern developments in science, particularly in physics. As a result scientists have become the bearers of the torch of discovery in our quest for knowledge.”

What an astonishing statement! He does not appear to understand the first thing about it, nor its commitment to the elementary rules of logical analysis. Hawking’s statement is itself a philosophical statement. It is manifestly not a statement of science; it is a philosophical statement about science. Therefore, because it says that philosophy is dead, it contradicts itself. It is a classic example of logical incoherence. Not only that, Hawking, insofar as he is interpreting and applying science to ultimate questions like the existence of God, is doing metaphysics. Saying philosophy is dead is very dangerous especially when you yourself engage in it.

[Natachan]

I think you're using a few words wrong, but I think I get your gist.

While our current knowledge certainly has limits and current technology puts limits on our methodology and how far we can explore, the subjects of abiogenesis and the origin of the universe are not intrinsically outside science. If it happened in physical reality then we should be able to use science to analyze it.

[SteveII]

You also stand corrected on scientism as a choice between science and philosophy.

No, I'm not conceding that. From the same article further down...

Non-religious scholars have also linked New Atheist thought with scientism. Atheist philosopher Thomas Nagel argues neuroscientist Sam Harris conflates all empirical knowledge with that of scientific knowledge.[39] Marxist literary critic Terry Eagleton argues Christopher Hitchens possesses an "old-fashioned scientistic notion of what counts as evidence" that reduces knowledge to what can and cannot be proven by scientific procedure.[40] Agnostic philosopher Anthony Kenny has also criticized New Atheist philosopher Alexander Rosenberg's The Atheist's Guide to Reality for resurrecting a self-refuting epistemology of logical positivism and reducing all knowledge of the universe to the discipline of physics.[41]

[The Grand Nudger]

Too bad, science is inductive philosophy supported by empirical data, a method for generating sound propositions.  You don't get to manufacture a distinction for yourself.  Your concession is irrelevant - as is your IDiocy.

[SteveII]

I think you're using a few words wrong, but I think I get your gist.

While our current knowledge certainly has limits and current technology puts limits on our methodology and how far we can explore, the subjects of abiogenesis and the origin of the universe are not intrinsically outside science. If it happened in physical reality then we should be able to use science to analyze it.

And when science cannot provide an answer?

[Minimalist]

Let's cut to the chase.