Speechless

[The Grand Nudger]

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.

A speciation event is simply the point of no return, the sum total of all divergence between two given populations isolated and solidified by selection.  Population a can/will no longer breed with population b.   This is what is meant by the word species. Mutation creates the individual, the "filtering method" creates the -species-.

Pretty straightforward, eh?

[Alex K]

Scientism, hm. What is scientism again, why is it bad and who could be accused of it?

[Excited Penguin]

I think it's a term used by people who don't properly understand what the scientific method entails, at least in spirit.

[RoadRunner79]

Scientism, hm. What is scientism again, why is it bad and who could be accused of it?

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

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]

[Jackalope]

Scientism, hm. What is scientism again, why is it bad and who could be accused of it?

As bears I can tell, it's a pejorative used by people who think they can justify believing in bullshit.

[KevinM1]

Scientism, hm. What is scientism again, why is it bad and who could be accused of it?

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

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]

I wonder what metric Sorell uses to determine how the value placed upon science is 'too high'.... *troll face*

[Alex K]

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.

[RoadRunner79]

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.

I think that it is more about people who want to push science where it doesn't belong (category error). 

Begging the question requires an argument, definitions by their nature of defining something; I do find tend to beg the question if that is what you mean.

[The Grand Nudger]

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?

[RoadRunner79]

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?

We can discuss it if you would like,   but I would ask, that you let me speak for myself.  I don't think that your rash assumptions are very useful, well informed, or well thought out.