Scientism - Nothing But a Childish Insult? (page 14)

John_Mann

But I for one don't use scientism as an insult. Just for clarification of debate.

Something to be used as an insult is very subjective. I gave the example of punkofnice and nihilism. Punk admitted to be a nihilist but at the same time he said doesn't like the label.

My position is Catholicism which is an "ism" too. I don't understand why some people are so sensitive about being properly defined.

There's no such thing as a neutral/unbiased/objective position.

Objects can't be accessed without a subject.

So a proper discussion requires clear definitions by the subjects.

cofty

If somewhere somebody exists who thinks that science can tell us whether we ought to prefer chocolate ice cream or pistachio then that theoretical dullard is guilty of "scientism".

On the other hand, science can inform us about objective morality and consciousness is probably nothing more than a function of the brain.

That does not make Harris and Dennet guilty of "scientism". To sustain that accusation you have the burden of proof to show the evidence that they are wrong.

P.S. Go fuck yourself with your accusations of trolling SBF.

John_Mann

On the other hand, science can inform us about objective morality and consciousness is probably nothing more than a function of the brain.

This is scientism.

Morality is a philosophical subject not a scientific subject.

If morality was scientific we could use computers as law judges.

cofty

Morality is a philosophical subject not a scientific subject.

That is only your subjective opinion.

John_Mann

That is only your subjective opinion.

Please show me some scientific paper about morality being a subject of scientific method.

John_Mann

Scientific paper, Cofty.

Not a magazine, blog, whatever...

I'm asking for scientific evidence about morality being a subject of scientific method as you claim.

John_Mann

If somewhere somebody exists who thinks that science can tell us whether we ought to prefer chocolate ice cream or pistachio then that theoretical dullard is guilty of "scientism".

Why do you think that when you think this:

On the other hand, science can inform us about objective morality and consciousness is probably nothing more than a function of the brain.

Morality is way more complex than someone choosing ice cream flavors. Don't you agree?

Don't you see this very point of view indeed implies that science can determine how and why someone chooses its ice cream?

Why do you think science is able to determine morality choices by scanning molecules from the brain but at the same time being unable to do the same about ice cream choices?

Diogenesister

Rainbow_Troll the exercise of reason has allowed me to solve many longstanding metaphysical question - such as the nature of consciousness and its relationship to matter - that I don't believe scientists will ever be able to arrive at using their methods.

I would be very interested in your findings as to the nature of consciousness. Are you taking about theory of mind?

cofty

John_Mann - I'm sure you know how to use Google, do your own research. That article I linked for you will give you lots of material to research.

The point is that there are plenty scientists who are researching morality using the tools of science.

For you to dismiss that as "scientism" is nothing but a cheap insult. What are you afraid of? Roman Catholic dogma and superstition is not the arbiter of the limits of science. You lost that argument centuries ago.

Scientism - Nothing But a Childish Insult?

Share this