it is not uncommon for theists to accuse rational people on this forum of "scientism".. in my opinion it is nothing but a cheap shot from those who know they lack evidence for their beliefs.
if something like "scientism" actually does exist then i have never encountered it.. here is part of an exchange from another thread - i have brought it here as it was off-topic.... scientism = claim of scientific method being universal and the only valid method of knowledge.
followers of scientism always demand scientific evidence to anything.
I make no restrictions on what sort of evidence I will consider.
I think you're very biased to only accept scientific evidence.
I don't think you would accept physical evidence or testimonial evidence for instance.
I'd presented even logical proof to you about the existence of God in St. Anselm's ontological argument.
it is not uncommon for theists to accuse rational people on this forum of "scientism".. in my opinion it is nothing but a cheap shot from those who know they lack evidence for their beliefs.
if something like "scientism" actually does exist then i have never encountered it.. here is part of an exchange from another thread - i have brought it here as it was off-topic.... scientism = claim of scientific method being universal and the only valid method of knowledge.
followers of scientism always demand scientific evidence to anything.
On this thread you have alternated bizarrely between saying you are unaware of any real knowledge outside science (and could anyone point it out) and insisting that you accept other kinds of knowledge and anyone who says otherwise is misrepresenting you. So which is it?
Yes.This is very strange.
I'm really trying to understand Cofty's worldview but it's very difficult when he keeps flip-flopping.
He seems to confuse scientific evidence and physical evidence too.
Also I don't know why he insists writing scientism in quotemarks implying scientism itself is an invented or invalid term.
Actually scientism is very well defined by great philosophers of science like Popper and Putnam for instance.
it is not uncommon for theists to accuse rational people on this forum of "scientism".. in my opinion it is nothing but a cheap shot from those who know they lack evidence for their beliefs.
if something like "scientism" actually does exist then i have never encountered it.. here is part of an exchange from another thread - i have brought it here as it was off-topic.... scientism = claim of scientific method being universal and the only valid method of knowledge.
followers of scientism always demand scientific evidence to anything.
So far we agree these sources of knowledges are not science (scientific method):
Philosophy (being the universal tool of knowledge).
Heuristic
History
Music/art
Law
Politics
Mathematics
Psychology
All these areas of knowledge work without scientific evidence.
it is not uncommon for theists to accuse rational people on this forum of "scientism".. in my opinion it is nothing but a cheap shot from those who know they lack evidence for their beliefs.
if something like "scientism" actually does exist then i have never encountered it.. here is part of an exchange from another thread - i have brought it here as it was off-topic.... scientism = claim of scientific method being universal and the only valid method of knowledge.
followers of scientism always demand scientific evidence to anything.
it is not uncommon for theists to accuse rational people on this forum of "scientism".. in my opinion it is nothing but a cheap shot from those who know they lack evidence for their beliefs.
if something like "scientism" actually does exist then i have never encountered it.. here is part of an exchange from another thread - i have brought it here as it was off-topic.... scientism = claim of scientific method being universal and the only valid method of knowledge.
followers of scientism always demand scientific evidence to anything.
The logical conclusion of scientism is what can't be submitted to scientific method can't exist at all.
That's why followers of Scientism deny the existence of God and even consciousness.
To scientism consciousness is just another illusion and nothing more than a bunch of cheap tricks.
which world is this?_________________when the doctor pulled my screaming body out of mom all those 7 decades ago, i landed in a post-wwii world.it was--compared to today's world--an alien planet.. the world i live in today has nothing in common with the world in which i grew up.. there were no cell phones back then--there were black telephones with a dial-tone and an operator who placed your call.
everywhere you found telephone booths!
a call was a nickle.where did all those telephone booths go?i dunno.where did my whole world go?i dunno.. tv sets were huge boxes with tubes and small screens.
Idk if you are a time machine or a time capsule. :)
it is not uncommon for theists to accuse rational people on this forum of "scientism".. in my opinion it is nothing but a cheap shot from those who know they lack evidence for their beliefs.
if something like "scientism" actually does exist then i have never encountered it.. here is part of an exchange from another thread - i have brought it here as it was off-topic.... scientism = claim of scientific method being universal and the only valid method of knowledge.
followers of scientism always demand scientific evidence to anything.
You keep confusing or intentionally mixing up scientific evidence and physical evidence.
And by now you already said that you use evidence as any evidence like a universal evidence.
What can be said about this position?
it is not uncommon for theists to accuse rational people on this forum of "scientism".. in my opinion it is nothing but a cheap shot from those who know they lack evidence for their beliefs.
if something like "scientism" actually does exist then i have never encountered it.. here is part of an exchange from another thread - i have brought it here as it was off-topic.... scientism = claim of scientific method being universal and the only valid method of knowledge.
followers of scientism always demand scientific evidence to anything.
That's a lie .
Quote and link please.
Everything we know, we know because of science.
it is not uncommon for theists to accuse rational people on this forum of "scientism".. in my opinion it is nothing but a cheap shot from those who know they lack evidence for their beliefs.
if something like "scientism" actually does exist then i have never encountered it.. here is part of an exchange from another thread - i have brought it here as it was off-topic.... scientism = claim of scientific method being universal and the only valid method of knowledge.
followers of scientism always demand scientific evidence to anything.
This thread is about your baseless accusations of "scientism".
My base of why I define you as a follower of scientism is because you never specify the type of evidence you're talking about when the subject is God.
But considering your position is very easy to imply you are talking about scientific evidence.
So if someone put scientific evidence and God in the same equation then this person is a follower of scientism.
My suggestion to you is only specify the type of evidence when you're talking about the concept of God.
Don't say only evidence but qualify it by saying scientific evidence, testimonial evidence, physical evidence, forensic evidence, logical proof, etc...
it is not uncommon for theists to accuse rational people on this forum of "scientism".. in my opinion it is nothing but a cheap shot from those who know they lack evidence for their beliefs.
if something like "scientism" actually does exist then i have never encountered it.. here is part of an exchange from another thread - i have brought it here as it was off-topic.... scientism = claim of scientific method being universal and the only valid method of knowledge.
followers of scientism always demand scientific evidence to anything.
Cofty I'm not "accusing" you for being a follower of scientism more than I'm "accusing" you for being an atheist.
I'm just defining your position as being scientism.
IMHO you deny even the existence of scientism by only using the word in quotemarks.
In this very thread some people admitted to be followers of scientism.
Sincerely I don't care if people choose to be followers of scientism, atheism or JWism. I believe in free will after all...
But I'm very intrigued with people who deny the very position that they hold. And usually I like to know why they do that. That's really my intention about your position.
Same thing happened with punkofnice when I defined him as nihilist in another topic. His position is even stranger because he knows he's a nihilist but doesn't like the label.
