tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post5933828889831844879..comments2024-03-28T12:18:51.521-07:00Comments on Edward Feser: Separating scientism and stateEdward Feserhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13643921537838616224noreply@blogger.comBlogger91125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-15098696047255687062020-10-15T07:45:44.825-07:002020-10-15T07:45:44.825-07:00And you are neither philosopher nor scientist, so ...And you are neither philosopher nor scientist, so none of your rants is of any value/ interest.<br />Now go back to your science shrine and let the adults talk.UncommonDescenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01889661912118191190noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-11825273878586273862020-09-30T10:29:05.880-07:002020-09-30T10:29:05.880-07:00Here is how I see it. When people say "the sc...Here is how I see it. When people say "the science says we should..." That is scientisim. Period. Science is a methodology using inductive reasoning to explain material phenomenon. It does not tell us what we "SHOULD" do about it. Unless, we want to account for teleology. Which I'd be happy to. But that's not a modern scientific perspective.Erikhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08388988862902563006noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-10057468018399811872020-09-07T12:38:11.288-07:002020-09-07T12:38:11.288-07:00Anon whichever,
“He clearly adheres to the idea th...Anon whichever,<br />“He clearly adheres to the idea that science is always true”<br />Please cite the passage where I said that, else it is a strawman (assuming I am the “joke” you are referring to).<br /><br />Science always true? I have never heard of a person who thinks the present state of science has universal 100% accurate descriptions of anything, just the opposite.<br /><br />Science is always provisional and subject to revision, every scientist knows that. You are just making up a scientismistic charge out of whole cloth.<br /><br />“So who are you to say that whoever refuses the "scientific approach" is making a bad choice?”<br />Fine, then if the doctors say you need an MRI, or ultrasound, or open heart surgery, a scientifically designed medicine, or any other treatment made possible by science then go right ahead and refuse, if you want, that is your right. The odds will be heavily against you if you refuse treatment, your little anecdotes notwithstanding, but it is your life so up to you.<br /><br />“Science has no final truth, it is akin to error, to fraud, to limitations.”<br />Obviously, every scientist knows that, that is why the scientific method was developed, to mitigate human folly and limitations, of course. What, did you think you were exposing some dirty little secret about science?<br /><br />“Therefore, its completely UNFAIR and ARBITRARY to give it the amount of money and social credit it is receiving nowadays.”<br />Hilarious. First, the vast majority of the budgets at all levels go to Social Security, medical, military, education, public safety and public service agencies. The amount that goes to science research is tiny by comparison, and what little is spent has been shown through history to pay huge dividends in all the modern technology you use and enjoy every day.<br /><br />There is no such thing as scientism except in the minds of the religious and a few folks so publicly insignificant nobody here on this thread can name even 1 actual person who is a scientismist.<br />StardustyPsychehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12493629973262220492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-14149282374920665532020-09-07T09:49:48.823-07:002020-09-07T09:49:48.823-07:00This guy is a joke. He clearly adheres to the idea...This guy is a joke. He clearly adheres to the idea that science is always true, and, therefore, its legitimate to make it an obligation for the tax payer to sustain it, and for the society to obey it. He cannot even understand that this very idea is the source of the problems addressed by the author.<br /><br />"So they made a choice, the science was correct" LoL. I have seen many examples of doctors applying the best scientific available treatment and KILLING their patients. So who are you to say that whoever refuses the "scientific approach" is making a bad choice? Sometimes its the best choice, who knows? <br /><br />This is exactly what is being discussed here, in case you hadnt realized. Science has no final truth, it is akin to error, to fraud, to limitations. Therefore, its completely UNFAIR and ARBITRARY to give it the amount of money and social credit it is receiving nowadays. <br /><br />And the fact that you are picking up corona stats without even consider the criteria through which these stats are collected,and the difference among countries is just another sign thst you are completely missing the point. The "scientific view" is not absolute, and you cant use the same issue being debated here as a proof of its relevancy and importance. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-80079427900839589312020-09-07T03:18:44.265-07:002020-09-07T03:18:44.265-07:00I was given 'Against Method' as a late tee...I was given 'Against Method' as a late teen, enthralled by pure maths. An area as disciplined, and yet creative, as theology. So thank you for the invocation of Feyerabend. And I appreciate the importance of not outsourcing values to 'Science'.<br /><br />But I am a little unnerved - even allowing for the liberalist lean in your philosophy - to read that now, of all times, is a time to insist on some impossible strict separation of 'science and state'.<br /><br />Besides an empirical overstatement in the idea that science is somehow a state religion in the US of all places, there is the present importance of social solidarity and neighbourliness. A virus isn't going to go away nor its trail of death and long-covid illnesses isn't going to be minimised by invoking rights to disparate value based opinions. We are thus left with some very practical questions for which scientific QnAs will be crucial - as to vaccine efficacy, how widespread and repeated such vaccines need to be to achieve 'herd immunity' and, assuming scarcity, what groups are most at risk or transmissible to 'deserve' them first. Such utility based calculations, of the present era/conditions, fall squarely within classical, Villeyan natural law.Graeme Ohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01763806177871448874noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-60139890665669603102020-09-03T16:18:08.797-07:002020-09-03T16:18:08.797-07:00Theresa,
Your whole argument is a blurred boundar...Theresa,<br /><br />Your whole argument is a blurred boundary fallacy. It's like saying because setting a speed limit at 70 MPH instead of 69 MPH is arbitrary, we should therefore let people drive at 120 MPH.<br /><br />GoneFishingnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-7945103324704720042020-09-03T16:13:34.822-07:002020-09-03T16:13:34.822-07:00But wait! How do you know 95% of the population w...But wait! How do you know 95% of the population wouldn't have died but for the lockdowns? Surely you'd think preventing a mass extinction event might be worth some amount of economic destruction?<br /><br />You see, you yourself must use science even while ranting about "scientism", which is why I have nothing but contempt for the anti-science crowd.<br />GoneFishingnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-80736932477631500902020-09-03T16:11:45.506-07:002020-09-03T16:11:45.506-07:00Scientists are often ridiculous and risibly ignora...Scientists are often ridiculous and risibly ignorant when they talk about philosophy, but philosophers often fare no better when they talk about science, especially when it's a rant against "scientism". <br /><br />Philosophers, of course, know next to nothing about information theory and similar disciplines. So they think their objections about theories being underdetermined, observations being theory-laden, etc., really have any merit, or that because Popper was wrong about falsification, science has no truth value, or that because scientific theories may be (literally) something dreamt up by scientists, that means there's really no method. <br /><br />But science is nothing more or less than data modeling, of which there has been a lot of development in since the death of Feyerabend. <br /> If you can successfully model (e.g. within bounds of error) a phenomenon of which you have 1000 exemplars with two parameters, it is way more probable to be a successful model than one with 500 parameters which fits equally well. And you will see that when you attempt to make predictions based on your model. Of course your two-parameter model might not work always; maybe there are slight deviations between data points, and maybe it doesn't quite work when you attempt to extrapolate. Then, you can add more parameters as necessary. But no more than necessary.<br /><br />Now philosophy may insist that the preference for the 2 parameter model over the 500 parameter model is arbitrary, and it's just luck the 2 parameter model works so much better in prediction in practice. Sorry, this is not the case because the 2 parameter model much better models our IGNORANCE than the 500 parameter model, and this is why it works better, even if philosophy can't wrap its mind around modeling of ignorance.<br />GoneFishingnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-63371986026941265052020-09-03T05:42:47.758-07:002020-09-03T05:42:47.758-07:00Theresa,
I agree that you can't justify a loc...Theresa,<br /><br />I agree that you can't justify a lock down merely by defining stages. My point was that (in Illinois) a reasonable case was made which included the criteria you specified. There was more to the case than the concrete goalposts.<br /><br />If you have other criteria that you think are necessary, we can discuss those s well and see if they were met.One Browhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11938816242512563561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-74803888573308291722020-09-03T04:40:48.020-07:002020-09-03T04:40:48.020-07:00OP,
“like egging on creationists, playing devil’s ...OP,<br />“like egging on creationists, playing devil’s advocate for astrology, and calling for the “separation of science and state.””<br />Yes, claiming that “scientism” is a real feature of how science is practiced generally is in the category of advocating creationism and astrology.<br /><br />Yes, the charge that “scientism” is somehow “entangled” in government, or elsewhere for that matter, presents as an imaginary conspiracy theory. All that is missing is the foil hat.<br /><br />Who, specifically, are these scientismists? Names and citations please. What specific government polices have been influenced by this imagined “entanglement”?<br /><br />I have heard people say they are a Marxist, Platonist, Communist, Capitalist, Racist, Nationalist and on and on, but never once have I ever heard anybody say they are a scientismist.<br /><br />Apparently, if the OP is to be believed, these scientismists are a secret society who hide their insidious subversive activities by never acknowledging their true beliefs.<br /><br />“Like scripture, science is taken to stand outside all other human belief systems”<br />By who? I have never heard this view expressed by anybody at all, much less as a belief system that is somehow “entangled” in government.<br /><br />“For example, when the state involves itself in health care, it will fund only remedies approved by scientists, never Chinese herbal medicine and acupuncture, faith healing, the advice of Hopi medicine men, or voodoo”<br />Indeed, the charge of “scientism” is about as sensible as government-funded voodoo. Voodoo? Seriously? How is the charge of “scientism” not crackpot imaginary nonsense?<br /><br />So, government is guilty of enforcing a “hegemony” of scientismistic policies because of government’s abject failure to include voodoo research in its budgets. Like I said, all that is missing is the foil hat.<br /><br />“Nor are citizens under any obligation to let scientific considerations trump other aspects of an issue, any more than a consumer ought to let an auto mechanic’s advice trump budget considerations”<br />So, if the mechanic tells you that used car has a bad transmission that will cost a few grand to fix, and then the engine is about shot too, plus the brakes are leaking, go ahead and buy the car because it is cheaper. If you heed the advice of the mechanic who actually studies cars in detail then you are succumbing to the hegemony of mechanicism.<br />StardustyPsychehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12493629973262220492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-47887613653988092392020-09-02T14:18:18.335-07:002020-09-02T14:18:18.335-07:00Tony,
I think you're misrepresenting Mill and...Tony, <br />I think you're misrepresenting Mill and Feyerabend. They're not on any such slippery slope. What you're saying about radical atomism would be true, but doesn't follow from the idea of avoiding social sanction/pressure. Obviously social pressure is unavoidable, but the point is to make sure that social pressure is conditioned by love, "do as you would be done by," not just by, well, dumb shit like GoneFishing wrote just below here, wherein he completely and brazenly fails to enter into intelligent engagement with his fellow-man -- why? -- because he has written off the view of his fellow-man as being crackpot, and so feels no need to actually listen and hear what his fellow-man is saying. Much more fun to pretentiously fulminate against a straw man!David McPikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04997702078077124822noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-74052725160172731412020-09-02T13:58:35.395-07:002020-09-02T13:58:35.395-07:00You can't justify merely by defining stages an...You can't <i>justify</i> merely by <i>defining</i> stages and levels of restrictions ad hoc. Those stages and levels have to be <i>actually</i> justified. You can't just say, "If we get up to 10 cases in town then everybody has to wear masks," and think you've created a justified policy just because you've arbitrarily stipulated a concrete criterion. That just begs the question.Theresahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09442807496983032694noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-66625072202153821092020-09-02T13:38:25.276-07:002020-09-02T13:38:25.276-07:00Theresa,
Given that, the lockdown was never justif...Theresa,<br /><i>Given that, the lockdown was never justified, because there was never a reasonable case made establishing any concrete goalposts attached to concrete criteria, nor any reasonable case for thinking that there was any imminent danger of approaching those goalposts, whatever exactly they were.</i><br /><br />Perhaps that's true where you are, but Illinois has very clearly defined stages and levels of restrictions, and have moved into stages with lesser restrictions (and sometimes regressed) over time.One Browhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11938816242512563561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-91146627949368870862020-09-02T09:44:26.406-07:002020-09-02T09:44:26.406-07:00Dude, there's a very simple reason you could g...Dude, there's a very simple reason you could go on and on. Remember Ed mentioned the term "begging the question"? It's also called circular reasoning. And when you're going in a circle, that's right, you could go on and on, like a fly buzzing against the window. And if that's what you're into, enjoy!Theresahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09442807496983032694noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-47691474363855957032020-09-02T09:39:03.097-07:002020-09-02T09:39:03.097-07:00If moving COVID goalposts is wrong, then this is j...If moving COVID goalposts is wrong, then this is just because there has to be a clear rationale for the kinds of extreme economic destruction policies enforced to supposedly combat the pandemic. Given that, the lockdown was never justified, because there was never a reasonable case made establishing any concrete goalposts attached to concrete criteria, nor any reasonable case for thinking that there was any imminent danger of approaching those goalposts, whatever exactly they were. So, no, Ed, I think your initial lockdown support is still not justified -- unless you're willing to grant the legitimacy of moving goalposts willy-nilly, i.e., not really having any goalposts.Theresahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09442807496983032694noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-62842414939805926332020-09-01T19:27:14.710-07:002020-09-01T19:27:14.710-07:00Europe as a whole does not have more deaths per ca...Europe as a whole does not have more deaths per capita, though some European countries do. We are the world champions at screwing up this virus.Screwtape Jenkinshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13874779097608201662noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-83993906179980537632020-09-01T07:31:21.363-07:002020-09-01T07:31:21.363-07:00"Don't pretend you didn't say those t..."Don't pretend you didn't say those things, and don't pretend those things don't entail having contempt for us."<br />Hate the sin, love the sinner.<br /><br />Who exactly are these supposed scientismists? What specific positions do these individuals hold that are scientismistic?<br /><br />People who are, say, Marxist or Aristotelian, or Platonists typically just say so, or at least they freely state what elements of those philosophies they adopt.<br /><br />Yes, the charge of "scientism" does present as a ridiculous conspiracy theory because I have never heard anybody say they are a scientismist, or that they adopt scientism in whole or in part. This cadre of scientismists that apparently have insidiously "entangled" themselves into government seem to be some sort of subversive secret society who refuse to acknowledge their subversive activities in government and our society at large.StardustyPsychehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12493629973262220492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-52289077856235195642020-09-01T07:05:44.086-07:002020-09-01T07:05:44.086-07:00Cantus,
"My argument was that regardless of w...Cantus,<br />"My argument was that regardless of what one thought of any one particular mystic, science itself cannot tell you whether advancing the material wellbeing of man is more important than growing in knowledge of God, because science cannot issue value judgements."<br />Like religion, there are those who claim to be able to issue value judgements, but they are not valid.<br /><br />Value judgements are personal, and relative. The claim by religion to be able to issue value judgments is as false as any other.<br /><br />"That sort of behaviour is precisely what we mean my "scientism"."<br />The charge of "scientism" is just a baseless smear made by people who don't understand how self consciously provisional science is understood to be by scientifically minded people.StardustyPsychehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12493629973262220492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-29661152663255171162020-09-01T05:52:10.470-07:002020-09-01T05:52:10.470-07:00Marissa,
Since, after adjusting for poverty level...Marissa,<br /><br />Since, after adjusting for poverty level and differential policing of the same behaviors, the white demographic is the more violent demographic, the police actually respond unfairly by targeting the less violent demographic.<br /><br />Further, since you felt the need to change from protesting to rioting, it's pretty clear why you don't see that bias.One Browhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11938816242512563561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-19766233541037916322020-09-01T02:19:41.117-07:002020-09-01T02:19:41.117-07:00Seperating this into its own point to prevent it f...Seperating this into its own point to prevent it from tangling up the comments section:<br /><br />Secondly, don't try to claim you weren't mocking us - you've spent the best part of this thread pontificating at great length about how scientism isn't real and is just a ridiculous conspiracy theory, and repeatedly accused us of "fear mongering". Don't pretend you didn't say those things, and don't pretend those things don't entail having contempt for us.Cantushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09423694187264830935noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-87997305297873760842020-09-01T02:18:41.563-07:002020-09-01T02:18:41.563-07:00The problem I had with your previous post was not ...The problem I had with your previous post was not that it was "too short", it was the fact that you overlooked the specific parts of my point that contained the actual thrust of the argument. My argument was that regardless of what one thought of any one particular mystic, science itself cannot tell you whether advancing the material wellbeing of man is more important than growing in knowledge of God, because science cannot issue value judgements. Your judgement that one is superior in importance to another is a philosophical decision, and is not to be arrogated the prestige of "science", as if it were the fruit of that august methodology. That sort of behaviour is precisely what we mean my "scientism".Cantushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09423694187264830935noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-52649087801897421972020-08-31T19:10:52.893-07:002020-08-31T19:10:52.893-07:00Cantus,
"You ignore any and all of your oppon...Cantus,<br />"You ignore any and all of your opponent's points whenever it suits you"<br />Some folks complain my posts are much too long. Now you are complaining they are too short.<br /><br />I can't please all of the people all of the time.<br /><br />""you're all so ridiculous" "<br />Your words, not mine.<br /><br />"address only the point I made about your response to the mystic"<br />I have already addressed points about the mystic. Which one do you mean exactly?<br /><br />But what does a mystic have to do with much of anything? I mean, some guy closes his eyes, meditates himself into some mental state, and then says he communicated with god. Why should or does anybody care?StardustyPsychehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12493629973262220492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-14635712433383954922020-08-31T16:41:27.052-07:002020-08-31T16:41:27.052-07:00Airheaded jocks in professional sports, too.Airheaded jocks in professional sports, too.Marissahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11734624055833603768noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-56322590866671779282020-08-31T16:40:55.615-07:002020-08-31T16:40:55.615-07:00Mass is far more important than rioting because po...Mass is far more important than rioting because police respond fairly against a more violent demographic in this country.Marissahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11734624055833603768noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-30415252705092482282020-08-31T08:37:00.558-07:002020-08-31T08:37:00.558-07:00I now well remember why people here ignore you. Yo...I now well remember why people here ignore you. You ignore any and all of your opponent's points whenever it suits you (note how you completely skipped over the second, third, and fourth lines of my previous response in order to make your response "zingier"). Then, you write such enormous walls of waffle, mostly filled with mockery and scorn, that any discussion inevitably gets lost in the weeds. If you really want to continue this conversation, drop the "you're all so ridiculous" mockery and address only the point I made about your response to the mystic, in 200 words or less. Fail to do that and I will refuse to continue any further, as that will be considered proof of your acting in bad faith.Cantushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09423694187264830935noreply@blogger.com