Has Science been

Has Science been

Spirituality

Walk your Faith

USA

Joined
24 May 04
Moves
158875
100d

Has scientism corrupted science?

As defined as

Scientism is the belief that science is the only source of knowledge about the world and that it can explain all aspects of reality.

Über-Nerd

Joined
31 May 12
Moves
8679
100d

@KellyJay said
Has scientism corrupted science?

As defined as

Scientism is the belief that science is the only source of knowledge about the world and that it can explain all aspects of reality.
I don't know any serious scientist who would make such a ludicrous claim. You're setting up a straw man here.

Walk your Faith

USA

Joined
24 May 04
Moves
158875
100d

@moonbus said
I don't know any serious scientist who would make such a ludicrous claim. You're setting up a straw man here.
It isn't any serious scientist I see proclaiming if something isn't science it isn't valid.

Misfit Queen

Isle of Misfit Toys

Joined
08 Aug 03
Moves
37085
100d

@KellyJay said
Has scientism corrupted science?

As defined as

Scientism is the belief that science is the only source of knowledge about the world and that it can explain all aspects of reality.
I wanna see your definition of corrupted.

Über-Nerd

Joined
31 May 12
Moves
8679
100d

@Suzianne said
I wanna see your definition of corrupted.
Anything touched by human hand or eye is bound to be 'corrupted', on KellyJay's view. Only God is 'pure.' Not much to discuss here. More at the Science Forum.

Walk your Faith

USA

Joined
24 May 04
Moves
158875
100d

@Suzianne said
I wanna see your definition of corrupted.
Accepting that which is not falsifiable as factual, ignoring what we see in the here and now for an unknown possibility of unknown causes. Those things that require either blind faith or outright rejection of reality we acknowledge in the here and now. Bottom line ignoring scientific processes in favor of worldview reality.

Starmer is a liar

More in my profile

Joined
16 Feb 08
Moves
118743
100d

@KellyJay said
Accepting that which is not falsifiable as factual, ignoring what we see in the here and now for an unknown possibility of unknown causes. Those things that require either blind faith or outright rejection of reality we acknowledge in the here and now. Bottom line ignoring scientific processes in favor of worldview reality.
Some specific examples might help KellyJay?

IP

Joined
15 Jun 10
Moves
46658
100d

@KellyJay said
Accepting that which is not falsifiable as factual, ignoring what we see in the here and now for an unknown possibility of unknown causes. Those things that require either blind faith or outright rejection of reality we acknowledge in the here and now. Bottom line ignoring scientific processes in favor of worldview reality.
Could you explain what you mean by 'worldview reality' , someone's 'worldview' is not necessarily 'reality', it's a contradiction in terms. Otherwise what you've described is religion, not science. We all know you'll do whatever you can to discredit science, because scientific knowledge flies in the face of your inherited beliefs. So, what do you mean by 'worldview reality.' ?

Walk your Faith

USA

Joined
24 May 04
Moves
158875
100d

@Suzianne said
I wanna see your definition of corrupted.
The thing that directly addresses this post is not how many ways people can go wrong, instead that the only way to know anything is through science.

Starmer is a liar

More in my profile

Joined
16 Feb 08
Moves
118743
100d

@Indonesia-Phil said
Could you explain what you mean by 'worldview reality' , someone's 'worldview' is not necessarily 'reality', it's a contradiction in terms. Otherwise what you've described is religion, not science. We all know you'll do whatever you can to discredit science, because scientific knowledge flies in the face of your inherited beliefs. So, what do you mean by 'worldview reality.' ?
Looks like you’re also on “stoppage of talk” Phil.

😆

Walk your Faith

USA

Joined
24 May 04
Moves
158875
100d

@Indonesia-Phil said
Could you explain what you mean by 'worldview reality' , someone's 'worldview' is not necessarily 'reality', it's a contradiction in terms. Otherwise what you've described is religion, not science. We all know you'll do whatever you can to discredit science, because scientific knowledge flies in the face of your inherited beliefs. So, what do you mean by 'worldview reality.' ?
We all have worldviews how we see the world, with it how everything gets measured where we judge as normal and natural.

Starmer is a liar

More in my profile

Joined
16 Feb 08
Moves
118743
100d

@KellyJay said
Accepting that which is not falsifiable as factual, ignoring what we see in the here and now for an unknown possibility of unknown causes. Those things that require either blind faith or outright rejection of reality we acknowledge in the here and now. Bottom line ignoring scientific processes in favor of worldview reality.
Do you have even one specific example to demonstrate how your OP isn’t just a strawman premise?

Just one.

Starmer is a liar

More in my profile

Joined
16 Feb 08
Moves
118743
100d

@KellyJay said
We all have worldviews how we see the world, with it how everything gets measured where we judge as normal and natural.
Is your “worldview reality” more real, more valid than Indonesia Phil’s”?

Über-Nerd

Joined
31 May 12
Moves
8679
99d

@KellyJay said
Accepting that which is not falsifiable as factual, ignoring what we see in the here and now for an unknown possibility of unknown causes. Those things that require either blind faith or outright rejection of reality we acknowledge in the here and now. Bottom line ignoring scientific processes in favor of worldview reality.
Einstein's theory of relativity could be very easily falsified. All that would be necessary would be a repeatable experiment showing that the speed of light is cumulative, for example. Evolution could also be very easily falsified. All that would be necessary would be a fossil find of a colony of rabbits in a pre-cambrian stratum.

Walk your Faith

USA

Joined
24 May 04
Moves
158875
99d

@moonbus said
Einstein's theory of relativity could be very easily falsified. All that would be necessary would be a repeatable experiment showing that the speed of light is cumulative, for example. Evolution could also be very easily falsified. All that would be necessary would be a fossil find of a colony of rabbits in a pre-cambrian stratum.
You should figure out how all of the unique Cambrian species showed up at that
time with the limited time that was available pre-Cambrian. As you know I'm not
worried about time as I am processing, nor do rates matter as much in measuring
time if you don't know how and when it all began. This is all old stuff we have
gone over before ad nauseam.

Do you believe in science that only through science can we know anything? In
addition, are there things you are also prepared to say science cannot address, so
our knowledge if we must depend on science alone will always be lacking?

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.