[RBM]

Originally Posted by minusmg To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

This is all getting very tedious and insipid. Hair-splitting is the essence of science, and dissecting words to argue over petty semantics is a waste of time. Why is the scientific method so commonly (and often fanatically, on this forum) propped up as the sole and all-knowing arbiter of truth in the universe? Sure, it's extremely useful, and has lead to the development of technology, but it isn't what gets me out of bed in the morning. Or, in other words: use science to prove to me that I give a shit about your opinion. People resort to science now even when it is unnecessary.

Yup, to 'give a shit' is a metric of meaning. Deriving meaning is essential to a Consciousness lowering it's entropy(jargon warning). Of course that's a purely subjective thingy.

Usefulness is a consequence of tool use; to some people everything looks like a nail cause all they have is a hammer.

[minusmg]

	Originally Posted by RBM To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Usefulness is a consequence of tool use; to some people everything looks like a nail cause all they have is a hammer.

Exactly. I'm no carpenter, but I'm pretty sure they use more than one tool when they're building a house.

It's a lot more useful to tell someone that you understand the general meaning behind what they are expressing, rather than critiquing the exact meaning of the words they used to express it.

[RBM]

	Originally Posted by minusmg To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Exactly. I'm no carpenter, but I'm pretty sure they use more than one tool when they're building a house. It's a lot more useful to tell someone that you understand the general meaning behind what they are expressing, rather than critiquing the exact meaning of the words they used to express it.

A lot more useful ?

I'd say you got a pretty limited view of 'usefulness'. Sure, some people get stuck on semantics but that's a reflection of their agenda being something other than learning. Like using the hammer as a weapon instead of a tool.

But there's NO Way, to avoid semantics, as a process of communication.

[Storm]

	Originally Posted by minusmg To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	This is all getting very tedious and insipid. Hair-splitting is the essence of science, and dissecting words to argue over petty semantics is a waste of time.

The entire debate if over what constitutes a religion. Vogon Poet seems to propose that those who use science in some way are expressing religion. It's not either "hair-splitting" or "petty semantics" when someone claims that the sentence "Some of the things I believe were attained through the scientific field" = "I have blind-faith in science, and science is my religion" as Vogon Poet proposes. That is a very curious position. Do you agree with him? Why?

Why is the scientific method so commonly (and often fanatically, on this forum) propped up as the sole and all-knowing arbiter of truth in the universe? Sure, it's extremely useful, and has lead to the development of technology, but it isn't what gets me out of bed in the morning. Or, in other words: use science to prove to me that I give a shit about your opinion. People resort to science now even when it is unnecessary.

Yup, people who would do that would be silly. Luckily, they don't actually exist - see my
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
in this thread.

[minusmg]

Originally Posted by Storm To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

The entire debate if over what constitutes a religion. Vogon Poet seems to propose that those who use science in some way are expressing religion. It's not either "hair-splitting" or "petty semantics" when someone claims that the sentence "Some of the things I believe were attained through the scientific field" = "I have blind-faith in science, and science is my religion" as Vogon Poet proposes. That is a very curious position. Do you agree with him? Why?

I don't see in any of his posts that "scientism" is a religion. In his
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
he puts forth his original idea, and he
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
provides a link to what he is using as a definition for scientism. Nowhere does he use the word religion that I have seen, but if I missed that then please show me.

	Originally Posted by Storm To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Yup, people who would do that would be silly. Luckily, they don't actually exist - see my To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. in this thread.

Um, yeah, they do exist. Just look through the forum for people who rage against any idea that science has limitations.

	Originally Posted by RBM To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	A lot more useful ? I'd say you got a pretty limited view of 'usefulness'. Sure, some people get stuck of semantics but that's a reflection of their agenda being something other than learning. Like using the hammer as a weapon instead of a tool. But there's NO Way, to avoid semantics, as a process of communication.

How so? Words are typically used very specifically, but even when used incorrectly the general meaning behind the words can often be inferred. If some country yokel expresses something to me in a very ineloquent way (as happens frequently to me, since my family is mostly uneducated country bumpkins), but I still understand what they mean, then I'm not going to correct them on their word usage. If we're going to be using big, fancy words, then a definition should be agreed on up front.

[RBM]

Originally Posted by minusmg To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

How so? Words are typically used very specifically, but even when used incorrectly the general meaning behind the words can often be inferred. If some country yokel expresses something to me in a very ineloquent way (as happens frequently to me, since my family is mostly uneducated country bumpkins), but I still understand what they mean, then I'm not going to correct them on their word usage. If we're going to be using big, fancy words, then a definition should be agreed on up front.

If words are used incorrectly then one is more likely to insert assumptions into the dialog. This works well if both parties, for example, are 'uneducated country bumpkins'. It works less well, if one is the bumpkin and one is a, say, New York blueblood, raised by nanny and attending a leading national private primary/prep school to later go work as a hedge fund manager in the family business.

In other words, what I'm saying, is there is the risk of failure to effectively communicate. Such risk is anathema to the goal of communication.

Another case to consider, is common words and phrases used with uncommon definitions. When I come across that possibility in what I write on this board, for example, I flag it - often with a 'Jargon Warning'.

[Storm]

	Originally Posted by minusmg To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I don't see in any of his posts that "scientism" is a religion.

The words "A faith" mean the mean the same thing as "a religion." Hinduism is "a faith" for instance. Perhaps Vogon Poet meant something else, but if so, he hasn't refuted the notion.

In his To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. he puts forth his original idea, and he To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. provides a link to what he is using as a definition for scientism. Nowhere does he use the word religion that I have seen, but if I missed that then please show me.

His original post is incredibly vague. Actually, let's go through it:

	Originally Posted by Vogon Poet To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I'm curious why many people do this. It is particularly prevalent on this forum, but in general I see many people assuming that all explanations must fall within nature.

Explanation of what? He doesn't say. Fall within nature? As opposed to what? He's not even talking about science here, just something about explanations of some unknown(s) thing (event? feeling? person?). If I had to infer what he means, he's saying that some people do not believe in the supernatural aka God, devils, demons, etc.

	It's a paradox because in order to have this faith you have to reject a whole lot of empirical evidence. Like, you have to turn a blind eye to the First Cause and time's arrow, and the Cosmological Constant, and many many other known principles of nature.

Ok, here he uses the word "this faith" - by which I guess he means "not believing in the supernatural aka God" one has to "reject empirical evidence." Then he lists a bunch of random theories and a few observations and handwaves at "many other known principles of nature." Vogon Poet must be implying these are supernatural events in nature. He offers no explanation for why he thinks that, and getting into them would make this post much too long. Point is that he's hand-waving and it's confusing what he means to show.

The way I liken people who do this is to imagine a marble sorting machine. The machine picks out all marbles that are not nearly perfectly round and discards them, and packages the rest for use in a fun game amonmg friends. But those in scientism turn that around to mean the "all marbles are perfectly round" because we don't see any defects. "Science" is the marble sorter, not the judge of truth in marble roundness! You can't say that because science can't use supernatural data that supernatural data does not exist.

Ah, the analogy. Science can't observe supernatural data because it's unobservable, which doesn't imply the supernatural doesn't exist. Fine - but that doesn't immediately mean rejecting the notion of the supernatural is an act of faith in itself.

	If nature is your gospel truth, do you even understand that your methods are eliminating data before you even get to see it? This defies reason to me.

Ah, gospel truth, another euphemism for religion. He appears to be ranting at this person who only believes what science tells them - science or in "not the supernatural?" It's unclear. He implores the reader to be reasonable like him and investigate the world for those imperfect marbles. At no point does he tell us how to do that, only that science isn't the way to do it.

The definition of "scientism" that he shows does not include any language about "faith" - in fact, two definitions are offered. One just means "attitudes and attributes typical of a scientist" and the other means "an exaggerated trust in the application of natural science applied to all investigations." But anyone whose been following Vogon Poet's line of reasoning in this thread can easily see he means more than just "exaggerated trust," since he proposes that the "scientism" follower disregards all knowledge except that gained through scientific means.

	Um, yeah, they do exist. Just look through the forum for people who rage against any idea that science has limitations.

I haven't seen anything so extreme, but let's say these people exist. Now what?

	How so? Words are typically used very specifically, but even when used incorrectly the general meaning behind the words can often be inferred.

It's much harder when you don't have the context. As above - the phrase "a faith" is typically interchangeable with "a religion" - but you didn't pick up on that. Context is especially lost when you're dealing with plain text. The only reason you understand your own family so well even if they use words wrong is because you know them. But put their words into text-format with no context, and suddenly you can't "infer" the meaning at all. Add in the fact the internet is people talking across cultures, and it gets even more confusing.

So instead of arguing that everyone should just instantly understand what someone means, even if they use words wrong or go on and on with a bundles of assumptions, maybe you should explain your point.

I think Vogon Poet has it backwards. He sees people who don't believe in the supernatural and thinks it must be because they are using a method which rejects the supernatural. Instead, he's observing people who looked for evidence of the supernatural, found it lacking and thus, don't believe in it.

[clock40man]

	Originally Posted by Storm To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I think Vogon Poet has it backwards. He sees people who don't believe in the supernatural and thinks it must be because they are using a method which rejects the supernatural. Instead, he's observing people who looked for evidence of the supernatural, found it lacking and thus, don't believe in it.

+1

Vogon has an agenda. He is attempting to show that those who don't believe in the supernatural are practicing a religion and that religion requires faith- as defined by him.

I maintain it is possible to live a life without faith.

Faith being defined as believing in something without evidence.

[RBM]

	Originally Posted by clock40man To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	+1 Vogon has an agenda. He is attempting to show that those who don't believe in the supernatural are practicing a religion and that religion requires faith- as defined by him. I maintain it is possible to live a life without faith. Faith being defined as believing in something without evidence.

In general, I maintain it's healthy to live without faith.

[minusmg]

Originally Posted by Storm To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

The words "A faith" mean the mean the same thing as "a religion." Hinduism is "a faith" for instance. Perhaps Vogon Poet meant something else, but if so, he hasn't refuted the notion. As above - the phrase "a faith" is typically interchangeable with "a religion" - but you didn't pick up on that. Context is especially lost when you're dealing with plain text. The only reason you understand your own family so well even if they use words wrong is because you know them. But put their words into text-format with no context, and suddenly you can't "infer" the meaning at all. Add in the fact the internet is people talking across cultures, and it gets even more confusing.

I did pick up on it, but I don't think he understands the interchangeability of the term "faith" as it is commonly used. I am basing all this solely on having read his posts, and I don't get the impression that he is saying scientism is a religion, rather that he is getting some words mixed up. Like when he referred to "nature" in his first post, I kind of got the idea that he meant scientific understanding. You're right, he hasn't clarified what he specifically means, but really his whole argument is somewhat half-baked and his language skills aren't perfect, so you'll probably have to ask him directly to clarify that or he's not going to understand that's specifically what you want. I think he's trying to compare the current dogmatic belief in science to that of religion, but in a very poorly-worded way and with some not-so-great analogies.

So that's my point. Maybe I'm wrong in what I've inferred from his posts, and he can correct me.

	Originally Posted by Storm To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I haven't seen anything so extreme, but let's say these people exist. Now what?

Now nothing? You merely stated that those kinds of people don't exist, and I was stating that they do. Scientific zealots (people who use science solely to push an agenda) do exist.

[Vogon Poet]

	Originally Posted by Storm To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	The words "A faith" mean the mean the same thing as "a religion." Hinduism is "a faith" for instance. Perhaps Vogon Poet meant something else, but if so, he hasn't refuted the notion.

OK, you figured that one out. But...

	His original post is incredibly vague. Actually, let's go through it:   Originally Posted by Vogon Poet all explanations Explanation of what? He doesn't say.

Let me be less vague:

"ALL EXPLANATIONS"

	Fall within nature? As opposed to what? He's not even talking about science here, just something about explanations of some [ALL] unknown(s) thing (event? feeling? person?). If I had to infer what he means, he's saying that some people do not believe in the supernatural aka God, devils, demons, etc.

Partial bravo. Stop at the supernatural part and you're on it.

Ok, here he uses the word "this faith" - by which I guess he means "not believing in the supernatural aka God" one has to "reject empirical evidence." Then he lists a bunch of random theories and a few observations and handwaves at "many other known principles of nature." Vogon Poet must be implying these are supernatural events in nature. He offers no explanation for why he thinks that, and getting into them would make this post much too long. Point is that he's hand-waving and it's confusing what he means to show.

Well someone is certainly confusing it. I think it's not me however.

	Ah, the analogy. Science can't observe supernatural data because it's unobservable, which doesn't imply the supernatural doesn't exist. Fine - but that doesn't immediately mean rejecting the notion of the supernatural is an act of faith in itself.

Actually when you have concluseive absence of evidence, that is exactly what it means. If I inductively demonstrate that the earth is not flat, but can't "prove" it without looking at it from spce, then when you say "the earth is flat" then you are making a statement of faith.

	Ah, gospel truth, another euphemism for religion. He appears to be ranting at this person who only believes what science tells them - science or in "not the supernatural?" It's unclear. He implores the reader to be reasonable like him and investigate the world for those imperfect marbles. At no point does he tell us how to do that, only that science isn't the way to do it.

Did my topic suggest this was a user's manual on philosophy? Sorry for the ambiguity. Post 29 clears it up.

	The definition of "scientism" that he shows does not include any language about "faith" - in fact, two definitions are offered. One just means "attitudes and attributes typical of a scientist" and the other means "an exaggerated trust in the application of natural science applied to all investigations."

Sorry to point out the incredibly obvious contradiction.

	But anyone whose been following Vogon Poet's line of reasoning in this thread can easily see he means more than just "exaggerated trust," since he proposes that the "scientism" follower disregards all knowledge except that gained through scientific means.

Bravo! Perfect score,
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
!!!

	I haven't seen anything so extreme, but let's say these people exist. Now what?

...Forest for the trees...
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

	It's much harder when you don't have the context. As above - the phrase "a faith" is typically interchangeable with "a religion" - but you didn't pick up on that.

Incorrect. Many faithful look forward to the death of religion.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
of this Christian worship song.

Context is especially lost when you're dealing with plain text. The only reason you understand your own family so well even if they use words wrong is because you know them. But put their words into text-format with no context, and suddenly you can't "infer" the meaning at all. Add in the fact the internet is people talking across cultures, and it gets even more confusing. So instead of arguing that everyone should just instantly understand what someone means, even if they use words wrong or go on and on with a bundles of assumptions, maybe you should explain your point.

Wouldn't it be great if we were all INTP and threw up walls of text to remove all ambiguity?

Or! How about asking for clarification?!

	I think Vogon Poet has it backwards. He sees people who don't believe in the supernatural and thinks it must be because they are using a method which rejects the supernatural. Instead, he's observing people who looked for evidence of the supernatural, found it lacking and thus, don't believe in it.

No that would be exactly backwards. People first looked and saw a watch (Paley's watchmaker) and it made sense.
Step 2: Some people pondered, "What if there is no watchmaker / God?" And then we looked for the Not-god.
Step 3: We looked for evidence of the natural cause of the universe; of life; of ourselves; of gravity; of the genetic code; of thermodynamics; of the cosmological constant; of radioactive decay; of the uncertainty principle; of everything; and we came up empty-handed.
Step 4: We return to the common sense argument: Things are as they appear, there is a watchmaker after all.

	Originally Posted by RBM To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Actually there is a shortage. I can't think of a phenomena that hasn't been explained from a scientific framework of metaphysics, physics and philosophy unification by Campbell.

Scientism doesn't refer to those types of explanations, so I don't doubt the phenomenon has an explanation outside of scientism. Yet another straw man.

	Originally Posted by Storm To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Another non sequitur. No where do I even hint to "mock skepticism" - that is entirely a fabrication of your own.

Well, there was this little bit:

	Originally Posted by Storm To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	You propose that those who ...believe in some knowledge attained through the scientific field are expressing a religion - "scientism." Believe. verb (used with object) 2. to have confidence or faith in the truth of (a positive assertion, story, etc.); give credence to.

Science is never a thing to be believed in, it is an ever-changing paradigm. Do you believe in Newtonian physics as an unquestionable truth? Or do you accept that it offers a pracrtical description of a relationship between mass, inertia, and gravity? Do you believe in the Law of Thermodynamics, or do you accept that it is a practical way to describe a relationship between order and energy?

	It seems that every man must be worshiping a temple-full of idols.

I couldn't have said it better myself.

[RBM]

	Originally Posted by Vogaon Poet
	Scientism doesn't refer to those types of explanations, so I don't doubt the phenomenon has an explanation outside of scientism. Yet another straw man.

What is then 'referred' ?

Bullshit to the characterization of 'straw man'. You are tap dancing at this point with your ambiguity.

	Scientism tries to squeeze everything within the pure sciences and it fails.

Define 'everything', with examples.

[Vogon Poet]

	Originally Posted by RBM To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	What is then 'referred' ? Bullshit to the characterization of 'straw man'. You are tap dancing at this point with your ambiguity. Define 'everything', with examples.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
.

Sorry but it is a straw man. Scientism doesn't even recognize the metaphysical or philosophical except as an atomist's perception of all thoughts as coincidental chemical reactions.

[RBM]

	Originally Posted by Vogon Poet To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. . Sorry but it is a straw man. Scientism doesn't even recognize the metaphysical or philosophical except as an atomist's perception of all thoughts as coincidental chemical reactions.

I strongly disagree. Several links deep and I saw no indication to sustain your characterization.

Your view doesn't, "recognize the metaphysical or philosophical except as an atomist's perception of all thoughts as coincidental chemical reactions", that's all.


Otherwise cite an explicit case where recognition is denied. While your at it, need a citation for 'atomist'.

[Vogon Poet]

	Originally Posted by RBM To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I strongly disagree. Several links deep and I saw no indication to sustain your characterization. Otherwise cite an explicit case where recognition is denied.

As the link clearly stated: "Humanities and social sciences."

	While your at it, need a citation for 'atomist'.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
?

[RBM]

	Originally Posted by Vogon Poet To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	As the link clearly stated: "Humanities and social sciences." To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. ?

Guess I'll have to slow down, as I missed that.

Yeah, seriously, given your last interpretation of 'infamous non sequiturs' for yourself.

[Storm]

How can I possibly misunderstand when apparently "all explanations" mean "all explanations." This is getting tiresome.

The word "believe" does not always mean "faith" - even if that's one of many definitions. I might as well say I've "won" because "scientism" can mean pseudoscience....

Also, you should be careful to what extent you will go to win since you just stated that faith is exaggerated trust. Exaggerate means to represent something as larger or greater than it really is. I can't imagine you meant to say your own faith is just exaggerated trust. If so, I would disagree with you that faith is merely exaggerated trust.

You try and ask the question if I "believe" in gravity or if I merely "accept that it's a practical explanation" etc. In English, most of the time those two statements would be interchangeable. So someone saying they believe in gravity doesn't mean they believe in gravity. No one goes around saying "I accept that it appears from available information that Paris is the capital France." No, they say "I believe Paris is the capital of France" or even just "Paris is the capital of France." To hold such a mundane "belief" to that of holy faith is rather ridiculous. It gets even more ridiculous if you look up the word "accept" and see that it means "to believe in" - which you just equated with having faith. The only point you've made is that English does not have the greatest vocabulary available for talking about knowledge and beliefs.

[Vogon Poet]

	Originally Posted by Storm To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	How can I possibly misunderstand when apparently "all explanations" mean "all explanations." This is getting tiresome.

Indeed. I tend to get short with pedantry.

	The word "believe" does not always mean "faith" - even if that's one of many definitions. I might as well say I've "won" because "scientism" can mean pseudoscience....

Most words don't always mean exactly one thing. This is why we invented context. If for whatever reason the specific definition isn't apparent, we have two recourses:

• Make a wild guess
• Get clarification

Your chief strategy seems to be the former; the latter works better.

	Also, you should be careful to what extent you will go to win since you just stated that faith is exaggerated truth. Exaggerate means to represent something as larger or greater than it really is. I can't imagine you meant to say your own faith exaggerates truth. If so, I would disagree with you that faith is merely exaggerated truth.

And here we go again.

Exaggerate = "to increase or enlarge abnormally"

Truth trust = "confident expectation of something; hope"

So yes, I DO exactly mean to say that my "faith" is an "increased confident expectation of something," or "abnormally enlarged hope." Look closely at the topic header. We're talking about the mass noun "faith."

You try and ask the question if I "believe" in gravity or if I merely "accept that it's a practical explanation" etc. In English, most of the time those two statements would be interchangeable. So someone saying they believe in gravity doesn't mean they believe in gravity. No one goes around saying "I accept that it appears from available information that Paris is the capital France." No, they say "I believe Paris is the capital of France" or even just "Paris is the capital of France." To hold such a mundane "belief" to that of holy faith is rather ridiculous. The only point you've made is that English does not have the greatest vocabulary available for talking about knowledge and beliefs.

I think the point we've established is that my expectations of the reader's grasp of this language is too high. You're conflating the singular tantum with the mass noun.
"People of faith" are a MASS of people expressing a COLLECTION of beliefs. Belief in the capitol of France is a singular tantum. Completely different context.