Block, SkipCaptcha, Automoderated users, edit
2,947
edits
Changes
→Debunking Scientism: traits of moral relativism
== Debunking Scientism ==
== Debunking Scientism ==
Scientism is in essence a [[gnostic]] culture applied onto realms of science hence scientism can be often debunked by pointing to the gnostic traits.
Scientism is in essence a [[gnostic]] culture applied onto realms of science hence scientism can be often debunked by pointing to the gnostic traits. As such it also exhibits many characteristics of [[moral relativism]]. For example, moral relativism doesn't follow its own rules, the rules it judges everyone else by.<ref name="Dobson">{{cite book
|author=Ryan Dobson, Jefferson Scott
|title=Be Intolerant in Love: Because Some Things Are Just Stupid
|publisher=Tyndale House Publishers
|location=Sisters, OR, USA
|year=2007
|isbn=978-1590-521526
|pages=52
|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=yvSEGgAACAAJ
|quote=}}</ref>. Neither does scientism.
=== Vagueness and word-spinning ===
=== Vagueness and word-spinning ===
Gnostic works are marked by [[psychological manipulation|manipulative]] vagueness, word-spinning and tedium, so is scientism. For example, the textbook legend of [[James Hutton|Hutton]] and [[Charles Lyell|Lyell]], partisans of scientism, has been declared to be dim and confused compared with that of [[Copernicus]] and [[Galileo]].<ref name="GOULDinNYT">{{cite web |title=IT'S AN OLD, OLD , OLD, OLD WORLD |publisher= NYT |author=D. R. Wallace |date= June 14, 1987 |url=http://www.nytimes.com/books/97/11/09/home/gould-arrow.html |accessdate=7 June 2015 |quote=Hutton's theory of the earth ... was not based on field observations but on his wishful, speculative confusion of geological process with Newtonian physics....Hutton and Lyell were dedicated not to modern notions of geological dynamism but to antique ones of geological steady-state...The textbook legend of Hutton and Lyell seems dim and confused compared with that of Copernicus and Galileo.}}</ref> Another proponent of scientism, [[Darwin]], wrote books in a way that they were compared to a Victorian curiosity shop where the main message was somewhat lost in the clutter.<ref name="Larson">{{cite book
Gnostic works are marked by [[psychological manipulation|manipulative]] vagueness, word-spinning and tedium, so is scientism. For example, the textbook legend of [[James Hutton|Hutton]] and [[Charles Lyell|Lyell]], partisans of scientism, has been declared to be dim and confused compared with that of [[Copernicus]] and [[Galileo]].<ref name="GOULDinNYT">{{cite web |title=IT'S AN OLD, OLD , OLD, OLD WORLD |publisher= NYT |author=D. R. Wallace |date= June 14, 1987 |url=http://www.nytimes.com/books/97/11/09/home/gould-arrow.html |accessdate=7 June 2015 |quote=Hutton's theory of the earth ... was not based on field observations but on his wishful, speculative confusion of geological process with Newtonian physics....Hutton and Lyell were dedicated not to modern notions of geological dynamism but to antique ones of geological steady-state...The textbook legend of Hutton and Lyell seems dim and confused compared with that of Copernicus and Galileo.}}</ref> Another proponent of scientism, [[Darwin]], wrote books in a way that they were compared to a Victorian curiosity shop where the main message was somewhat lost in the clutter.<ref name="Larson">{{cite book
* Ad. ''"the question of whether it is in principle possible to ignite inflation in a hypothetical laboratory, thereby creating a new universe."'' In hypothetical laboratory, anything is possible, because it rests solely on the imagination of the author of the idea and his bare assertion. Unlike science, scientism is based on ''just-so stories'' and ''bare assertion fallacy'' (also known as ''proof by assertion'') and tries to shake off the [[burden of proof]] for its claims.
* Ad. ''"the question of whether it is in principle possible to ignite inflation in a hypothetical laboratory, thereby creating a new universe."'' In hypothetical laboratory, anything is possible, because it rests solely on the imagination of the author of the idea and his bare assertion. Unlike science, scientism is based on ''just-so stories'' and ''bare assertion fallacy'' (also known as ''proof by assertion'') and tries to shake off the [[burden of proof]] for its claims.
* If somebody something shows (''"They showed that"''), then the terms like ''"it might be theoretically possible"'' and conditional sentence ''"if it can be"'' become surplus. On the other hand, if it is not sure ''"if it can be"'' or not, then the expression ''"They showed"'' is clearly a [[lie]].
* If somebody something shows (''"They showed that"''), then the terms like ''"it might be theoretically possible"'' and conditional sentence ''"if it can be"'' become surplus. On the other hand, if it is not sure ''"if it can be"'' or not, then the expression ''"They showed"'' is clearly a [[lie]].
* Ad. ''"The answer is a definite maybe."'' In fact, ''"a definite maybe"'' is not answer at all, it leaves question undecided, in the same status as before asking.
* Ad. ''"The answer is a definite maybe."'' In fact, ''"a definite maybe"'' is not answer at all, it leaves question undecided, in the same status as before asking.
== Reference ==
== Reference ==
{{reflist|2}}
{{reflist|2}}