Saturday, January 02, 2016

Why Scientism's Progress Narrative Fails



Unknown said...

Seen this? Lofty Loftus does math O.O

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

good old John. I made a deal with him I would stop Christians saying he did not study with Craig. He would stop atheists saying I did not go to graduate school, I emailed Craig then told the Christians on CARM A"AY OFF ON THAT, Did he tell the atheists to lay off me? He said "you don't really care about that do you?"

SteveK said...

The scientism narrative relies on the past success of science, but conveniently ignores the details of what those successes have uncovered. What science has been very successful at discovering is natural explanations for various things. Science has also been very successful at discovering that those natural things are dependent on other natural things to explain them - without exception.

So, in truth, the full progress narrative is one of explanatory dependence. Add more of the same kind of explanations (the natural kind) to the explanation pile and the conclusion remains the same - more natural things are needed to explain.

The terminus point that sufficiently explains what needs explaining occurs when we find something that doesn't depend on something else to explain it, and can explain what does depend on something. Call it a natural explanation if you prefer. I'm calling it a non-natural explanation (aka supernatural).

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

Yes and also I find that scientism types are totally in the dark about Kuhn and Popper and their various ideas really destroy scientism.

Scientism is not science, it's a ideology that transfo0rmks science into something like religion. It radices all ideas and knowledge to one thing, not just science but ideological materialism.