Is there anything wrong with scientism?

[A_Seagull]

The question that arises is if inductive reasoning is not useless without deductive reasoning.

How you keep avoiding the and diverting the question!

Since when and why would inductive reasoning require deduction?

Let me remind you the context of our discussion. I said: "As far as I know in any type of research program, both of them (inductive and deductive reasoning) are used." In other words, a research program that uses the scientific method will use inductive reasoning in conjunction with deductive reasoning. Of course, you are troubled with the confusion of equating inductive reasoning to scientific method, but I already made that point clear.

Anyway, you then came up saying exactly what I already said about using both types of reasoning (that in a research program one is useless without the other), but placed the emphasis on just inductive reasoning being important. It's just the same as reasoning this way: "the trouble is that wheels in a car are quite useless unless they are used in conjunction with a motor and a steering wheel, for it is ONLY through the motor and steering wheel that a car operates, therefore, we can readily dispose the tires and drive without them". And if I state something like: "The question that arises is if the motor and steering wheel are not useless without the tires", you would answer something like what you said up there: "since when and why you need a tire to have a motor?"

You do not seem to understand the difference between induction and deduction, so I will not be continuing this conversation.

[A_Seagull]

Here is an example of what is totally wrong with 'scientism".

viewtopic.php?f=7&t=21142

But a moment's examination shows there is absolutely NO science involved.

Then it probably isn't scientism!

[Hobbes' Choice]

Here is an example of what is totally wrong with 'scientism".

viewtopic.php?f=7&t=21142

But a moment's examination shows there is absolutely NO science involved.

Then it probably isn't scientism!

The point is that "the prof" thinks science can be applied to morality. Scientism is science misapplied, so it is exactly the problem you have outlined.

I presume you accept that science has a role to play somewhere?

[Conde Lucanor]

And how do you conclude that? By induction? Deduction perhaps? Or is it rather by an unspecified opinion?

It's pretty standard knowledge among ancient scripture scholars and archaeologists, and they have all the induction and deduction needed for reaching that conclusion. Check out Finkelstein and Silverman, as well professor Friedman, for a nice ride on biblical mythology.

So it is by an unspecified opinion then.

Actually, I have specified some sources of my opinion, of which both induction and deduction are implied.

[Conde Lucanor]

You do not seem to understand the difference between induction and deduction, so I will not be continuing this conversation.

I believe it's the other way around. You hadn't yet figured out that there's a difference between modes of reasoning and that the scientific method is a method, not a mode of reasoning. The source of much of your confusion.

[A_Seagull]

Here is an example of what is totally wrong with 'scientism".

viewtopic.php?f=7&t=21142

But a moment's examination shows there is absolutely NO science involved.

Then it probably isn't scientism!

The point is that "the prof" thinks science can be applied to morality. Scientism is science misapplied, so it is exactly the problem you have outlined.

I presume you accept that science has a role to play somewhere?

The logic of inference for perception is pretty much the same as that used by science. And as such the methods of science underpin our entire understanding of the real world.

[Hobbes' Choice]

Then it probably isn't scientism!

The point is that "the prof" thinks science can be applied to morality. Scientism is science misapplied, so it is exactly the problem you have outlined.

I presume you accept that science has a role to play somewhere?

The logic of inference for perception is pretty much the same as that used by science. And as such the methods of science underpin our entire understanding of the real world.

No, they CAN underpin our understanding, if you want a cold hard and irrelevant understanding. But there is something that we have had for billions of years that has no bearing on science, except obliquely, and that is experience and feelings.
Science can only quantify and describe. When it comes to all that matters to living your life, science is less useful that your most basic visceral understanding.
You can describe a sunset, an orgasm, a lemon meringue pie, or the sight of a new born baby's ear with science, but science cannot reach into how that feels to experience those things for yourself.

[A_Seagull]

The point is that "the prof" thinks science can be applied to morality. Scientism is science misapplied, so it is exactly the problem you have outlined.

I presume you accept that science has a role to play somewhere?

The logic of inference for perception is pretty much the same as that used by science. And as such the methods of science underpin our entire understanding of the real world.

No, they CAN underpin our understanding, if you want a cold hard and irrelevant understanding. But there is something that we have had for billions of years that has no bearing on science, except obliquely, and that is experience and feelings.
Science can only quantify and describe. When it comes to all that matters to living your life, science is less useful that your most basic visceral understanding.
You can describe a sunset, an orgasm, a lemon meringue pie, or the sight of a new born baby's ear with science, but science cannot reach into how that feels to experience those things for yourself.

And how do you 'know' all that? Presumably from some form of scientific inference, albeit based upon limited data.

[Hobbes' Choice]

The logic of inference for perception is pretty much the same as that used by science. And as such the methods of science underpin our entire understanding of the real world.

No, they CAN underpin our understanding, if you want a cold hard and irrelevant understanding. But there is something that we have had for billions of years that has no bearing on science, except obliquely, and that is experience and feelings.
Science can only quantify and describe. When it comes to all that matters to living your life, science is less useful that your most basic visceral understanding.
You can describe a sunset, an orgasm, a lemon meringue pie, or the sight of a new born baby's ear with science, but science cannot reach into how that feels to experience those things for yourself.

And how do you 'know' all that? Presumably from some form of scientific inference, albeit based upon limited data.

No. I made no reference to , nor any inference from science.
I understood the world, as any new born animal does without any knowledge of science. Science is a thing that is heaped upon ones understanding, it has never "underpinned" it.