Is there anything wrong with scientism?

[uwot]

It would seem to me that the scientific method is the most reasonable method to learn to make fire and to pass that knowledge on, so the scientific method was in use from the very beginning of humanity.

As I understand it, you are equating learning from experience and sharing that experience, with science. Nothing wrong with that, but there is no specific method involved, and how does it differ from wisdom and education?

[thedoc]

It would seem to me that the scientific method is the most reasonable method to learn to make fire and to pass that knowledge on, so the scientific method was in use from the very beginning of humanity.

As I understand it, you are equating learning from experience and sharing that experience, with science. Nothing wrong with that, but there is no specific method involved, and how does it differ from wisdom and education?

As I see the problem, you are claiming that nothing before the 1700's involved the scientific method because it hadn't been invented yet. And then you deny that any use of the scientific method before that date wasn't the scientific method. "No True Scotsman". OK, have it your way for yourself and I'll have it my way for me. As far as I can see there are definite similarities between the scientific method, learning from experience, sharing that experience, wisdom and education. There are certainly differences but there is much overlap, and that discussion is for another time.

[uwot]

As I see the problem, you are claiming that nothing before the 1700's involved the scientific method because it hadn't been invented yet.

I don't think I can make it much clearer: there is no scientific method.

And then you deny that any use of the scientific method before that date wasn't the scientific method. "No True Scotsman". OK, have it your way for yourself and I'll have it my way for me.

Well, this is the essence of relativism: My truth for me. Your truth for you.

As far as I can see there are definite similarities between the scientific method, learning from experience, sharing that experience, wisdom and education.

What scientific method?

There are certainly differences but there is much overlap, and that discussion is for another time.

You know where to find me.

[thedoc]

I don't think I can make it much clearer: there is no scientific method.

You know where to find me.

As you have stated many times, but just saying it doesn't make it true.

Thankyou, but I think I'll pass.

[A_Seagull]

The trouble is that deductive reasoning is quite useless at inferring anything about the world unless it is used in conjunction with inductive or scientific reasoning, for it is only through inductive reasoning that it can be linked to the real world.

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?

[A_Seagull]

[
For your information, Moses is a mythical character that never existed.

.

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

[thedoc]

[
For your information, Moses is a mythical character that never existed.

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

It's in the Bible, and Conde thinks that whole book is a Con. I have read that there is no record in Egypt of the Exodus, and this has been touted as proof that the Exodus never happened. But I have also read that Egyptians were very good at ignoring a defeat in history, so it would make sense that the Egyptians would not keep a record of the Exodus, which was a major defeat for them.

[uwot]

I don't think I can make it much clearer: there is no scientific method.

As you have stated many times, but just saying it doesn't make it true.

Well, this is the theism/atheism debate all over again. I don't feel the onus is on me to prove there is no scientific method. Rather, if you wish to use the term, in a way that others can understand, you really ought to explain what you mean. As you say, just saying 'scientific method' doesn't mean there is one, but it's not me saying 'scientific method'.

[uwot]

I have read that there is no record in Egypt of the Exodus, and this has been touted as proof that the Exodus never happened.

Since we're on the subject of science: there is no amount of 'no evidence' that can prove that the Israelites didn't spend all those years in the wilderness. Maybe they did, but they did a remarkable job of cleaning up after themselves, because there is no archaeological evidence for a large group of people in the area at the time.

But I have also read that Egyptians were very good at ignoring a defeat in history...

Who isn't?

[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.

[Hobbes' Choice]

[
For your information, Moses is a mythical character that never existed.

.

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

You mean a guy that lives for 130 years and manages to write about his own death is not "mythical"?

[A_Seagull]

[
For your information, Moses is a mythical character that never existed.

.

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

You mean a guy that lives for 130 years and manages to write about his own death is not "mythical"?

Absolutely! And I intend to do the same.

[Conde Lucanor]

The trouble is that deductive reasoning is quite useless at inferring anything about the world unless it is used in conjunction with inductive or scientific reasoning, for it is only through inductive reasoning that it can be linked to the real world.

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?"

[Conde Lucanor]

[
For your information, Moses is a mythical character that never existed.

.

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.

[A_Seagull]

[
For your information, Moses is a mythical character that never existed.

.

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.