So I made a video (click me to watch video) about this post + more of what this dude said. I also said I would just put what he said on my blog, Then I also said I would say in my blog about how in the video I said I would do that and then run into an infinite loop since I'm talking about the fact that I am going to write in the blog the video about the blog that I just now am writing into the blog and oh no infinite loop AHHH!! Anyway so I did that just like I said I would. Now for the incoherent thing. Oh yes.
So incoherent. My brain. I said all I can say in my video (click) so yeah.
Anyway here it is:
Light Before The Tunnel writes:
Yes, that's correct. It does often happen to career scientists. That does not mean I'm speaking about you personally, but its just something to be aware of.
don't know anything about you. Perhaps you are one of the scientists who do understand how to avoid scientism. But what I DO know is that scientism is much more common among scientists than most of them realize. So, if you are aware of how to avoid scientism it would still be something to watch out for among other scientists, peer-review, and the consensus... as scientism plays a role in all of them. The reason why it's possible for scientists to adhere to the philosophy of scientism (or commit individual fallacies of scientism) is because it results from a lack of awareness of either the limitations of the scientific method (or the accidental conflation of non-scientific claims with scientific claims) For example, consider what would happen if someone were to present scientific research that conflicts with Heliocentrism, for example. Do you think that research would have ANY chance of being accepted for peer-review? It would not, no matter how strong the evidence is. This is because of one of the various manifestations of scientism. Many scientists think they fully understand what scientism is just because they understand ONE manifestation of it. But scientism manifests in many ways, such as: 1. The irrational dogmatic behavior toward certain consensus theories they've accepted as a given their whole lives. 2. The conflation of non-scientific claims with scientific claims. For example, it's literally impossible to think of Evolution Theory as a scientific theory without commiting fallacies of scientism. It's possible to BELIEVE Evolution Theory is true without scientism, but anyone thinking it's actually a scientific theory as opposed to a philosophical position (informed by science) IS commiting fallacies of scientism by default. Belief in Creationism requires faith in the following unobserved process: 1. Presuppostion that a Non-Naturalistic process for life coming from non-life exists & already occurred. Belief in Evolutionism requires faith in the following unobserved processes: 1. Information being added to the genome 2. Increasing genetic complexity 3. The primary definition of Macro-evolution (not the secondary definition "speciation" which both sides agree is real) 4. Evolution Theory also relies on the presupposition that a Naturalistic process by which life comes from non-life exists and already occurred, despite no observations of this either. All existing scientific evidence could be interpreted to support either side: 1. A common designer, or 2. A common ancestor So what scientific or logical reason does anyone have to choose Evolutionism over Creationism? It requires faith in more processes which haven't been scientifically verified / observed. Occam's razor is the problem-solving principle that "entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity". It is generally understood in the sense that with competing theories or explanations, the simpler one, for example a model with fewer parameters, is to be preferred. So why are many choosing the explanation which requires faith in more unobserved processes when it isn't necessary? That's not the scientific or logical approach. The answer is: Scientism They're believing that whatever claims are within the current consensus of academia are automatically scientific claims. It doesn't work that way. The Methodological Naturalism requirement allows them to include their best Naturalistic explanation for questions they can't answer with observation. “Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer (or Creationism), such a hypothesis is excluded from peer-review because it is not naturalistic. Of course the scientist, as an individual, is free to embrace a reality that transcends naturalism." - Dr. Scott Todd, immunologist from Kansas State University as printed in Nature Magazine So, in effect, Scientism is causing them to blindly believe mainstream academia's consensus like a religious text without properly understanding the only reason Creationism is excluded is due to pre-existing philosophical bias, NOT because it's less scientific. Pre-existing bias is a systematic error in the scientific method. They can't even prove Naturalism is a true philosophy.
