 |
| VanCityBuzz: Vancouver 1978 |
PIRIE, MADSEN (2006)(2015) How To Win Every Argument, Bloomsbury, London.
Preface
Originally published 11/01/2016, revised for an entry on academia.edu, 25/02/2024.
Pirie states in regards to this fallacy entry:
'Science enjoys an enormous prestige because it has got so many things right.' (50).
As well:
'In the popular imagination, the dedicated scientist in his white coat is a fount of real knowledge as opposed to mere opinion'. (50). I am in particular agreement with the first statement that science has basically added much to human knowledge throughout history. Including for example, in regard to computer science in order for me to type and produce this online article.
I also view other academic disciplines as viable sources of getting so 'many things right', such as, for example, ones relevant to my academic writing, Biblical Studies, Theology, Philosophy, Philosophy of Religion.
In regard to the second statement, other academic disciplines provide significant real knowledge and not just mere opinion. Even empirically, inductively based academia would not have exhaustive, infinite knowledge and may theorize at times with deduction and opinion.
Therefore from science we read and hear the term 'The theory of" in numerous contexts.
There is as well:
Philosophy of Mathematics
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy 2007 & 2012
Cited
'If mathematics is regarded as a science, then the philosophy of mathematics can be regarded as a branch of the philosophy of science, next to disciplines such as the philosophy of physics and the philosophy of biology. However, because of its subject matter, the philosophy of mathematics occupies a special place in the philosophy of science. Whereas the natural sciences investigate entities that are located in space in time, it is not at all obvious that this also the case of the objects that are studied in mathematics. In addition to that, the methods of investigation of mathematics differ markedly from the methods of investigation in the natural sciences. Whereas the latter acquire general knowledge using inductive methods, mathematical knowledge appears to be acquired in a different way: by deduction from basic principles. The status of mathematical knowledge also appears to differ from the status of knowledge in the natural sciences. The theories of the natural sciences appear to be less certain and more open to revision than mathematical theories. For these reasons mathematics poses problems of a quite distinctive kind for philosophy. Therefore philosophers have accorded special attention to ontological and epistemological questions concerning mathematics.'
End
Pirie reasons: 'Many people, anxious to invest their own views with the authority of the scientist, don the white coat of scientific jargon in an attempt to pass of their own assertions as something they are not.' (50). Deception is taking place, 'that objective experimental evidence supports' (50) scientific claims. The audience is blinded with science. (50).
From my moderate conservative Biblical, Christian worldview within the Reformed tradition, I realize that this 'blinded with science' claim will be made by some conservative Christian Creationists against some secular Darwinian Evolutionists and by some secular Darwinian Evolutionists against some conservative Christian Creationists. (And similar groups could be named).
Therefore an answer from me as an academic, yet non-scientist, is to be as scientifically objective as possible.
The same approach that should be taken with every academic discipline.
Proverbs 23:23
New American Standard Bible (NASB)
23 Buy truth, and do not sell it, Get wisdom and instruction and understanding.
Back to Pirie:
The author provides some rules for using this fallacy such as...
'Remember to use long words' (51).
Use the words to 'prevent communication' (52).
A deceptive goal would be to transfer the 'easily refuted' to something 'profound, impressive and hard to deny'. (52). In other words, as can be done in the fields of philosophical theology and philosophy of religion; use plenty of academic jargon to confuse and baffle the average reader. But of course, everyone is not fooled, all of the time. Pirie states that years of work with this fallacy will 'repay you not only with a doctorate in the social sciences, but with the ability to deceive an audience utterly into believing that you know what you are talking about.' (52). I certainly do not want to, with my academic background in theology and philosophy of religion; a formal education somewhat similar, but not by any means identical to Pirie's philosophy and logic education, broad-brush negatively all those with a Doctorate in the Social Sciences, to be very clear!
'Science enjoys an enormous prestige because it has got so many things right.' (50).
As well:
'In the popular imagination, the dedicated scientist in his white coat is a fount of real knowledge as opposed to mere opinion'. (50). I am in particular agreement with the first statement that science has basically added much to human knowledge throughout history. Including for example, in regard to computer science in order for me to type and produce this online article.
I also view other academic disciplines as viable sources of getting so 'many things right', such as, for example, ones relevant to my academic writing, Biblical Studies, Theology, Philosophy, Philosophy of Religion.
In regard to the second statement, other academic disciplines provide significant real knowledge and not just mere opinion. Even empirically, inductively based academia would not have exhaustive, infinite knowledge and may theorize at times with deduction and opinion.
Therefore from science we read and hear the term 'The theory of" in numerous contexts.
There is as well:
Philosophy of Mathematics
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy 2007 & 2012
Cited
'If mathematics is regarded as a science, then the philosophy of mathematics can be regarded as a branch of the philosophy of science, next to disciplines such as the philosophy of physics and the philosophy of biology. However, because of its subject matter, the philosophy of mathematics occupies a special place in the philosophy of science. Whereas the natural sciences investigate entities that are located in space in time, it is not at all obvious that this also the case of the objects that are studied in mathematics. In addition to that, the methods of investigation of mathematics differ markedly from the methods of investigation in the natural sciences. Whereas the latter acquire general knowledge using inductive methods, mathematical knowledge appears to be acquired in a different way: by deduction from basic principles. The status of mathematical knowledge also appears to differ from the status of knowledge in the natural sciences. The theories of the natural sciences appear to be less certain and more open to revision than mathematical theories. For these reasons mathematics poses problems of a quite distinctive kind for philosophy. Therefore philosophers have accorded special attention to ontological and epistemological questions concerning mathematics.'
End
Pirie reasons: 'Many people, anxious to invest their own views with the authority of the scientist, don the white coat of scientific jargon in an attempt to pass of their own assertions as something they are not.' (50). Deception is taking place, 'that objective experimental evidence supports' (50) scientific claims. The audience is blinded with science. (50).
From my moderate conservative Biblical, Christian worldview within the Reformed tradition, I realize that this 'blinded with science' claim will be made by some conservative Christian Creationists against some secular Darwinian Evolutionists and by some secular Darwinian Evolutionists against some conservative Christian Creationists. (And similar groups could be named).
Therefore an answer from me as an academic, yet non-scientist, is to be as scientifically objective as possible.
The same approach that should be taken with every academic discipline.
Proverbs 23:23
New American Standard Bible (NASB)
23 Buy truth, and do not sell it, Get wisdom and instruction and understanding.
Back to Pirie:
The author provides some rules for using this fallacy such as...
'Remember to use long words' (51).
Use the words to 'prevent communication' (52).
A deceptive goal would be to transfer the 'easily refuted' to something 'profound, impressive and hard to deny'. (52). In other words, as can be done in the fields of philosophical theology and philosophy of religion; use plenty of academic jargon to confuse and baffle the average reader. But of course, everyone is not fooled, all of the time. Pirie states that years of work with this fallacy will 'repay you not only with a doctorate in the social sciences, but with the ability to deceive an audience utterly into believing that you know what you are talking about.' (52). I certainly do not want to, with my academic background in theology and philosophy of religion; a formal education somewhat similar, but not by any means identical to Pirie's philosophy and logic education, broad-brush negatively all those with a Doctorate in the Social Sciences, to be very clear!
 |
| Sothebys: Sweden |
Scientism is questionable academically, when it seeks only scientific means as a source of truth.
Scientism: A pejorative term for the concept that only the methods of natural science and related categories form the elements for any philosophical or other enquiry. Blackburn (1996: 344).
From Oxford Scientism: 1 a a method or doctrine regarded as characteristic of scientists b the use of practice of this. 2 often derogatory, an excessive belief in or application of scientific method. Oxford (1995: 1236).
It may be considered pejorative when used by critics, from a secular British perspective, but there is significant accuracy to this term. A scientism approach is problematic when it omits and ignores as beneficial the non-empirical, scientifically speaking, premises and conclusions that work as evidences for God with historical, biblical revelation. Noting these as metaphysical and irrelevant. However, the historical characters, for example, within the Hebrew Bible and New Testament are empirically documented.
An approach using scientism also ignores philosophical support within philosophy of religion for theism that would parallel theological, biblical concepts in regard to God. Notably, first-cause.
BLACKBURN, SIMON (1996) Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
CONWAY DAVID A. AND RONALD MUNSON (1997) The Elements of Reasoning, Wadsworth Publishing Company, New York.
LANGER, SUSANNE K (1953)(1967) An Introduction to Symbolic Logic, Dover Publications, New York. (Philosophy).
OXFORD DICTIONARY OF SCIENCE (2010) Oxford, Oxford University Press.
PAPINEAU, DAVID (Gen. Ed) (2016) Philosophy: Theories and Great Thinkers, New York, Shelter Harbour Press.
PIRIE, MADSEN (2006)(2015) How To Win Every Argument, Bloomsbury, London.
POJMAN, LOUIS P. (1996) Philosophy: The Quest for Truth, New York, Wadsworth Publishing Company.
SZUDEK, ANDY & TORSLEY, SARAH (2018) The Little Book of Philosophy, Landau Cecile (Ed), London, DK Publishing.
THE CONCISE OXFORD DICTIONARY (1995) Della Thompson (ed.), Oxford, Clarendon Press.
No comments:
Post a Comment