Scientism II

Standard.co.uk: London 2017

Scientism II

Preface

Referenced from this website

Friday, November 07, 2014 Scientism 

Tuesday, June 27, 2017 That idea would go over like an atomic bomb: Omitting the benefit 

Scientism

One night, I discussed with a friend on the phone, his online course on early Christianity from a secular University. The teaching included premises which were skeptical of the claimed supernatural, revealed origins of the Hebrew Bible and New Testament. I opined (paraphrased) that much of this was rooted in worldviews of empiricism, naturalism which often feature scientism. I had been educated in regard to aspects of empiricism and naturalism while studying for my bible school and seminary degrees in Canada, well before my interaction with them with the theses research degrees at secular University in Wales-England. I have continued this research online.

Oxford Science

Empiricism: 'Denotes a result that is observed by experiment or observation rather than by theory.' (287). I view this as a legitimate academic approach in reasonable contexts.

Stanford Dictionary of Philosophy: Naturalism

Stanford Dictionary of Philosophy

Cited

'These philosophers aimed to ally philosophy more closely with science. They urged that reality is exhausted by nature, containing nothing “supernatural”, and that the scientific method should be used to investigate all areas of reality, including the “human spirit” (Krikorian 1944; Kim 2003).'

'So understood, “naturalism” is not a particularly informative term as applied to contemporary philosophers. The great majority of contemporary philosophers would happily accept naturalism as just characterized—that is, they would both reject “supernatural” entities, and allow that science is a possible route (if not necessarily the only one) to important truths about the “human spirit”.

Even so, this entry will not aim to pin down any more informative definition of “naturalism”. It would be fruitless to try to adjudicate some official way of understanding the term. Different contemporary philosophers interpret “naturalism” differently. This disagreement about usage is no accident. For better or worse, “naturalism” is widely viewed as a positive term in philosophical circles—few active philosophers nowadays are happy to announce themselves as “non-naturalists”'

Noted Bibliography from this source

Krikorian, Y. (ed.), 1944, Naturalism and the Human Spirit, New York: Columbia University Press.

Mackie, J., 1977, Ethics: Inventing Right and Wrong, Harmondsworth: Penguin.

Plantinga, A., 1996, “Methodological Naturalism?”, in J. van der Meer (ed.), Facets of Faith and Science, Lanham, MD: University Press of America.

---

Interesting definition and explanation from Stanford. In writing and discussion I have focused more on the terms 'empiricism' (nothing wrong with that view in itself) and the extreme position of scientism.

Blackburn

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).

Oxford Dictionary

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).
---

A person holding to scientism may abandon the need for a contextual evaluation of Scripture and the revealed word of God in regard to origins and creation; instead embracing scientific explanations alone.

As a moderate conservative Christian of Reformed and Anabaptist traditions, I reason there is a need for openness to scientific truths, as in being open to inductive scientific evidences and the use of empiricism.

For the sake of a reasonable, balanced academic approach, the entirety of worldview should be never be reasoned at the expenses of biblical revelation and theological and philosophical deductive evidences within the academic disciplines of biblical studies, theology and philosophy of religion. Theistic philosophy of religion based on deduced, reasoned, philosophical premises and conclusions

Scientism should be academically rejected.

Wimp.com

Big Think: December 9, 2020 

The author is Adam Frank

Cited 

'What is scientism, and why is it a mistake?'

'Science is a method of inquiry about nature, while scientism is philosophy.' 

Agreed.

Cited

'And scientism is no longer up to the challenge of meeting the most pressing issues of our day.' 

It never was...

Cited

'Science and Scientism are not the same. You can deeply value the former while rejecting the latter. Scientism is the view that science is the only objective means by which to determine what is true or is an unwarranted application of science in situations that are not amenable to scientific inquiry. Science is a method for asking questions about the world. Scientism is just one philosophy among many about the relationship between human beings and their experiences.'

Scientism definitely has worldview and philosophy aspects to it.

Cited 

'The folly of scientism'

'Now I am a passionate scientist who is passionate about science, but I also think scientism is a huge mistake. The most important reason it is a mistake is because it is confused about what it’s defending. Without doubt, science is unique, powerful, and wonderful. It should be celebrated, and it needs to be protected. Scientism, on the other hand, is just metaphysics, and there are lots and lots of metaphysical beliefs.'

Every academic discipline needs to be handled with objectivity. Scientism risks subjectively dismissing non-scientific academic disciplines.

Cited 

'There are in fact many philosophical positions — many kinds of metaphysics — that you can adopt about reality and science depending on your inclinations. The good ones illuminate critical aspects of what is happening as human beings collectively go about trying to make sense of their experiences. Scientism claims to be the only philosophy that can speak for science, but that is simply not the case. There are lots of philosophies of science out there.' 

Agreed. A philosophy of science, does not have to embrace any kind of scientism.

Big Think: Adam Frank Astrophysicist

Cited

'Adam Frank is a professor of astrophysics at the University of Rochester and a leading expert on the final stages of evolution for stars like the sun. Frank's computational research group at the University of Rochester has developed advanced supercomputer tools for studying how stars form and how they die.'

---

BLACKBURN, SIMON (1996) Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

BRADLEY, RAYMOND D. (1996) ‘Infinite Regress Argument’, in Robert Audi, (ed.), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

CONWAY DAVID A. AND RONALD MUNSON (1997) The Elements of Reasoning, Wadsworth Publishing Company, New York. 

CRAIG, WILLIAM LANE, (1991)(2006) ‘The Existence of God and the Beginning of the Universe’,Truth: A Journal of Modern Thought 3 (1991) 85-96. http://www.leaderu.com/truth/3truth11.html pp. 1-18.

LANGER, SUSANNE K (1953)(1967) An Introduction to Symbolic Logic, Dover Publications, New York. 

OXFORD DICTIONARY OF SCIENCE (2010) Oxford, Oxford University Press.

PIRIE, MADSEN (2006)(2015) How To Win Every Argument, Bloomsbury, London.

SKLAR, LAWRENCE, (1996) ‘Philosophy of Science’, in Robert Audi, (ed), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. 

THE CONCISE OXFORD DICTIONARY (1995) Della Thompson (ed.), Oxford, Clarendon Press.

TOLHURST, TOLHURST, WILLIAM (1996) 'Vicious Regress', in Robert Audi, (ed.), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

An empty class

VanDusen Botanical Garden 2017

An empty class

LANGER, SUSANNE K (1953)(1967) An Introduction to Symbolic Logic, Dover Publications, New York. (Philosophy)

An empty class

The continuation of text review: 

Key symbols

≡df = Equivalence by definition
: = Equal (s)
ε = Epsilon and means is
⊃ = Is the same as
⊨ is Entails
˜ = Not
∃ = There exists
∃! = There exists
∴ = Therefore
· = Therefore
< = Is included
v = a logical inclusive disjunction (disjunction is the relationship between two distinct alternatives).
x = variable
· = Conjunction meaning And
0 = Null class
cls = Class
int= Interpretation

Previously

The universe class is not the same as the universe of discourse. In other words the universe of discourse contains the universe class. The universe class does not contain the universe of discourse. (170).
---

Generalized System of Classes

This review has progressed where we are now at the point in the textbook where philosopher, Langer explains that we have passed from a system of individuals and predicates, such as a class of white houses (wt) and a class of brick houses (bk). (171).

This leads to a system of certain classes < = Is included as in houses = white houses and brick houses. (171). Etcetera, including red houses (rd), green houses (gn), wood houses (wd).

This means that in any universe whose elements are classes there is one class having the logical properties of 'the class of no houses'. (172). This is also known as an empty class, and this class is included in every class of the universe. (172).

Langer explains that in each universe there is one 'greatest class' which is analogous to 'the class of all houses'. (172-173). This includes every class is the universe. (173). Langer means in this context, the universe of discourse for symbolic logic.

Therefore, for any class, there is at least one class 0 included.
Therefore, for any class, there is at least one class 1 included.

(∃0) (a) : 0 < a
There exists at least one class 0 that for any class a, 0 is included in a. (173).

(∃1) (a) : 0 < a
There exists at least one class 1 that for any class a, 1 is included in a. (173).

0 represents there is a class of no houses in this universe of discourse.
1 represents there is a class of houses in this universe of discourse.

This specific system. (173).

For any Universe of discourse, such as K (houses) whose elements are classes contains a 0 and a 1.(173). There are houses and non-houses. There are Christians and non-Christians, there are Canadians and non-Canadians, etcetera.

(∃!) (cr)  : 0 < cr

There exists at least one class 0 that for any class cr (Christians), 0 is included in a.

There is a class of no Christians, in this universe of discourse.

(∃!) (cr)  : 1< cr

There exists at least one class 1 that for any class cr (Christians), 1 is included in a.

There is a class of Christians, in this universe of discourse.

More common sense from Dalrock

Tonight: Forty minute round trip walk to and from Christmas party.

Dalrock blog

Devouring a lifetime of courtship. Posted on December 8, 2017

Cited

'I’ve written in the past about women’s complaints that men aren’t meeting their expectations for courtship, and why it is entirely rational for men to either withdraw from traditional courtship altogether or limit and carefully target their courtship expenditure. Women have (as a group) greatly expanded the period of time they expect men to court them.'

I would reason that many Christian men are not dating or courting Christian women, because it is not considered rationally a good deal. This even while considering the Biblical theology from 1 Corinthians 7 and 2 Corinthians 6, as examples, if one is so theologically inclined.

Cited

'But what about her imagined future husband? Will it be worth the wait for him? If she’s 53 and still hasn’t found him yet, he’ll probably be in his 50s or early 60s by the time they marry. Will 30-40 years of courtship all be worth it to marry a woman who is too old to have children, a woman who spent her youth building her career while forming and dissolving romantic attachments with a parade of other men? Was it really God’s plan for him to spend 40 years wandering in a sexual desert, buying an endless string of unserious and ever more demanding women dinner (and more), to ultimately marry a woman in her 50s?'

Many Christian men may have not given up on dating and marriage by this time, but they will be significantly discouraged by the philosophical fusion of feminism and evangelical Christian culture with a little bible (maybe) in the typical female romantic relationship philosophy.

Cited

'As a sign of our age, not one of the 98 reviews currently on Amazon.com points out how ridiculous it is for a never married woman in her fifties to offer herself as a husband hunting role model.'

Agreed.

Marriage strike paradox. Posted on November 8, 2017

Cited

'What we are seeing instead is women continuing to push out the age of marriage. As they are doing this, they are changing the signal young men receive regarding how to be sexually successful. Beta Bucks (BB) used to be a very effective strategy for an 18 year old young man. He might have to wait a few years, but he could see the plan working for his 3-5 year older bother and his friend’s older brother. Now a young man would have to look to men 10-15 years older to see examples of the BB model finally paying off. Meanwhile, they see the Alpha F**** (AF) model working all around them. AF gets rewarded, and BB is not only not rewarded for a decade or more, but our whole society (especially Christians) despises husbands and fathers, the epitome of the BB model. This is a very powerful message, and an unmistakable one.'

I do not view husbands and fathers as being despised in the Metropolitan Vancouver and Fraser Valley evangelical Christian culture.

But, yes, the extroverted men would tend to do better in the dating and marriage department. Sadly, whether someone is an extrovert or introvert has nothing to do with Biblical character.

Personality over character, in many Western, Christian romantic relationships, as I have mentioned previously. This shows how little depth many evangelicals have today in the romantic choices they make.

Cited

'Not surprisingly, we are starting to see fewer men working hard to signal BB status in their late teens and early 20s. When the party girls suddenly decide they aren’t that kind of girl, they still find nearly all of the would be BB men are willing to marry, but many of these men haven’t done the preparation needed to really fulfill the role. They can no more go back and spend their teens and 20s on education and career advancement than the 30 ish career gal can go back and dedicate her most attractive and fertile years to her husband. Many of the men they find have instead been working like women. Also, the men who did well in the AF paradigm and are eventually inclined (and prepared) to marry aren’t going to prefer aging career gals. They are the ones with options, and the prettiest marriage seekers have the best shot with them. This means the women who waited too long to marry are stuck with terrible prospects. Choosing last always sucks, but men’s rational response to women’s anti-BB signal means it sucks much more now than it did in the past.'

'When the party girls suddenly decide they aren’t that kind of girl, they still find nearly all of the would be BB men are willing to marry, but many of these men haven’t done the preparation needed to really fulfill the role. '

Yes, many of these men would lack dating and romantic relationship experience.

'They can no more go back and spend their teens and 20s on education and career advancement than the 30 ish career gal can go back and dedicate her most attractive and fertile years to her husband.'

 I spent my twenties on career advancement in academia, but the second point is problematic and true.

'Also, the men who did well in the AF paradigm and are eventually inclined (and prepared) to marry aren’t going to prefer aging career gals. They are the ones with options, and the prettiest marriage seekers have the best shot with them. This means the women who waited too long to marry are stuck with terrible prospects. Choosing last always sucks, but men’s rational response to women’s anti-BB signal means it sucks much more now than it did in the past.'

I can agree than many extroverted men are not going to be prefer aging women. The same for many introverted men. I do reason that many men will still prefer romantic relationships with a close age difference. But this will be the men that will tend not to desire children.

That is not me.

'but men’s rational response to women’s anti-BB signal means it sucks much more now than it did in the past.'

The rational response being non-participation, unless a suitable Christian young woman is met. I am not stating that many rational Christian men will be anti-social (nor should they be), but the reasonable Christian male will not invest in what does not seem rational to do.

Shariah

WALLACE TOM Jr. (2015) Refuting Islam, The Christian Patriots Guide to Exposing the Evils of Islam, Bellingham, Fundamental Publishers.

The book review continues...

Chapter Two: The Appeasers

Shariah Courts In The UK

Mr. Wallace explains that these courts began in the United Kingdom in September, 2008. (16). The author writes that the British appeased Islam by adding Shariah to the British legal code. (16). The courts are limited to family civil law for now, but Mr. Wallace opines that inevitably with the rise of Islam this will lead to being expanded to criminal cases. (16).

I will agree with Mr. Wallace that in principal, I do not philosophically support the concept of a group of people in a Western nation being ruled by their own laws. (16). In my opinion, religious rules and law should not be sanctioned by the state, but should be administered internally within the state support of freedom of religion in Western democracies.

For example

I am a member of Northview Community Church and its second church plant, TriCity Church. If I break a rule required for membership, it is my view that for a reasonable separation of church-state, any church discipline with me should be administered via the church and not in any way by a state government. But again, I support freedom of religion via the state.

For Islam, I am opposed to state sanctioned Shariah Law, but support the right of Islam to rule internally. The modern West, unlike traditional Islam, does not have the religion-state unity and this should be maintained within Western society and law.

I am consistent, I would not support the sanctioning of Reformed, Christian law and courts by Maple Ridge, British Columbia or Canada either...

If that would occur in some fantasy alternative world!

Why, you ask?

I do not trust politicians and bureaucrats, or religious leaders, within a sinful, fallen realm, to accurately and reasonably administer theonomy (Biblical and/or religious law) within theocracy. (Religion-State rule).

Jesus Christ stated his Kingdom was not of this world (John 18), and I support theocracy when ruled by the perfect and holy God.

This demonstrates a consistent religious philosophy as opposed to an axe to grind with Islam.

The UK's Independent Fact Checking Charity

Quote

'Are there 'Sharia courts' in Britain?

While there are undoubtedly lots of different councils and tribunals dealing with Sharia principles, they aren't courts of law. Most are Sharia 'councils' set up to make decisions on purely religious matters, although there are some bodies that mix Sharia principles with legally binding arbitration. But none can overrule the regular courts.

Sharia councils

Getting married for the purposes of your religion doesn't necessarily mean you are married in the eyes of the state.

Equally, the paperwork required for a civil divorce needn't be recognised by your religion. For this reason, many Sharia councils exist to issue Islamic divorce certificates, and give advice on other aspects of religious law. They're often attached to mosques.'
---

As noted, principally, I do not support separate religious courts...

'But none can overrule the regular courts.'

This demonstrates a limitation to these courts.

An argument that inevitably this will expand to cover criminal law, or all laws of a nation, if there is an Islamic majority (or significant minority) in population, depends on one reasoning that Westernized Muslims in Western countries will embrace Shariah, as opposed to secularism and secular law.

Shariah law and Islam is definitely and definitively very religious and Western secularism is (of course) definitely and definitively secular. At this point, I do not see the West in any form becoming anything other than more secular, but I am open-minded....

Again, as noted in previous reviews, time will tell.