# Of Woo and Scientism **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 24, 2009, 11:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/of-woo-and-scientism/507572 "2009-08-24T23:43:40Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Showing post:** 2
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2009, 11:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/of-woo-and-scientism/507572/2 "2009-08-24T23:59:45Z")
From the other thread. > [@Of delusional believers and naive positivist scientism](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/of-delusional-believers-and-naive-positivist-scientism/507529/29): > > Oh come on. To come up with a less ambiguous example: Some ancient people thought the Sun God propelled the sun through the sky every day. We know it’s because the Earth rotates. Because our perception of reality isn’t completely objective then both ideas have merit? After all, the idea that the sun god propels it across the sky every day has predictive value. I don’t see why this really even matters. Yes the scientific explanation is superior. No one was arguing any differently. > [@](#): > > I can’t say I’ve ever liked these sorts of debates because it seems like some sort of philosophical masturbation where people try to show off with their deep thoughts about the nature of reality while ignoring the practical. It’s silly to pretend that all views on how the world works have merit. You do realize that Semiotics is a valid part of the science of linguistics right? If I am remembering correctly **The Hamster King** is a trained Neurolinguist. > [@](#): > > There is an objective reality. The biological nature of our minds limit our ability to see it in a completely objective way. There are cognitive biases, lack of intuitive understanding of the scope of the universe, things we wish to be true rather than observe, etc. Science is man’s best attempt at eliminating our limitations to understand the nature of reality. It comes to erroneous conclusions sometimes based on false premises or false or insufficient data, but it subjects itself to scrutiny and it’s self correcting. It’s our best attempt at describing nature with the best tools we and methodologies we know how to. It is superior to magical thinking. Why do you think you need to defend science? Who is attacking it? What we are saying is that people will appeal to science as a way to justify their cognitive biases, and as such are less willing to look at their own cognitive biases because they see themselves as champions of science. One of the core aspects of scientism is the need to turn it into a defense of science when no one is dismissing the value of science. --- _[View the full topic](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/of-woo-and-scientism/507572)._