# Scientism, good or bad? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 26, 2003, 5:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientism-good-or-bad/184558 "2003-06-26T17:19:28Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2003, 7:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientism-good-or-bad/184558/121 "2003-07-04T19:21:32Z")
_Surely you don’t think that anyone’s lack of adherence to it makes it unsound?_ No, **blowero** , but neither am I particularly impressed when it is called out. The explanation without unnecessary devices is nice, I agree. And I think it is a good way to approach topics. But since it doesn’t tell us what is unnecessary, then its application is as fallible as anything else. Some people think God is necessary. Is it? [Rhetorical, really, this isn’t a religious debate] Some people use Ockham’s razor principle to dismiss God… in fact, the same people who say science never proves anything. I’m fine with people who are satisfied with saying “I don’t know” to large and small questions. But I also like debating them. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2003, 8:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientism-good-or-bad/184558/122 "2003-07-04T20:31:08Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by erislover \* > _Surely you don’t think that anyone’s lack of adherence to it makes it unsound?_ > > No, **blowero** , but neither am I particularly impressed when it is called out. The explanation without unnecessary devices is nice, I agree. And I think it is a good way to approach topics. But since it doesn’t tell us what is unnecessary, then its application is as fallible as anything else. > > Some people think God is necessary. Is it? [Rhetorical, really, this isn’t a religious debate] Some people use Ockham’s razor principle to dismiss God… in fact, the same people who say science never proves anything. But you switched arguments on us. What you said before was that the Razor doesn’t set the “rational default” for all of humanity. What you seem to be saying now is that some people _apply_ it incorrectly. That is an entirely different proposition. What I am saying is that Occams Razor _must_ be the default position of any rational thinker, because the alternative is to accept an infinite number of unsupported, extraneous explanations for _everything_. Whether given individuals are successful in correctly applying the principle has no bearing on its soundness as an idea. By the way, I have never heard anyone make the argument that Occam’s Razor _disproves_ God. The only way I’ve heard it put is that God-belief is not needed to explain things that are already explainable by natural means. ---
**Author:** ![bonzer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/45deac/32.png) [@bonzer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bonzer)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2003, 11:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientism-good-or-bad/184558/123 "2003-07-04T23:42:41Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by lekatt \* > Albert Einstein said when his Relativity Theory came under fire by the established scientists: “people rarely change their minds, the old just die off and the young ones pick up the new ideas.” Entirely true to form, you’re both mangling the quotation **and** misattributing it. It’s actually usually translated as “A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it” and it’s by [Max Planck](http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/biography/Planck.html). Furthermore, the real irony to this misquotation is that Planck was the established scientist (as a professor in Berlin, he was as established as you got in 1905) who was probably the first person to appreciate what Einstein was getting at in the early papers on relativity. ---
**Author:** ![lekatt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lekatt/32/7269_2.png) [@lekatt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lekatt)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2003, 2:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientism-good-or-bad/184558/124 "2003-07-05T02:35:59Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by bonzer \* > \*\*Entirely true to form, you’re both mangling the quotation **and** misattributing it. It’s actually usually translated as “A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it” and it’s by [Max Planck](http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/biography/Planck.html). > Furthermore, the real irony to this misquotation is that Planck was the established scientist (as a professor in Berlin, he was as established as you got in 1905) who was probably the first person to appreciate what Einstein was getting at in the early papers on relativity. \*\* The truth is not changed with the words or who they are attributed to, just heed the wisdom of them. ---
**Author:** ![lekatt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lekatt/32/7269_2.png) [@lekatt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lekatt)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2003, 2:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientism-good-or-bad/184558/125 "2003-07-05T02:38:20Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Monty \* > \*\*May I see some of this scientific evidence that the spirit world exists, lekatt? \*\* If you can’t find it in my post, it must be invisible to you. ---
**Author:** ![GodlessSkeptic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/5f9b8f/32.png) [@GodlessSkeptic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GodlessSkeptic)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2003, 4:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientism-good-or-bad/184558/126 "2003-07-05T04:16:15Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by errata \* > \*\*They wouldn’t be sensible for you, no. \*\* So you are arguing that ANY existential claim is “sensible” to people who believe it?I would agree that extraordinary existential claims SEEM rational to some who are proponents of the claim, but that does not make these claims sensible in the objective sense. > [@](#): > > \*\* If by ignorance you simply mean a lack of knowledge, then couldn’t you say the same about science? \*\* Science is not a body of knowledge, a complex worldview or a religion and therefore cannot be “ignorant” itself.Science is the method of searching for truth/knowledge/understanding. Religions, OTOH ARE complex worldviews and belief systems and the adherants to these religions, more often than not, make claims of certain knowledge about the universe which are not rationally justified(spirtualism etc.).If one is claiming that the “soul” is the seat of conciousness, rather than the physical brain, then one does this out of ignorance and/or faith. > [@](#): > > \*\* Could depend upon what you really mean by ignorance. Outside of the edges of evangelical religions, I don’t believe what we consider “faith” was largely necessary. Maybe we should clarify faith, as I would term faith as a way of overcoming cognitive dissonance wherein one’s beliefs are not supported by ones perception’s of the world. \*\* I have a pretty simple definition of “faith”:Faith is belief in the truth of a claim which is not rationally justified and, in extreme cases, in spite of contrary evidence.Ignorance does not always figure into faith.Modern flat-earthers are well aware of the conrtadictory evidence but go to great lengths to conjure incredible rationalizations to get around the evidence before them.The same is true of MANY creationists. > [@](#): > > \*\*I am asserting that many religions/philosophies did not have that cognitive dissonance because their beliefs reflected what they knew about the natural world. \*\* What they _knew_ or what they _believed_?It doesn’t matter really, as I can come up with irrational explanations for things I observe that will reflect what I know about the natural world.These explanations will not likely be true of course… > [@](#): > > \*\*Simply mentioning the names of those religions doesn’t prove your point. \*\* You asked me for examples and now you tell me “not good enough”.I do not know what you want from me here.My point is simply that religions(not just monotheistic ones) are founded upon observations, ignorance, faith and this part of our psyche that does not like loose ends and seeks to put an answer to every question we deem important…even if that answer be entirely incorrect. > [@](#): > > \*\*Keppler based some of his astronomical ideas on the symmetrical tendencies of a creator god yet still managed to contribute excellently to scientific knowledge. The points where “superstition” and science met I think are a little fuzzier than you would imagine. \*\* And again, I say that without religions historical stranglehold, he would likely not have been so hindered.People like Galileo were imprisoned and worse(very often to say the least) for proposing scientific answers to existential questions at the expense of presiding religious convictions.Giordanno Bruno was burned at the stake for it.Even under the best of conditions scientists could be turned into social pariahs adn be unable to maintain their chosen career for “going against religion”.SO Keppler managed to achieve success in spite of the pervasiveness of religion.Not exactly a selling point for religion. Even Voltaire(a man more critical of religion you would be hard pressed to find) felt compelled by fear to claim religious convictions he likely did not posess.When fear is not the motivating factor to pay lip service to or actually adhere to religious convcition/affiliation, then brainwashing is usually the culprit.Let 20 people be born in a village where 19 of them are raised to believe in and worship the volcano god and you will likely find that all 20, at one time or another worship the volcano god. > [@](#): > > \*\* Occam’s razor is an excellent tool for the philosophy of science. It doesn’t set the “rational default” for all of humanity and I don’t think it really tries to.\*\* WIth all due respect…Bullshit.Not mutiplying one’s entities for purpose of explanation is as sound and objectively rational as things get. > [@](#): > > \*\* I don’t think so. Atoms are not intuitively a better explanation without the science and technical apparati to support it. \*\* Sure they are, objectively speaking.But without supporting evidence they would have been an unwarranted inference several thousand years ago. > [@](#): > > \*\* I wasn’t trying call your characterization’s themselves childish but meant that you characterized religion as childish. Maybe that clears things up. I wasn’t trying to insult you. \*\* I was refering to your continual “You are obviously not well educated about _this_” comments. > [@](#): > > **That doesn’t mean they would or did suppress the knowledge.** Suppress was the wrong word.What I was trying to say was that religions end to inhibit the pursuit of knowledge and understanding…not necessarily through intentional suppression. > [@](#): > > **It’s unsatisfactory when you want to know.** It should not be.I can understand being disappointed at not knowing something…hell, I would love to know everything!but creating unwarranted explanations to suit this desire is not a good thing. > [@](#): > > \*\* After leaving behind something with all of the answers, one probably feels a psychological vacuum where they once were. If science discredits the religion, it may seem like the natural place to turn to find those answers. \*\* It SHOULD be the logical place to turn to for the _method_ of searching/examining but NOT for unchanging, last word on the matter, assertions of absolute “Truth”. > [@](#): > > \*\*I’m not saying that mere existence of science closes minds. It’s the natural human tendency to want answers, definite answers. \*\* I agree.It is part of our evolutionary make-up.However there are many things in our evoolutionary make up which are detrimental to us and we should seek to change or avoid the pitfalls of. > [@](#): > > \*\*There are many ways to view the world depending on context. For example, there’s an emotional way which is important for our happiness and interaction with other humans. Neuronal interactions alone don’t tell us why we like pie or each other. Faith that it will, is scientism. \*\* I don’t have faith that science will do any such thing(or in anything else for that matter) and I do not know of anyone who does.Still I would not be surprised if scientists DO discover physical mechanisms for our subjective tastes. > [@](#): > > \*\* So, would you say your view is rational as opposed to subjective? \*\* I would say my position is as rationally justified as it can be ATM given what information I have.I would never try to mandate my position on animal rights vs. human needs and my position is certainly subject to change with new data. > [@](#): > > \*\*I hope the sciences never attempts to build a “better morality”, but on a personal level when people form their opinions about the world and how to treat each other, they will rely on information gleaned from science. I know that sociology, anthropology, and pychology have influenced my opinions on ethics. > > On the cosmological level, science necessarily disagrees with religions, but on a spiritual level, science is and should remain mute. \*\* Science is also “mute” then on invisible pink unicorns.When you invoke a “spiritual level” you presuppose a such thing as a “spirit” exists and that it is beyond the scope of science to discover or understand. The invisible(or scientifically unknowable) and the non-existent look a lot alike. ---
**Author:** ![GodlessSkeptic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/5f9b8f/32.png) [@GodlessSkeptic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GodlessSkeptic)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2003, 4:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientism-good-or-bad/184558/127 "2003-07-05T04:23:45Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by lekatt \* > \*\*As in all systems “what is said” and “what is done” rarely match. > > Albert Einstein said when his Relativity Theory came under fire by the established scientists: “people rarely change their minds, the old just die off and the young ones pick up the new ideas.” > > Scientists are still trying to deny the spiritual world in spite of evidence and proof it exists. > > [http://www.ndeweb.com/cgi-bin/discus/show.cgi?tpc=65&post=730#POST730](http://www.ndeweb.com/cgi-bin/discus/show.cgi?tpc=65&post=730#POST730) > > In posting on this board, I have often described the “science” talked about here as just another form of religion. I think that is a good call. > > Real science seeks truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. To bad there are not more real scientists around. I could say the same thing about Christianity and Christians. > > Love > LEroy \*\* You seem to be in the habit of copy/pasting that post of yours all over the place.However it does not stand up as evidence for the spiritual sorry to say. “Real science” is about using the scientific method to understadn the universe we live in, regardless of what the search reveals about the likely existence or non-existence of the “spirit”.There has not been a properly controlled study demonstrating the existence of the soul, the spiritual world, magic, ghosts or the afterlife thus far. There’s that true scottsman again. ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2003, 2:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientism-good-or-bad/184558/128 "2003-07-05T14:09:18Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by blowero \* > But you switched arguments on us. What you said before was that the Razor doesn’t set the “rational default” for all of humanity. What you seem to be saying now is that some people _apply_ it incorrectly. That is an entirely different proposition. Well, my main proposition is that, though I like the principle, it isn’t that impressive to me. And it definitely seems to have come up in this debate through a strange route. It seems off-topic, actually. > [@](#): > > What I am saying is that Occams Razor _must_ be the default position of any rational thinker, because the alternative is to accept an infinite number of unsupported, extraneous explanations for _everything_. But it doesn’t tell you what is extraneous, so as a cleaver it isn’t the best thing going. I think far too much credit is given to this principle. A butcher could have the best blade in the world but if he doesn’t know where to cut he won’t put bread on the table. I think the razor principle is very much along the same lines: all the important work is done before hand. What is important is knowing where to cut; I don’t really see a large problem with people creating multiply redundant explanitory entities everywhere just waiting for some sound thinker to slice those useless appendages away. > [@](#): > > Whether given individuals are successful in correctly applying the principle has no bearing on its soundness as an idea. Perhaps so. I’ve never seen a problem with its use per se, I’ve seen a problem where people argue over whether or not something is extraneous and added, shall we say, out of vanity. But really, I don’t know if it is a sound idea or not; certainly most thinkers for a long time only tried to posit what was necessary. Perhaps I don’t know my history of critical thinkers well, but it seems to me that most of them suffered only from wanting to explain everything rather than explaining the same thing too many ways. Also, in general we don’t have a way to demonstrate a multiplicity of similar entities. The soundness of the principle only seems so because similar entities would be indistinguishable. It is a tool to create concise _explanations_; whether or not this is how things really are is, as ever, outside the scope of empirical inquiry once we start thinking of methods and principles as seperate from the people that apply them. ---
**Author:** ![GodlessSkeptic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/5f9b8f/32.png) [@GodlessSkeptic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GodlessSkeptic)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2003, 2:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientism-good-or-bad/184558/129 "2003-07-05T14:41:40Z")
erislover:Occam’s most certainly DOES tell us “where to cut”. If my car breaks down on the freeway and my mechanic friend shows me that I have thrown a rod but my supernaturalist friend says “You have done something to incur the wrath of gremlins!”, is it not obvious where we cut?The natural explanation that does not require us multiplying entities unnecessarily is that my car has thrown a rod.The “gremlin” offering invokes an unwarranted inference(or two) which itself invokes a series of new questions which cannot likely be answered(What are gremlins?What have I done to anger them?What are they made of and why can’t we detect them? etc.). ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2003, 4:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientism-good-or-bad/184558/130 "2003-07-05T16:06:29Z")
_If my car breaks down on the freeway and my mechanic friend shows me that I have thrown a rod but my supernaturalist friend says “You have done something to incur the wrath of gremlins!”, is it not obvious where we cut?_ It is obvious where we cut, **GodlessSkeptic** , but I think you are mistaken that Ockham’s razor tells you. ---
**Author:** ![errata](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/839c29/32.png) [@errata](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/errata)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2003, 5:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientism-good-or-bad/184558/131 "2003-07-05T17:49:08Z")
> [@](#): > > _Originally posted by blowero_I have to butt in here because I really take exception to that remark. Unless you believe that unneccessary additions of extraneous entities to explain phenomena should be the rational default, I don’t see how you can say this. No, thanks for giving me an opportunity to address you both simultaneously. **GodlessSkeptic** **blowero** , Occam’s razor, as your are refferring to it, is a priniciple used in the philosophy of science to weed out certain explanations. In general philosophy, it can be used for almost anything depending upon your disposition. If one is a theist, then God would be necessary, and understanding God through reason would be unecessary. As indeed the namesake, the Franciscan monk William of Ockham, used “Occam’s Razor” for. He didn’t invent it though, this was apparently a widely respected logical tool [in the Middle Ages](http://skepdic.com/occam.html) (pre-scientific understanding). Outside of the realm of science, using Occam’s razor is a matter of preference and can be used differently according to one’s initial assumptions. Saying it is “irrational” or “rational” for human beings in general to hold unfalsifiable beliefs is based upon your preferences. It is not a scientific hypothesis, theory, or fact. Just because something is outside of the scope of science, that does not make it uneccessary, non-existant, irrational,or not worthwhile to human beings. Science does not make any of these claims. But for some reason you both feel the need to make it. Just as some people feel the need to know that god does exist, I think you both feel the emotional need to know that god does _not_ exist. Either of you, tell me what field of science tells us a “rational default” regarding non-coporeal entities? Is it physics, mathematics, chemistry? What business is it of any of these fields to make such a decision? Furthermore, how is this “rational default” falsifiable? ---
**Author:** ![lekatt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lekatt/32/7269_2.png) [@lekatt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lekatt)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2003, 7:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientism-good-or-bad/184558/132 "2003-07-05T19:04:40Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by GodlessSkeptic \* > \*\*You seem to be in the habit of copy/pasting that post of yours all over the place.However it does not stand up as evidence for the spiritual sorry to say. > > “Real science” is about using the scientific method to understadn the universe we live in, regardless of what the search reveals about the likely existence or non-existence of the “spirit”.There has not been a properly controlled study demonstrating the existence of the soul, the spiritual world, magic, ghosts or the afterlife thus far. > > There’s that true scottsman again. \*\* Please don’t tell me the research isn’t any good. Write the doctors that conducted the controlled study and tell them that they don’t know what they are doing. Since it was published in the “Lancet” I would think other doctors felt it was ok, or it would not have been published. Don’t forget, the last time, you complained about the link, you admitted that you hadn’t read it yet. You need to gain some knowledge of how science works if you think the study is not valid. Also in reading some of your other posts I learned you know nothing about spiritual things, attibuting all sorts of irrational behaviour to them. Show your proof, show your evidence, make me believe you know something about science. Love Leroy ---
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2003, 7:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientism-good-or-bad/184558/133 "2003-07-05T19:35:32Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by errata \* > **GodlessSkeptic** **blowero** , > Occam’s razor, as your are refferring to it, is a priniciple used in the philosophy of science to weed out certain explanations. In general philosophy, it can be used for almost anything depending upon your disposition. If one is a theist, then God would be necessary, and understanding God through reason would be unecessary. The Razor is a tool FOR reasoning. To apply the Razor to a case where you say reason is “unneccessary” is nonsensical. > [@](#): > > As indeed the namesake, the Franciscan monk William of Ockham, used “Occam’s Razor” for. He didn’t invent it though, this was apparently a widely respected logical tool > [in the Middle Ages](http://skepdic.com/occam.html) (pre-scientific understanding). You seem to be implying that because Ockham was a monk, he applied the Razor to prove God’s existence. IIRC, that is not the case. And your suggestion that the Middle Ages pre-dated scientific understanding is patently absurd. Scientific principles existed before the Middle Ages by AT LEAST 1,000 years. > [@](#): > > Outside of the realm of science, using Occam’s razor is a matter of preference and can be used differently according to one’s initial assumptions. Saying it is “irrational” or “rational” for human beings in general to hold unfalsifiable beliefs is based upon your preferences. With all due respect, that’s just bullshit. It is indeed irrational to hold beliefs for which there is no evidence. The very definition of “rational” is that a belief is based on _reason_. You cannot use Occam’s Razor as you wish “based upon your initial assumptions” if those assumptions violate the Razor. You are certainly entitled to question anyone’s individual application of the Razor, but as I have said over and over, that does not invalidate the Razor ITSELF. > [@](#): > > It is not a scientific hypothesis, theory, or fact. No, it is an eminently practical tool of reasoning. You are free to start from the assumption that the Invisible Pink Unicorn exists, but in my opinion, such a position is untenable. > [@](#): > > Just because something is outside of the scope of science, that does not make it uneccessary, non-existant, irrational,or not worthwhile to human beings. I’m not sure what you mean by “outside the scope of science”, but I will say this: If something is outside the scope of reason, then it is BY DEFINITION irrational. And if something exists outside of our ability to observe it, then it is meaningless for us to discuss it. It’s certainly possible that things exist that we have no way of interacting with, but from our point of view, they are unimportant. (That is _until_ there is some way to observe them). > [@](#): > > Science does not make any of these claims. But for some reason you both feel the need to make it. I made no such claim. > [@](#): > > Just as some people feel the need to know that god does exist, I think you both feel the emotional need to know that god does _not_ exist. That is an exceedingly weak argument. You are attempting to demonstrate your claim that Occam’s Razor is not a valid principle of reasoning by inventing some alleged emotional motivation for those who disagree with you. Very poor debating form. It would make about as much sense if I said you hate Occam’s Razor because your Mom read it to you the same night that you wet your bed. And let me also point out that this: > [@](#): > > * * * > > Originally posted by errata > Occam’s razor is an excellent tool for the philosophy of science. It doesn’t set the “rational default” for all of humanity and I don’t think it really tries to. > > * * * is what started the argument. I’d sure love to know how you think that, by disagreeing with the above statement of yours, that I am saying I “know” God doesn’t exist. I don’t even want to guess how many leaps of reasoning you made to get to that one. > [@](#): > > Either of you, tell me what field of science tells us a “rational default” regarding non-coporeal entities? Is it physics, mathematics, chemistry? What business is it of any of these fields to make such a decision? We do not have different “rational defaults” for different entities. The default is always the same - We don’t arbitrarily believe things for which there is no evidence. Your “non-corporeal” entities are subject to the same scrutiny as any other concept. Define “non-corporeal entity”, and tell us what the evidence is to support its existence. Why should it be immune from scrutiny? ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2003, 9:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientism-good-or-bad/184558/134 "2003-07-05T21:32:03Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by lekatt \* > \*\*Please don’t tell me the research isn’t any good. \*\* Okay, the reseach is fine; it’s the conclusion that can’t be supported. Occam’s Razor still has to apply, and since we already know that the human body and brain are extremely complex and that some of the functions continue to elude us, it’s easy to believe that allegedly miraculous events are due to the mundane reasons of: [ul][li]Medical error, in declaring a person dead when spontaneous recovery was possible and eventually occured;[/li][li]Hallucinations of passing through a lighted tunnel, etc., from oxygen deprivation; and[/li][li]A patient being able to absorb information through the senses even during unconsciousness, and later relating that information.[/ul][/li] I see no reason whatsoever to discard a satisfactory explanation (medical science is not yet able to explain everything that can happen to a human body) and replace it with something more elaborate (a spirit world exists with which an injured person can interact, though the mechanism remains unknown). Had I to give a grant to people studying NDEs, my money would go to the medical researchers studying neuroscience, rather than the mystics. ---
**Author:** ![errata](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/839c29/32.png) [@errata](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/errata)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2003, 10:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientism-good-or-bad/184558/135 "2003-07-05T22:34:46Z")
> [@](#): > > _originally posted by blowero_ > The Razor is a tool FOR reasoning. To apply the Razor to a case where you say reason is “unneccessary” is nonsensical. This was Occam’s case not mine. > [@](#): > > You seem to be implying that because Ockham was a monk, he applied the Razor to prove God’s existence. IIRC, that is not the case. I’m not sure where you got that impression.What I said was that he used it to say that knowing god through reason was uneccesary. > [@](#): > > With all due respect, that’s just bullshit. Respect or no, let’s leave the expletives out of this. They hardly make your point. > [@](#): > > It is indeed irrational to hold beliefs for which there is no evidence. The very definition of “rational” is that a belief is based on _reason_. You cannot use Occam’s Razor as you wish “based upon your initial assumptions” if those assumptions violate the Razor. I’m not sure what this is. Is this a command? I “cannot”? It doesn’t resemble a proof very much. > [@](#): > > You are certainly entitled to question anyone’s individual application of the Razor, but as I have said over and over, that does not invalidate the Razor ITSELF. I wasn’t trying to invalidate the Razor. Just pointing out that you were applying it out of context of the fields of science. > [@](#): > > I’m not sure what you mean by “outside the scope of science”, but I will say this: If something is outside the scope of reason, then it is BY DEFINITION irrational. Reason is not limited by the scope of science. Scientific endeavors do not attempt to encompass all reason. > [@](#): > > And if something exists outside of our ability to observe it, then it is meaningless for us to discuss it. It’s certainly possible that things exist that we have no way of interacting with, but from our point of view, they are unimportant. (That is _until_ there is some way to observe them). Inside of scientific disciplines this is emminently obvious as it is part of the assumptions of science. Outside of the actual practice of science, it simply becomes your opinion. > [@](#): > > That is an exceedingly weak argument. You are attempting to demonstrate your claim that Occam’s Razor is not a valid principle of reasoning by inventing some alleged emotional motivation for those who disagree with you. As I said above my attempt was not to invalidate Occam’s razor but show that your assumptions were out of context. The emotional stuff is an aside and not related to my argument. Although your reaction to and magnification of it is very telling to me, I’m not pursuing that as a line of reasoning. > [@](#): > > And let me also point out that this: > > is what started the argument. I’d sure love to know how you think that, by disagreeing with the above statement of yours, that I am saying I “know” God doesn’t exist. I don’t even want to guess how many leaps of reasoning you made to get to that one. Yes I remember it well. This is how you responded: > [@](#): > > Unless you believe that unneccessary additions of extraneous entities to explain phenomena should be the rational default, I don’t see how you can say this. Let’s see, a direct reference to the extraneous entities, presumably non-corporeal entities like God, no? You go on posit that there is something called a “rational default” which would exclude such entities. Finally, I found your need for a rational default unwarranted. There was some speculation involved certainly, yet as I said, it was more of an aside and was not crucial to what I was saying. > [@](#): > > We do not have different “rational defaults” for different entities. The default is always the same - We don’t arbitrarily believe things for which there is no evidence. Who is we? Maybe you are speaking for the scientific community only in the context of doing their jobs which I have no problem with. But if you are trying pronouncements for all humanity then I think you are mistaken. > [@](#): > > Your “non-corporeal” entities are subject to the same scrutiny as any other concept. Define “non-corporeal entity”, and tell us what the evidence is to support its existence. Why should it be immune from scrutiny? I am neither trying to prove the existence of non-corporeal entities, nor define them. I am saying that an attempt to establish a “rational default” for humanity is not part of any scientific discipline. ---
**Author:** ![lekatt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lekatt/32/7269_2.png) [@lekatt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lekatt)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2003, 11:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientism-good-or-bad/184558/136 "2003-07-05T23:44:42Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Bryan Ekers \* > \*\*Okay, the reseach is fine; it’s the conclusion that can’t be supported. Occam’s Razor still has to apply, and since we already know that the human body and brain are extremely complex and that some of the functions continue to elude us, it’s easy to believe that allegedly miraculous events are due to the mundane reasons of: > [ul][li]Medical error, in declaring a person dead when spontaneous recovery was possible and eventually occured;[/li][li]Hallucinations of passing through a lighted tunnel, etc., from oxygen deprivation; and[/li][li]A patient being able to absorb information through the senses even during unconsciousness, and later relating that information.[/ul][/li] > I see no reason whatsoever to discard a satisfactory explanation (medical science is not yet able to explain everything that can happen to a human body) and replace it with something more elaborate (a spirit world exists with which an injured person can interact, though the mechanism remains unknown). > > Had I to give a grant to people studying NDEs, my money would go to the medical researchers studying neuroscience, rather than the mystics. \*\* What you stated has nothing to do with the research, I guess you didn’t read it either. These researchers were not mystics, very funny, but sad that you talk as if you know when you don’t. Read the research, please, then comment on it. ---
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2003, 8:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientism-good-or-bad/184558/137 "2003-07-06T08:28:25Z")
> [@](#): > > ## \*Originally posted by errata \* quote: > > ## originally posted by blowero The Razor is a tool FOR reasoning. To apply the Razor to a case where you say reason is “unneccessary” is nonsensical. > > This was Occam’s case not mine. I don’t think so. If I remember correctly, Ockham wrote that the Razor was _not applicable_ to spirituality. He did not, however, claim that God was necessitated by the Razor. And he most certainly never said it “can be used for almost anything depending upon your disposition.” So please don’t try to cop out of what you wrote by claiming Ockham said it. > [@](#): > > I’m not sure where you got that impression.What I said was that he used it to say that knowing god through reason was uneccesary. You seem to be switching arguments now. Before, you said “If one is a theist, then God would be necessary”. You DO realize that “necessary” and “not applicable” are not the same thing, don’t you? To put it simply, you _can_ claim that Occam’s Razor supports God-belief, but you would be wrong. > [@](#): > > ## quote: > > ## It is indeed irrational to hold beliefs for which there is no evidence. The very definition of “rational” is that a belief is based on reason. You cannot use Occam’s Razor as you wish “based upon your initial assumptions” if those assumptions violate the Razor. > > I’m not sure what this is. Is this a command? I “cannot”? It doesn’t resemble a proof very much. You don’t know what it is? It’s called logic. What exactly didn’t you understand about it? > [@](#): > > ## quote: > > ## You are certainly entitled to question anyone’s individual application of the Razor, but as I have said over and over, that does not invalidate the Razor ITSELF. > > I wasn’t trying to invalidate the Razor. Just pointing out that you were applying it out of context of the fields of science. I don’t recall doing that. Please provide a quote of my mis-application of Occam’s Razor, or retract your statement. > [@](#): > > ## quote: > > ## I’m not sure what you mean by “outside the scope of science”, but I will say this: If something is outside the scope of reason, then it is BY DEFINITION irrational. > > Reason is not limited by the scope of science. > Scientific endeavors do not attempt to encompass all reason. But you do agree that faith is not equivalent to reason, don’t you? > [@](#): > > ## quote: > > ## And if something exists outside of our ability to observe it, then it is meaningless for us to discuss it. It’s certainly possible that things exist that we have no way of interacting with, but from our point of view, they are unimportant. (That is until there is some way to observe them). > > Inside of scientific disciplines this is emminently obvious as it is part of the assumptions of science. Outside of the actual practice of science, it simply becomes your opinion. In the sense that everything I have written here is my opinion, that’s true. I’m not sure what your point is, though. Let me ask you this - From our point of view, what exactly is the difference between a real entity that we can’t observe, doesn’t affect us, and that we can’t interact with in any way, and an imaginary entity? > [@](#): > > As I said above my attempt was not to invalidate Occam’s razor but show that your assumptions were out of context. The emotional stuff is an aside and not related to my argument. Although your reaction to and magnification of it is very telling to me, I’m not pursuing that as a line of reasoning. Now you’re just being childish. > [@](#): > > ## quote: > > ## Unless you believe that unneccessary additions of extraneous entities to explain phenomena should be the rational default, I don’t see how you can say this. > > Let’s see, a direct reference to the extraneous entities, presumably non-corporeal entities like God, no? _Your_ presumption, not mine. > [@](#): > > You go on posit that there is something called a “rational default” Your terminology, not mine. > [@](#): > > ## quote: > > ## We do not have different “rational defaults” for different entities. The default is always the same - We don’t arbitrarily believe things for which there is no evidence. > > Who is we? Logical thinkers. > [@](#): > > ## quote: > > ## Your “non-corporeal” entities are subject to the same scrutiny as any other concept. Define “non-corporeal entity”, and tell us what the evidence is to support its existence. Why should it be immune from scrutiny? > > I am neither trying to prove the existence of non-corporeal entities, nor define them. I am saying that an attempt to establish a “rational default” for humanity is not part of any scientific discipline. We were discussing Occam’s Razor at the moment. It’s getting very frustrating when you keep switching tack. You said Occam’s Razor was not the rational default, and I responded to that statement. I’m not interested in arguing strawmen that you make up. ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2003, 2:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientism-good-or-bad/184558/138 "2003-07-06T14:07:57Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by blowero \* > We do not have different “rational defaults” for different entities. The default is always the same - We don’t arbitrarily believe things for which there is no evidence. Absolutely! I’d shudder to think there are millions and millions of people out there who are just waiting to read this debate, read about Ockham’s Razor, and shout out, “Holy shit! My head needs some cleaning of unnecessaries!” The problem isn’t in the application of the razor principle, but rather in what counts as evidence. ---
**Author:** ![errata](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/839c29/32.png) [@errata](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/errata)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2003, 6:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientism-good-or-bad/184558/139 "2003-07-06T18:01:31Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by blowero \* > I don’t think so. If I remember correctly, Ockham wrote that the Razor was _not applicable_ to spirituality. He did not, however, claim that God was necessitated by the Razor. I made no such claim. I said being a theist made God necessary not Occam’s razor. You even just quoted me as such:“If one is a theist, then God would be necessary”. How did you confuse Occam’s razor with being a theist? I honestly don’t know how I could have been more clear there. Given the assumption of a God knowable through faith (if one is a theist), attempting to know God through reason would be considered unnecessary through the application of Occam’s razor. Capiche? That’s what William of Ockham did and I provided a cite to that effect. > [@](#): > > You don’t know what it is? It’s called logic. What exactly didn’t you understand about it? There’s nothing to understand. You simply restated your claim. > [@](#): > > I don’t recall doing that. Please provide a quote of my mis-application of Occam’s Razor, or retract your statement. Well, to be fair, GodlessSkeptic made the initial application, which I took exception to, and then you in turn took exception to my exception. This doesn’t necessarily mean that you endorsed GodlessSkeptic’s remark, but you haven’t differentiated yourself explicitly. So if you would like to in regards to that, go ahead. If you significantly differentiate your opinion, I will certainly retract. > [@](#): > > But you do agree that faith is not equivalent to reason, don’t you? Well, I would never equate the two. Yet I don’t think they are by definition mutually exclusive either. We have to make some assumptions at some point, or even the most reasonable will be lost in Cartesian-esque doubt. Assuming that the material world exists and that it behaves consistently enough to divine its nature through reason and direct observation alone is an elegant assumption. But it’s still an assumption nonetheless. Given this assumption, one can say that the existence of non-physical entities influencing this world are unnecessary through Occam’s razor. But not everyone makes that assumption. Now one can contend that making other assumptions are unreasonable, but so far you’ve given me no reason to believe this is anything but a contention. You also seem reluctant to offer any way to falsify this contention. ---
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2003, 8:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientism-good-or-bad/184558/140 "2003-07-06T20:37:32Z")
First let me aplogize, because I think I’m still mixing up errata and erislover. I’ve gotta stop sniffing glue… > [@](#): > > ## \*Originally posted by errata \* quote: > > ## Originally posted by blowero I don’t think so. If I remember correctly, Ockham wrote that the Razor was not applicable to spirituality. He did not, however, claim that God was necessitated by the Razor. > > I made no such claim. I said being a theist made God necessary not Occam’s razor. You even just quoted me as such:“If one is a theist, then God would be necessary”. How did you confuse Occam’s razor with being a theist? I honestly don’t know how I could have been more clear there. One way that comes to mind would be not to bury the statement IN THE MIDDLE of a paragraph about Occam’s Razor. What you wrote, including the context of the previous sentence, was: > [@](#): > > Occam’s razor, as your are refferring to it, is a priniciple used in the philosophy of science to weed out certain explanations. In general philosophy, it can be used for almost anything depending upon your disposition. If one is a theist, then God would be necessary, and understanding God through reason would be unecessary. I don’t understand - did you expect us to divorce that last sentence from the rest of the paragraph, and assume it was a complete non-sequitur, not talking about Occam’s Razor at all? You’ve got to admit you could have been a teensy bit more clear there. > [@](#): > > Given the assumption of a God knowable through faith (if one is a theist), attempting to know God through reason would be considered unnecessary through the application of Occam’s razor. Capiche? That’s what William of Ockham did and I provided a cite to that effect. Yeah, that’s what I said, except _I_ was clear about it. > [@](#): > > ## quote: > > ## You don’t know what it is? It’s called logic. What exactly didn’t you understand about it? > > There’s nothing to understand. You simply restated your claim. Because it was clear the first time, and you didn’t tell me what it was you didn’t understand. > [@](#): > > ## quote: > > ## I don’t recall doing that. Please provide a quote of my mis-application of Occam’s Razor, or retract your statement. > > Well, to be fair, GodlessSkeptic made the initial application, which I took exception to, and then you in turn took exception to my exception. This doesn’t necessarily mean that you endorsed GodlessSkeptic’s remark, but you haven’t differentiated yourself explicitly. So if you would like to in regards to that, go ahead. If you significantly differentiate your opinion, I will certainly retract. WHAAAAAT?! After you took me to task for conflating your opinion with erislover’s, you NOW contend that it is acceptable to do so, so long as the person never explicitly disagreed with the other person? I don’t recall you explicitly disagreeing with erislover, so I guess my apology at the top of the post was unneccesary. At any rate, I do not give you permission to implictly assume any argument on my behalf, whether I explicitly disagreed with the argument or not. > [@](#): > > ## quote: > > ## But you do agree that faith is not equivalent to reason, don’t you? > > Well, I would never equate the two. Yet I don’t think they are by definition mutually exclusive either. We have to make some assumptions at some point, or even the most reasonable will be lost in Cartesian-esque doubt. Assuming that the material world exists and that it behaves consistently enough to divine its nature through reason and direct observation alone is an elegant assumption. But it’s still an assumption nonetheless. > > Given this assumption, one can say that the existence of non-physical entities influencing this world are unnecessary through Occam’s razor. But not everyone makes that assumption. > > Now one can contend that making other assumptions are unreasonable, but so far you’ve given me no reason to believe this is anything but a contention. You also seem reluctant to offer any way to falsify this contention. That all sounds suspiciously like solipsism. And I am not merely reluctant to falsify it, I am _unable_ to falsify it. Which is precisely my objection to such a philosophy; I believe it is by its nature unfalsifyable. You are quite correct that “the material world exists and that it behaves consistently enough to divine its nature through reason and direct observation” is an assumption on my part. And I cannot _disprove_ other initial assumptions. Yes, we _could_ all be bodies in pods a la The Matrix, and life could be but a dream, etc., but assuming as much does not increase our knowledge in any way. Since we can’t disprove such ruminations, the only philosophy that makes sense is to withhold belief in such things until such time as there is some sort of evidence one way or another. If you don’t agree with that, then I guess there is no reason to continue this discussion; we may as well be speaking different languages. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientism-good-or-bad/184558.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientism-good-or-bad/184558.md?page=8)