Thought on the Folly of Scientism

One hears this sentiment often–and hears it from atheists in particular–but the fact of the matter is that the person who claims that ‘believing that which is the result of science and experimentation is the only (or the best) thing that we should believe if we are to be rational’ is actually an irrational fool, and he is a fool not because his claim is patently wrong–although it is, for there is ample truth that science cannot even touch–but he is a fool precisely because his own claim is not something that can be put through the scientific method or through experimentation given that it is a philosophical claim and must perpetually remain so, thereby meaning that the claimant’s own claim is not a claim that we would be rational to accept for it is not the result of “science”; ergo, by glorifying and almost deifying science as the only or best tool from which truth and rationality can arise, the claimant either outright refutes his own claim or undermines it to the point that we should wonder why we should ever accept it, and any person who consciously does that is indeed a fool.

Advertisements

4 thoughts on “Thought on the Folly of Scientism

  1. How were you able to type those words and have people around the world see them?
    Scientism isn’t . trust in what can be actually verified to be true is not even close to an ism. Just another spin tactic to put forward a false equivalency. How does it feel to denounce reality to support what can’t be proven to exist?

    Like

    • What stupidity. First off, technology, engineering, trial and error are not science. They may make use of some scientific results, but they are not science. Second, this idiocy about ‘denouncing reality’ is precisely that…idiocy. The fact is that the only person denying reality is the person who believes that science is the only way to discover reality. Third, as with most science fetishists–as I am assuming you are–you likely just assume scientific realism, and yet the debate between scientific realism and other non-realist positions is by no means clear-cut in favor of the realist, and so to say that denying “science” is to deny reality shows that you don’t even know the debates that surround the status of science itself. Please, educate yourself about these issues–such as scientific realism and non-realism–and then feel free to return, or not, for a more fulsome discussion.

      Like

  2. Hahaha….KIA, you are like the person who cries out in pain as he hits someone else. After all, you start this conservation off by telling me that I deny reality, and then you acted shocked when I reply harshly to that charge. The irony would be funny if it were not so pathetic….

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s