Thank you for the link. This is the first I've seen
the word 'scientism'.
You can see my response below.
it isn’t. Science entails an obligation to do the best you
is acceptable to draw conclusions from limited data if you
nothing more; and you can do without rigorous controlled
if they are impractical. But to be scientific you
continually seeking to do better, testing your
checking for biase
you have an emotional commitment to a desired answer, then
itself isn’t unscientific, but it is a warning flag that you
highly prone to a biased assessment and so to a false
you think that holding to the desired answer is more
the evidence for that answer then you’re being
unscientific. (Following is
a personal comment from me, Randy. I also think you
are being dogmatic and are infected by dogma if the
statement above describes you.) If your
emotional commitment to a faith (perhaps a religious faith)
is clouding your judgement over the evidence for that faith
you’re being unscientific. And if you point airily at “other
of knowing” as an excuse to pretend that you don’t need to
provide evidence then you are being unscientific.
I agree, and Randy you are holding to a desired answer that you
find more important than the evidence for that answer when you
deny the definition of a word, like dogma. You want it to mean
something that it does not. The system that is science is
As far as definitions go, Coel's blog is simply defining science as
knowledge. Which I can agree to as the word comes from the
which means knowledge. His definition also
applies to philosophy, as philosophy comes from the Greek,
, which translates to love of wisdom. He paints
science with a broad brush which I have no problem with, it
will make for an interesting philosophical discussion.
I especially like the fact that he doesn't seem to believe that
is an absolute truth. That all reality is empirical. He also
that morality is not absolute, this gives credence to religion.
comes for the remakes that follow the article, in which Coel
his reasoning in discussion.)
On[masked]:57, Randy Pelton
While reading one of Jerry Coyne's blog posts I found
my way to another blog post that I think to be one of the
best descriptions of science I have ever read. I highly
recommend this piece to all of you.
is the post in its entirety. It is lengthy but, IMO, well
worth the read. Above I have also provided the link to the
original post. I recommend reading the entire essay. I
have taken the liberty of bold-facing and italicizing some
sections that I found of particular interest, importance
think all will benefit from reading and pondering this
essay. There are a few who will, in my opinion, benefit
more than others because of their repeated demonstration
of a limited understanding of science and self-imposed
restricted definition of it. I look forward to the
discussion and debate that will follow.
does “science” in “scientism” mean?