>It is foolish to think that the successes of modern science either prove, or even render probable, the overconfident claim that science alone can reveal to us everything that is real. Feser offers an analogous line of reasoning to expose the fallacy (thereby suitably mocking one of today’s most cherished — and dumbest — cultural prejudices):
>1. 1. Metal detectors have had far greater success in finding coins and other metallic objects in more places than any other method has.
>2. Therefore what metal detectors reveal to us (coins and other metallic objects) is probably all that is real.
Where were you when scientism was finally and forever BTFO?
"Scientism" is a christ-fag strawman
sophistry
>>481664
>Where were you when scientism was finally and forever BTFO?
I wasn't born when Kuhn published.
>>481679
>>481664
No one here is actually a scientism fag.
>>481664
It is true that the validity of science does not rationally establish that science is the only means of determining reality. However, bear in mind that this fact does not itself establish the validity of other means of knowing them either. You have to demonstrate that separately.
>>481664
that's good bait OP, but I already ate today.
>>481836
No one anyone is for "scientistm". It's not a label anyone gives to themself, it's a strawman Christ-fags use.
The closest thing would be a logical postivist or a radical emperisist, but even those people acknowledge that there are truths outside of science. Creating fictional enemies seems to be a common thing in Christianity; for centuaires they were worried about "satan worshiping cults" or "witches"
>>482140
You meant:
>No one is a "scientismist"
>emperisist
empiricist
The people making absurd claims don't know what logical positivism or empiricism are to profess those beliefs.
>>482147
Logical postivism and empiricism in and of themselves aren't objectionable, it's when they become deified that scientism emerges. Logical positivists and empiricists don't necessarily think science is the only way to move society forward, but most people who think that are logical postivists or empiricists.
>>481679
>Alex Rosenberg is an atheist. He describes himself as a Scientistic naturalist.
>In 2011 Rosenberg published a defense of what he called "Scientism"—the claim that "the persistent questions" people ask about the nature of reality, the purpose of things, the foundations of value and morality, the way the mind works, the basis of personal identity, and the course of human history, could all be answered by the resources of science.
>>482140
>Christ fags generalize the views of positivists and radical empiricists
>they're wrong, let me tell you why by generalizing their views as the complete opposite
You've been living under a rock if you dont think scientism is all the rage today
>It is foolish to think that the successes of modern science either prove, or even render probable, the overconfident claim that science alone can reveal to us everything that is real
That's not the claim scientism people make. Their belief that there is nothing except the natural world isn't a *result* of their belief that science is the best form of inquiry, it's the *reason* for it. Leave it to a Thomist to mix up causes and effects
>>481664
>the overconfident claim that science alone can reveal to us everything that is real.
Who has argued that though?
Science is clearly the best way to reach physical facts about reality, but it's certainly not the only way to "know" something.
>the overconfident claim that science alone can reveal to us everything that is real
Which incidentally is also a claim no one has ever made
>>484639
>Science is clearly the best way to reach physical facts about reality, but it's certainly not the only way to "know" something.
And lets be honest, it's pretty shitty at that. We know that there's certain things that's false for this generation of scientists but that's it.
>>484661
>And lets be honest, it's pretty shitty at that.
Well that's your opinion.
It's still the best we got.
>>484641
I make that claim all the time.
>>484641
>>484639
I love how every other post in a religion thread is cringey fedora reddit shit but soon as you try to open up a discussion it's all I don't know what you're talking about maaaan no one deifies pop sci icons or disparages whole traditions and thousands of years of metaphysics based on a high school understanding of scientific epistemology chill out bro rofl
>>484665
> It's still the best we got.
Won't argue that.
>>484671
That might have something to do with reality not following your bullshit strawmen
>>484671
Sounds like a bullshit excuse to shitpost.
Why should you care if people disparage thousands of years of metaphysics, or deify pop sci icons?
Christians literally deify anyone from John the Baptist to Mother Theresa, and thinks other religions metaphysics is false as well.
Maybe you should take the stick out of your ass.
>>484693
Literally go in any religion thread and get back to me. Drop the see no evil hear no evil shit bruh I could spot that fedora a mile away
>>484699
Because I'm not Christian and this is a board where people like to talk about things
>>484701
And that might have something to do with your massive confirmation bias
