There's A Difference Between Being Open-Minded, And Being Just Plain Stupid...

[BlooInBloo]

And the difference is fairly well described here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T69TOuqaqXI

[Heidi]

1. "Automatically open-minded" is a very, very high standard,

and one to which I aspire. I wish more people understood that the tone and deportment of the bearer of the message carries a good deal of weight. I cannot possibly be the only person more likely to consider the argument of the rational, "What do think you about this theory/idea/practice?" message bearer than the "YOU NARROW-MINDED BIGOTED SHREW!11!!!!" message bearer.

Some of us are not doing our "beliefs" any favors. That's all I'm sayin'.

ETA: Well, in fact, I _know_ there are some concepts to which I am not, nor do I wish to be, automatically open-minded. Perhaps this is what the OP means by "just plain stupid."

[bridgit]

2. That's what I've been saying for years...ghosts *are* powered by little fans on the floor

[BlooInBloo]

3. I lol'd.

:rofl:

[NashVegas]

4. When "Scientists" Tell Us to Be Open-Minded To, Say, Cloning Animals For Food

They're nothing more than capitalist tools who deserve to get their backsides handed to them.

[BlooInBloo]

5. hahahaah!

[angstlessk]

15. thank fucking god...religionists never delve into the realm of moneymaking!

[angstlessk]

6. I am an athiest and had an experience I cannot explain...but it COULD

just be coincedence? Though because of the circumstances it makes me think otherwise. My sisters daughter was killed in an accident when she (my niece) was just 17... just weeks before I met a man who I enjoyed talking with and we spent one night together though we did not have sex..and he asked that I might 'forgive any errant hard-on he might experience'. He introduced me to a book "Life After Life" .. I read the book and it was beautiful. Then I got the phone call, my niece was killed. My mom and I traveled to FL for the funeral and I was not even capable of helping my sister...all I could do was give her the book "Life After Life" ..which gave her comfort that any words from me could never produce. I returned home earlier than my mom who stayed behind to help my sister and because it was close to my sisters birthday (we were both born in the same month 2 years apart) I was going to get her a birthday card. Well, I stopped at a grocery store I had NEVER stopped at because it was a manuver to drive into the parking lot, but for some reason decided to buy some groceries that day from that store...I happened upon the card display and purchased some birthday cards for my two nephews and my other neice with no problem...but when trying to select one for my sister, I picked up a card, put it back, picked up a card and put it back..picked up a card and put it back..this happened about 6 times...finally I selected the card I wanted to send. I mailed my sister her birthday card - the first one I had sent since she left home...and she bought me a card too..which my mother brought home in her suitcase...AND IT WAS THE EXACT SAME CARD I SENT TO HER!!!!

Coincidence? possibly..PS...I never saw that man again he never returned to the spot I had met him, though I tried to go back there to tell him how much I appreciated the book that helped soothe my sister!!!

[BlooInBloo]

7. Pop quiz time, class! Which part of the video most directly relates to this post?

[angstlessk]

8. That not believing in the 'man in they sky' does not mean one does not experience

the unexplainable?

[angstlessk]

9. oh, yes...and I am still open minded enough to believe that other than the 'man in the sky'

there are MANY things yet to be explained!

[originalpckelly]

12. BUT WHO WAS PHONE?

[originalpckelly]

11. There's a problem with being an atheist:

You presume to know that there's no God without any more evidence than the people who presume God exists, beyond the claims of the various religions that can be falsified.

[angstlessk]

14. Which god do you speak of..the one invented by jewish men for jewish men in the old testatment?

or the christian god created by christian men in the new testatment..or maybe zeus? or hermes? pick which god I should 'believe' in?

[originalpckelly]

17. I'm not saying that you should believe in anything, on the other hand...

making a statement that an unfalsifiable claim is falsifiable (you know there is no God without being able to prove it) makes you just as foolish and full of crap as a religious person.

[angstlessk]

honey, you need to go back to one plus one equals 11..since you

have problems with the english language..unfalsifiable??? is that even a word???

[originalpckelly]

19. Yes, and means you can't prove something isn't true.

If you don't believe me, you can haul out a dictionary, or look it up on Google:
http://www.google.com/search?q=define%3A+unfalsifiable&ie

And since you're obviously under the influence of superiority, I would like to inform you that if you thought the 1+1 shit was even there for any valid purpose, then you're not superior to any religious person.

It's like walking into a tent that has a sign outside saying, "6 foot man eating chicken" asking for the chicken, because all you see is some dude eating chicken.

[angstlessk]

20. honey, you are certifiable..and I do believe that IS a word!..

6 foot man eating chicken??? in a tent??? dude eating chicken??? and god???

[originalpckelly]

21. I guess you've only heard it as a 200lb man eating chicken.

It's called being a sucker, and guess what? You're a sucker, but you don't think you are, because you have a sense of superiority, and that's the reason you're a sucker.

Do you really think someone falls for a scam by understanding how little they know? No, they presume to know it all, and that gives them a higher self assessment of their skepticism, causing them to lack skepticism of their own judgment.

The part about the chicken, is the scam. Once you get it, although you may never get it, you'll shit brix.

[angstlessk]

24. sugar, your sense that everyone with an opinion different than yours has some sense of superority

will be your undoing..I am not superior.,.you think you are...i am your equal..which you will never accept..because you TRULY believe you are superior!

[originalpckelly]

27. Being an atheist is very different from being an agnostic.

I presume to know nothing about this subject, you on the other hand presume to know without any real information that God does not exist. The religulous among us presume to know God exists. The only real knowledge is that we cannot know, outside of claims that we can prove are false/true.

Human beings tend to fill in the multiple choice question of life with anything other than the "incomplete information" option. Unfortunately, in many areas, there is incomplete information.

You superiority, I would suggest, comes from your statement that you're an atheist and that you know God doesn't exist.

[dmallind]

36. Yes it is but not in the way you apparently think

Being an atheist means lacking belief in gods. It's an ontological position. It is subdivided into weak atheism - those who say "No I don't believe you - prove it!" to claims of gods and strong atheism - those who say "no gods can possibly exist and I can prove it!" to such claims. The latter is BY FAR the smaller group.

Agnosticism on the other hand (a word invented in 1869 with copious writings on exactly what the originator intended) is an epistemological construct on whether (and how) we can KNOW the answer to that and similar questions. It is simply the rejection of gnosis or mystical certainty derived from revelation, and means we cannot know for sure without objective data, which is unavailable.

Atheism is an answer to the question "do you believe in any gods?".

Agnosticism is an answer to the question "How do you know whether any gods exist?"

It is only in the last couple of decades of timid sloppy usage that the silly idea has come about that agnosticism is a middle way or third option to the first question. It is asinine to imagine that "there is no way I can know for sure" is an answer to a question of belief. You either believe or you do not. Whether you think it can be proven or not is an entirely separate question.

Like most nonbelievers I am 100% atheist AND 100% agnostic. They refer to two entirely separate characteristics and no more conflict than being overweight and having green eyes.

[originalpckelly]

60. I can redefine red to mean blue, and that's what you're doing.

My statements are consistent with the modern definition of the words.
Atheist:
# the doctrine or belief that there is no God
# a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=define%3A+atheism&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&oq=

Agnostic:
# someone who is doubtful or noncommittal about something
# of or pertaining to an agnostic or agnosticism
# a person who claims that they cannot have true knowledge about the existence of God (but does not deny that God might exist)
# uncertain of all claims to knowledge
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=define%3A+agnostic&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&oq=

For some of us in this world, we do not respond for or against the idea of God, based upon a lack of knowledge of the subject.

[dmallind]

62. As you yourself point out, that has already been done

Words MEAN things. The ramblings of lexicographers notwithstanding.

Even in your own listing atheism has the EXACT two definitions I already gave. A lack of belief in something is not and can never be the same thing as a belief in the absence of something. Atheism then, in strong and weak forms, refers to both. But the weak form is far more numerous.

Agnosticism even in this revisionist - sorry "modern" - usage answers a separate question even here. Notice the most specific and relevant definition refers to KNOWLEDGE. Knowledge <> belief. I believe and lack belief in all manner of things I cannot and do not know as a certainty. So do you, and all mentally functional people.

Example. Do you believe there are aliens living among us right now? Probably, and indeed hopefully, not. I don't. But I do not claim to know for sure, since it is certainly possible that a suitably capable alien race would decide to take on the guise of humans, even down to DNA, to study us unawares. This is the exact analogy for weak atheism as it pertains to the question of gods. I have absolutely no belief that aliens are among us right now. I see absolutely no evidence that they are, and there is no known way I could think of to explain or demonstrate their presence. Thus I LACK belief in these cohabiting aliens, but I absolutely do NOT claim knowledge, or have a belief as an article of faith, that there are definitely no aliens living amongst us right now. As such I am both a weak "atheist" re cohabiting aliens ( I don't believe they are here) and also an "agnostic" re them (I don't think there's any way we could ever know for sure). Both the same apply to the exactly analogous question of divine existence. A strong "atheist" would tell you it is impossible for such aliens to be on earth. Such a person cannot claim agnosticism, but that does not mean I cannot claim "atheism" given the two possible subdefinitions you yourself listed. Weak atheists massively outnumber strong atheists. Strong atheism does indeed rest on faith.

By the way dictionaries list usages, not definitions.

[immoderate]

66. Most atheists are also agnostics.

Most theists are also agnostic, they rely on faith rather than knowledge. I'm an atheist because I haven't heard any good reasons to believe in god. You got one?

Has any atheist here professed to have direct knowledge that there is no god? Is there anything written about god that wasn't made up by some person? Can you point to anything about believers in general to show that life treats them differently?

--imm

[truedelphi]

35. Having done hospice work for about twenty years

(ON and off) I can only say that I am totally open to there being a whole lot of unproveable realities working in the field of life.

I cannot prove anything I have witnessed/experienced, but my own scope of accepting the metaphysical is much greater than before.

[Taverner]

48. No, I am convinced there is no God

There is a huge difference there

And I am convinced that all religions are false

[Warren DeMontague]

29. Do you presume to know that there's not an invisible, undetectable, 500 ft. orangutan on your roof?

Sorry, but when you're dealing with zero corroborating evidence, basic logic dictates that presumption fall on the side of things NOT existing until proven otherwise.

[originalpckelly]

30. And that simple question proves why being an atheist or an agnostic...

is just about the same. The whole question is a bit of bullshit, to some degree, and all we can do is speculate. Atheist speculate in the negative, theists speculate in the positive, agnostics say you're all full of shit.

[Warren DeMontague]

31. Right, but there is a difference between absolute certainty and saying something is unlikely.

Plenty of people are religious without being absolutely 100% certain. Same with atheists.

I can say with a high degree of certainty that there is not an invisible ape on my roof. I can't say it with 100% certainty, but that doesn't mean I don't fundamentally believe he's not there. Odds are, he's not.

[originalpckelly]

55. No, what you fail to understand, is that if you set up a situation without...

any way of measuring it, you cannot know anything.

Bobby went on a 10 mile walk, he arrived home 2 hours later (5 miles one way, 5 miles the other.) How fast did Bobby walk in the first 5 miles?

You cannot know the answer to the question, I didn't provide you with information about how much time it took for Bobby to complete the first 5 miles. You can perhaps say that you can divide the time/distance up by 2 and come up with an average to find the answer, in other words he walk 5 miles per hour, but you have no real clue what's going on. You cannot say with any kind of certainty what his speed was in the first 5 miles. The most you can do is limit it to the maximum speed of any human person, perhaps a child because of the name. No more, however.

That's the problem with your invisible ape, is that you've set up a word problem in which you cannot measure anything, on its face, the word problem is pointless. And if you choose to define atheism in a non-standard way, that's OK, but in the standard modern definition, it is what I say it is. You may redefine words as you please, but they can begin to mean nothing to other people. Here is both "agnostic" and "atheist" defined for you by Princeton's Wordnet.

Agnostic:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=define%3A+agnostic&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&oq=

Atheist:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=define%3A+atheism&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&oq=

Here's the definition for you:
Atheism:
# the doctrine or belief that there is no God
# a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods

Agnostic:
# someone who is doubtful or noncommittal about something
# of or pertaining to an agnostic or agnosticism
# a person who claims that they cannot have true knowledge about the existence of God (but does not deny that God might exist)
# uncertain of all claims to knowledge

I would also consider myself the last applicable definition as well, I think there's uncertainty in all knowledge. I have attempted to demonstrate this the last week, quite successfully, though some of the slower members of our forum have yet to figure out there is no 200lb Man Eating Chicken in the tent.

[Warren DeMontague]

63. Well, thank you for telling me what I think.

Does that mean you're going to do my laundry for me, too? :shrug:

[immoderate]

32. This is just not so.

Talk about your straw men. First I'll say that most, if not all, atheists I know do not profess any direct knowledge that there is no god, hence, they are also agnostic. How could one know such a thing without some direct revelation?

You are proposing acceptance of a being that transcends the laws of nature. Can you point to anything that transcends the laws of nature? The notion is a non-starter. Any "supreme being" you could hypothesize leads, upon examination, to contradictions which preclude its existence. (Is some deity without defined properties more believable?.) It falls into the realm of fictional beings (fairies, leprechauns, Santa Clause, unicorns, dragons, etc.) for which there is zero evidence, and therefore a supposition of reality is uncalled for. Atheists generally recognize the proposition that there is just no reason to believe in god.

Again, atheists don't "presume to know that there's no god," they know there's no reason to believe in god.

--imm

[originalpckelly]

10. A few examples of rubbish that minds too open have let in:

1. Thalidomide during pregnancy
2. Widespread use of DDT
3. Asbestos for insulation in areas where one might breathe it in, causing a heightened risk of mesothelioma
4. Electroshock (electroconvulsive) therapy, except as a last resort
5. Vioxx for people in age groups that tend to have a higher risk of stroke or heart attacks

A mind is sort of like a window in a car without air conditioning: if the window is too far down, it will mess your hair up, and if it is too closed, it's going to get hot.

The wind can come from everyone (including researchers), not just common people, preachers or politicians. The answer of incomplete information at times applies to the very scientists the video supports. Unquestioning acceptance of a claim based upon authority would appear to be a bad idea.

[BlooInBloo]

13. This coming from a crank math poster.

:rofl:

[originalpckelly]

16. Not everything is as it appears to be my dear BlooInBloo.

You may make an assumption, but there are times you're making the assumption based upon incomplete information.

In this case, you would have to assume that I was actually attempting to post something to do with math.

I'll coin a new phrase for this one, it's called slapping someone upside the brain. Slapping someone upside the head is a less effective method of attempting to knock some common sense into a person, at least when compared to slapping someone upside the brain.

Your own sense of superiority is the bullshit artists source of power. You would do good to learn that.

Even on April Fools day, or even AROUND IT, people's own sense of superiority will cause them to believe absolute bullshit. "I'm too smart to fall for a scam!" Even when they expect BS, they can still be tricked.

Believing goes both ways, it can mean you actually believe someone's intentions are a certain way, or that the claims they are making are a certain way. You made the mistake of assuming my intentions without any evidence whatsoever to make a real conclusion.

[originalpckelly]

28. I would also like you to know, that I agree with the bulk of your video...

but it misses the obvious failures of the past in science due to incomplete information. It presumes that scientists always know what they are talking about, and that their observations are always complete. Observation is often incomplete, and presuming doubt in a lack of evidence is exactly what the posted video is talking about. I suggest that it should apply not only to specific claims, but also intentions.

Doubting intentions would seem to be a good idea, at least in the area of politics. Something like Piltdown Man suggests it's a good idea in sciences as well.

[immoderate]

33. Nonsense...

"Failures" in science lead to more science. Nothing makes a scientist happier than being able to shoot down an accepted theory. What is the equivalent in religion? You completely ignore that science is a method, not a body of knowledge.

--imm

[originalpckelly]

58. A lack of knowledge deformed the Thalidomide children...

caused thousands of people to die of mesothelioma after Asbestos exposure, or die/be permanently disabled due to strokes/heart attacks caused by Vioxx. Electroconvulsive therapy fried the brains of so many people in this world.

I have no problem experimenting with harmless things, but when it comes to experimenting on human beings, this method is cruel and unusual punishment. The monopolization of knowledge in the key areas of politics, economics and medicine has lead to human suffering in the past, and a will cause continuation of it in the future.

[immoderate]

65. When enough people die, the science gets corrected.

This does not happen in religion or other woo. Are you saying that the lack of knowledge is the result of the scientific method, properly applied? Nothing you're saying here contradicts what's in the video.

--imm

[BlooInBloo]

34. Please... stop with the Epic Intellect Fail... please.... I beg you...

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:


And please tell me that you're not a teacher. Please gawd.

[originalpckelly]

56. Laugh all you want, but every time you posted I was laughing quite a bit.

If I'm a moron, what does that make the person who wasted his time calling me one? I hate to inform your smarmy bastard self that, yes, you too can be fooled. In fact, your sense of superiority is the method by which it will happen again.

You have absolutely no proof to the contrary. None. That's the point here, no one knows what another person's intent really is, unless you claim to be able to read someone's mind. For a political forum, the assumptions made about the intentions of various politicians are useless, whether positive or negative. I was attempting to prove that, and I may be wrong, but I think I did that quite well. It's a very important lesson for politics. I've run into so many people who naively assume the best of intentions, or simply assume everyone is out to get them. Only actual evidence of past actions can give any clue to one's intentions, but past performance does not guarantee future performance.

I know absolutely NOTHING about math, aside from the things I have to use everyday in order to make music (and fuck knows I suck at music/music math too!) I can't quite understand why someone would go out of their way to waste their time on someone who's completely full of crap, right around the time of the year when someone should be on the lookout for such bullshit.

What makes your efforts here so useless is that instead of using your time to truly correct ignorance in this world, you'd rather just call people names. It's quite easy on the internet to provide links to websites for people who have a genuine interest in math, and to simply make a single post decrying another person as ignorant and that no one should listen to them. I recommend you link to Learner.org, their material covers a larger range of skill levels, which might be necessary for people who've been out of school for a while:
http://learner.org/resources/browse.html?discipline=5

You might also refer them to Wolfram's Mathworld:
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/

It's a bit complex, however, and makes many assumptions of knowledge.

At least a couple of people had either a genuine concern or interest in correcting the ignorance they were seeing. THE SINGLE PERSON WHO PROVIDED A LINK, only provided one to MIT's opencourseware physics lectures, a site that makes TONS of assumptions in knowledge, after all, they are teaching MIT students.

I have absolutely no interest whatsoever in math, I don't really give a shit about it, and I'm not really interested in learning about it, aside from what I might need. I am not truly interested in debating it, and I laugh a little harder every single time you call me a crank. Being a crank requires genuine motive to prove something.

I sincerely hope you address this anger problem of yours, you really have a chip on your shoulder fella, and although I don't know you personally, I've had the displeasure of coming across your path on the internet. You may be intelligent, but intelligence is not a license to be an asshole.

[Karenina]

18. Well, I thoroughly enjoyed that!

:loveya:

[BlooInBloo]

22. :) I thought it was pretty good.

[rug]

23. Which one is this?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8336890

[Nostalgic]

25. That was a good clip

and worth bookmarking for future reference.

[BlooInBloo]

26. Thx for reminding me to favorite it.

[Political Heretic]

37. On the other hand, reject "Scientism"

Scientism, in the strong sense, is the self-annihilating view that only scientific claims are meaningful, which is not a scientific claim and hence, if true, not meaningful. Thus, scientism is either false or meaningless. This view seems to have been held by Ludwig Wittgenstein in his Tractatus Logico-philosophicus (1922) when he said such things as "The totality of true propositions is the whole of natural science..." He later repudiated this view.

Scientism--roughly the view that the only possible valid forms of knowledge or rationally warranted belief are those yielded by the methods of the natural sciences; and that the only real entities are those which are posited by the natural sciences. Scientism is not itself science, and it's not proven or provable by science. It's a philosophical worldview. There are many strong philosophical arguments against scientism, mostly on epistemic grounds.

This is not an argument against science - its an argument against perverting or misusing science. The true scientist regularly says "I don't know" and always starts from the premise that all knowledge is provisional. Science isn't about finding "absolute truth" or is it about dogmas or "certainty" - it is about describing the best empirical evidence we have to explain a thing at the given time, with the understanding that in the future new evidence may become available which either confirms or completely discredits previous explanations.

Scientism, also logical positivism is an easily critiqued intellectually bankrupt view that gained some traction in the early 20th century among western analytic philosophers and has sense been pretty thoroughly discredited. Sadly, positivism still holds sway in some non-hard science fields that tend to lag a little bit behind the times.

[BlooInBloo]

38. Spoken like someone who's taken a 101 philosophy class at a 3rd rate religious school....

If you want to discuss such a topic, you should be aware that thought has moved well past the Carnaps, Hempels, etc.

Please catch up.

[Political Heretic]

39. Taking a dismissive tone doesn't change anything I've said.

And these aren't radical notions, nor are they in disagreement with your OP.

Just an addition.

So the "tude" is a bit baffling.

Incidentally, the west, particularly the American West has definitely not moved past its attachment to modernism despite the gross inadequacies of modernism to address contemporary experience. And depending on the field, "thought" lags far behind - particularly in my field, which is heavily investing in positivist modernist attitudes that are biased and overly narrow. This creates a lot of problems for us.

[BlooInBloo]

41. Highest among the thinks it doesn't change is....

There's a whole helluva lot more, but it more or less starts with that. Or maybe TDoE, if one is suitably familiar with the literature. So in your case, start with the pic.


EDIT: Note that positivism, of the sort you're talking about, officially died in either 1953 (PI), or 1956 (TDoE). There were a few zombie positivists that persisted for awhile, too stupid to know that they were dead. It's unfortunate that they still teach people that zombie philosophy still has any relevance.

[Political Heretic]

42. What's your point? We're not in disagreement, you're just being a dick for no reason.

So...

:shrug:

Our comments are not at odds with each other. So I don't know what the problem is. I can only assume from your "3rd rate religious school" jab (which is false) that you have brought your own assumptions to the table, assuming I'm a theist or something. I am not.

The video, humorously explains a lot of the reasons why I'm not. I have no patience for the debate about things I can't know. I neither believe nor do I disbelieve in the existence of a god or gods, although I must say that I actively disbelieve in a "god" as posited by most Christians.

[BlooInBloo]

44. Adducing the world's worst grounds for a conclusion I hold is worse than disagreeing outright....

EDIT: You may as well "agree" with me by citing the Unabomber's Manifesto.

[Political Heretic]

45. Well help me out then, I'm obviously grasping at straws as to what the problem is.

[BlooInBloo]

46. gawddammit - you keep beating me to my edits.

:rofl:

[Political Heretic]

47. After edit: so what's the problem?

Science is not the same as Scientism. Everyone knows this, or I thought they did. People that drift into a place of scientism or positivism do science a huge disservice, a point pretty regularly made by scientists.

The best scientists I'm familiar with always remind us that all knowledge is provisional. You agree with that statement yes? I would think so since its a basic staple of science. Science isn't about proclaiming dogmas and never has been. And we wouldn't WANT it to be, because that would go AGAINST scientific method. It is about saying, this is all the evidence we have, and based on this evidence, it is appropriate to conclude x, with the understanding that future evidence made continue to confirm or disprove our current understanding and explanations will be adjusted as new evidence is discovered. THAT'S SCIENCE.

You don't have a problem with that do you? That's a pretty basic standard of science as well.

I'm pretty confused as to where exactly you think the outrageous claim is in what I posted. It's all pretty common sense.

[BlooInBloo]

49. "Scientism" was pretty much a made-up foil, by thinkers who were anti-science....

no matter *how* it was understood. People were able to get anywhere using that stick because they kept pointing, like you did, to the positivists, and squawking "see? SEE?? run away from science! run RUN!!!!".

But it was all bullshit. There is no such thing as "scientism", in any sense relevant to anything. Rather like, on the social side, there is no such thing as "reverse racism". To use "scientism" as though it actually refers to something is thus worse than simply disagreeing with me outright.

Adding to the ironic anachronism is the fact that your sketch of what science "is", doesn't significantly differ from various positivist explanations of the nonexistent Holy Grail "the scientific method". At your level of outline, any of: Hempel, Popper or Carnap could have said basically the same thing.

In sum: verbal agreement with my conclusion is massively outweighed by the trainwreck you caused en route.

But this is all pure hand-wavery. In chronological order, the go-to's would be Hegel (PoS), Wittgenstein (PI), Quine (TDoE), Kuhn (SoSR) and Lakatos (PaR). There's a host of important companion reading, but those would be the important primary sources.

[Political Heretic]

50. Small correction: Karl Popper was not a logical positivist, he was a huge critic of positivism

Kark Popper used the term SCIENTISM in his works as part of his criticism. He was also badass of science, and Conjecture and Refutations was an amazing book.

Quine, by the way - also objected to positivism. So did Kukn.

Wittgenstein rejected his earlier views on the matter in his latter works.


So while your so busy rattling off sources and assuming I haven't read them, (I have a degree in philosophy) you might want to get straight about where they actually stand.

As to the problem with the term "scientism" I can understand your point that term may be abused by some. But it was used by prominent scientific thinkers who were critical of the direction of logical positivism or what Karl Popper called "the misuses of science" long before it was used in popular culture.

However, there's no need to confuse things and if I did I apologize. I'm quite comfortable talking about positivism instead. Positivism, like most things, is a spectrum, not a point - meaning that there are those on the "weak" side of the positivist spectrum that are really not saying anything problematic. There are however, many on the strong side of the spectrum, particularly prompting criticisms from Popper, Quine, and others mentioned, that are in fact very problematic.

Culturally, strong positivism still rears its head in many different ways, all of them problematic.

[BlooInBloo]

51. (facepalm)

[Political Heretic]

52. Well argued.

Ah the facepalm, the last resort of someone when they rolled into an exchange like a condescending prick only to discover their "target" actually knows something about the subject they were expecting to be all superior about.

[BlooInBloo]

53. Sigh. Einstein and Newton both used the word "mass", too. Argh.

[Political Heretic]

54. Again, well argued.

Just stop and salvage some dignity.

EDIT - god, you don't even have to do any digging... I was going to find my copies of popper books but I stopped and thought I'd just use my handy dandy google first and see what happens.

BAM.

Wiki:
"Karl Popper was a well-known critic of logical positivism, who published the book Logik der Forschung in 1934 (translated by himself as The Logic of Scientific Discovery, published 1959). In it he argued that the positivists' criterion of verifiability was too strong a criterion for science, and should be replaced by a criterion of falsifiability. Popper thought that falsifiability was a better criterion because it did not invite the philosophical problems inherent in verifying an induction, and it allowed statements from the physical sciences which seemed scientific but which did not meet the verification criterion.

Popper's concern was not with distinguishing meaningful from meaningless statements, but distinguishing scientific from metaphysical statements. Unlike the positivists, he did not hold that metaphysical statements must be meaningless; neither did he hold that a statement that in one century was "metaphysical" and unfalsifiable (like the ancient Greek philosophy about atoms), could not in another century become falsifiable and thus scientific. He was, in general, more concerned with scientific practice than with the logical issues that troubled the positivists."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_positivism

[originalpckelly]

61. Are you incapable of thinking for yourself?

Why is it that you must cite someone else's thinking in order to prove a matter of logic? How do you think Popper came to those ideas?

Although I may be wrong, but it appears to me that one of the major problems of modern debate is the overuse of citation, not for actual facts, but the thinking of other people about either pure logic or facts. Why is it that you must rely on Popper's ideas and not your own?

Is this because you read something of his, or read about his ideas, and this has caused you to think a certain way?

I would ask you to consider the idea that by simply accepting his ideas, you are allowing this man to think for you, rather than thinking for yourself.

[Political Heretic]

64. It's appropriate to respond to someone else's reference, which is what I did.

You'll note I didn't start off citing a bunch of people, however when the person I was responding to incorrectly cited Popper, and some of the other names I mentioned, I of course responded.

That's pretty understandable.

[annabanana]

40. Am I the only one discouraged and depressed that this has to

be spelled out? Shouldn't this be self-evident? Was 1967 the last time critical thinking was encouraged in public schools?

[BlooInBloo]

43. No, yes, and I guess so.

This has been a special triple episode of Simple Answers To Simple Questions.

[Solly Mack]

57. That was great! K&R

Thanks for sharing!!!

[cobalt1999]

59. When someones says "be open minded", what I hear is

Turn off your bullshit detector for a minute while I try and sell you some manure.

I didn't take all those science & logic classes & work in an industry that requires me to leverage both for 20 years just to have someone say "turn off all that logic, critical thinking, & analysis of evidence because I've got an idea to sell you".