Reply #12

In the discussion thread: On science, scientism, and the limits of scientific inquiry... [View all]

Response to Humanist_Activist (Reply #6)

Thu Mar 29, 2012, 09:40 PM

humblebum (5,881 posts)

12. "Science, as I said, broke from philosophy over 100 years ago" - The Vienna Circle met less than 100

Last edited Thu Mar 29, 2012, 09:45 PM USA/ET - Edit history (2)

years ago. Out of that came logical positivism, which is scientific philosophy on which the steps of the SM are based. Your knowledge of the history and philosophy of science is severely lacking. Why then does Stephen Hawking claim to be a logical positivist, along with many other scientists?

Reply to this post

Back to OP Alert abuse Link to post in-thread

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum

Replies to this discussion thread

95 replies	Author	Time	Post
On science, scientism, and the limits of scientific inquiry... [View all]	Humanist_Activist	Mar 2012	OP
what about OTHER ways of knowing.	deacon_sephiroth	Mar 2012	#1
I agree with everything you said about science.	Thats my opinion	Mar 2012	#2
Science is a tool to inform, nothing more or less...	Humanist_Activist	Mar 2012	#5
Your solid and thoughtful argument is exactly why we need a a multiple number of voices in these	Thats my opinion	Mar 2012	#8
Ooooohhhh...you win the	skepticscott	Mar 2012	#11
I'm with you on this	longship	Mar 2012	#3
The modern Scientific Method itself is based on the epistemology of	humblebum	Mar 2012	#4
Actually modern scientific method is based on falsifiability, not necessarily logical positivism...	Humanist_Activist	Mar 2012	#6
You expect the science bashers to read Popper?	Odin2005	Mar 2012	#9
I don't think the science bashers show up here	Thats my opinion	Mar 2012	#13
This subthread was started by one.	laconicsax	Mar 2012	#20
"Science, as I said, broke from philosophy over 100 years ago" - The Vienna Circle met less than 100	humblebum	Mar 2012	#12
And that has what relevence to my post? n/t	Humanist_Activist	Mar 2012	#14
It has all the relevance in the world, because it reveals your cluelessness	humblebum	Mar 2012	#16
You do realize that science, as a disciplined method predates the Vienna circle, right?	Humanist_Activist	Mar 2012	#17
You really don't have a clue.nt	humblebum	Mar 2012	#19
Science is the branch of fantasy that is limited by observation	FarCenter	Mar 2012	#7
I cringe whenever I see the word "scientism" being used.	Odin2005	Mar 2012	#10
We know of several limits to science	bananas	Mar 2012	#15
You seem to be confusing pure mathematics and computational theories with the rest of science...	Humanist_Activist	Mar 2012	#18
No, I'm not confusing anything.	bananas	Mar 2012	#22
It does help	skepticscott	Mar 2012	#23
Does praying over operating systems improve their security?	Silent3	Mar 2012	#25
That last question in your post is a ...	SamG	Mar 2012	#26
"God of the Gaps"....	Humanist_Activist	Mar 2012	#27
Thanks! I had it backwards.	SamG	Mar 2012	#28
Absolutely - and the phase of the moon is very important, too.	bananas	Apr 2012	#36
"No one is saying science knows everything, that science can solve all problems"	bananas	Apr 2012	#39
I take that comment you quote from the OP...	Silent3	Apr 2012	#41
Give us some examples of how	skepticscott	Apr 2012	#87
I hope you're giving bonus points for anecdotes and double points for confirmation bias!	laconicsax	Apr 2012	#94
You should read "one of Scientific American’s most classic articles"	bananas	Apr 2012	#40
The major limitation of science is its refusal to make stuff up	laconicsax	Mar 2012	#21
A great cartoon summary is often so	SamG	Mar 2012	#24
Yeh, like trying to change the definition of nothingness. nt	humblebum	Mar 2012	#29
It's called a self-correcting process.	laconicsax	Mar 2012	#30
I'm so glad that you admit that it has been changed. However, in this case	humblebum	Apr 2012	#31
I've admitted nothing I haven't already claimed.	laconicsax	Apr 2012	#32
By george, I think you are beginning to understand it.	humblebum	Apr 2012	#33
I think you're confused.	laconicsax	Apr 2012	#34
It's quite simple really. Something does not equal nothing. nt	humblebum	Apr 2012	#35
I accept your apology. n/t	laconicsax	Apr 2012	#37
Good. Then since we know that something exists where the	humblebum	Apr 2012	#38
Nope, experimentally verified.	laconicsax	Apr 2012	#42
Something still exists in your state of nothingness.	humblebum	Apr 2012	#43
Nope there's nothing there.	laconicsax	Apr 2012	#45
If there is any physical reaction in that space at any time, detectable or not,	humblebum	Apr 2012	#50
You couldn't be any more wrong. Here's why:	laconicsax	Apr 2012	#53
Your nothing, sir, still is a something. And you arrived at your defintion of nothing by	humblebum	Apr 2012	#55
That's interesting, especially since I was talking about your definition of "nothing."	laconicsax	Apr 2012	#56
Your assertion of special pleading is a vacuous argument in this case.	humblebum	Apr 2012	#57
Rechecked, it's still special pleading.	laconicsax	Apr 2012	#59
The physical event immediately prior to your "spontaneous creation" pretty much	humblebum	Apr 2012	#60
I'm talking about YOUR definition of nothing.	laconicsax	Apr 2012	#61
I hate to come to HB's defense at this point, but...	Silent3	Apr 2012	#44
There's a significant problem with your argument.	laconicsax	Apr 2012	#46
Hm. I got nothin'... :)	Joseph8th	Apr 2012	#48
I agree with you that you can't properly take a rule observed from within...	Silent3	Apr 2012	#49
This is what I find to be the most humorous part of your argument. You are actually	humblebum	Apr 2012	#52
Since when is my describing what you have done "admitting?"	laconicsax	Apr 2012	#54
What you're describing is "Wu Chi" ("ultimate state of nothingness")	bananas	Apr 2012	#58
"...don't see how invoking gods answers or illuminates...in the slightest" -	humblebum	Apr 2012	#51
Climate modeling is not tea leaf reading. Tea leaf reading is not climate modeling.	Silent3	Apr 2012	#62
So theologians just "make answers up"? Attack #15	Thats my opinion	Apr 2012	#78
Playing the victim	skepticscott	Apr 2012	#85
How would you explain what it is theologians come up with their answers?	eqfan592	Apr 2012	#88
Seems like you have our friend	skepticscott	Apr 2012	#92
I'll admit a minor amount of fault with this tactic.	eqfan592	Apr 2012	#95
I'm sorry an old cartoon inflames you so much.	laconicsax	Apr 2012	#93
God of the gaps lurks at the cutting edge of science...	Joseph8th	Apr 2012	#47
Love your last paragraph about a "limited window".	SamG	Apr 2012	#63
Where in the world do you get your information.	cbayer	Apr 2012	#64
Last time I looked, it was only "a considerable number of" believers who claimed	SamG	Apr 2012	#65
I do not maintain that the fundamentalists are a small minority.	cbayer	Apr 2012	#66
"they are in the best position to challenge the fundamentalists"	SamG	Apr 2012	#67
Again, you seem to know little about progressive christians and christian groups.	cbayer	Apr 2012	#68
So you have no examples of legislation introduced by anyone other than...	SamG	Apr 2012	#69
See, that's the difference.	cbayer	Apr 2012	#70
So, what, exactly do they do? Roll over and play dead?	SamG	Apr 2012	#71
Start here	cbayer	Apr 2012	#72
I could spend the next five years researching each and every...	SamG	Apr 2012	#73
I have come to the conclusion that nothing I could say would satisfy you.	cbayer	Apr 2012	#74
In other words, you got nothing. Challenged for facts, another	SamG	Apr 2012	#75
You were told multiple times	skepticscott	Apr 2012	#79
personal attack #19 out of bounds except in "religion" nt	Thats my opinion	Apr 2012	#83
Trust me, you don't want to have me post	skepticscott	Apr 2012	#84
"self-righteous people"...etc personal attack #16	Thats my opinion	Apr 2012	#80
"work with communities and within movements to promote liberal and progressive causes"	SamG	Apr 2012	#76
this whole post is about "believers"and what they do or do not do. Attack #18	Thats my opinion	Apr 2012	#82
Yes, so just talking about the actions (or inactions) of believers is also an attack.	eqfan592	Apr 2012	#90
paragraph 2 charicatures believers attack #17	Thats my opinion	Apr 2012	#81
Are you seriously calling that an attack?	eqfan592	Apr 2012	#89
Those of us who ask questions we believe to be in a addition to science are accused--	Thats my opinion	Apr 2012	#77
By all means, list it	skepticscott	Apr 2012	#86
Any post that doesn't agree with what he/she thinks constitutes an attack.	eqfan592	Apr 2012	#91

Edit History

Please login to view edit histories.