Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Religion

In reply to the discussion: The scientific meta-narrative [View all]
 

AlbertCat

(17,505 posts)
83. "no system or perspective, which claims to explain everything, is legitimate"
Fri Mar 23, 2012, 06:10 PM
Mar 2012

The only ones of those I know of are religions.

Science certainly doesn't fall into such a category.

The scientific meta-narrative [View all] Thats my opinion Mar 2012 OP
Ooh, postodernist mumbo-jumbo! Odin2005 Mar 2012 #1
That is a correct assessment. Buy this book: 2ndAmForComputers Mar 2012 #4
See post #27. Jim__ Mar 2012 #28
How can I not love this book? 2ndAmForComputers Mar 2012 #58
I just don't know Goblinmonger Mar 2012 #6
The original post was not really about post-modernism--- Thats my opinion Mar 2012 #67
But very few people are saying that 'one system explains everything' LeftishBrit Mar 2012 #71
Of course you are correct. Thats my opinion Mar 2012 #73
To be truthful, I haven't noticed anyone in the forum who does. LeftishBrit Mar 2012 #75
My understanding of Descartes' thought is a little different from the way you present it. Jim__ Mar 2012 #2
I find your response helfpful, and it clarifies my representation of Descartes Thats my opinion Mar 2012 #3
Cartesian skepticism tama Mar 2012 #38
I think it's kind of interesting how appx. 14,999,600 years of something that might be referred to patrice Mar 2012 #5
is held as 0 ever since the formulization of rational empiricism, appx. 400 years ago. AlbertCat Mar 2012 #81
Okay, so make that appx. 14,997,200 years of something that was regarded as valuable patrice Mar 2012 #82
Actually, if you ask a fish what water is, it won't answer. trotsky Mar 2012 #7
the "You's you refer to in par 2 is not me. Who are these you s? Thats my opinion Mar 2012 #14
He's not calling you a racist, and you know it. 2ndAmForComputers Mar 2012 #16
No, he's insinuating it as a disruptive diversion. rug Mar 2012 #37
I see your mind-reading skills are as poor as ever, rug. trotsky Mar 2012 #41
My reading skills are as good as ever, trotsky. rug Mar 2012 #42
No, I'm afraid they're not. trotsky Mar 2012 #46
Good edit. And that one word is the difference between a discussion and a personal attack. rug Mar 2012 #48
Except there was no personal attack. trotsky Mar 2012 #49
Meta-meta humor bongbong Mar 2012 #55
Yeah, I get that a lot. trotsky Mar 2012 #56
Thanks for the change nt Thats my opinion Mar 2012 #64
Problem is, when they're caught and trapped in an argument... trotsky Mar 2012 #40
Who is this "they"? Thats my opinion Mar 2012 #74
"You" in the hypothetical sense. trotsky Mar 2012 #39
Not all scientists tama Mar 2012 #51
My guess is that there will be five more rejections of your ideas Leontius Mar 2012 #8
Your logic is dazzling skepticscott Mar 2012 #10
And whoosh went my point, sorry you don't get it try looking up next time. Leontius Mar 2012 #13
It's easy not to get a point when it's gibberish. 2ndAmForComputers Mar 2012 #17
Your "point" went flush, not whoosh. skepticscott Mar 2012 #33
You start badly and get worse skepticscott Mar 2012 #9
Just for the heck of it, try reading Rene nt Thats my opinion Mar 2012 #15
That's it? That's all you can muster? skepticscott Mar 2012 #29
I notice all the true believers in scientism have shown up to trumpet THEIR dogma. nt Speck Tater Mar 2012 #11
The "true believers" are those skepticscott Mar 2012 #12
See post #65 and answer the question. nt Speck Tater Mar 2012 #66
You and others have been told some of the evidence skepticscott Mar 2012 #79
Page 187 of the Handbook of Dishonest Rhetoric. 2ndAmForComputers Mar 2012 #18
What the fuck is scientism? No seriously, this shit is literal nonsense. n/t Humanist_Activist Mar 2012 #25
Wikepedia: tama Mar 2012 #43
So basically its a perjorative used mostly by those ignorant in how science works... Humanist_Activist Mar 2012 #101
Don't be ashamed tama Mar 2012 #103
And I notice all those who can't dispute those "true believers'" objections... trotsky Mar 2012 #44
Just one question... Speck Tater Mar 2012 #65
Being able to state the subject is a great start. trotsky Mar 2012 #70
"no system or perspective, which claims to explain everything, is legitimate" longship Mar 2012 #19
See post 4. 2ndAmForComputers Mar 2012 #22
I saw that longship Mar 2012 #23
Highly emotional attitude tama Mar 2012 #50
Finnish descent? longship Mar 2012 #52
I'm Finnish tama Mar 2012 #59
One of the most interesting American "anthropological" movies is "Dancing with wolves" AlbertCat Mar 2012 #84
Anthropological tama Mar 2012 #86
Sokal's paper can be compared with the Bogdanov papers published in refereed Physics Journals. Jim__ Mar 2012 #27
That's a particularly thoughtless, not to mention richly ironic skepticscott Mar 2012 #30
You mean publication of a ridiculous paper doesn't serve to undermine an entire field? Jim__ Mar 2012 #35
If that field has a long and documented history skepticscott Mar 2012 #89
A zinger? I realize that evidence will not have any effect on your belief system. Jim__ Mar 2012 #91
Unfortunately for you, the problem is NOT the same skepticscott Mar 2012 #92
You're making my point. Jim__ Mar 2012 #93
Sokol was a deliberate hoax longship Mar 2012 #31
The Bogdanov's were awarded doctorates in Mathematics and Physics. Jim__ Mar 2012 #34
Bogdanov's had PhD's, but... Joseph8th Mar 2012 #61
John Baez is a mathematical physicist and a professor of mathematics. Jim__ Mar 2012 #63
Like I said... Joseph8th Mar 2012 #104
Sokal affair tama Mar 2012 #47
So in post-modernism, if I say my paper is good, its good by default? Humanist_Activist Mar 2012 #95
No nt tama Mar 2012 #96
If that were true, then tell us by what standards its claims are tested by. n/t Humanist_Activist Mar 2012 #100
I don't know tama Mar 2012 #102
"no system or perspective, which claims to explain everything, is legitimate" AlbertCat Mar 2012 #83
This message was self-deleted by its author absyntheminded Mar 2012 #20
"I think"; therefore thinking, the phenomenological field, is valid: from Descartes to Phenomenology Brettongarcia Mar 2012 #21
Of course. Thats my opinion Mar 2012 #76
What dafuq did I just read? Humanist_Activist Mar 2012 #24
Do us all a favor, and no longer talk about science, I do mean at all... Humanist_Activist Mar 2012 #26
ooooohhhh...but he knows all about skepticscott Mar 2012 #32
These are some of the Great Insights that we should be waiting for? mr blur Mar 2012 #36
And yet Descartes ended up saying you needed knowledge of God to have absolute knowledge muriel_volestrangler Mar 2012 #45
Lots of mumbo-jumbo bongbong Mar 2012 #53
You'll have to pick a side first if you want the book to sell. rrneck Mar 2012 #68
To be honest, I find post-modern theory much more off-putting than I find religion. LeftishBrit Mar 2012 #54
Great post. You nail it. 2ndAmForComputers Mar 2012 #60
"Meta-wrong" Silent3 Mar 2012 #69
Can you cite a postmodern source that claims science claims to explain everything? Jim__ Mar 2012 #72
I am not an expert on post-modernism; but the post-modernists whom I know personally have been LeftishBrit Mar 2012 #77
It is implied in the OP - but in post #67, the OP says he doesn't agree with postmodernism. Jim__ Mar 2012 #78
So, as "science explains everything" tama Mar 2012 #87
I think John Locke... Joseph8th Mar 2012 #57
"believing that they have all the answers to everything" Silent3 Mar 2012 #62
What you claim tama Mar 2012 #90
God is not an entity to be proved, but an experience to be delighted in. AlbertCat Mar 2012 #80
I don't think he was trying to redefine God but hopefuly he will explain Leontius Mar 2012 #85
God is an entity? Thats my opinion Mar 2012 #88
God does not interact with the universe, and there is no life after death FarCenter Mar 2012 #94
You made several statements. tama Mar 2012 #97
Conversely FarCenter Mar 2012 #98
I haven't made claims. tama Mar 2012 #99
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Religion»The scientific meta-narra...»Reply #83