An ID view of scientism (Introduction)

by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Friday, January 15, 2010, 22:37 (5222 days ago) @ dhw

dhw,
> In no way does that invalidate the scientific approach. But it may very well invalidate the claim that science is the only reliable approach. How could it be, if reality should turn out to have dimensions beyond the material ones we know? It can only be reliable if scientism's (2nd definition) basic, absolutely unproven premise is correct. David's post quotes John Lennox, who says "that if Atkins's assertion were true, it would at once render philosophy, ethics, literature, poetry, art, and music irrelevant for our understanding of reality." He might have added emotions such as love. Science is supreme in its own field of material reality; it has no authority in the fields listed by John Lennox; and in my opinion it has neither more nor less authority in the territory where those fields overlap.
> -Though you say much of merit in this post I want to zero in on this section here. -What other forms of gaining knowledge are there? The only ones we can consider are the ones we know of. And on a case by case basis, how do they do what they do better than science? Even if you go to compare methods of gaining knowledge, you are again engaging in the scientific method. -If its reliable, it'll give you the same answer every time. If it doesn't give you the same answer, how can you call it reliable? If you can't call it reliable, how can you call it valid?

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"