5 ms·

> I’ll bow out of the conversation, because arguing epistemology is an exhausting waste of everyone’s time I'm sorry, but I have to laugh at you. "Epistemolog

> I’ll bow out of the conversation, because arguing epistemology is an exhausting waste of everyone’s time I'm sorry, but I have to laugh at you. "Epistemology is the investigation of what distinguishes justified belief from opinion." You yourself started this epistemological debate by arguing that belief in scientific institutions and authority was not justified.

teakettle42 4y ago
You disingenuously left out the first half of the definition: “the theory of knowledge, especially with regard to its methods, validity, and scope.” An epistemological debate would be over whether empiricism and the scientific method are even valid “ways of knowing”, whether “religious ideology” and “faith” were themselves valid forms of knowledge, et al. I addressed your question about the application of the scientific method to trust the science, not the scientists. We were not engaged in a discussion of epistemological theory, and your response is exactly the kind of two-bit sophistry I was referring to.
- VikingCoder 4y ago
  So my belief that you are engaged in an epistemological debate is not justified? Got it. We absolutely 100% were engaged in a discussion of epistemology, whether you realize it or not. You are a single human, and we have to question your methods and scope of the analysis you claim is required, to "do better than the scientists." And I'm telling you, the world is far too complex for you to put up any kind of real front, on any but the most absolutely critical decisions of your life, and even on those, I assert your best bet is to have faith in the experts. How do you know lead is dangerous? You and I have a justified belief that it is, even though you and I are merely trusting scientists who have told us that.
  - teakettle42 4y ago
    > We absolutely 100% were engaged in a discussion of epistemology, whether you realize it or not. I was engaged in a debate about the inherent logical inconsistency of sciencism. That can be proven without appealing to epistemology. I explicitly bowed out of your attempt at a debate over epistemology. You’re welcome to discuss your belief in the validity of faith-based knowledge with others, but as I said, I’m not interested.
    - VikingCoder 4y ago
      I have to ask, how is it "logically inconsistent" to believe in scientists? You might not get the best results, but it's absolutely logically consistent. It's logically consistent to believe in the Norse Pantheon as the sole source of wisdom. Again, that doesn't mean it results in the best predictions or the most accurate understanding of the cosmos. I assert that I have a justified belief in scientists. If you want to question that belief, you are engaged in epistemology. I also have a justified belief in the lab techs who gather data for doctors and other scientists. In the manufacturers who prepare the reagents, etc that the lab techs use. In the FDA process in evaluating the claims of those ingredients. In the agents of the FDA. In the media for looking for corruption in those agents. In the government for defending the media. And in the citizens of this country for ensuring that the government defends the media's freedom. I assert that I have a justified belief in scientists, all the way down through the whole scaffolding they stand upon. You can pretend to believe in science, in the abstract, but you do not have the capacity to even understand the scaffolding that scientists stand on, except possibly in a very narrow set of disciplines. And even then, down to only a few layers of abstractions. You are not a Full Stack scientist.
      - teakettle42 4y ago
        > I have to ask, how is it "logically inconsistent" to believe in scientists? I said sciencism is logically inconsistent. Sciencism pretends to the fact-finding authority of science while abandoning the scientific method. That’s the inconsistency. If you want to promote a faith-based belief in scientists, or even even an enforced orthodoxy based on the same, that’s not internally inconsistent, but it’s also not a scientific belief system, and it’s subject to the same flaws (and prone to the same systemic abuses) of any faith-based belief system and orthodoxy. If you want to further argue the value or validity of your faith-based orthodoxy with someone, then — again — you should find someone else.
        VikingCoder 4y ago
        It's sad to watch you completely dodge my questions. How do you know lead is unsafe to consume? I'm asking that to force you to admit that you are a hypocrite, engaging in exactly the kind of behavior you condemn. At the core, you trust scientists. As you should. Your argument is bad, and if you honestly answered my question, you might realize it.

teakettle42 4y ago

You disingenuously left out the first half of the definition: “the theory of knowledge, especially with regard to its methods, validity, and scope.” An epistemological debate would be over whether empiricism and the scientific method are even valid “ways of knowing”, whether “religious ideology” and “faith” were themselves valid forms of knowledge, et al. I addressed your question about the application of the scientific method to trust the science, not the scientists. We were not engaged in a discussion of epistemological theory, and your response is exactly the kind of two-bit sophistry I was referring to.

VikingCoder 4y ago
So my belief that you are engaged in an epistemological debate is not justified? Got it. We absolutely 100% were engaged in a discussion of epistemology, whether you realize it or not. You are a single human, and we have to question your methods and scope of the analysis you claim is required, to "do better than the scientists." And I'm telling you, the world is far too complex for you to put up any kind of real front, on any but the most absolutely critical decisions of your life, and even on those, I assert your best bet is to have faith in the experts. How do you know lead is dangerous? You and I have a justified belief that it is, even though you and I are merely trusting scientists who have told us that.
- teakettle42 4y ago
  > We absolutely 100% were engaged in a discussion of epistemology, whether you realize it or not. I was engaged in a debate about the inherent logical inconsistency of sciencism. That can be proven without appealing to epistemology. I explicitly bowed out of your attempt at a debate over epistemology. You’re welcome to discuss your belief in the validity of faith-based knowledge with others, but as I said, I’m not interested.
  - VikingCoder 4y ago
    I have to ask, how is it "logically inconsistent" to believe in scientists? You might not get the best results, but it's absolutely logically consistent. It's logically consistent to believe in the Norse Pantheon as the sole source of wisdom. Again, that doesn't mean it results in the best predictions or the most accurate understanding of the cosmos. I assert that I have a justified belief in scientists. If you want to question that belief, you are engaged in epistemology. I also have a justified belief in the lab techs who gather data for doctors and other scientists. In the manufacturers who prepare the reagents, etc that the lab techs use. In the FDA process in evaluating the claims of those ingredients. In the agents of the FDA. In the media for looking for corruption in those agents. In the government for defending the media. And in the citizens of this country for ensuring that the government defends the media's freedom. I assert that I have a justified belief in scientists, all the way down through the whole scaffolding they stand upon. You can pretend to believe in science, in the abstract, but you do not have the capacity to even understand the scaffolding that scientists stand on, except possibly in a very narrow set of disciplines. And even then, down to only a few layers of abstractions. You are not a Full Stack scientist.
    - teakettle42 4y ago
      > I have to ask, how is it "logically inconsistent" to believe in scientists? I said sciencism is logically inconsistent. Sciencism pretends to the fact-finding authority of science while abandoning the scientific method. That’s the inconsistency. If you want to promote a faith-based belief in scientists, or even even an enforced orthodoxy based on the same, that’s not internally inconsistent, but it’s also not a scientific belief system, and it’s subject to the same flaws (and prone to the same systemic abuses) of any faith-based belief system and orthodoxy. If you want to further argue the value or validity of your faith-based orthodoxy with someone, then — again — you should find someone else.
      - VikingCoder 4y ago
        It's sad to watch you completely dodge my questions. How do you know lead is unsafe to consume? I'm asking that to force you to admit that you are a hypocrite, engaging in exactly the kind of behavior you condemn. At the core, you trust scientists. As you should. Your argument is bad, and if you honestly answered my question, you might realize it.