4 ms·

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, whet

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
        > At the core, you trust scientists. As you should. I trust science — not scientists — as a method for continually refining our knowledge of the truth. I also clearly don’t subscribe to your faith-based orthodoxy, because it’s anti-scientific. However, I’m not going to use words like “should”, or posit what you should do, because I’m not selling you a religion. > How do you know lead is unsafe to consume? The scientific method. I don’t have to trust scientists, just science. The lead toxicity hypothesis is falsifiable, and the empirical results in support of said hypothesis are extensively, independently reproduced.
        VikingCoder 4y ago
        Science is implemented by scientists, and you will literally never have the time or expertise to do more than trust what scientists are telling you, except possibly in an incredibly narrow field. You have not followed the scientific method to know lead is unsafe. You have to trust scientists to implement science properly. Science does not exist in a vacuum. It is implemented by scientists. And you have probably never advanced or refined our knowledge of the truth once in your entire life, unless you happen to have published some research. Have you? You benefit from scientists, but claim they are the flawed part of the duality. You have this platonic view of the algorithm, and it appears to me a complete lack of understanding of how scientists implement it. Or how you receive the benefits of science. Or of the flaws in how we currently implement science. It will take humans to improve how we practice science. I feel like that guy who's trying to explain fiat money to someone. That's great you believe in money. Money is meaningless. It only has value because we say it does. Science is almost meaningless. It's a way for scientists to think and approach questions and problems. It's the best method we know of, but that's only because scientists have done that work. And need to continue to improve it. Because science itself can be broken. Science isn't perfect, as you seem to think it is.
- SantalBlush 4y ago
  The person above is correct; you are having an epistemological debate, whether you realize it or not. What you're writing shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the topic.
  - teakettle42 4y ago
    Someone desperately trying to steer the debate into epistemological sophistry doesn’t mean I have to take the bait. I’ve explicitly declined to debate epistemology because it’s not necessary to show the internal inconsistency of sciencism, and it’s not a productive topic of discussion with religious ideologists. Now, please either present an argument or find someone else to harass. You’ve repeatedly left empty, sniping comments like this one, without ever actually making an argument. I get it, you disagree with me and find my position emotionally upsetting. That’s not a position, or an argument, it’s a feeling, and I’m not here to help you moderate your feelings.
    - SantalBlush 4y ago
      You can explicitly decline all you want, but that doesn't change the epistemological substance of the discussion.
      - teakettle42 4y ago
        As I said, I’m sorry this upsetting to you, but I’m not here to be a sounding board for your empty frustrations. You’re welcome to have the epistemological dialogue without me. It’s not relevant to pointing out the flaws of sciencism, and I — again — have zero interest in debating the epistemological validity of your faith-based belief system.
        SantalBlush 4y ago
        I did not say you were debating the epistemological validity of a faith-based belief system, I said the discussion you've been having is epistemological in nature. These are different things, and the fact that you're misunderstanding this illustrates why you fail to grasp what others here have been trying to explain. You are making rudimentary mistakes in your thinking.

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
      > At the core, you trust scientists. As you should. I trust science — not scientists — as a method for continually refining our knowledge of the truth. I also clearly don’t subscribe to your faith-based orthodoxy, because it’s anti-scientific. However, I’m not going to use words like “should”, or posit what you should do, because I’m not selling you a religion. > How do you know lead is unsafe to consume? The scientific method. I don’t have to trust scientists, just science. The lead toxicity hypothesis is falsifiable, and the empirical results in support of said hypothesis are extensively, independently reproduced.
      - VikingCoder 4y ago
        Science is implemented by scientists, and you will literally never have the time or expertise to do more than trust what scientists are telling you, except possibly in an incredibly narrow field. You have not followed the scientific method to know lead is unsafe. You have to trust scientists to implement science properly. Science does not exist in a vacuum. It is implemented by scientists. And you have probably never advanced or refined our knowledge of the truth once in your entire life, unless you happen to have published some research. Have you? You benefit from scientists, but claim they are the flawed part of the duality. You have this platonic view of the algorithm, and it appears to me a complete lack of understanding of how scientists implement it. Or how you receive the benefits of science. Or of the flaws in how we currently implement science. It will take humans to improve how we practice science. I feel like that guy who's trying to explain fiat money to someone. That's great you believe in money. Money is meaningless. It only has value because we say it does. Science is almost meaningless. It's a way for scientists to think and approach questions and problems. It's the best method we know of, but that's only because scientists have done that work. And need to continue to improve it. Because science itself can be broken. Science isn't perfect, as you seem to think it is.
SantalBlush 4y ago
The person above is correct; you are having an epistemological debate, whether you realize it or not. What you're writing shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the topic.
- teakettle42 4y ago
  Someone desperately trying to steer the debate into epistemological sophistry doesn’t mean I have to take the bait. I’ve explicitly declined to debate epistemology because it’s not necessary to show the internal inconsistency of sciencism, and it’s not a productive topic of discussion with religious ideologists. Now, please either present an argument or find someone else to harass. You’ve repeatedly left empty, sniping comments like this one, without ever actually making an argument. I get it, you disagree with me and find my position emotionally upsetting. That’s not a position, or an argument, it’s a feeling, and I’m not here to help you moderate your feelings.
  - SantalBlush 4y ago
    You can explicitly decline all you want, but that doesn't change the epistemological substance of the discussion.
    - teakettle42 4y ago
      As I said, I’m sorry this upsetting to you, but I’m not here to be a sounding board for your empty frustrations. You’re welcome to have the epistemological dialogue without me. It’s not relevant to pointing out the flaws of sciencism, and I — again — have zero interest in debating the epistemological validity of your faith-based belief system.
      - SantalBlush 4y ago
        I did not say you were debating the epistemological validity of a faith-based belief system, I said the discussion you've been having is epistemological in nature. These are different things, and the fact that you're misunderstanding this illustrates why you fail to grasp what others here have been trying to explain. You are making rudimentary mistakes in your thinking.