3 ms·
This is the textbook definition of the religion of Scientism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism
by mizzao 3y ago
This is the textbook definition of the religion of Scientism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism
- TeMPOraL 3y agoSure, whatever. Call it religion if you like, but try and define something existing or being true in a way that doesn't involve making testable predictions.
- denton-scratch 3y agoThanks for the wikipedia link. It says that Dennett and the "New Atheists" assert "that God does not exist". That perfectly exemplifies my point: you can't use non-verifiability to prove that God doesn't exist. What it proves is that neither an unverifiable claim nor it's contradiction is meaningful. From the wiki article, it looks to me like my position isn't Scientism at all. The article presents Scientism as a kind of fallacy: attempting to apply some version of scientific method to everything. What I'm on about is more like ternary logic: a thing can be True, or it can be False, or it can be neither. It's closer to Not Even Wrong. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong