--- In [email protected], "salyavin808" <fintlewoodlewix@...> wrote: > --- In [email protected], "PaliGap" <compost1uk@> wrote:
> > --- In [email protected], "salyavin808" > > <fintlewoodlewix@> wrote: > > > --- In [email protected], "PaliGap" > > <compost1uk@> wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], "salyavin808" > > <fintlewoodlewix@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > If you want to have a go at convincing us go ahead. > > Start wherever you like on the diagram. > > > > > > > > There are many things I don't believe in. Maybe I "don't > > > > believe" in more than you (take "Scientism" for a start). > > > > > > Scientism? Ah yes, that weird sickness creationists like to > > > accuse the rational of suffering from. > > > > Ah, "the rational". > > http://youtu.be/cAgAvnvXF9U > > > > Is this your thought process? > > > > :: Creationists make accusations of scientism. > > :: Creationists talk bollocks > > :: This is an accusation of scientism > > :: So this is bollocks > > > > Hardly an advertisement for the rational higher ground? > > > > Susan Haack: Six Signs Of Scientism: > > ------------------------------------ > > > > 1. Using the words "science," "scientific," "scientifically," > > "scientist," etc., honorifically, as generic terms of > > epistemic praise. > > > > 2. Adopting the manners, the trappings, the technical > > terminology, etc., of the sciences, irrespective of their real > > usefulness. > > > > 3. A preoccupation with demarcation, i.e., with drawing a > > sharp line between genuine science, the real thing, and > > "pseudo-scientific" imposters. > > > > 4. A corresponding preoccupation with identifying the > > "scientific method," presumed to explain how the sciences have > > been so successful. > > > > 5. Looking to the sciences for answers to questions beyond > > their scope. > > > > 6. Denying or denigrating the legitimacy or the worth of other > > kinds of inquiry besides the scientific, or the value of human > > activities other than inquiry, such as poetry or art. > > Is this what you are accusing me of? Ho ho, does she think > poetry can prove reincarnation? Yes and no and neither do I. And neither did Wordsworth. Can you imagine that - writing verse about something that *can't be proved*? What a waste of time! Why bother? Do you think that only what is provable is a worthy candidate for what we might suppose to be the case? (I suspect that very little, if anything, is provable). If you do think that, or something like it, is that belief in itself provable? Or should that faith of yours be consigned to the Venn diagram of unproveable bollocks (religious bollocks presumably)?
