did anyone catch the new word the Rev. on Wash. Journal threw out?

[donsu]

WJ had a religiously insane Rev. across the table from a Rabbi.

the Rev. was talking about intelligent design (which is garble) and he was going on about scientists using - get this: SCIENCEISM, or however you spell it.

guess that's the new bad word to call anything of science they don't like.

[Teaser]

1. scientism is an actual word

used in the philsophy of science. It is used in situations where people commit a category error by assuming science answers normative questions rather than simply factual questions.

[CottonBear]

6. Thanks. Now I'm going to have to look up the definition of "normative."

:) :eyes:

[Tsiyu]

15. Normative relates to what should or shouldn't be done.

For example: Positive Economics is the study of how the market works. It deals exclusively with facts and draws no conclusions as to what systems and practices are best for the market. Normative Economics, on the other hand, concerns practices that lead to the most beneficial and efficient operation of the market. In other words, positive=facts, normative=opinions.

[CottonBear]

16. Thank you! Obviously, I've never studied economics.

:)

[donsu]

8. gosh, thanks for informing me - but the Rev.'s use of it?

I'm still mulling over what 'commit a category error' means?

[Teaser]

10. category error

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category_mistake

"A category mistake is a semantic or ontological error by which a property (or some category of being) is incorrectly ascribed to a particular ontological type or token in a proposition and therefore is meaningless or nonsense. For example, the statement "the business of the book sleeps eternally" is syntactically correct, but it is meaningless or nonsense because it incorrectly ascribes the property, sleeps eternally, to business, and incorrectly ascribes the property, business, to the token, the book."

So we commit a category error if we conflate a moral proposition (normative) with a factual one. If one uses science to justify what one should do, for example, is often a category error, because science answers "how does this work" questions but not "Is it morally right to do this" questions.

[donsu]

13. ahh, I see - thank you

nt

[CottonBear]

11. Yeah... What does 'commit a category error' mean? n/t

[Johonny]

2. Those bastard scientist

using scienceism. Next thing you know lawyers will be using lawnocity, accounts will be accountanating and truck drivers will be using truck drivatude.

[Ysolde]

12. Perfect!

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[CottonBear]

3. I missed that comment. That Rev. dude is insane.

What's up with the jarhead haircut? I felt sorry for the Rabbi. He had to listen to some real wingnut callers.

[getmeouttahere]

4. This country is FUBAR.....

when someone can be allowed on WJ and use non-existent words

[tridim]

5. "Just ask this scientician"

"uhh"

[Kraklen]

7. Yeah, it's like the word "Darwinist."

I've never heard of a physicist referred to as a "Newtonist" or a chemist referred to as a "Paulingist."

[Igel]

9. Well, new to you at least.

Two possibilities:
One is "scientism" (see post 1, I guess it was):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism

The other is "scienceism", with 53 hits in Google, or "sciencism" with >500. It's an implicit claim that those arguing against creationism are trying to make science fulfill the role of a religion. Not need for God, science provides all the answers: in fact, it does it better than any religion.

One's coined from the Latin root, the other is from English word. Eh. The two words, I think, are getting at the same question: whether or not science has all the answers.

"Intelligent design" and other variants of creationism are where you usually find "scienceism", so the context makes better sense for the latter word.

[immoderate]

14. I think they mean "reductionism."

That's a more general term for using the principles of one discipline to resolve the issues of another.

--IMM