>Veritasium

lol. Okay.

Ab und zu bin ich auch faul

[removed]

Finally clicked on the link lol 😂

[removed]

[removed]

The author of Fabelhafte Rebellen is the author of the article.

This for sure. Also you can use more of the scientific method than might occur in many situations too, for example you can record events and what you witness even when you can't control or perfectly describe what's happening. That's definitely not comparable to most scientific evidence we use in society now but it's still better than nothing for trial and error and more generalised wisdom and learning.

Lectures about morals and ethics involving alcohol rarely stick.

That is true, but the point of the post is that people don't make these kinds of arguments in real life. If I say "yesterday the bottom of the sky was red, and I know because my brother told me and I don't think he would lie to me". This sentence reflects real life more because you example is based on the absurdity of someone arguing a known universal truth, that creates the exact kind of toy sentence example that can then be easily discredited.

[removed]

Because scientism requires you to believe absolutely absurd things. It is literally worse than flat-earthism, for at least flat-earthers aren't required to ignore their own fundamental reasoning and experience of the world.

[removed]

Yes, but sometimes it isn't really possible to know things via the scientific method - so we must use other methods.

Science is only the best method when it is possible to apply it.

Since you agree that author's definition of scientism differs from the definition in the dictionary, I don't see any disagreements between us. Have a good day.

>Just pointing out a fallacy is not enough, you also have to be able to show how that fallacy discredits the argument as it is used.

By definition the fallacy discredits the argument it was a part of. It does not, however, disprove the conclusion. If you say "the sky is blue because Joe Biden says so", I can point out that this is an argument from authority, and doing so immediately discredits your argument. The sky remains blue, however.

Just to be clear, there are experiments that show that quantum entanglement is not the result of a hidden variable. See this video for how those experiments work.

So there is evidence against hidden variables. And you are essentially arguing that this evidence is wrong or misinterpreted. The only deterministic interpretation of this is that entangled particles have faster than light communication, which as far as I know, does not have evidence supporting it.

I suppose you mean the OED and not the Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, which is in front of me with a very different definition. I'm not sure which should be considered "official", but iirc Scrabble requires Collins.

It actually doesn't matter, because neither definition is relevant, because the only definition that matters is the one that's defined in the author's paper. The author uses this to set up their argument's scope. (Oh hey, that's Oxford's very next entry! Although they only talk about it in terms of logic.)

[deleted]

"Excessive belief" definition is from the Oxford dictionary.

Dear booze… we must now part. I despair that you are not edifying my grand aesthetic life experience. I feel I must better be served by…..chlorinated tap water with a dash of forever chemicals. Yes that shall purify my imagination and appreciation.

Please keep in mind our first commenting rule:

> Read the Post Before You Reply

> Read/listen/watch the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed.

This subreddit is not in the business of one-liners, tangential anecdotes, or dank memes. Expect comment threads that break our rules to be removed. Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.

This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.

If you do something good, you feel good afterward. If you do something bad, you feel either guilt, shame, or both; sounds like engineering by a feeling, moral deity to me.

[removed]

Which article are you quoting? I can't find the "excessive belief" definition in the article OP linked, nor in the Metaphilosophy paper.

Also, the second quote about "'excessive' scientism" -- are you quoting "a pretty extreme view"? If so, you are paraphrasing -- please do not use quotation marks unless it's a direct quotation.

I'm not sure I understand your comment. The author says he's addressing one specific argument in a specific paper, not scientism in general. Furthermore, it's a blog post, not a scientific proof, and not a prescription.