Getting faithful about science
by westwood
You’ve heard of theism, atheism, polytheism, monotheism, whatevertheism. But have you heard about scientism? It’s time to learn a few things about it, because the chances are pretty high that if you live in the Western world and subscribe to principles of logic, you might subscribe to it. I know I did.
So, what the heck is scientism?
Simply put, it is the view that all knowledge is scientific knowledge. All knowledge is that which can be measured and counted. All that which we know can be tested by the scientific method.
Sounds decent, right?
I thought so too, until on closer inspection it is revealed… not so much.
Scientism is actually self-refuting.
How, exactly?
I mean, after all, it seems rational and reasonable that the only things that are real are that which can be measured, observed, counted. The supernatural, which cannot be observed scientifically, is not real. And there are some great logical claims to support that.
The inherent problem with scientism is the claim of scientism itself. After all, the claim that all knowledge can only be acquired by science isn’t a scientific claim. It is self-refuting.
The idea that everything can be measured isn’t a claim that can be tested scientifically. Science presupposes that that there is an objective physical world, and the things in it can be explained through the use of human intellect. To argue for these presuppositions using science is circular.
What the heck should we do, then? Turn to religion, or spirituality? Well, while scientific has one logical problem, appealing the unprovable and supernatural has many, many more.
We turn to philosophy. Rational inquiry doesn’t depend on science, but science is a form of rational inquiry. After all, there is a reason that the first scientists were called natural philosophers. There’s a reason that those who earn a PhD are awarded a doctor of philosophy. The thinking of the natural philosopher is something we need to bring back, and give some weight to. No, I’m not talking about pot-smoking hippies. There’s something to be said for using logical deduction rather than waiting for funded studies to prove things we already know.
(this post featuring hyperboleandahalf for all sorts of awesome!)
Filed under: logic, science | 7 Comments
Tags: atheism, circular, logic, philosophy, scientism, self-refuting, theism
Guest post: Cod plz!
We are pleased to announce another guest post, from right here in seal-clubbin’ Canada!
_____________
Cod plz!
by Mojofooka
So a federal advisory panel urges the lives of 70 000 grey seals off the east coast of Canada to be culled. Why, you ask?
The Basic Gist of It
1. Humans want fish
2. Humans fish for fish
3. Humans want more fish
4. Humans develop SUPER EFFECTIVE technology and techniques to fish faster for more fish
5. Humans get lots of fish
6. Humans find there is not much fish left
7. THEREFORE: the appropriate response is to kill off the majority of the nearby grey seal population
…there is a serious logic disconnect along the way.
Just to clarify, the fish in question are cod. Anyways, as of today, the commercial cod fishing industry on Canada’s east coast has been inactive for over 17 years. I do credit humans for suspending commercial cod fishing in 1993, because at least it gives the indication that humans were acknowledged as somewhat relevant to the tremendously low cod populations. Despite this lull in human fishing activities, however, cod populations are now at a record low.
The Fisheries Resource Conservation Council (FRCC) desperately wanted to explain the lack of cod population recovery to find some basis for an idea to kick-start the population growth/revive the cod fishing industry. This advisory council then brilliantly noted that 1. grey seals eat cod, and 2. the local grey seal population had increased 30-fold since the 1960s. Armed with these powerful realizations, the FRCC concluded that the party at fault therefore must have been the grey seals, and proceeded to suggest that killing 70 000 of the aforementioned seals would liberate the cod from its population growth inhibitions. In fact, an additional bonus was even given: it would be a superbly interesting large-scale experiment to perform.
Wow. So that’s all it takes to make a rampant massacre sound like a great idea.
Does the FRCC assume that the only influential factor on cod population is predation? And that only one of its predators is responsible? The assumption isn’t directly stated, but it certainly seems implied when the FRCC’s proposition only targets one predator – the grey seal. But how about other considerations? Perhaps with cod populations depleted, their prey had much fewer hungry cod chasing them… so could it be possible that other hungry species, formerly outcompeted by the massive cod populations, are now able to flourish off the cod’s prey? The now-flourishing species could be consuming much of the cod’s precious food, thus impeding cod populations from rebounding even after humans suspended commercial fishing. Or how about the recorded fact that prior to overfishing, large populations of both grey seals and cod existed simultaneously? Imagine that. If seals and cod are actually able to coexist, it’s likely that the grey seals aren’t as much of a barrier to cod population growth as they are accused of being. Oh, and just as a reminder, seals and humans definitely aren’t the only cod-consuming species.
Really though, killing 70 000 seals to check if it will make cod populations skyrocket… Well then, I guess I’m off to slaughter the majority of Canadian bears, just in case they’re responsible for keeping salmon from having lots of babies! Simply brilliant. Let me impart some wisdom that my statistics teacher has permanently impressed into my mind: Correlation does not equal causation. Even if cod populations did shoot up again after wiping out over two-thirds of the grey seal population, it would be neigh impossible to know that the sole factor was predation from grey seals. In marine ecology, there is no “food chain” – it is in fact called a “food web” because of the staggering complexity of who-eats-who, and in all honesty, the population boom of the grey seals living off the east coast of Canada may really have little relevance to cod. Considering that the FRCC’s suggested bloodbath/experiment isn’t being performed in a controlled environment, there are way too many confounding variables for this experiment in the deep blue sea.
Possibly the most charming part the suggestion from the FRCC to cull 70 000 grey seals is that it was made in a report titled “ Towards Recovered and Sustainable Groundfish Fisheries in Eastern Canada”. Apparently sustainable fisheries only need to concern themselves with the sustainability of species sold in the supermarket.
Well, there’s probably isn’t a realistically accessible button to suddenly make cod populations go bursting forth in glorious fit of reproduction… but even if there was, I’d say killing grey seals isn’t it.
Filed under: science | 5 Comments
Tags: cod, critical thinking, fisheries, fishing, logic, seal, seal clubbing, seal cull, sustainability
Supernaturally closed-minded
Have you ever rejected someone’s ghost story and been told you were being too closed-minded? Well, here’s a quick offering from Qualiasoup, who we dearly love:
Filed under: critical thinking | 3 Comments
Tags: atheism, critical thinking, ghosts, logic, qualiasoup, supernatural






