I really don’t think this is what scientism is actually arguing—what makes you think that? Also, see my reply to pjeby—I see this as being about tone rather than moral arguments.
I really don’t think this is what scientism is actually arguing—what makes you think that?
Because that is the actual implied meaning of the argument. (Substitute “accepted by all relevant parties to be” for “inherently” if you prefer.) Of course he didn’t make it explicit and instead kept it in the realm of connotation. That’s what you are supposed to do when moralizing—especially when your moralizing makes no sense.
If you reject the above as the intended argument then all you achieve is changing the interpretation from “coherent argument based on ridiculous premises” to “no argument whatsoever”. Hardly an improvement.
Also, see my reply to pjeby—I see this as being about tone rather than moral arguments.
Pjeby similarly described scientism’s comment as being devoid of anything but negative tone.
If you reject the above as the intended argument then all you achieve is changing the interpretation from “coherent argument based on ridiculous premises” to “no argument whatsoever”. Hardly an improvement.
I had intended to shift the discussion to the emotional reaction that created the argument. If a subset of the population responds to certain things with such a strong emotional reaction, then this may be worth talking about, even if the arguments scientism used when expressing this emotion aren’t.
I really don’t think this is what scientism is actually arguing—what makes you think that? Also, see my reply to pjeby—I see this as being about tone rather than moral arguments.
Because that is the actual implied meaning of the argument. (Substitute “accepted by all relevant parties to be” for “inherently” if you prefer.) Of course he didn’t make it explicit and instead kept it in the realm of connotation. That’s what you are supposed to do when moralizing—especially when your moralizing makes no sense.
If you reject the above as the intended argument then all you achieve is changing the interpretation from “coherent argument based on ridiculous premises” to “no argument whatsoever”. Hardly an improvement.
Pjeby similarly described scientism’s comment as being devoid of anything but negative tone.
I had intended to shift the discussion to the emotional reaction that created the argument. If a subset of the population responds to certain things with such a strong emotional reaction, then this may be worth talking about, even if the arguments scientism used when expressing this emotion aren’t.
I agree with everything else you said.
I agree with what you say here too.