|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Scientism
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
I've started this thread from a post in another thread, as we were going off topic:
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
I used the term scientism for a reason - because 'scientism' is a philosophy, whereby the person believes that science is the only place where mankind can get answers, even to questions which have nothing to do with science.
Thank you. Scientism is a word that I have met only recently, so am wary of using it.
One thing I have noticed is that anyone I think of as (possibly) a scientismist will never acknowledge this - to them it is all science.
Anyway, play nicely! ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Seconds out...
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Ah, this one gets my juices going very nicely. Just two points to start with.
1. Scientism is self-refuting, since it is not a scientific claim, but a philosophical one, hence, according to scientism, cannot contribute any useful knowledge.
2. I'm not sure there are any genuine scientismists. Can you actually live only according to scientific knowledge? Are you not allowed the occasional intuition or irrational fancy?
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
One thing I have noticed is that anyone I think of as (possibly) a scientismist will never acknowledge this - to them it is all science.
Isn't "scientist" an already-existing word for someone who believes in the explanatory power of science and works to expand that understanding? Making up cumbersome neologisms for already-existing terms seems pointless, but maybe I'm just being a grammaratarianismist about it.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Being a scientist does not indicate scientism at all. Many scientists would accept that science only describes part of reality.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Are you not allowed the occasional intuition or irrational fancy?
Thinking back to some of the things Richard Dawkins (you knew it wouldn't be long!) has said, it seems that he is allowed these fancies, but his disciples have to believe and hang onto his every word - that's what he calls "thinking for yourself."
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Being a scientist does not indicate scientism at all. Many scientists would accept that science only describes part of reality.
My problem is that "scientism" is usually only trotted out as whipping boy (how's that for a mixed metaphorationism?) whenever science has something particular to say about someone's pet issue. (e.g. heliocentrism, descent with modification, climate change) It's usually a tactic to avoid discussing the specifics of a particular case and instead argue "all science is stupid and subjective".
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Isn't "scientist" an already-existing word for someone who believes in the explanatory power of science and works to expand that understanding?
No, the answer is in your question - I've even italicised it for you. Science isn't a belief at all.
Nb. A "theory" isn't a belief.
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Isn't "scientist" an already-existing word for someone who believes in the explanatory power of science and works to expand that understanding?
No, the answer is in your question - I've even italicised it for you. Science isn't a belief at all.
Nb. A "theory" isn't a belief.
Ah, semantic games. Gotcha.
So your argument is that scientist don't really believe in quantum dynamics or gravity or any of those other crazy theories they've been advocationizing to the rest of us, it's just a huge deception in order to . . . what?
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
One thing I have noticed is that anyone I think of as (possibly) a scientismist will never acknowledge this - to them it is all science.
Isn't "scientist" an already-existing word for someone who believes in the explanatory power of science and works to expand that understanding? Making up cumbersome neologisms for already-existing terms seems pointless, but maybe I'm just being a grammaratarianismist about it.
Well I agree that scientismist is a cumbersome (and IMHO unattractive) neologism. Scientism, though, as a word to describe the view that (broadly speaking) the only proper kind of knowledge is scientific knowledge, is a useful term. Many scientists don't accept scientism, and many who do accept it are not scientists.
Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
Many scientists don't accept scientism, and many who do accept it are not scientists.
What do you mean by "accept" Scientism? Do you mean accept the usage of the word, or believe it?
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Are you not allowed the occasional intuition or irrational fancy?
Thinking back to some of the things Richard Dawkins (you knew it wouldn't be long!) has said, it seems that he is allowed these fancies, but his disciples have to believe and hang onto his every word - that's what he calls "thinking for yourself."
Yes, I'm not convinced that Prof Dawkins actually advocates scientism. I know that he is pretty sniffy about philosophy, but of course, he puts forward various philosophical arguments himself, which are not scientific in nature.
I think it is often a straw man, although I accept that some thinkers come close to scientism. I just don't think they can live it in practical terms.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
Many scientists don't accept scientism, and many who do accept it are not scientists.
What do you mean by "accept" Scientism? Do you mean accept the usage of the word, or believe it?
I mean that they don't accept the view that (broadly speaking) the only proper kind of knowledge is scientific knowledge.
Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lawrence
Ship's Grill Master
# 4913
|
Posted
Science is an approach to investigate and explain phenomena and scientism is a belief that the scientific approach will eventually explain everything?
Posts: 199 | From: Where once you could get a decent Brain Sandwich | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
I think it's a view that science will eventually describe everything; I'm not sure about 'explain'. I suppose so.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I think it's a view that science will eventually describe everything; I'm not sure about 'explain'. I suppose so.
What we really need a catchy word for is those dingbat assholes who keep talking about "debating the controversy" and the like. I saw on the news last night that North Carolina political cretans are trying to pass a law that would require the state to ignore climate change in any of their official planning and the like. Apparently, the real estate biz has a bunch of asshats who are afraid that talk of the rising sea level will depress the ocean-front property market. Do you really think that folks putting too much stock in fact-based reasoning is the great problem we face as a society?
--Tom Clune
[ 24. October 2012, 16:44: Message edited by: tclune ]
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ikkyu
Shipmate
# 15207
|
Posted
How about instead of attacking a straw-man "scientism" you can argue against specific arguments from actual scientists.
For example:
Sean Carrol
He is arguing that the laws of Physics we currently have rule out things like astrology , life after death. Any teleological description of nature and so on.
Why is he wrong? assuming he is, which I doubt.
Posts: 434 | From: Arizona | Registered: Oct 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lawrence
Ship's Grill Master
# 4913
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I think it's a view that science will eventually describe everything; I'm not sure about 'explain'. I suppose so.
That is probably the nub of this thread, is scientism a belief that science can ultimately give us "meaning", however stark or cold that meaning may be, or a belief that science will just give us a jolly good description of how everything works.
Posts: 199 | From: Where once you could get a decent Brain Sandwich | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lawrence:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I think it's a view that science will eventually describe everything; I'm not sure about 'explain'. I suppose so.
That is probably the nub of this thread, is scientism a belief that science can ultimately give us "meaning", however stark or cold that meaning may be, or a belief that science will just give us a jolly good description of how everything works.
Yes, but the trouble now is that the concept of explanation is ambiguous. The idea of 'describe and explain' is supposed to be a hallmark of science in relation to its own observations, hypotheses, and theories. It does not mean 'explain' in a wider philosophical sense.
This is one reason that many of these discussions are tricky, as people are using the same words with different meanings!
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Nb. A "theory" isn't a belief.
While I agree with your major point, my understanding (per Kuhn) is that a theory is (or once was) definitely a belief. A scientist tries to make sense of observations by forming a hypothesis. When a hypothesis has attracted the support of a fair number of other scientists, it is called a theory. Belief in the theory grows as experiments confirm its predictive power. But sometimes observations are noticed which the theory cannot explain. Then belief becomes strained and scientists look for a new explanatory hypothesis-- either a conflicting one or a more comprehensive one. Sometimes theories must be discarded, i.e. we don't believe them anymore.
--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.
Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lawrence:
That is probably the nub of this thread, is scientism a belief that science can ultimately give us "meaning", however stark or cold that meaning may be, or a belief that science will just give us a jolly good description of how everything works.
I think scientism has already decided that for one to enquire about the meaning of life is a pointless (I think I've heard someone say "stupid") question. They believe there is no meaning to anything - it just happened.
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Holy Smoke
Shipmate
# 14866
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ikkyu:
He is arguing that the laws of Physics we currently have rule out things like astrology , life after death. Any teleological description of nature and so on.
Why is he wrong? assuming he is, which I doubt.
That's a good example of the scientistic fallacy.
Thus, there's no such thing as life after death because it would contradict basic laws of physics.
Intelligent design is wrong because science has proven that evolution proceeds by natural selection.
And so on.
The trouble is, like the atheist, the believer in the omniscience of science is so convinced of the self-evident truth of his position, that he thinks he can argue his way out of any argument to the contrary, before he has even begun. So he wouldn't even question the validity of the statements above, because to him they are self-evident truth.
So in answer to your question, I'm not even going to start trying to explain why those statements are wrong. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Posts: 335 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Holy Smoke:
...So in answer to your question, I'm not even going to start trying to explain why those statements are wrong.
I wish you would - I'm drowning here... help!!! ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Holy Smoke:
That's a good example of the scientistic fallacy.
Thus, there's no such thing as life after death because it would contradict basic laws of physics.
Intelligent design is wrong because science has proven that evolution proceeds by natural selection.
And so on.
Like trying to decide if rain is caused by the hydrologic cycle or Zeus pissing through a sieve. Most objectications to scientism I've come across read not so much as appeals to ignorance as appeals for ignorance. The idea that any kind of scientific explanicationing for anything is an assault on everyone else's inalienable right to believe falsehoods.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lawrence
Ship's Grill Master
# 4913
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:
Originally posted by Lawrence:
That is probably the nub of this thread, is scientism a belief that science can ultimately give us "meaning", however stark or cold that meaning may be, or a belief that science will just give us a jolly good description of how everything works.
I think scientism has already decided that for one to enquire about the meaning of life is a pointless (I think I've heard someone say "stupid") question. They believe there is no meaning to anything - it just happened.
I think the "meaning of life" that they believe in is in fact the "meaninglessness of life". Science can describe and explain how things work, but it can not say whether anything has "meaning" because that is not the point of science. Life may be "meaningless" but science can not say one way or the other.
Posts: 199 | From: Where once you could get a decent Brain Sandwich | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ikkyu
Shipmate
# 15207
|
Posted
Carrol could answer by expanding on his argument in his talk. We have no examples of human intelligence in the real world that acts or exists independently of their physical bodies. No neurons firing, no mind. No Biochemistry, no life.
If you then propose a non-physical "ghost in the machine". He or she would have to interact with the physical body in some way. We would be able to measure that. We see no evidence in Nature of any other forces than the 4 fundamental interactions Gravity,Electromagnetism, The strong nuclear interaction and the Weak nuclear interaction.
If they were other forces that could interact with
us we would have measured them already with the experiments we have done. We have not so they are not there.
If you follow his talk he is not saying that Science already can explain or describe in detail
everything we see. It might in the future.
He is saying that from what Is already known there is no place for telekinesis, astrology, life after death etc in the real world.
If there was we could measure it.
[ 24. October 2012, 17:22: Message edited by: Ikkyu ]
Posts: 434 | From: Arizona | Registered: Oct 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Carex
Shipmate
# 9643
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
...It's usually a tactic to avoid discussing the specifics of a particular case and instead argue "all science is stupid and subjective".
This has been my experience as well: the only time I have come across the term is when it appears to be used a straw man used to attack Science in general because the scientific data contradict a person's pet beliefs in an area that is well within the realm of Science rather than outside of it.
Now, if someone wants to give a some clear, specific examples of actual Scientism at work that are consistent with given definitions and the way the term has been used on the Ship, I'm willing to listen. But from the attempts at defining it so far, it isn't an approach that I recognize in any of the scientists and engineers that I work with regularly.
Posts: 1425 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
Many scientists don't accept scientism, and many who do accept it are not scientists.
What do you mean by "accept" Scientism? Do you mean accept the usage of the word, or believe it?
And wouldn't the acceptance of scientism be scientismism? Where will the wordification end?
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ikkyu
Shipmate
# 15207
|
Posted
What Carex said.
Posts: 434 | From: Arizona | Registered: Oct 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ikkyu
Shipmate
# 15207
|
Posted
There is a good example in this thread. I pointed to a concrete example of what a scientist actually said and the answer was that "scientismists" believe in the omniscience of Science. And that "scientimsts" claim the self-evidence of scientific arguments.
Something which neither myself or the source I quoted claimed. Carrol just speaks about what we have learned from decades of very careful and clever experiments. Nothing "self-evident" about that. Scientism is a straw man argument.
To answer the arguments of people like Carrol you actually have to deal with what they actually say.
Posts: 434 | From: Arizona | Registered: Oct 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ikkyu:
There is a good example in this thread. I pointed to a concrete example of what a scientist actually said and the answer was that "scientismists" believe in the omniscience of Science. And that "scientimsts" claim the self-evidence of scientific arguments.
Something which neither myself or the source I quoted claimed. Carrol just speaks about what we have learned from decades of very careful and clever experiments. Nothing "self-evident" about that. Scientism is a straw man argument.
To answer the arguments of people like Carrol you actually have to deal with what they actually say.
Nope. "Scientism" is a term, not a Straw Man.
Wiki article on Scientism
It is a pejorative term, and has more than one use (see the article) - but that doesn't make it a straw man, just because some people don't like it.
[ 24. October 2012, 18:26: Message edited by: Mark Betts ]
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Holy Smoke
Shipmate
# 14866
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ikkyu:
Carrol could answer by expanding on his argument in his talk. We have no examples of human intelligence in the real world that acts or exists independently of their physical bodies. No neurons firing, no mind. No Biochemistry, no life.
That is generally because any evidence to the contrary - of past lives, spirits, or whatever - is automatically discarded - as 'unscientific'.
quote:
If you then propose a non-physical "ghost in the machine". He or she would have to interact with the physical body in some way. We would be able to measure that.
What would we measure it with? So if it can't be measured by any of our existing instruments, then it doesn't exist. Scientism.
quote:
If you follow his talk he is not saying that Science already can explain or describe in detail everything we see. It might in the future. He is saying that from what Is already known there is no place for telekinesis, astrology, life after death etc in the real world.
The 'real world'... You mean those phenomena which are observable by our current scientific instruments. Of course not, how would they? So even if we could observe the results of telekinesis (let's say, someone can move a candle flame by thought alone), then it hasn't really happened, because there is no scientific mechanism for it to happen. Again, that's scientism - genuine science proceeds from actual observations, and attempts to form and prove hypotheses to explain them. Scientism starts with current scientific theory, and proceeds to ignore or supress any fact or observation which contradicts it.
But as I said, it's not a rational, logical position, however much its adherents may protest otherwise.
Posts: 335 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
Thanks Holy Smoke!
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Holy Smoke
Shipmate
# 14866
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ikkyu:
There is a good example in this thread. I pointed to a concrete example of what a scientist actually said and the answer was that "scientismists" believe in the omniscience of Science. And that "scientimsts" claim the self-evidence of scientific arguments.
Something which neither myself or the source I quoted claimed...
I'm tempted to suggest that an inability to read is another symptom of scientism, but perhaps that's rather overgeneralizing.
You claim I said '"scientismists" believe in the omniscience of Science.'
What I actually said was 'the believer in the omniscience of science is so convinced of the self-evident truth of his position, that he thinks he can argue his way out of any argument to the contrary, before he has even begun.'
Thus I am talking about those people who believe in the omniscience of science, and how they think (based partly on recalling my own opinions from some years back, I might add), rather than making a truth claim about 'scientismists'. In other words, I am suggesting that belief in the omniscience of science is a distinguishing characteristic of pseudo-scientists, and a means of identifying the species, to which your friend appears to belong.
Also, you claim that I said '"scientimsts" claim the self-evidence of scientific arguments.'
What I actually said was 'he wouldn't even question the validity of the statements above, because to him they are self-evident truth.'
Note, it is not 'scientific arguments' which are self-evident, but his own faulty pseudo-scientific arguments.
Posts: 335 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Croesos
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
One thing I have noticed is that anyone I think of as (possibly) a scientismist will never acknowledge this - to them it is all science.
Isn't "scientist" an already-existing word for someone who believes in the explanatory power of science and works to expand that understanding? Making up cumbersome neologisms for already-existing terms seems pointless, but maybe I'm just being a grammaratarianismist about it.
You haven't understood at all what Mark wrote. Scientism is a perfectly good term that describes the belief that the empirical, naturalistic scientific method can - and indeed ought to - describe and explain everything, whereas science is limited in its scope. I am very surprised that you haven't grasped this really quite obvious distinction.
One example of scientism (aka practical philosophical naturalism) is the idea that science can explain morality. If so, then consider the following...
Someone presents you with a stick of dynamite. Please show him how the empirical scientific method can explain - with appropriate reasonable evidence - what he ought to do with it. Should he place it on a crowded train to blow people to bits, or should he use it in a controlled explosion to demolish a derelict building safely? How does science ALONE answer this question?
Failure to provide a proper answer strictly according to the empirical scientific method will prove that your conflation of science and scientism is unwarranted, and that Mark's point is completely valid.
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ikkyu:
Scientism is a straw man argument.
And yet, people still buy books by Matt Ridley on economics.
But Matt Ridley writes his books believing in the explanatory power of evolutionary psychology and working to expand that understanding. Therefore, according to Croesos, he is a scientist doing science. Questioning the competence of evolutionary psychology to dictate results to economics is, according to Croesos, an appeal to ignorance and an assault on, say, Paul Krugman's inalienable right to believe falsehoods.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mockingale
Shipmate
# 16599
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Holy Smoke:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Ikkyu:
[qb]The trouble is, like the atheist, the believer in the omniscience of science is so convinced of the self-evident truth of his position, that he thinks he can argue his way out of any argument to the contrary, before he has even begun. So he wouldn't even question the validity of the statements above, because to him they are self-evident truth.
What you present as "scientism" sounds an awful lot like religious fundamentalism: I don't have to entertain any alternative theories, arguments or apparent evidence to the contrary of phenomenon X because my Holy Scriptures and/or tradition say otherwise, and it's plainly obvious that they're right because they're from God.
Without getting too far into equines that have ceased to be, that's the kind of refutation that young-earth creationists offer (to appease their fellow travelers). I heard a creationism guy on the radio argue (and this is just an example) that studies indicating that birds may have evolved from dinosaurs are absurd because flying creatures were created before terrestrial beasts, according to Genesis 1.
Posts: 679 | From: Connectilando | Registered: Aug 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
I think EE (above) has presented a good example of scientism, in the attempt to describe and explain morality in scientific terms, something which Sam Harris appears to be trying to do.
I would also venture that logical positivism in the early 20th century also advocated scientism, since it argued that metaphysics was meaningless.
I suppose various forms of verificationism were also like this.
But positivism seemed to collapse under its own contradictions, which is revealing I think, since any form of scientism is a philosophical doctrine, not a scientific claim. Hence, it is self-refuting.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Holy Smoke
Shipmate
# 14866
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mockingale:
What you present as "scientism" sounds an awful lot like religious fundamentalism: I don't have to entertain any alternative theories, arguments or apparent evidence to the contrary of phenomenon X because my Holy Scriptures and/or tradition say otherwise, and it's plainly obvious that they're right because they're from God...
I suppose you could liken it to religious fundamentalism, but I think I would tend to think of it more as a kind of socio-political ideology, which acts a an underpinning, not to science per se, but to modern society. After all, a lot of decisions and criteria as to what should or should not be investigated by respectable science are basically societal decisions, when it comes down to it - society decides not to give official credence to reports of certain phenomena, and thus respectable scientists (who value their careers and reputations) do not investigate them. But then that is society's perogative, and perhaps there are good reasons for her choices.
But the ideology only really works if it is accepted implicitly, and not held up to examination, and so part of the ideology is that the respectable scientist doesn't actually publically admit that any such ideology exists. It just naturally transpires that certain subjects are so obviously 'unscientific' that nobody will touch them with a barge-pole, without their needing to give a rational justification for their decision.
So it's probably only when it comes up against religion or spirituality that its premises are tested, and when it is called by name, and when it starts looking like some kind of religious fundamentalism - most of the time, it is just taken for granted.
Posts: 335 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ikkyu
Shipmate
# 15207
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Holy Smoke:
That is generally because any evidence to the contrary - of past lives, spirits, or whatever - is automatically discarded - as 'unscientific'.
Give me an example of objective evidence for those things that has been “automatically discarded”.
quote:
Originally posted by Holy Smoke:
What would we measure it with? So if it can't be measured by any of our existing instruments, then it doesn't exist. Scientism.
So you are claiming that some “ghost in the machine” could affect a physical body made of protons neutrons and electrons in a way that affects their behavior and not be measurable with our existing detectors?. (If It does not affect behavior its irrelevant.)
Carroll's argument would be that according to Quantum Filed theory, (the most precisely tested by experiment theory we have),this implies that it would be an interaction that is mediated by a particle that would already have been observed in one of our particle detectors IF it existed.
He is not saying that if we can’t measure it, it does not exist. Carroll is saying that if it existed we would have already been able to measure it. Our experiments cover the range of distances and magnitudes we are talking about. If the force you said was undetectable it would not be able to do what you claim it could do, that is, to interact with the Physical body.
This conclusion would the same for telekinesis and Astrology.
quote:
Originally posted by Holy Smoke:
Scientism starts with current scientific theory, and proceeds to ignore or suppress any fact or observation which contradicts it.
What is your evidence for this suppression? What evidence is being ignored?
There are some people that want to explain morality in scientific terms. Carroll if you watch his talk is not one of them.
But stating the fact that some people try to use science to explain things that it probably can't explain, is not a valid argument to use against people who use science to explain things it definitely can explain.
For example to claim "scientism" as an argument against the overwhelming evidence in favor of the scientific position on some DH topics is a straw-man argument.
And those people who claim they can apply the scientific method to morality don't claim they already have the answer. Just that it can be done.
They may fail, and I agree with Carroll that they probably will fail. But that has no bearing on issues like the existence of telekinesis and ghosts.
Posts: 434 | From: Arizona | Registered: Oct 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Croesos
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
One thing I have noticed is that anyone I think of as (possibly) a scientismist will never acknowledge this - to them it is all science.
Isn't "scientist" an already-existing word for someone who believes in the explanatory power of science and works to expand that understanding?
No. "Scientist" is the genus of which the species are physicist, chemist, biologist, botanist, and so forth. People who undertake scientific research and theorification and so forth. To put it crudely, people who "do" science.
Scientism is a philosophical belief, and scientismists (horrid word, I agree) are those who hold that philosophical belief. You can have a scientist that isn't a scientismist, and a scientismist that isn't a scientist (I assume most scientismists aren't).
[ 24. October 2012, 20:31: Message edited by: mousethief ]
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Holy Smoke
Shipmate
# 14866
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ikkyu:
Give me an example of objective evidence for those things that has been “automatically discarded”.
Well you show me examples of serious investigations of these subjects - past lives, ghosts, spiritual manifestations - in mainstream scientific journals. That's what I mean by 'supressed'.
quote:
So you are claiming that some “ghost in the machine” could affect a physical body made of protons neutrons and electrons in a way that affects their behavior and not be measurable with our existing detectors?...Our experiments cover the range of distances and magnitudes we are talking about. If the force you said was undetectable it would not be able to do what you claim it could do, that is, to interact with the Physical body.
Nice argument, but it's still scientism. Real empirical science would start with the observation, and then try to construct an explanatory hypothesis, not start with the theory, and try to disprove the observation. Or it would take the observations as empirical evidence which refutes quantum field theory.
quote:
But stating the fact that some people try to use science to explain things that it probably can't explain, is not a valid argument to use against people who use science to explain things it definitely can explain.
For example to claim "scientism" as an argument against the overwhelming evidence in favor of the scientific position on some DH topics is a straw-man argument.
With respect, I think you are placing the dolly in the cup here. Nobody is saying that the existence of scientism is an argument against the Theory of Evolution, or whatever. It is rather that the arguments put forward (without going into the details here) are based on scientism rather than science.
Posts: 335 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Holy Smoke:
quote:
Originally posted by Ikkyu:
Give me an example of objective evidence for those things that has been “automatically discarded”.
Well you show me examples of serious investigations of these subjects - past lives, ghosts, spiritual manifestations - in mainstream scientific journals. That's what I mean by 'supressed'.
Erik Weisz (a.k.a Harry Houdini) spent a good deal of time investigating the phenomena you describe, sometimes even in conjunction with mainstream scientific journals. What you seem to be complaining about is that these phenomena have been investigated and the results aren't to your liking.
One could, of course, argumentize on similitudinous grounds that the scientific community is suppressing evidence of leprechauns. After all, when was the last time a mainstream scientific journal devoted space to an investigation of the subject?
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ikkyu
Shipmate
# 15207
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Holy Smoke:
Real empirical science would start with the observation, and then try to construct an explanatory hypothesis, not start with the theory, and try to disprove the observation
What observation? Who has observed forces that are not detectable in particle accelerators?
Good luck refuting Quantum Field theory.
Precision Tests of QED
This example is for the most tested part, QED but you can find many experimental results that agree with it and no counter examples. (And counter examples HAVE been looked for, it would mean a guaranteed Nobel Prize. )
quote:
Originally posted by Holy Smoke:
It is rather that the arguments put forward (without going into the details here) are based on scientism rather than science.
So for example, what would make Carroll's arguments "scientism"?.
About "suppression" quoting Carl Sagan:
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" .
Should scientists publish papers on the existence of pink unicorns? Only in the case physical evidence for one was found. In the absence of it what would they publish?
Again were is the objective evidence that is not been published in scientific papers? Sources?
Would that evidence be of the same kind that you would hope Engineers use when designing airplanes? Or does a looser standard of evidence apply?
Posts: 434 | From: Arizona | Registered: Oct 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Squibs
Shipmate
# 14408
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
My problem is that "scientism" is usually only trotted out as whipping boy (how's that for a mixed metaphorationism?) whenever science has something particular to say about someone's pet issue. (e.g. heliocentrism, descent with modification, climate change) It's usually a tactic to avoid discussing the specifics of a particular case and instead argue "all science is stupid and subjective". [/QB]
That may or may not be so. But this thread is about the tenability of scientism as a philosophy, not the reason why somebody may accuse another person of holding that philosophy.
If somebody wantS to see a scientist endorse scientism they need look no further that Peter Atkins.
Posts: 1124 | From: Here, there and everywhere | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Nope. "Scientism" is a term, not a Straw Man.
Wiki article on Scientism
It is a pejorative term, and has more than one use (see the article) - but that doesn't make it a straw man, just because some people don't like it.
Do I really need to explainify that just because something has an entry on Wikipedia that doesn't necessarily mean that it really exists?
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
Croesos -
Ah, I see. Ignoring my moral challenge.
I will therefore draw the appropriate conclusion.
But please carry on with your denials of scientism with your, ahem, diversionificatory tactics.
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Squibs
Shipmate
# 14408
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ikkyu:
How about instead of attacking a straw-man "scientism" you can argue against specific arguments from actual scientists.
For example:
Sean Carrol
He is arguing that the laws of Physics we currently have rule out things like astrology , life after death. Any teleological description of nature and so on.
Why is he wrong? assuming he is, which I doubt.
If you want a repost to at least some of Carrol's points then you might be interested in some of William Lang Craig's recent podcasts.
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/reasonable-faith-podcast/latest
Posts: 1124 | From: Here, there and everywhere | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513
|
Posted
Are there any authorities here on Thomas Kuhn and his Structure of Scientific Revolutions? I studied this book as a freshman in college and wrote a paper which our fearless leader, a philosopher, liked very much, arguing that Kuhn explains scientific progress. Some years later, I heard a lecture by another philosophy professor whose thesis was that Kuhn's book denies scientific progress. When I later expressed my doubts about this to him, he objected that I had missed the whole point of the book.
The article on Kuhn in Wikipedia goes into this as a disputed topic that has received much discussion; and states that the latter view is by now discredited. In fact, it was (I gather) in view of this controversy that Kuhn himself said, "I am not a Kuhnian!" This reassures me that my 18-year-old self and my illustrious prof were not, after all, idiots.
It reminds me of a learned article in a journal or anthology about the music of Penderecki, discussing the composer's aleatoric passages. It seemed to me that he was missing the forest for the trees. Later in the same volume, Penderecki himself gladdened my heart by saying in an intervew, "I NEVER write aleatoric music!"
Can anyone comment further?
--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.
Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Croesos -
Ah, I see. Ignoring my moral challenge.
I will therefore draw the appropriate conclusion.
But please carry on with your denials of scientism with your, ahem, diversionificatory tactics.
The obvious answer is to simply look on Wikipedia, the ultimate authority on all things. According to this font of wisdom:
quote:
Dynamite is mainly used in the mining, quarrying, construction, and demolition industries, and it has had some historical usage in warfare. However the unstable nature of nitroglycerin, especially if subjected to freezing, has rendered it obsolete for military uses.
Purely scientific objective information from a source you yourself consider unimpeachable! It is moralicious to use dynamite for mining, quarrying, constructicating, and demolishizing. It used to be moral for warfare, but not any more.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ikkyu
Shipmate
# 15207
|
Posted
@ EtymologicalEvangelical
Or he could consult his upbringing, experience empathy for other people etc..
His exposure to Human culture his family history coupled with his evolutionary heritage and the particular circumstances will be fairly good clues about what he will probably do.
A complete scientific description of all of the above still awaits more research.
Science will probably be able to describe what happens very well in the future. The current gaps can be filled in by our experience of such things in real life for the moment.
Basing a moral code on scientific ideas is a completely different topic. But you failed to explain why science HAS to provide a moral code, it only has to describe the moral codes that exist. The explanation will probably go "Evolution + Culture + History +....." obviously lots of details need to be filled in.
@Squibs:
I can't listen to podcasts since I don't own ithings (ipad,iphones ..). If you could post any relevant arguments I would be grateful. Or point me to a transcript or some such.
[ 24. October 2012, 22:25: Message edited by: Ikkyu ]
Posts: 434 | From: Arizona | Registered: Oct 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
