Thread: When does Science become 'Scientism'? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=029529
Posted by Jack o' the Green (# 11091) on
:
This thread was inspired by Susan Doris' thread on Theology. I decided to go with this as being more constructive than a Hell thread!
Obviously science has been of great benefit to humans and our quality of life. Its success also suggests that its approach and methodology brings us into contact with great truths about ourselves and the universe we live in. At what point however does belief in science and its methodology, become 'scientism' i.e. a belief that science alone can provide us with knowledge of reality, the universe and ourselves? Within this view, other disciplines like philosophy and theology, if they have any legitimacy at all, are merely comments on the objective truths revealed by the scientific, empirical method.
The scientist Peter Atkins has stated that there is no question regarding reality which science cannot answer - including why there is a universe at all, and the 'hard' question of consciousness. Richard Dawkins seems to take a similar view. Stephen Hawking has stated that “...almost all of us must sometimes wonder: Why are we here? Where do we come from? Traditionally, these are questions for philosophy, but philosophy is dead... philosophers have not kept up with modern developments in science. Particularly physics.”
On the other side, people like the Roman Catholic philosopher Edward Feser in his book 'Scholastic Metaphysics' argue that disciplines other than science are also needed in the pursuit of truth. Feser defines scientism as the view that "science alone plausibly gives us objective knowledge, and that any metaphysics worthy of consideration can only be that which is implicit in science." He argues that scientism is self-refuting, since it is impossible to prove via the scientific method that only what is discoverable by science is true. He also argues that it is self-fulfilling, in that if you only use science to discover truth, then you will by definition only discover those truths which can be discovered by science. He uses the metaphor of using a metal detector on the beach, and coming to the conclusion that there isn't anything under the sand which isn't made of metal.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
"Scientism" is notoriously difficult to define, which makes the boundary between science and scientism somewhat fuzzy.
But, I think you included a working definition in your OP. "A belief that science alone can provide us with knowledge of reality, the universe and ourselves", and also "science alone plausibly gives us objective knowledge". I think the key phrase in those statements is "science alone". The fuzzy border into scientism is crossed when anything other than science is either dismissed as irrelevant or considered as an outworking of scientific principles (and, therefore part of science).
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jack o' the Green:
At what point however does belief in science and its methodology, become 'scientism'?
Usually at the point where science discovers something particularly inconvenient to the individual making the assessment. Got a pre-existing philosophical/theological commitment to the idea that the Universe is only a few thousand years old? Then anything which demonstrates and older Universe is obviously "scientism" and dependent on wearing materialist blinders. Happen to own a very valuable fossil fuel business? Then any scientific finding showing fossil fuel use is environmentally or medically harmful is scientism.
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
"Scientism" is notoriously difficult to define, which makes the boundary between science and scientism somewhat fuzzy.
The question of the definition of scientism was my first thought too! The phrase 'believe in' tends to be used. Personally, I do not believe in Science - or scientism, but believe (v. transitive) those things in Science which stand up to challenge, and for which faith alone is not required.
Thought I'd just type that initial post - I'll go back and read the rest of yours now, Alan cresswell!
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
I think scientism starts when people forget the very basic fact that Science isn't supposed to answer everything. The scientific method is designed to answer a specific type of questions, and it does that very well. But that's all it does.
I learned this on my first day when I started my Physics degree ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Posted by Jack o' the Green (# 11091) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
"Scientism" is notoriously difficult to define, which makes the boundary between science and scientism somewhat fuzzy.
The question of the definition of scientism was my first thought too! The phrase 'believe in' tends to be used. Personally, I do not believe in Science - or scientism, but believe (v. transitive) those things in Science which stand up to challenge, and for which faith alone is not required.
Thought I'd just type that initial post - I'll go back and read the rest of yours now, Alan cresswell!
The term 'believe in' isn't relevant regarding the definition of scientism. It can equally be defined as 'the view that..'. Would you see any parts of reality which can't be completely investigated or understood by the scientific method?
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jack o' the Green:
This thread was inspired by Susan Doris' thread on Theology. I decided to go with this as being more constructive than a Hell thread!
I have popped into Hell a couple of times to see if I had turned up there! ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
quote:
Originally posted by Jack o' the Green:
[The term 'believe in' isn't relevant regarding the definition of scientism. It can equally be defined as 'the view that..'. Would you see any parts of reality which can't be completely investigated or understood by the scientific method?
No, I certainly would not say that. Whatever aspects of life, the universe and everything are studied, defined and understood to the best of scientists' knowledge, there will always be more questions which arise for as long as there are humans to think of them!
Bearing in mind though that filling in the 'don't know' questions with God or any other supernatural suggestion is nowhere near as prevalent nowadays, that trend wil increase, I think? Would you agree?
In response to the Stephen Hawking question you mention in the OP about why we are here, the basic answer is in the Theory of Evolution is it not? There's the 'don't know' part of what started it all off, but again the best answer to that is 'we don't know yet'.
(I do hope this post does not cause any upset.)
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
I think scientism starts when people forget the very basic fact that Science isn't supposed to answer everything. The scientific method is designed to answer a specific type of questions, and it does that very well. But that's all it does.
I learned this on my first day when I started my Physics degree
Who is it that thinks Science is supposed to answer everything?
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jack o' the Green:
Would you see any parts of reality which can't be completely investigated or understood by the scientific method?
But see, that is crazy. If I understand you correctly in inferring that you think there must be an unknowable component existence.
Saying we cannot know something is as speculative, as much an article of faith, as saying we will know everything.
We don't know what will remain unknowable. Though the odds are that there are things we will never understand because of our inherent limits, we don't know that. I think what bothers me most about the term "scientism", is that is most often a defence by offence.
Science and religion ask different questions to different purpose. Applying principles of one to the other, in either direction, is a waste of effort.
Posted by Sipech (# 16870) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
I think scientism starts when people forget the very basic fact that Science isn't supposed to answer everything. The scientific method is designed to answer a specific type of questions, and it does that very well. But that's all it does.
I learned this on my first day when I started my Physics degree
Who is it that thinks Science is supposed to answer everything?
Such a question indicates why I'm not convinced that LeRoc's definition quite hits the mark.
Rather, scientism is a form of hubris which has an unduly high view of science. That's not to say that its proponents believe in science's universality, but they do believe in its purity and its supremacy.
I would illustrate with quote from Penn Jillette: quote:
“If every trace of any single religion were wiped out and nothing were passed on, it would never be created exactly that way again. There might be some other nonsense in its place, but not that exact nonsense. If all of science were wiped out, it would still be true and someone would find a way to figure it all out again.”
What such a quote says to me is that science is unaffected by history, unaffected by personality, that it is a golden idea that will always emerge untainted from contact with human vices.
That is a view I disagree with. If one looks at the history of science, development has always been shaped by the circumstances and the times in which it took place. Some of these circumstances are technological, others philosophical, others cultural.
There are numerous other problems with Jillette's view, such as the fact that he states as an assertion the outcome what could only be described as a bizarre experiment of destroying knowledge. Yet he hasn't done the experiment. So it's an inherently unscientific view!
Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on
:
Perhaps we first need to clarify what is the scientific method. I am afraid I am a Boxian in which all knowledge is models* and all models are wrong but some models are useful. The job of scientific method is to choose the "best" models available at the time for understanding reality and to critique them.
Jengie
*In a very practical way so is all language so you remember that statement about Cretans don't you?
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
The history of science, Sipech? The history of science is irrelevant to what Gillette said. Wipe out the history of scientific development and a rock dropped on your head will still have the same impact. That is what he was on about.
The infighting, attacks from without and particular personalities don't change this.
Viewed from other than an atheist's perspective, he would still be essentially correct for every POV but one.
BTW, speculation beyond the immediately testable is part of science.
[ 22. September 2015, 17:51: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
Posted by Jack o' the Green (# 11091) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Jack o' the Green:
Would you see any parts of reality which can't be completely investigated or understood by the scientific method?
But see, that is crazy. If I understand you correctly in inferring that you think there must be an unknowable component existence.
Saying we cannot know something is as speculative, as much an article of faith, as saying we will know everything.
We don't know what will remain unknowable. Though the odds are that there are things we will never understand because of our inherent limits, we don't know that. I think what bothers me most about the term "scientism", is that is most often a defence by offence.
Science and religion ask different questions to different purpose. Applying principles of one to the other, in either direction, is a waste of effort.
I certainly agree that science and religion are asking different questions. I also take on board your point that proving either that there are or there aren't particular questions which can be answered by science is difficult, maybe impossible. However, there are prominent scientists who are saying that there is nothing which science (given enough time and data), can't answer completely. However, this seems to presuppose that the universe is completely self-explanitory, which is what science is trying to prove.
If science answered the question as to how consciousness arose and why a contingent universe exists at all, then I would be an atheist immediately. However, I don't think this will be the case. To take the example of consciousness, the current naturalist accounts either state that there isn't really any such thing (Dennett), or utilise such ideas such as information sharing creating consciousness, which seems to presuppose the thing which it's attempting to explain, since information needs consciousness to be information.
Similarly, when attempting to argue the the universe spontaneously created itself out of nothing, the 'nothing' described by scientists doesn't bear any relation to the nothing described by philosophers and theologians, and therefore doesn't answer the question of the universe's existence at all.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
SusanDoris: Who is it that thinks Science is supposed to answer everything?
The adherents of scientism.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jack o' the Green:
However, there are prominent scientists who are saying that there is nothing which science (given enough time and data), can't answer completely. However, this seems to presuppose that the universe is completely self-explanitory, which is what science is trying to prove.
No, this is not what science is trying to prove. Science is investigation. Science looks into the how. Naturally there are scientists who believe no supernatural causes exist or are necessary. There are also scientists who do believe in the supernatural. Neither POV should affect the actual doing of science.
quote:
Originally posted by Jack o' the Green:
Similarly, when attempting to argue the the universe spontaneously created itself out of nothing, the 'nothing' described by scientists doesn't bear any relation to the nothing described by philosophers and theologians,
Granted
quote:
Originally posted by Jack o' the Green:
and therefore doesn't answer the question of the universe's existence at all.
Well, if you mean why does the universe exist, there are those who think this is an irrelevant question.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Science is investigation. Science looks into the how. Naturally there are scientists who believe no supernatural causes exist or are necessary. There are also scientists who do believe in the supernatural. Neither POV should affect the actual doing of science.
Shouldn't it? Denialism gets a lot easier if you're allowed to appeal to supernatural causes. Take climate change for example. On the one hand most climate scientists attribute the recent warming trend to increased atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases, notably carbon dioxide, which result from fossil fuel combustion. You seem to be arguing that attributing climate change to supernatural causes (wrath of God, too many unicorns, the earth spirit is having an orgasm, whatever) is just as legitimate a scientific proposition.
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
In economics you have one school (or set of schools) of economists who use a lot of mathematical modelling and other techniques associated with the sciences, and who see economics as basically a science providing knowledge. Then there's another set of schools who see economics as value-laden and part of the humanities.
The science school tend to support austerity economics far more than the humanities school tends to. The humanities school charge that austerity doesn't work empirically.
The science school say that because they're scientific they must be at least more empirically grounded and reliable than anything the humanities school says.
I think that attitude could be usefully called a manifestation of scientism. It's not confined to economics. The last time the subject came up on these boards, Wood suggested calling it Stem suprematism instead, which I think is a good suggestion.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
Sipech: Such a question indicates why I'm not convinced that LeRoc's definition quite hits the mark.
Sometimes I feel that there are two concepts of scientism running through eachother. I call them soft and hard scientism.
Soft scientism: science is the bestest of all human studies; sociology, psychology ... are for wussies.
Hard scientism: the scientific method is the only appropriate way finding the answer to all questions in the universe. (The 'answers' that sociology, psychology ... may find can ultimately be reduced to those of the physical sciences.)
The quotes by Atkins, Dawkings and to a lesser agree Hawking seem to be hard scientism to me.
PS I consider "science can't answer all questions because there will always be new questions, which science will also solve, and there will be new questions after that ..." to be (hard) scientism too.
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
The history of science is irrelevant to what Gillette said. Wipe out the history of scientific development and a rock dropped on your head will still have the same impact. That is what he was on about.
We have not done a controlled experiment under which we wipe out the history of science in one instance and keep the history of science in another, and compare the effects of dropping rocks on Sipech's head in both cases. Therefore this piece of knowledge was not reached solely by the scientific method.
Therefore, there is at least one piece of knowledge that was not reached by the scientific method.
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on
:
What's the difference between scientism and scientific reductionism ?
Posted by Jack o' the Green (# 11091) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
What's the difference between scientism and scientific reductionism ?
Not much. Scientific reductionism (to my understanding), is the view that everything can be reduced to scientific questions and answered in the same way.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
Doublethink.: What's the difference between scientism and scientific reductionism ?
I think they're closely related.
In my view, both (hard) scientism and scientific reductionism think that the scientific method can answer all questions. Scientific reductionism thinks it can do this in a specific way (by reducing a problem to small parts and understanding it from there upwards). So in this sense, scientific reductionism is a special case of scientism.
[ 22. September 2015, 21:38: Message edited by: LeRoc ]
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
The history of science is irrelevant to what Gillette said. Wipe out the history of scientific development and a rock dropped on your head will still have the same impact. That is what he was on about.
We have not done a controlled experiment under which we wipe out the history of science in one instance and keep the history of science in another, and compare the effects of dropping rocks on Sipech's head in both cases. Therefore this piece of knowledge was not reached solely by the scientific method.
Therefore, there is at least one piece of knowledge that was not reached by the scientific method.
Ye Gods ![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif)
History is merely the record of events.
Are you saying the laws of physics, the way the universe operates, would change if we had to rediscover them?
In Jillete's* thought experiment, physics is not a variable, just the path along which we came to understand it.
His parameters do naught to change how physics operate. So, a practical experiment is unnecessary for the second half of his conclusion.
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
The science school say that because they're scientific they must be at least more empirically grounded and reliable than anything the humanities school says.
Humanities is, at its best, empirical. What it struggles with, more than physics or chemistry, is objectivity and repeatably.
The humanities are "softer" for the uncontrollable variables.
It is a judgement call on whether this makes them better, worse or just different.
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
You seem to be arguing that attributing climate change to supernatural causes (wrath of God, too many unicorns, the earth spirit is having an orgasm, whatever) is just as legitimate a scientific proposition.
Ye (Non-Existant) Gods
Yeah, that sounds exactly like something I would argue. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
How about we try this interpretation of my words?
A good scientist keeps their religious beliefs at home and does science in the lab.
*Yes, I had the spelling wrong. I'd apologise, but I doubt he reads this and I don't much care for the man.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Well, if you mean why does the universe exist, there are those who think this is an irrelevant question.
Because science can't answer it? How convenient. Just define anything your science can't answer as "irrelevant" and BAZINGA! Sciences answers everything!
Before you dismiss this as nonsense, this is essentially the program of the logical positivists. I read somewhere that their paradigm is gaining popularity again.
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Science is investigation. Science looks into the how. Naturally there are scientists who believe no supernatural causes exist or are necessary. There are also scientists who do believe in the supernatural. Neither POV should affect the actual doing of science.
Shouldn't it? Denialism gets a lot easier if you're allowed to appeal to supernatural causes. Take climate change for example. On the one hand most climate scientists attribute the recent warming trend to increased atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases, notably carbon dioxide, which result from fossil fuel combustion. You seem to be arguing that attributing climate change to supernatural causes (wrath of God, too many unicorns, the earth spirit is having an orgasm, whatever) is just as legitimate a scientific proposition.
Of course lilBuddha can answer for herself, but it seems to me she's saying precisely the opposite of what you charge her with. It precisely is NOT a legitimate scientific proposition.
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on
:
History as a 'thing' is a construct - it is not the same as 'the past'. It follows a narrative and is seen through cultural lenses.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Well, if you mean why does the universe exist, there are those who think this is an irrelevant question.
Because science can't answer it?
Many atheists would see the question as irrelevant as well as agnostics and non-theists off the top of my head. Hell, there are probably many theists who don't care why the universe exists.
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Of course lilBuddha can answer for herself, but it seems to me she's saying precisely the opposite of what you charge her with. It precisely is NOT a legitimate scientific proposition.
Yeah, he got it wrong.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Well, if you mean why does the universe exist, there are those who think this is an irrelevant question.
Because science can't answer it? How convenient. Just define anything your science can't answer as "irrelevant" and BAZINGA! Sciences answers everything!
I would say that the proposition that a question that science, as a matter of principle and not contingent on current understanding and technology, can't answer is irrelevant is certainly part of 'scientism' - that Science will ultimately be able to answer every (relevant) question.
Posted by Timothy the Obscure (# 292) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
I think scientism starts when people forget the very basic fact that Science isn't supposed to answer everything. The scientific method is designed to answer a specific type of questions, and it does that very well. But that's all it does.
I learned this on my first day when I started my Physics degree
Who is it that thinks Science is supposed to answer everything?
Richard Dawkins, for one, who wrote in one of his essays (I forget which), "All truths are scientific truths." It's a self-negating statement of course.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
You seem to be arguing that attributing climate change to supernatural causes (wrath of God, too many unicorns, the earth spirit is having an orgasm, whatever) is just as legitimate a scientific proposition.
Ye (Non-Existant) Gods
Yeah, that sounds exactly like something I would argue.
How about we try this interpretation of my words?
A good scientist keeps their religious beliefs at home and does science in the lab.
Wait, isn't an a priori* dismissal of supernatural explanations "scientism"? If so, isn't a scientist who "keeps their religious [and other supernatural] beliefs at home" being close-minded?
--------------------
*From Latin meaning "from what is before", indicating a prior bit of knowledge or assumption. Rules are rules.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Wait, isn't an a priori* dismissal of supernatural explanations "scientism"? If so, isn't a scientist who "keeps their religious [and other supernatural] beliefs at home" being close-minded?
You know, I ain't gonna play. Think I spoke in plain enough English. Not chasing your imaginary rabbit.
[ 23. September 2015, 04:03: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
A good scientist keeps their religious beliefs at home and does science in the lab.
I hadn't intended to respond to this. But, since it's been picked up already ...
It really is not that simple. None of us manages to compartmentalise our life like that, and those that manage it often turn out to be loonies of one form or another (like scientists who walk into church and suddenly believe in YECism because the preacher says that's what the Bible says, or the people who study science to prove that "Goddidit").
I'm currently in the lab (well, OK, an office above the lab), and I don't consider myself as having left my faith in the entry foyer. I study science in part because I want to find out a little bit more about the world that God created (as I've said elsewhere, by methods described by science) and to use that knowledge to benefit humanity and the world. My faith teaches me the virtues of honesty, humility, scepticism (Thomas should be the patron saint of scientists - I've no idea how Albert got that honour, or why politicians get Thomas), integrity etc ... all essential for a scientist. More importantly, my faith teaches that as the product on an Intelligence the physical universe should be comprehensible, that the creation of a faithful God should follow discernable patterns (rather than, say, follow the actions of capricious dieties who throw up storms out of spite), that science should be a fruitful exercise. And, in that I follow in the foot steps of some truly great scientists.
On the other side, I don't leave being a scientist in the foyer as I leave the lab either (aside from the fact that I do a lot of my work at home). My identity as a scientist also is a part of my faith. In studying the physical universe I learn about God, knowledge that then informs my belief and action outside the lab. I'm not averse to talking about science from the pulpit when the occasion makes that suitable.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
None of us manages to compartmentalise our life like that,
I am not saying you should cease to be a Christian when you go to work. I am saying you should be as objective as possible.
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on
:
What an interesting read to start the day; I've looked into the other forums I go to and they are all quite dull at the moment!
lilBuddha
Super posts! I think your quote:
Scientism …. Is most often a defence by offfence
is most apt.
[ 23. September 2015, 05:55: Message edited by: SusanDoris ]
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
No offense to scientists in general, or Ship scientists in particular, but I think that Science (tm) is The One True Faith for some people--just as much as any religion.
And that's where people stop listening to each other, or just can't hear each other at all.
That's also where the attention of fundamentalist Christians (and many lay people, in general) gets lost. Two competing sources and views of Absolute Truth, and neither group's members will flex. (Painting with a broad brush.)
I offer that as someone who grew up fundie and creationist. (People from the Institute for Creation Research even gave a talk at the church.)
I'm firmly MOTR about how we got here. I think there are things to be said for both creation (in various forms), and evolution and Big Bang theory (in various forms), and maybe some other ideas, too. God as Creator is my deepest religious foundation. I don't know if God exists; but I'm not going to give up my Creator foundation for anyone. I also haven't seen God's blueprints, so I don't know how She did it or how long it took her.
I also love science, in the sense of what, and how, and why, and isn't that cool/weird/whatever. Always have. Believe it or not, Americans tend to love science in that sense. (And tune into PBS for lots of science shows! Ok, and British shows, too. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
)
I don't think science and religion are in basic conflict. (Of course, I would say that--I draw on various religions and belief systems, too.)
I think that maybe if people of all different beliefs cut each other some slack, we might stop talking past each other and actually learn from each other's perspectives.
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
The history of science is irrelevant to what Gillette said. Wipe out the history of scientific development and a rock dropped on your head will still have the same impact. That is what he was on about.
We have not done a controlled experiment under which we wipe out the history of science in one instance and keep the history of science in another, and compare the effects of dropping rocks on Sipech's head in both cases. Therefore this piece of knowledge was not reached solely by the scientific method.
Therefore, there is at least one piece of knowledge that was not reached by the scientific method.
Ye Gods History is merely the record of events.
Are you saying the laws of physics, the way the universe operates, would change if we had to rediscover them?
No. I am saying that we know they wouldn't do so, even though the major steps in that conclusion are unsupported by the scientific method.
Therefore, there is at least one thing we know that is not wholly supported by the scientific method. There is at least one thing we know even though we don't need to do an experiment to back it up.
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
The science school say that because they're scientific they must be at least more empirically grounded and reliable than anything the humanities school says.
Humanities is, at its best, empirical. What it struggles with, more than physics or chemistry, is objectivity and repeatably.
The humanities are "softer" for the uncontrollable variables.
It is a judgement call on whether this makes them better, worse or just different.
In the sense of empirical that means grounded in actual evidence, yes. On the other hand, the nature of the grounding is different. The humanities are largely hermeneutic. That is, if a paradigm scientific act is measuring a distance, the paradigm humanistic act is understanding a conversation. Understanding linguistic and symbolic actions is empirical in the sense that it's grounded in the details of those actions, the context, and so on. But it's not empirical in the narrow technical sense that the groundings are just givens from which conclusions can be deduced.
Posted by Moo (# 107) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I would say that the proposition that a question that science, as a matter of principle and not contingent on current understanding and technology, can't answer is irrelevant is certainly part of 'scientism' - that Science will ultimately be able to answer every (relevant) question.
And they would establish the relevance of a question by noting whether science can answer it?
Moo
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
As MT said (and to which I was responding)
quote:
Just define anything your science can't answer as "irrelevant" and BAZINGA! Sciences answers everything!
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Scientism is often said to be refuted by the existence of mathematics. However, some people consider maths to be a branch of science, this is of course, completely zany.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
I feel a whiff of a Scotsman in there too.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
Within science there is general belief in the efficacy of a "best practice" process for discovering things about the natural world. That process is generally called the scientific method.
So you always have two dimensions in play. Firstly, does the practitioner believe that the scientific method is the best process for discovery in the natural world? Secondly, how well has that been applied in practice.
Postmodernists have argued that there has always been a social dimension to the application of the scientific method. In theory the claimed discoveries will always be correctable since they are subject to replicable checks by other researchers. But as in other walks of life, people may have reputations to lose if a claim cannot be replicated. So, sometimes, power games and obfuscations may get in the way of both discovery and validation/falsification.
Now I make no bones about it. I believe the scientific method is of enormous value. As Bronowski said once, it can reveal what can be known even though we are fallible. I also believe there should be no "no go zone" for application of the scientific method. There may indeed be limits to the kinds of discoveries and findings which can be made by its use, but I wouldn't attempt to draw those limits in advance.
Bronowski also observed that the process is humble. Findings and discoveries are submitted in order to be verified or falsified. No assertion of personal perfection is expected; in fact the reverse is true. Submission for peer group review acknowledges the possibility of error, or misinterpretation, or misunderstanding.
Scientific research is a collective process; the conception is not "owned" by any individual.
Going back to the OP, we find this quote.
quote:
The scientist Peter Atkins has stated that there is no question regarding reality which science cannot answer - including why there is a universe at all, and the 'hard' question of consciousness.
I think that is an over-statement. I think there is no question which cannot be explored and illuminated by a proper application of the scientific method. But answered? That seems to me to be an over-confident overstatement. The answers to it would simply be. What question? What methods of research? What process of peer review. What replicability?
And does the finding explain everything about the phenomenon under investigation? Or does it illuminate a particular aspect?
Perhaps that is really what Peter Atkins meant? But if he didn't, he seems to me to be expressing a comprehensive certainty which is not justified in general by the ways the scientific method is used to make discoveries and findings.
Posted by Jack o' the Green (# 11091) on
:
For further information, here is Peter Atkins' quote in full. Apparently he confided to the philosopher and priest Keith Ward that he was a mathematical platonist. He is a Chemist by training.
"Science, the system of belief founded securely on publicly shared reproducible knowledge, emerged from religion. As science discarded its chrysalis to become its present butterfly, it took over the heath. There is no reason to suppose that science cannot deal with every aspect of existence. Only the religious - among whom I include not only the prejudiced but the uninformed - hope there is a dark corner of the physical universe, or of the universe of experience, that science can never hope to illuminate. But science has never encountered a barrier, and the only grounds for supposing that reductionism will fail are pessimism on the part of scientists and fear in the minds of the religious."
Nature and Imagination p.125
"Humanity should accept that science has eliminated the justification for believing in cosmic purpose, and that any survival of purpose is inspired only by sentiment."
New Scientist 8/8/1992 pp.32-35
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on
:
I think scientism can arise out of poor education about critical thinking and the theory of knowledge.
People are oftem simply not taught epistemiology and therefore struggle to analyse and and explain different kinds of knowledge/truth claims.
I think it is something that should be taught in secondary school myself.
Posted by Jack o' the Green (# 11091) on
:
I've often thought that many branches of philosophy should be taught at school from primary onwards.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
Jack o' the Green: For further information, here is Peter Atkins' quote in full. Apparently he confided to the philosopher and priest Keith Ward that he was a mathematical platonist. He is a Chemist by training.
I find the first of these quotes an example of scientism.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jack o' the Green:
For further information, here is Peter Atkins' quote in full. Apparently he confided to the philosopher and priest Keith Ward that he was a mathematical platonist. He is a Chemist by training.
"Science, the system of belief founded securely on publicly shared reproducible knowledge, emerged from religion. As science discarded its chrysalis to become its present butterfly, it took over the heath. There is no reason to suppose that science cannot deal with every aspect of existence. Only the religious - among whom I include not only the prejudiced but the uninformed - hope there is a dark corner of the physical universe, or of the universe of experience, that science can never hope to illuminate. But science has never encountered a barrier, and the only grounds for supposing that reductionism will fail are pessimism on the part of scientists and fear in the minds of the religious."
Nature and Imagination p.125
"Humanity should accept that science has eliminated the justification for believing in cosmic purpose, and that any survival of purpose is inspired only by sentiment."
New Scientist 8/8/1992 pp.32-35
What I find puzzling about such points is that they are not scientific observations or hypotheses. So is Atkins saying that while science can deal with everything, it's also OK to make non-scientific claims, as he has done? But that seems to contradict his grand claims for science.
As soon as someone says, 'science can describe everything', they have contradicted themselves, since their claim is not a scientific one.
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jack o' the Green:
I've often thought that many branches of philosophy should be taught at school from primary onwards.
Certainly, it would have a really positive impact on our wider society.
I think they should also teach on how power works.
[ 23. September 2015, 17:57: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
My last school (primary) taught philosophy for children.
Posted by Jack o' the Green (# 11091) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
quote:
Originally posted by Jack o' the Green:
I've often thought that many branches of philosophy should be taught at school from primary onwards.
Certainly, it would have a really positive impact on our wider society.
I think they should also teach on how power works.
Absolutely. Not strictly relevant to the thread, but there is this article from the Torygraph. I heard Angie Hobbs on Desert Island Discs a few months back. She came across as a very insightful person with a wonderful enthusiasm for life and her subject.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/primaryeducation/11466547/Teach-philosophy-in-primary-schools-says-academic.html
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
In fact, Atkins is making statements that are both historical and philosophical, yet still he seems to argue that science can deal with everything. So why has he made historical and philosophical claims?
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
I should add that right after Hawking makes his famous statement that philosophy is dead, he then goes on, in the next chapter (The Grand Design), to develop various philosophical ideas about reality! In fact, the whole book is available online as a download.
This is the same doublespeak - only science can deal with life, but just for now, I shall make various philosophical/historical/aesthetic pronouncements!
Posted by Jack o' the Green (# 11091) on
:
Absolutely. Professor of Mathematics John C. Lennox makes the same point, as does Edward Feser. Once science makes such pronouncements, it steps outside its discipline and what can be proven scientifically - invalidating itself.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
quote:
The scientist Peter Atkins has stated that there is no question regarding reality which science cannot answer - including why there is a universe at all, and the 'hard' question of consciousness.
I think that is an over-statement. I think there is no question which cannot be explored and illuminated by a proper application of the scientific method. But answered? That seems to me to be an over-confident overstatement.
It seems to me to be scientism plain and simple.
quote:
Originally posted by Jack o' the Green:
For further information, here is Peter Atkins' quote in full. <snip>
Good grief. Clearly HIS science brought some of the chrysalis with it. That's a statement of faith, not a statement of scientific fact. Science is clearly his religion. I don't see how it can be twisted any other way.
quote:
I've often thought that many branches of philosophy should be taught at school from primary onwards.
Hear, hear.
Posted by Jack o' the Green (# 11091) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sipech:
I would illustrate with quote from Penn Jillette: quote:
“If every trace of any single religion were wiped out and nothing were passed on, it would never be created exactly that way again. There might be some other nonsense in its place, but not that exact nonsense. If all of science were wiped out, it would still be true and someone would find a way to figure it all out again.”
This quote did get me thinking. It seems to me to presuppose that religion is nonsense. For followers of particular religions or spiritual philosophies e.g. certain forms of Buddhism, Hinduism, Christianity, Islam etc, there is an objective, ultimate reality making itself known - either through active revelation or religious experience in a way which, while probably being influenced by the culture of the time also transcends it. If such an ultimate reality exists, then there wouldn't be any reason to think that it couldn't again be encountered by human beings.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
Penn's an atheist--sometimes positive and lyrical about it, others militant.
Back in 2005, he did a fairly positive essay for NPR's "This I Believe" segment.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
I agree, mousethief. Those more complete quotations from Atkins are very revealing. ISTM he stops thinking within the usual disciplines of science and instead he becomes a polemicist.
Of course, any of us is free to do that. Dr Bronowski's famous words from Aushwitz (in the Ascent of Man series) were also a kind of polemic, but they were characterised by personal anguish and humility, not the sort of arrogance one finds in Atkins. And that makes a huge difference. The shared humanity comes across.
Posted by Alisdair (# 15837) on
:
Much hubris as the silverfish presumes to understand the 'Mona Lisa' after chewing on the edge of the canvas.
Or, as Donald Rumsfeld so wisely said, although in a rather different context, "Reports that say that something hasn't happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns – the ones we don't know we don't know."
Which leads quite nicely into Paul's assertion: 'For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.' - 1Cor.13.12.
One thing is sure, that throughout history human beings---whether under the label of religion, science, or something else---have presumed to know what it's all about and how it all hangs together. And every time have been shown to be either completely wrong, or to have incomplete knowledge and understanding. There seems no evidence to suggest that that reality is any less real today.
Human 'objectivity' and 'rationalism' are both notoriously suspect, which is why whenever any one of us claims to 'know' something it is wise to be wary, even if we decide to trust them, be they scientist, theologian, lawyer, or journalist, etc. Beneath the label they are all human beings living inside the same 'bubble' of reality. Who knows what may lie beyond it, if there is a beyond?
Posted by Jack o' the Green (# 11091) on
:
An interesting piece by Edward Feser based on some recent comments by physicist Lawrence Krauss
Krauss' article: http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/all-scientists-should-be-militant-atheists
Feser's response:
http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2015/09/15760/
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
Um yes, Krauss's piece is indeed bullshit. What I find interesting that he just assumes that the word 'sacred' means 'beyond question'.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jack o' the Green:
quote:
Originally posted by Sipech:
I would illustrate with quote from Penn Jillette: quote:
“If every trace of any single religion were wiped out and nothing were passed on, it would never be created exactly that way again. There might be some other nonsense in its place, but not that exact nonsense. If all of science were wiped out, it would still be true and someone would find a way to figure it all out again.”
This quote did get me thinking. It seems to me to presuppose that religion is nonsense.
I truly do not wish to be insulting, but this comment caused an epic mental double-take. This is the crystal clear point he is making.
But as to the True Religion making itself known again, ISTM, the forgetting bit is massively contra mainstream Christianity. (And probably Islam) It is consistent with Buddhism, though.
Golden Key:
As to Jillette's NPR interview, there are bits in that many theists could well learn from, but I won't take that tangent at the moment.
Posted by Jack o' the Green (# 11091) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Jack o' the Green:
quote:
Originally posted by Sipech:
I would illustrate with quote from Penn Jillette: quote:
“If every trace of any single religion were wiped out and nothing were passed on, it would never be created exactly that way again. There might be some other nonsense in its place, but not that exact nonsense. If all of science were wiped out, it would still be true and someone would find a way to figure it all out again.”
This quote did get me thinking. It seems to me to presuppose that religion is nonsense.
I truly do not wish to be insulting, but this comment caused an epic mental double-take. This is the crystal clear point he is making.
No, it is the premise he is starting from and running with. He isn't justifying it.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jack o' the Green:
quote:
Originally posted by Sipech:
I would illustrate with quote from Penn Jillette: quote:
“If every trace of any single religion were wiped out and nothing were passed on, it would never be created exactly that way again. There might be some other nonsense in its place, but not that exact nonsense. If all of science were wiped out, it would still be true and someone would find a way to figure it all out again.”
This quote did get me thinking. It seems to me to presuppose that religion is nonsense. For followers of particular religions or spiritual philosophies e.g. certain forms of Buddhism, Hinduism, Christianity, Islam etc, there is an objective, ultimate reality making itself known - either through active revelation or religious experience in a way which, while probably being influenced by the culture of the time also transcends it. If such an ultimate reality exists, then there wouldn't be any reason to think that it couldn't again be encountered by human beings.
I missed this. I think the word 'exactly' is bullshit really. Well, I think that religion would arise again, and would constellate around certain key themes, and probably the saviour would be one of them, also non-dualism, transcendence, eternity, and non-attachment. Humans just seem to gravitate towards these themes.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jack o' the Green:
it is the premise he is starting from and running with. He isn't justifying it.
You start for the premise that God exists.
No difference.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
I think scientism can arise out of poor education about critical thinking and the theory of knowledge.
People are oftem simply not taught epistemiology and therefore struggle to analyse and and explain different kinds of knowledge/truth claims.
I think it is something that should be taught in secondary school myself.
This is worth restating. With the emphasis on STEM disciplines in our economic wish to convert all pieces of knowledge (and arts) to money, the real purpose of science is to make something to sell isn't it? If it's not applied science it's considered useless.
Useful link: Personal construct theory - George Kelly.
quote:
...people are naive scientists, they sometimes employ systems for construing the world that are distorted by idiosyncratic experiences not applicable to their current social situation. A system of construction that chronically fails to characterize and/or predict events, and is not appropriately revised to comprehend and predict one's changing social world, is considered to underlie psychopathology (or mental illness.)
I might assert that science can make predictions (e.g., climate, chemical reactions) or explain the past (e.g., continental drift, crime scene reconstruction). Scientism would be when the theory or method doesn't work, but the person won't let go. We might define this as a pathology according to Kelly.
I should then suggest that science telling me how I should enjoy a piece of music or chocolate cake is pathology, and a deranged use of science, tantamount to criminal if not crazy.
Posted by Jack o' the Green (# 11091) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Jack o' the Green:
it is the premise he is starting from and running with. He isn't justifying it.
You start for the premise that God exists.
No difference.
I don't think I do, though that's irrelevant to the point I was making.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
I am not sure the point you were making. Jillette does not need to justify anything. He is an atheist. All that is required for the label to be accurate is to not believe in God.
Sipech began this with a misrepresentation of the statement, which has naught* to do with scientism.
Jillette is not presenting a proof or dissertation, merely stating something fairly obvious to the general atheist POV.
*At its surface. I do not know Jillette's writings to sufficiently know whether his POV is "scientism" or not.
Posted by Jack o' the Green (# 11091) on
:
The point I was making was simply that his conclusion was based on the premise that religion is nonsense and therefore there is no objective reality either to reveal itself or be sought and experienced afresh if all religions were forgotten tomorrow. He's completely entitled to his views of course, but his reasoning is circular. It's no better than a Christian arguing that the Bible is inspired because it states that it's inspired, and is therefore correct about its being inspired.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
I suppose that is why your statement seems a little odd to me. Of course that is his position.
I would argue that atheism, or at least agnosticism, has an advantage over theism in that their statement of "you've got nothing" in the way of proof is hard to refute. Whereas a theist's* counter is rather hollow.
*This includes Buddhism and other outlooks that are not, strictly, theist.
Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jack o' the Green:
Would you see any parts of reality which can't be completely investigated or understood by the scientific method?
How about Bach's Mattheuspassion? And the fact that Dawkins loves it? I wouldn't doubt his sincerity for a moment. But in his case, it's like admiring the golden eggs of a goose that one is about to kill. The participants in this discussion, aggressive atheists all, lambast various aspects of religious faith and those who profess it for nearly two hours. But as cultured gentlemen, they don't dare say a word against the acknowledged masterpieces of religious art and architecture. This is interesting.
The question is whether a society whose only religious faith is scientism would ever produce art of comparable beauty. Wouldn't it be almost as philistine as that imagined by Huxley in Brave New World? Thanks to secular commercialism, we seem to be moving in that direction already.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
lB--
quote:
Golden Key:
As to Jillette's NPR interview, there are bits in that many theists could well learn from, but I won't take that tangent at the moment.
Yup. I'm guessing you mean living in the moment and enjoying what's here, etc.?
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I am not sure the point you were making. Jillette does not need to justify anything. He is an atheist. All that is required for the label to be accurate is to not believe in God.
And he asserts it in a nuanced way: it's not that he simply doesn't believe in God, but he believes there is no God.
quote:
Jillette is not presenting a proof or dissertation, merely stating something fairly obvious to the general atheist POV.
This. And the point of the "This I Believe" series was to express what you believe and why--not engage in formal debate.
Jack, if you doubt that, take a look at some of the other essays on that site.
Posted by Jack o' the Green (# 11091) on
:
I don't, and I have.
[ 29. September 2015, 00:48: Message edited by: Jack o' the Green ]
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Jack o' the Green:
it is the premise he is starting from and running with. He isn't justifying it.
You start for the premise that God exists.
No difference.
This is needless personalization of the argument. The question is not whether Jack otG starts with anything. The question is about Jillette. Whatever Jack does is quite irrelevant to that question.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
This is needless personalization of the argument.
Granted. Should have said theists.
Apologies, Jack o' the Green.
Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
A good scientist keeps their religious beliefs at home and does science in the lab.
I agree, but would add, good religious beliefs have nothing to fear from scientific findings. They have, on the contrary, inspired and encouraged scientists to work avidly and with integrity.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
I agree that religious beliefs are often tangential to scientific enquiry, at least for (what I consider to be) orthodox Christianity and good science. Entering the lab with the intention of proving (or disproving) a religious belief is both bad science and bad theology.
Of course, religion will be part of the background to choices about what areas of science to study (eg: some people, on religious grounds, will not study anything defence related, or will show a preference to medical science). And, religion will inform our ethics of how we conduct ourself as scientists (just as religion will inform our ethics in how we live the rest of our lives, or how others outside scientific disciplines conduct themselves).
At the end of the day, does it actually matter why people enter science? Does it make any difference if someone studies cosmology because they believe God created everything and they want to know more about what was made, or because someone grew up with amazing pictures from the Hubble telescope and wanted to explore the beauty of the cosmos more?
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I agree that religious beliefs are often tangential to scientific enquiry, at least for (what I consider to be) orthodox Christianity and good science. Entering the lab with the intention of proving (or disproving) a religious belief is both bad science and bad theology.
Of course entering the lab with the intention of proving or disproving ANYTHING is bad science.
Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
entering the lab with the intention of proving or disproving ANYTHING is bad science.
I'm no expert, but this sounds incorrect. It is similar to the moronic declaration of the president of an elite college, who should know better, that "scientists don't make arguments."
According to Popper, a scientific hypothesis cannot be proven correct, but it can be proven false.
Quoting Wikipedia's article on "Null hypothesis":
"Rejecting or disproving the null hypothesis—and thus concluding that there are grounds for believing that there is a relationship between two phenomena (e.g. that a potential treatment has a measurable effect)—is a central task in the modern practice of science, and gives a precise sense in which a claim is capable of being proven false."
I'm equating "task" with "intention". Maybe you can point out a fatal flaw in doing so, but I think that experiments are frequently designed to test a hypothesis against the null hypothesis. Scientists don't just pour random chemicals into test tubes and observe what happens. It is only necessary for the process to be honest and replicable.
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Of course entering the lab with the intention of proving or disproving ANYTHING is bad science.
In an ideal world, in which scientists are completely dispassionate robots, maybe. (Though even then there are arguments that completely dispassionate robots wouldn't be ideal scientists.)
As it is, I think a lot of science in the real world gets done after entering the lab with the intention of proving or disproving some hypothesis. And is still constructive science.
(Isaac Newton is arguably the greatest scientist in the history of the world and had an ego the size of a planet. The chances that he never went into a laboratory with the intention of proving his own hypothesis right, or someone else's hypothesis wrong are I think nonexistent.)
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
It's getting well into the realms of philosophy of science (which everyone should study).
Popper is popularly known as showing that you can't prove a scientfic hypothesis, and therefore advocating that in that case we should test a hypothesis by experiments that could falsify it.
Which, he did say. But, he didn't stop there. Effectively he realised that "this demonstrates hypothesis X is false" is itself a hypothesis, and therefore can't be proved to be correct. You can never scientifically prove anything either correct or false.
Popper developed an analogy that likens science to building on a swamp, where to provide a foundation you drive piles into the swamp. He likened hypotheses to those piles. In science, because you can neither prove nor disprove a hypothesis, the piles can never be driven down to rest on the bedrock of objective, empirical truth. They can, however be driven in a long way and their stability tested. We can then build scientific knowledge on a foundation of extensively tested hypotheses, even if none of what we build rests on bedrock.
Posted by Jack o' the Green (# 11091) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
This is needless personalization of the argument.
Granted. Should have said theists.
Apologies, Jack o' the Green.
Thank you. Apology accepted.
[ 29. September 2015, 16:34: Message edited by: Jack o' the Green ]
Posted by HughWillRidmee (# 15614) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jack o' the Green:
He uses the metaphor of using a metal detector on the beach, and coming to the conclusion that there isn't anything under the sand which isn't made of metal.
If he does he misunderstands the scientific method - the conclusion should be that nothing was detected under the sand, other than metal. The possibility of non-metallic material needs to be explored by other means. Standard obfuscation through the redefinition of something in order to appear to knock it down - do I hear "straw man"?
I don't, myself, think that philosophy is useless - I reckon it can be useful in determining the questions that science can (should?) address.
Surely the partnership should be - Philosophy identifies the questions, people use the scientific method to identify the likely answers. That would, of course, require the philosophers to have an accurate knowledge of how the scientific method works and an up-to-date and comprehensive understanding of what science has, and has not, achieved thus far.
Theology - "The study of the nature of God and religious belief". Studying religious belief is OK, even fun. Studying the nature of God? - studying human attempts to explain God - that's surely better since I don't believe it to be possible to study the nature of something that is without evidence, unnecessary and almost certainly non-existent.
Posted by HughWillRidmee (# 15614) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
A good scientist keeps their religious beliefs at home and does science in the lab.
I agree, but would add, good religious beliefs have nothing to fear from scientific findings. They have, on the contrary, inspired and encouraged scientists to work avidly and with integrity.
“My practice as a scientist is atheistic. That is to say, when I set up an experiment I assume that no god, angel or devil is going to interfere with its course; and this assumption has been justified by such success as I have achieved in my professional career. I should therefore be intellectually dishonest if I were not also atheistic in the affairs of the world.” population geneticist J. B. S. Haldane
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
I don't, myself, think that philosophy is useless - I reckon it can be useful in determining the questions that science can (should?) address.
Surely the partnership should be - Philosophy identifies the questions, people use the scientific method to identify the likely answers.
Really? You don't think scientists have managed to identify questions to address on their own up till now?
Did Newton need John Locke to tell him whether to investigate the corpuscular nature of light?
Did Bradwardine need Scotus to tell him to formulate the mean speed theorem?
To what philosophical question is the mean speed theorem an answer?
How do you propose, using the scientific method, to decide between the correspondence theory of truth and the coherence theory of truth?
Posted by Philip Charles (# 618) on
:
The scientist depends on his/her ability to objectify what is being studied. The ammonium hydroxide does not say "Don't pour me into that copper sulphate because strange things will happen". The universe does not say to the astronomer "Mind your tongue you insignificant worm, stop making snide remarks about my lovely dark matter or I will spit black holes at you!"
But if I try to be scientific about my wife the result is a definite responce, "Get out of my sight you sexist pig, how dare you ... " ![[Projectile]](graemlins/puke2.gif)
A surgeon after spending several hours of scientific investigation before the operation reports back to the patient after the surgery and says "That foot is sorted, but don't go round kicking people with it just yet." (That was supposed to be a surgeon type quip.) The surgeon acting first as scientist then as a human relating to another human.
Science deals with objects, but anything to do with human relationships is outside its field.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Philip Charles
That's a nice example of the surgeon, switching from scientific to personal modes of being. It seems to make the point crystal clear, that using science in some contexts would be not only counter-intuitive, but inhuman, anti-human.
Science is surely a tool, not a Weltanschauung, (world view). Those who turn it into one, are not doing science, after all.
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
It occurred to me just now that there's a nice example of scientism going on down in Hell.
Russ has opined that in order to judge the morality of homosexuality we need to know what it is. And he thinks, from a biological perspective, it's a defect in the reproductive system.
Setting aside the question of whether that is even correct from a biological perspective, that's not what homosexuality is. Homosexuality is the lived experience of people feeling same sex attraction.
You could put together a team of geneticists, population modellers, embryologists, and so on, and they could find out everything there is to know biologically. But if they're all straight nothing in that process will tell them what homosexuality is. To do that you have to listen to gay people.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
hosting/
This is not Hell and nor is it Dead Horses. Please try to keep both of them out of Purgatory.
/hosting
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
A non-DH example, which is often used, is the Mona Lisa. Science can examine it, work it what it's made of, and the arrangements of pigments on the surface, and so on, and all of this is very useful.
But at some point you might do well to stand back and actually look at it, and see how it affects you.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Science is surely a tool, not a Weltanschauung, (world view). Those who turn it into one, are not doing science, after all.
This is the whole thread in a nutshell. Close the doors, turn off the lights, we can all go home.
Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Science is surely a tool, not a Weltanschauung, (world view). Those who turn it into one, are not doing science, after all.
This is the whole thread in a nutshell. Close the doors, turn off the lights, we can all go home.
Yep. Spot on. ![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
AFZ
Posted by Jack o' the Green (# 11091) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by alienfromzog:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Science is surely a tool, not a Weltanschauung, (world view). Those who turn it into one, are not doing science, after all.
This is the whole thread in a nutshell. Close the doors, turn off the lights, we can all go home.
Yep. Spot on.
AFZ
I would certainly agree absolutely. However, in the current climate of the way science is (in my opinion) misused to answer theological and philosophical questions - by some scientists amongst others - it doesn't do any harm to be able to articulate why this is a mistake.
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on
:
Is it scientism or abuse of science when something that has never been tested is declared "science says it's safe"? The issue comes up in things like drugs, where scientific testing suggests a specific dose of drug X is safe, a specific dose of drug y is safe, a specific dose of drug z is safe, but the three are prescribed together when there has been no safety test of the combination.
Then there's the problem of whether science is a process or a statement of absolute truth. A friend told me science is always right. I asked which year's science -- when I was a kid, science said space was full of ether; then it was empty; then space dust and solar winds. Just because today we think differently than last century doesn't prove today's scientific beliefs are perfect and final understandings of reality, but I've been accused of being "anti science" for saying that.
Then there's the "if science can't capture and test it, it doesn't exist." Ha. There's more to reality than can be double blind studied in a lab.
Scientism is denial of the limits of scientific knowledge.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
Is it scientism or abuse of science when something that has never been tested is declared "science says it's safe"? The issue comes up in things like drugs, where scientific testing suggests a specific dose of drug X is safe, a specific dose of drug y is safe, a specific dose of drug z is safe, but the three are prescribed together when there has been no safety test of the combination.
That is called marketing and hasn't anything to do with science.
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on
:
It occurred to me when I was thinking about this that perhaps scientism is when you're asked to explain the meaning of Romeo and Juliet and your answer is, "Hormones."
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
It occurred to me when I was thinking about this that perhaps scientism is when you're asked to explain the meaning of Romeo and Juliet and your answer is, "Hormones."
OK, if you are attempting to imply "Love" is the correct answer, I suggest you re-read the play.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
Well, "hormones" isn't the right answer either. Although, if you can make a convincing case from the text it might get you a good mark in an English Lit exam.
But, perhaps the idea that there is always a "right answer" is also a mark of scientism.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Well, "hormones" isn't the right answer either. Although, if you can make a convincing case from the text it might get you a good mark in an English Lit exam.
But, perhaps the idea that there is always a "right answer" is also a mark of scientism.
Did not say there was a"right answer". But "love", a common answer, is wrong. Well, at least a very poor answer. Hormones certainly play a part. Pride makes a better answer.
And, absolutely, one-hundred percent wrong on thinking there is a "right answer" is a mark of scientism.
[ 12. October 2015, 23:48: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Well, "hormones" isn't the right answer either. Although, if you can make a convincing case from the text it might get you a good mark in an English Lit exam.
But, perhaps the idea that there is always a "right answer" is also a mark of scientism.
I like the way you are headed with this. I think 'naturalism' is a better term than 'scientism'. It admits that everything in the world comes from natural processes and merely admits that science can offer the best answers, rather than necessarily the 'right' answers. This was one of the areas where I felt that Sam Harris went wrong. Rather than arguing that science can help determine moral values, he argued that science is (or ultimately will be) the only source of moral values—and however you slice it, that's not going to work.
K.
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
It occurred to me when I was thinking about this that perhaps scientism is when you're asked to explain the meaning of Romeo and Juliet and your answer is, "Hormones."
OK, if you are attempting to imply "Love" is the correct answer, I suggest you re-read the play.
I wasn't. I was suggesting that scientism and reductionism are closely related.
And I'm quite well acquainted with the play, thanks.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
Not meaning to be insulting, but how is religion any less reductionist?
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Not meaning to be insulting, but how is religion any less reductionist?
Unfortunately religion can be reductionist, though I never met someone who blandly insists "Jesus is the answer" whom I didn't want to slap. But any religion I'd touch with a bargepole would celebrate the complexity, fluidity, and multi-facetedness of experience and meaning. It would delight that meaning is sculpted more often than it's discovered. It would proclaim that poetry says at least as much about the world as maths.
If it was asked the meaning of Romeo and Juliet, it might say something like, "Go and act in the play."
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0