|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Scientism: Why all hot and bothered about it?
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Why must there be this nebulous more?
Because it is the most reasonable explanation.
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Many religious, philosophical and spiritual folk get really worked up by this POV. Why?
Because it is used to attack religion, philosophy and spirituality.
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
and why is it inherently less valid than Christianity or Buddhism or whatever?
Because it is hypocritical to the point of being self-contradictory. Simply put, the key assertion of scientism "only knowledge established by empirics and the scientific method is valid / trustworthy" is not itself a statement that can be established by empirics and the scientific method. Thus the key assertion of scientism declares itself to be invalid / untrustworthy. At which point one can do little more than to point and laugh.
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Why must there be this nebulous more?
Because the modern scientific method is a design compromise: greater certainty for the price of less scope. Quite consciously, modern science has withdrawn from many domains of human knowledge, not to speak of higher thought in general, in order to nail down things with greater precision. That there is more than science is not news in any conceivable way, that is so by construction.
Scientism is basically the statement that everything must be nail since you have a hammer. Saying that this is stupid and that there are other things than nails is not some kind of attack on the value of a hammer or its usefulness in driving in nails.
Let's be clear, if there is no god then scientism is still wrong. Well, it is self-contradictory so it is wrong no matter what, but I mean it is just dumb even if we ignore that. Buddhism for example is incompatible with scientism. As is thinking about where you want to spend your next vacation. Or anything else really other than working as empirical scientist on some research (as I do for a living).
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
But scientism is used pejoratively to the point of being a substitute for stupid. Why is it stupid?
Because of life, the universe and everything.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Wood
The Milkman of Human Kindness
# 7
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
To summarise why people might say scientism is objectionable:
Scientism sense 1) is objectionable because it declares a priori that everything that isn't science - history, philosophy, cultural anthropology, cultural studies - is invalid. Rather like some Christians claiming that anything that originates from outside the Christian tradition is automatically valueless. I hope we can agree that's objectionable when Christians do it.
Scientism sense 3) is less objectionable on its own, but nevertheless a fertile source of intellectual error if there are good reasons why the methodology of the natural sciences is inappropriate to a certain area. But it does tend to go along with 1).
I think that "scientism" with all its pejorative baggage (eg its use as an insult by six-dayers etc) isn't a particularly helpful term. I've heard a lot of talk on the other hand on the academic and political battle lines I tend to stand on of STEM supremacists, which extends the attitude beyond issued of faith.
For example, a university run by STEM supremacists which has spent a decade gutting its humanities departments and which, when given a pot of money for an artist in residence (notwithstanding it having closed it's art and theatre departments years ago) spent the six months of the residency flatly refusing to acknowledge the existence of said artist, and asked him at the end of his time why he hadn't turned a profit.*
This colossal point-missing is typified by the sort of thing Terry Eagleton pointed out in his review of The God Delusion - the person who critiques religion as a thing without really knowing all that much about religion is more or less the same thing as putting an engineering professor in charge of an arts project.
*yes, ok, it's a personal experience, I was that artist etc.
[ 03. October 2014, 18:37: Message edited by: Wood ]
--------------------
Narcissism.
Posts: 7842 | From: Wood Towers | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Wood
The Milkman of Human Kindness
# 7
|
Posted
So many typos in that post. So sorry. It's what comes of writing it on a phone.
--------------------
Narcissism.
Posts: 7842 | From: Wood Towers | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Rather than address particular points, I will make this general. And please believe I am not being dismissive or derisive.
Every criticism I am hearing could apply to any theist or philosophy otherwise represented here.
I am seeing no reason why the concept of scientism should generate any more rancor than any other difference.
Yes, there is sectarian squabble here. But, other than the occasional "Kill the Papists"! and "Burn in Hell, Protestant Heretic" it is generally not at the same level.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
I think that "scientism" with all its pejorative baggage (eg its use as an insult by six-dayers etc) isn't a particularly helpful term. I've heard a lot of talk on the other hand on the academic and political battle lines I tend to stand on of STEM supremacists, which extends the attitude beyond issued of faith.
I'm not sure that STEM supremacism couldn't also be taken over by six-day creationists. But on the whole I think I'd agree that 'STEM supremacism' probably has less connotative baggage.
--------------------
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
|
|
Wood
The Milkman of Human Kindness
# 7
|
Posted
Also, the problem I have with the term "scientism" is that someone who necessarily believes in it is a "scientist", and I always thought that the term was used by people who primarily wanted to use it to defame scientists (as in, suggesting they're believers rather than practitioners) rather than argue a point.
--------------------
Narcissism.
Posts: 7842 | From: Wood Towers | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dark Knight
Super Zero
# 9415
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Rather than address particular points, I will make this general. And please believe I am not being dismissive or derisive.
Every criticism I am hearing could apply to any theist or philosophy otherwise represented here.
I am seeing no reason why the concept of scientism should generate any more rancor than any other difference.
Then you are not listening well.
Wood's post is the one that makes it clearest to me. We are not talking about discourses that exist on a level plain. We are discussing discourses that struggle against each other because some - one in particular, the uncritical and naive view that science is the best answer to everything - are more powerful in our societies than others. Hence the rancour by those who feel that certain ideas and points of view are being systematically excluded.
Wood's post is also worrying because it shows how easily scientism - not science, to be clear - can be co-opted by economic rationalism (that's an Australian term - you lot are probably more familiar with the term "Neo-liberalism"). And that is really of concern.
--------------------
So don't ever call me lucky
You don't know what I done, what it was, who I lost, or what it cost me - A B Original: I C U
----
Love is as strong as death (Song of Solomon 8:6).
Posts: 2958 | From: Beyond the Yellow Brick Road | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I am seeing no reason why the concept of scientism should generate any more rancor than any other difference.
Who said it did? Personally I have a dislike of fundamentalism of any kind, not just the particular brand of fundamentalism that says science is the answer to everything.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I am seeing no reason why the concept of scientism should generate any more rancor than any other difference.
Who said it did?
It appears to be so on this site. Could be just my inference, true, but it genuinely appears this way to me.
I do not care for fundamentalism either.
Nor knee-jerk reactions and, in the main, that is what many cries of scientism on SOF have been.
I am not a scientism-ist.
But it is the same category error to say science will never be able to describe everything as it is to say everything can or will be described by science.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
But it is the same category error to say science will never be able to describe everything as it is to say everything can or will be described by science.
Why? Does science actually claim to be able to describe everything? Is not the very success of modern science in part because scientists have limited the scope of what they attempt to explain? If "being able to explain everything" is something that the vast majority of scientists wouldn't even contemplate claiming, how is it in the same ball park as a claim that science can explain everything?
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dark Knight
Super Zero
# 9415
|
Posted
What AC said.
And the ability to describe everything does not mean that everything can be explained. Description and explanation are clean different things.
The classic example is love. I get quite tired of people telling me that love is a chemical reaction in my brain. No, that isn't love. Describing what happens in one's brain when one is in love doesn't even scratch the surface of the significance of love.
I am always bemused by the scans that tell me "this is your brain on ...." - what do they think they have demonstrated?
[ 04. October 2014, 07:32: Message edited by: Dark Knight ]
--------------------
So don't ever call me lucky
You don't know what I done, what it was, who I lost, or what it cost me - A B Original: I C U
----
Love is as strong as death (Song of Solomon 8:6).
Posts: 2958 | From: Beyond the Yellow Brick Road | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
But it is the same category error to say science will never be able to describe everything as it is to say everything can or will be described by science.
It's worth pointing out that the two people on this thread who admit to actually practicing in the natural sciences, Alan Cresswell and IngoB, both consider it an error. Both of them have explained why it is an error based on considerations about the methodologies of the natural sciences.
--------------------
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
|
|
Wood
The Milkman of Human Kindness
# 7
|
Posted
Dark Knight's point actually illustrates an important point.
It's not really about a STEM supremacist claiming to explain or describe everything, it's about this sort of person not seeing anything as being outside their expertise.
As someone with a humanities background who works in both technical and artistic fields, it is immensely frustrating to me sometimes how completely ignorant your STEM types can be of other fields of work.
So in Dark Knight's post it's not a materialist viewpoint that's coming into play, it's a basic inability to see that philosophy is a valid field of study.
Or like the conversation I had recently with a guy who's a prof of human sciences where he, a man with a PhD and a string of publications as long as your proverbial arm, simply could not get his head round the idea that a text might be encoded with political and social assumptions independent of whether you know what its author thought, which is like the basis of modern literary criticism, but that's not a proper subject, see, so he doesn't see the point of knowing about it.
The problem isn't science vs. Religion, it's about science vs. philosophy, history, literature, and theology.
[ 04. October 2014, 08:16: Message edited by: Wood ]
--------------------
Narcissism.
Posts: 7842 | From: Wood Towers | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Wood
The Milkman of Human Kindness
# 7
|
Posted
And as Dafyd said, one of the natural results of STEM supremacists thinking jiving contempt for theology is "creation scientists" and people who think that creationism is representative of people of faith.
Edit: I've lost count of the number of fundies I've met who disdain theology as a field of study.
[ 04. October 2014, 08:21: Message edited by: Wood ]
--------------------
Narcissism.
Posts: 7842 | From: Wood Towers | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Wood
The Milkman of Human Kindness
# 7
|
Posted
I have no idea why my phone added the word "jiving" to that post. I should give up this smartphone business as a bad job.
--------------------
Narcissism.
Posts: 7842 | From: Wood Towers | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Every criticism I am hearing could apply to any theist or philosophy otherwise represented here.
Rubbish. Scientism is explicitly self-contradictory, see above. It is dead on arrival. None of the major theisms or living philosophies have that problem, or at least not at facepalm level.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Wood
The Milkman of Human Kindness
# 7
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Every criticism I am hearing could apply to any theist or philosophy otherwise represented here.
Rubbish. Scientism is explicitly self-contradictory, see above. It is dead on arrival. None of the major theisms or living philosophies have that problem, or at least not at facepalm level.
Problem is that this very idea - that major theisms are in fact a priori bang-your-face-on-your-desk stupid - is the base assumption of most of the perpetrators of the fallacy.
[ 04. October 2014, 08:49: Message edited by: Wood ]
--------------------
Narcissism.
Posts: 7842 | From: Wood Towers | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Every criticism I am hearing could apply to any theist or philosophy otherwise represented here.
I am seeing no reason why the concept of scientism should generate any more rancor than any other difference.
Your problem I think, or at least one of your problems, is that you're confusing 'scientism' with 'materialism' or 'physicalism' or some other such philosophy. In your defence you may be reacting to people who are also confusing the two from the other side.
Materialism and physicalism are perfectly good philosophies and do not commit people who hold them to being assholes about people who disagree.
Scientism, or Stem supremacism as Wood has helpfully relabelled it, does require the person who holds it to be an asshole about people who hold expertise in different fields.
Yes, you can find people who hold equivalent asshole-style beliefs in most if not all major religions and philosophies. But you can find people who don't hold equivalent style beliefs. But if a STEM supremacist gives up their belief that theology and cultural studies are just playing games with words then they've ceased to be a STEM supremacist.
--------------------
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
|
|
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
<snip>But it is the same category error to say science will never be able to describe everything as it is to say everything can or will be described by science.
I want to juxtapose this with the quotation in the OP because I think (hope) it illustrates the fundamental problem with scientism; quote:
Scientism is belief in the universal applicability of the scientific method and approach, and the view that physical science constitutes the most authoritative worldview or most valuable part of human learning to the exclusion of other viewpoints
If that quotation is an accurate definition of scientism, then scientism must reject BOTH of the statements in lilBuddah's post quoted above.
NEITHER the statement that "science will never be able to describe everything" nor the statement that "everything can or will be described by science" are statements that are valid or meaningful within a scientistic world view since neither of those statements is capable of being tested by the 'scientific method and approach' nor are they a product of physical science.
Within scientism, therefore, the belief that "the scientific method and approach" is universally applicable, and that "physical science constitutes the most authoritative worldview or most valuable part of human learning to the exclusion of other viewpoints" is in fact a belief untestable by scientific method and approach and not part of physical science, and within that worldview it is a belief which ought, therefore, to be dismissed.
In other words it is a kind of axiomatic statement which declares that axiomatic statements are invalid (since all must be testable by the scientific method and approach, or be a product of the physical sciences).
I can't say with confidence that my irritation with scientism is unrelated to my own religious affiliation. In general, though, I find I do get irritated with logical fallacies being advanced as if they are knock-down arguments for or against a position.
Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
In other words it is a kind of axiomatic statement which declares that axiomatic statements are invalid (since all must be testable by the scientific method and approach, or be a product of the physical sciences).
Or, as IngoB put it, it "is explicitly self-contradictory, see above. It is dead on arrival."
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I am seeing no reason why the concept of scientism should generate any more rancor than any other difference.
Who said it did?
It appears to be so on this site. Could be just my inference, true, but it genuinely appears this way to me.
I do not care for fundamentalism either.
Nor knee-jerk reactions and, in the main, that is what many cries of scientism on SOF have been.
I am not a scientism-ist.
But it is the same category error to say science will never be able to describe everything as it is to say everything can or will be described by science.
We must be reading different threads, because I honestly can't see a lot of outbreaks of cries of scientism in the threads I read.
We've got one thread in Hell which appears to be full of caricatures in all directions, but that's the only place I can think of it coming up recently.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dark Knight
Super Zero
# 9415
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
In other words it is a kind of axiomatic statement which declares that axiomatic statements are invalid (since all must be testable by the scientific method and approach, or be a product of the physical sciences).
Or, as IngoB put it, it "is explicitly self-contradictory, see above. It is dead on arrival."
Yes, I'm thinking of making Ingo's comment my signature. Very well stated. ![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
--------------------
So don't ever call me lucky
You don't know what I done, what it was, who I lost, or what it cost me - A B Original: I C U
----
Love is as strong as death (Song of Solomon 8:6).
Posts: 2958 | From: Beyond the Yellow Brick Road | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Wood
The Milkman of Human Kindness
# 7
|
Posted
STEM supremacists are nearly impossible to combat because of the precise point Ingo made, inasmuch as their idiocy is based upon the base unproven assumption that everyone else is useless, lazy, lightweight or stupid. You can't argue with that. It's almost impregnable.
--------------------
Narcissism.
Posts: 7842 | From: Wood Towers | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
But it is the same category error to say science will never be able to describe everything as it is to say everything can or will be described by science.
Why? Does science actually claim to be able to describe everything? Is not the very success of modern science in part because scientists have limited the scope of what they attempt to explain? If "being able to explain everything" is something that the vast majority of scientists wouldn't even contemplate claiming, how is it in the same ball park as a claim that science can explain everything?
Hear, hear!
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
I have no idea why my phone added the word "jiving" to that post. I should give up this smartphone business as a bad job.
But Synthetic Dave, my screen reader, read it as an integral part of the post, which added a certin ooomph to it!! ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
Dark Knight's point actually illustrates an important point.
It's not really about a STEM supremacist claiming to explain or describe everything, it's about this sort of person not seeing anything as being outside their expertise.
As someone with a humanities background who works in both technical and artistic fields, it is immensely frustrating to me sometimes how completely ignorant your STEM types can be of other fields of work.
So in Dark Knight's post it's not a materialist viewpoint that's coming into play, it's a basic inability to see that philosophy is a valid field of study.
Or like the conversation I had recently with a guy who's a prof of human sciences where he, a man with a PhD and a string of publications as long as your proverbial arm, simply could not get his head round the idea that a text might be encoded with political and social assumptions independent of whether you know what its author thought, which is like the basis of modern literary criticism, but that's not a proper subject, see, so he doesn't see the point of knowing about it.
The problem isn't science vs. Religion, it's about science vs. philosophy, history, literature, and theology.
Don't make me dig up my C.P. Snow. Or my Alan Sokal. People take pride in not understanding mathematics or the physical sciences...
Seriously, the problem isn't Scientism in particular. It's the idea that "The way I approach the world is the right and only one and there is nothing to be found outside it." Scientism is one manifestation of this form of arrogance - Biblical Fundamentalism is frequently a second (especially in Young Earth Creationist systems). Post-Modernism started off as a reaction to Scientism at its worst - but like most things defined by their opposition has frequently created the mirror case where all viewpoints including that the moon is made of green cheese are equally valid.
And I disagree with Ingob that Scientism is DOA - you can have premises that are not investigatable by a system. On the other hand between Godel's Proof (there are statements that are true but not provable), the Uncertainty Principle (that we can never know exactly where something is and where it is going) and Chaos Theory (that in most complex systems small uncertainties magnify massively) the premise that only scientific and logical knowledge matters is refuted by maths and science.
And to get back to the main point, when the only tool you have is a hammer then everything looks like a nail. Science as your only discipline isn't as dead as theology as your only discipline, or philosophy (now that science has split off from them). Or Lit Crit.
And I don't think there's any discipline that hasn't had the people who practice it consider it the most important thing ever. It's the dark side of this.
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
FWIW, I don't think IngoB's little trick is valid. He made the mistake to formulate the basic assertion of Scientism for them. I think it's possible to formulate it in such a way that doesn't lead to a contradiction.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dark Knight
Super Zero
# 9415
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
FWIW, I don't think IngoB's little trick is valid. He made the mistake to formulate the basic assertion of Scientism for them. I think it's possible to formulate it in such a way that doesn't lead to a contradiction.
Which, presumably, you will now demonstrate.
--------------------
So don't ever call me lucky
You don't know what I done, what it was, who I lost, or what it cost me - A B Original: I C U
----
Love is as strong as death (Song of Solomon 8:6).
Posts: 2958 | From: Beyond the Yellow Brick Road | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
saysay
Ship's Praying Mantis
# 6645
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I am seeing no reason why the concept of scientism should generate any more rancor than any other difference.
As Ingo said, scientism is explicitly self-contradictory. Dead in the water.
And yet it is used by many people to deny other people's lived experiences, to tell them that they are wrong about their description of what happened, because all that really happened was a series of chemical reactions in their brain possibly being caused by some sort of malfunction.
People get a mite put out by that sort of behavior and sometimes react strongly to anyone who seems like they might engage in it as well.
--------------------
"It's been a long day without you, my friend
I'll tell you all about it when I see you again"
"'Oh sweet baby purple Jesus' - that's a direct quote from a 9 year old - shoutout to purple Jesus."
Posts: 2943 | From: The Wire | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
itsarumdo
Shipmate
# 18174
|
Posted
I trust you have a peer reviewed journal reference to back up that statement?
[ 04. October 2014, 23:29: Message edited by: itsarumdo ]
--------------------
"Iti sapis potanda tinone" Lycophron
Posts: 994 | From: Planet Zog | Registered: Jul 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
saysay
Ship's Praying Mantis
# 6645
|
Posted
Of course.
--------------------
"It's been a long day without you, my friend
I'll tell you all about it when I see you again"
"'Oh sweet baby purple Jesus' - that's a direct quote from a 9 year old - shoutout to purple Jesus."
Posts: 2943 | From: The Wire | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
FWIW, I don't think IngoB's little trick is valid. He made the mistake to formulate the basic assertion of Scientism for them. I think it's possible to formulate it in such a way that doesn't lead to a contradiction.
Which, presumably, you will now demonstrate.
The traditional way is to to retract the view that 'science is the only way to discover truth', which is self-refuting, and substitute something like 'no method other than science has been shown to discover truth', which is not apparently self-refuting.
However, this is still very dodgy, because of the use of the word 'truth', which is highly ambiguous, or just vague.
Hence, better to have something like model-dependent realism, which concedes that there is not One True Way. So Hawking, for example, states that models are not real, (in 'The Grand Design'), which seems a long way from scientism.
But 'scientism' is a term of abuse in any case.
[ 05. October 2014, 00:22: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pre-cambrian
Shipmate
# 2055
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
But 'scientism' is a term of abuse in any case.
Exactly. Scientism is a term which is (almost) never used by its supposed practitioners. Mikael Stenmark of the University of Uppsala is one of the major definers (and critics) of scientism. He describes in detail various forms of "scientism" but he never acknowledges that the accusation of scientism is externally applied or assesses who applies the term to whom and why.
--------------------
"We cannot leave the appointment of Bishops to the Holy Ghost, because no one is confident that the Holy Ghost would understand what makes a good Church of England bishop."
Posts: 2314 | From: Croydon | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dark Knight
Super Zero
# 9415
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
FWIW, I don't think IngoB's little trick is valid. He made the mistake to formulate the basic assertion of Scientism for them. I think it's possible to formulate it in such a way that doesn't lead to a contradiction.
Which, presumably, you will now demonstrate.
The traditional way is to to retract the view that 'science is the only way to discover truth', which is self-refuting, and substitute something like 'no method other than science has been shown to discover truth', which is not apparently self-refuting.
However, this is still very dodgy, because of the use of the word 'truth', which is highly ambiguous, or just vague.
Hence, better to have something like model-dependent realism, which concedes that there is not One True Way. So Hawking, for example, states that models are not real, (in 'The Grand Design'), which seems a long way from scientism.
But 'scientism' is a term of abuse in any case.
Which is quite a wordy way of saying "No, I can't."
With "You lot are big meanies for using the word."
If science stays within its boundaries, no one will complain about its reach. When it starts to transgress them, then its limitations became painfully clear.
Justinian mentions bringing up CP Snow. Go ahead - this isn't the 1950s. Science is the dominant paradigm now. People not only lack a grasp of science itself, but are painfully ignorant of the philosophy of science, yet blindly accept that science must be the best approach to all questions. Dawkins' major problem, for example, is not that he is a poor scientist (he probably isn't), and not that he doesn't understand religion (although he really doesn't) - it's that he has no real grasp of the philosophy of science, and its limits. And that path leads to scientism.
--------------------
So don't ever call me lucky
You don't know what I done, what it was, who I lost, or what it cost me - A B Original: I C U
----
Love is as strong as death (Song of Solomon 8:6).
Posts: 2958 | From: Beyond the Yellow Brick Road | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Dark Knight: Which, presumably, you will now demonstrate.
If you ask nicely.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dark Knight
Super Zero
# 9415
|
Posted
I'm not asking at all. Don't if you can't. No skin off my nose.
--------------------
So don't ever call me lucky
You don't know what I done, what it was, who I lost, or what it cost me - A B Original: I C U
----
Love is as strong as death (Song of Solomon 8:6).
Posts: 2958 | From: Beyond the Yellow Brick Road | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
Dawkins' major problem, for example, is not that he is a poor scientist (he probably isn't), and not that he doesn't understand religion (although he really doesn't) - it's that he has no real grasp of the philosophy of science, and its limits. And that path leads to scientism.
This. "All questions of interest can be answered by science" is not a scientific statement; it is a philosophical statement. Dawkins (and many others) confuse science with the philosophical idea that all that matters is what can be answered scientifically (to put it one way). Great scientists, miserable philosophers (as was Carl Sagan by the way). And the question of what can and cannot be determined by science is a question of philosophy, not of science.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
FWIW, I don't think IngoB's little trick is valid. He made the mistake to formulate the basic assertion of Scientism for them. I think it's possible to formulate it in such a way that doesn't lead to a contradiction.
Which, presumably, you will now demonstrate.
The traditional way is to to retract the view that 'science is the only way to discover truth', which is self-refuting, and substitute something like 'no method other than science has been shown to discover truth', which is not apparently self-refuting.
However, this is still very dodgy, because of the use of the word 'truth', which is highly ambiguous, or just vague.
Hence, better to have something like model-dependent realism, which concedes that there is not One True Way. So Hawking, for example, states that models are not real, (in 'The Grand Design'), which seems a long way from scientism.
But 'scientism' is a term of abuse in any case.
Which is quite a wordy way of saying "No, I can't."
With "You lot are big meanies for using the word."
If science stays within its boundaries, no one will complain about its reach. When it starts to transgress them, then its limitations became painfully clear.
Justinian mentions bringing up CP Snow. Go ahead - this isn't the 1950s. Science is the dominant paradigm now. People not only lack a grasp of science itself, but are painfully ignorant of the philosophy of science, yet blindly accept that science must be the best approach to all questions. Dawkins' major problem, for example, is not that he is a poor scientist (he probably isn't), and not that he doesn't understand religion (although he really doesn't) - it's that he has no real grasp of the philosophy of science, and its limits. And that path leads to scientism.
But isn't Hawking actually doing what you want? I mean, he is not saying that science is the best approach to everything; and in fact, he is saying that a scientific model describes and explains observations that have been made, and predicts future ones, including those which might disprove the model.
That seems much more modest to me than 'science explains everything'.
In fact, it tends to upset some people since it says that models are not real. But this sounds like instrumentalism to me - science is useful, but not an insight into reality.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
itsarumdo
Shipmate
# 18174
|
Posted
Science is based on observation - observation is an insight into reality. Interpretation may be real or may not be real. The advances in theoretical physics and chemistry have created a rather skewed vision of science suggesting that it is about prediction. The ability to predict a previously unknown phenomenon is a test of possible (approximate) veracity (within certain limited parameters).
However, it is remarkably difficult to observe without expectation or preconceived ideas of what you might see. So the phrase "You'll see it when you believe it" is as relevant to scientific studies as it is to normal life. Pretty well every major scientific discovery has been made by someone who has been able to transcend their normal way of looking at something, and the capacity to step outside the box of familiarity is remarkably rare. And a lot of scientific experiments in peer reviewed journals - the gold standard of research - are clearly designed with a preconceived view of reality which then determines the design of the experiment. When I first started my research job, my mentor spent half a day with me showing how it is possible to achieve any result you care to achieve by changing often implicit (and therefore largely invisible) assumptions in the experimental design. The world could literally be very different from how we perceive it, purely because our perception is based on layer upon layer of assumptions through generations of science and everyday prejudice and bias. I see scientism as a form of reactionary fundamentalism, because it attempts to paint the world as known an therefore predictable, controllable and safe. Science does not wear these rose tinted glasses, and it's hard work - with the occasional dash of prescience and serendipity as the box suddenly gets a little bigger.
--------------------
"Iti sapis potanda tinone" Lycophron
Posts: 994 | From: Planet Zog | Registered: Jul 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
I'm not a philosopher, nor an adherent of Scientism, so it might have to be tweaked a bit, but it seems to me that its basic assertion can be formulated something like this.
"The disciplines that rely on the scientific method are sufficient to explain everything that happens in the Universe. All other disciplines can ultimately be reduced to those. We may not be able to make this reduction right now, but one day we will be."
I don't agree with this statement. Like I said, I'm not a Scientism-ist. This is ultimately a statement of faith, a faith I don't adhere to.
But I don't think it's self-contradictory.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Grokesx
Shipmate
# 17221
|
Posted
@LeRoc & Dark Knight & Mousethief
I'd agree with LeRoc's definition. The interesting thing is, to me at any rate, that someone can be extremely sceptical of the final part, "...one day we will be" and thus not be guilty of the heinous sin of scientism, yet still not satisfy DK. ISTM that when someone says: "If science stays within its boundaries, no one will complain about its reach" they are not really concerned with the demarcation problem, they are wishing to set the boundaries themselves because, as Croesus said above, they don't like something about the science.
All the academic turf wars stuff seems like a distraction to me. Are you, Dark Knight and Mousethief, saying that the philosophy of science departments should be the science police, decreeing what can be studied as science and what can't? If not, what's so problematical about science sticking its nose into something that may not be amenable to a scientific approach? If the putative scientismist proves to be mistaken, why are you bothered? Seems to me the unspoken fear is that they may be right.
--------------------
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. H. L. Mencken
Posts: 373 | From: Derby, UK | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
Which is quite a wordy way of saying "No, I can't."
With "You lot are big meanies for using the word."
If science stays within its boundaries, no one will complain about its reach. When it starts to transgress them, then its limitations became painfully clear.
Justinian mentions bringing up CP Snow. Go ahead - this isn't the 1950s. Science is the dominant paradigm now. People not only lack a grasp of science itself, but are painfully ignorant of the philosophy of science, yet blindly accept that science must be the best approach to all questions. Dawkins' major problem, for example, is not that he is a poor scientist (he probably isn't), and not that he doesn't understand religion (although he really doesn't) - it's that he has no real grasp of the philosophy of science, and its limits. And that path leads to scientism.
What on earth makes you think that science is more culturally dominant now than shortly after the atom bomb was dropped? Than when architectural monstrosities like Brasilia (as well as a lot of awkward architecture) were being built? Than when we had 1950s utopian sci-fi?
As for a definition of scientism that might be accepted by those accused of it rather than being a pure snarl-word, try:
Scientism is the belief that if a piece of knowledge is not genuinely independently verifiable then it's impossible to tell whether it's genuine knowledge about something or whether you are merely giving yourself an auto-proctoscopy.
And there certainly has been a lot of "knowledge" (such as phologiston, the theory of humours, freudian psychology, and much much more) that has been either false information, information that's person-specific (Freud's psychoanalysis was largely true ... for Freud), masturbatory (post-Galton eugenics, and Galton stands as an excellent case in point), or just plane false.
For another definition of scientism that would be accepted by many scientismists try:
If you can not make independently verifiable predictions about the world then either your "knowledge" is just stamp collecting of disparate facts with no genuine context, or it's pure castles in the air and has no connection to anything that's actually real - meaning that it's on about the level of arguing which would win in a fight between two comic book characters.
To either of these you just add a surprisingly small pinch of bias ("“By definition”, I begin
“Alternative Medicine”, I continue has either not been proved to work, Or been proved not to work. You know what they call “alternative medicine” That's been proved to work? Medicine.”" - Tim Minchin, Storm) and a pinch of people who have one true way approaches, and a lack of curiosity outside their field, and you get Scientismists.
[ 05. October 2014, 20:02: Message edited by: Justinian ]
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
As for a definition of scientism that might be accepted by those accused of it rather than being a pure snarl-word, try:
Scientism is the belief that if a piece of knowledge is not genuinely independently verifiable then it's impossible to tell whether it's genuine knowledge about something or whether you are merely giving yourself an auto-proctoscopy.
And there certainly has been a lot of "knowledge" (such as phologiston, the theory of humours, freudian psychology, and much much more) that has been either false information, information that's person-specific (Freud's psychoanalysis was largely true ... for Freud), masturbatory (post-Galton eugenics, and Galton stands as an excellent case in point), or just plane false.
An interesting list.
If someone holds to a falsificationist view of science, then you ought to believe that phlogiston theory was a respectable scientific theory for about a hundred years - as respectable as quarks, for example. It was falsifiable, and in the course of things it was eventually falsified. But no. Phlogiston gets used as a codeword for metaphysical non-explanations, and lumped together with Freudianism and eugenics as examples of things that are obviously not science. The motive is presumably to preserve the reputation of science by dismissing anything that has actually been falsified as never having been science to begin with.
It would be helpful if we had a word to describe Freud's attitude to science and non-scientific knowledge. Freud believed that knowledge achieved by a scientific methodology was automatically superior to knowledge garnered by any other route. Perhaps we could call that attitude 'scientism'.
Because the only difference between Freud's attitude to science and Dawkins' attitude to science was that Freud was a lot more original and creative. If Freud were around now he would be claiming his theory was falsifiable. Because the only difference between STEM and cultural studies except degree.
Claiming that Freud's theory was true of Freud only is a fairly standard dismissal of a theory that half the brightest minds of the Western world felt as a new revelation, and the other half felt as a demon that must be exorcised.
No theory has ever been rejected by working scientists, or anybody else, because it was Popperian falsified, or because it wasn't genuinely independently verifiable. You point this out to Popperians and they say that they're not describing science as it is actually practiced; they're describing scientific rationality as it ought to be practiced. Which is to say that even Popperians don't abandon theories just because there's evidence against them.
--------------------
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
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
No theory has ever been rejected by working scientists, or anybody else, because it was Popperian falsified, or because it wasn't genuinely independently verifiable.
Pons and Fleischmann?
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
It's arguable whether Fleishman and Pons presented a hypothesis at all, was it mainly (entirely?) just an observation that was contrary to expectations from the accepted theory of nuclear fusion. If their experiment had been reproducible it would have given nuclear theory a big dent, and would require a revision to nuclear theory or a new theory of nuclear behaviour. Their paper proposed neither of these, just a bit of speculation about what such a new/revised theory would look like.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Claiming that Freud's theory was true of Freud only is a fairly standard dismissal of a theory that half the brightest minds of the Western world felt as a new revelation, and the other half felt as a demon that must be exorcised.
I am far from a fan of Freud, but I would not say everything he did was useless. Nor, IMO did Justinian.
But it would be a fair analysis to say Freud's own demon's had a disproportionate influence on his theories.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Dafyd: No theory has ever been rejected by working scientists, or anybody else, because it was Popperian falsified, or because it wasn't genuinely independently verifiable.
don't understand, many theories and hypotheses are falsified. Ether is an example. Or am I reading you wrong?
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
An interesting list.
If someone holds to a falsificationist view of science, then you ought to believe that phlogiston theory was a respectable scientific theory for about a hundred years - as respectable as quarks, for example. It was falsifiable, and in the course of things it was eventually falsified. But no. Phlogiston gets used as a codeword for metaphysical non-explanations, and lumped together with Freudianism and eugenics as examples of things that are obviously not science.
I only wish people knew more history of science. Eugenics is a good example of what happens when the person who was almost certainly the best statistician in history (Francis Galton) keeps pushing the bounds of knowledge and how to apply the tools he came up with - and didn't even know once the rockets were up where they could come down.
quote:
The motive is presumably to preserve the reputation of science by dismissing anything that has actually been falsified as never having been science to begin with.
Nope. If we want to play the "Speculate about motivations" game I can do it right back at you. Especially when you've opened the conversation by using a snarl word ("Scientism") and attempting to define the other side.
quote:
It would be helpful if we had a word to describe Freud's attitude to science and non-scientific knowledge. Freud believed that knowledge achieved by a scientific methodology was automatically superior to knowledge garnered by any other route.
I don't know my Freud well enough. What did he consider science to include? And was this a premise or was it a conclusion based on observation of the effectiveness of lots of other types of knowledge.
quote:
No theory has ever been rejected by working scientists, or anybody else, because it was Popperian falsified, or because it wasn't genuinely independently verifiable.
This would be an interesting proposition if it was, in fact, true rather than a claim that is both Popperian-falsifiable and can be shown to be false.
Popperian falsification hasn't happened a lot- most of the times I can think of happened in the realm of subatomic physics in the 20th century. Prior to [url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young%27s_interference_experiment#Acceptance_of_the_wave_theory_of_light]Young's Double Slit experiment[/url] the prevailing scientific consensus was that light came in particles - and Poisson's attempt to disprove this by making a prediction that if the wave theory was correct you'd see a band of bright light, that was in fact seen, is one counter example. Rutherford's Alpha Scattering Experiment single-handedly overturned the prevailing plum pudding model of the atom with a result he described as "It was quite the most incredible event that ever happened to me in my life. It was almost as incredible as if you had fired a 15-inch shell at a piece of tissue paper and it came back and hit you."
The times when experiments have overturned the prevailing theories are rare. Because there's normally a lot of experimentation that goes into theories. But I just need to find one example to demonstrate that your claim is false. There are two. And there are a few more round both Relativity and Quantum Theory.
That said, it is true that falsification is not something that happens often, and it is true to say that science generally progresses through verification rather than falsification whatever Popper may have said about it.
quote:
Which is to say that even Popperians don't abandon theories just because there's evidence against them.
That's because in order to be a genuine Popperian you need to have rejected the overwhelming weight of the evidence. Popperian Falsification happens, so far as I can tell under only a few conditions:
1: Someone has massively screwed up and they've lead to groupthink.
2: There has been a massive change in the tools available to the researchers - enough, effectively, to open an entire new discipline of science.
And as an example for a supposedly scientific theory rejected by a lot of scientists for having no predictions (and being not even wrong) I'm going to cite String Theory. (XKCD on the subject).
ANd lilBuddha sums up my views on Freud nicely.
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dark Knight
Super Zero
# 9415
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
I'm not a philosopher, nor an adherent of Scientism, so it might have to be tweaked a bit, but it seems to me that its basic assertion can be formulated something like this.
"The disciplines that rely on the scientific method are sufficient to explain everything that happens in the Universe. All other disciplines can ultimately be reduced to those. We may not be able to make this reduction right now, but one day we will be."
I don't agree with this statement. Like I said, I'm not a Scientism-ist. This is ultimately a statement of faith, a faith I don't adhere to.
But I don't think it's self-contradictory.
Thank you. I agree it is not on the face of it self-contradictory. IngoB's definition is a critique, more than a way that a scientismist would define her or his own approach to the world.
But this definition still rests on the axiom of empiricism - the belief (and it is just that) that the senses are reliable indicators of reality. It still has no ability to interrogate that belief, because it proceeds from that point onward. Yet, the definition claims that one day it will be able to explain everything - and cannot explain or defend the validity of its bedrock principle. So it is still self-contradictory, and DOA, just not explicitly so.
--------------------
So don't ever call me lucky
You don't know what I done, what it was, who I lost, or what it cost me - A B Original: I C U
----
Love is as strong as death (Song of Solomon 8:6).
Posts: 2958 | From: Beyond the Yellow Brick Road | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
