|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: When does Science become 'Scientism'?
|
Jack o' the Green
Shipmate
# 11091
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 3121 | From: Lancashire, England | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
"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).
--------------------
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
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
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!
--------------------
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
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
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)
--------------------
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
|
|
Jack o' the Green
Shipmate
# 11091
|
Posted
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?
Posts: 3121 | From: Lancashire, England | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
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.)
--------------------
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 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?
--------------------
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
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
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 put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sipech
Shipmate
# 16870
|
Posted
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!
--------------------
I try to be self-deprecating; I'm just not very good at it.
Twitter: http://twitter.com/TheAlethiophile
Posts: 3791 | From: On the corporate ladder | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
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?
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
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 ]
--------------------
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
|
|
Jack o' the Green
Shipmate
# 11091
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 3121 | From: Lancashire, England | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
SusanDoris: Who is it that thinks Science is supposed to answer everything?
The adherents of scientism.
--------------------
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
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
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
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
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
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
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
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
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
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
What's the difference between scientism and scientific reductionism ?
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jack o' the Green
Shipmate
# 11091
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 3121 | From: Lancashire, England | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
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 ]
--------------------
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
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
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
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
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 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.
--------------------
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
|
|
Timothy the Obscure
Mostly Friendly
# 292
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
When you think of the long and gloomy history of man, you will find more hideous crimes have been committed in the name of obedience than have ever been committed in the name of rebellion.
- C. P. Snow
Posts: 6114 | From: PDX | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
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 ]
--------------------
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:
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.
--------------------
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 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.
--------------------
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
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
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 ]
--------------------
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
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
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
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
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
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
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!
--------------------
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
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
I feel a whiff of a Scotsman in there too.
--------------------
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
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jack o' the Green
Shipmate
# 11091
|
Posted
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
Posts: 3121 | From: Lancashire, England | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jack o' the Green
Shipmate
# 11091
|
Posted
I've often thought that many branches of philosophy should be taught at school from primary onwards.
Posts: 3121 | From: Lancashire, England | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
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
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
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. ]
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Jack o' the Green
Shipmate
# 11091
|
Posted
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
Posts: 3121 | From: Lancashire, England | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
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?
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
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!
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
