|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Scientism: Why all hot and bothered about it?
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
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
Many religious, philosophical and spiritual folk get really worked up by this POV. Why? and why is it inherently less valid than Christianity or Buddhism or whatever?
Why must there be this nebulous more?
Why is this considered, by many, to be so whacky, wet and wrong?
Now, I appreciate that theists and non-theists do believe in something more. That should be obvious.
But scientism is used pejoratively to the point of being a substitute for stupid.
Why is it stupid?
--------------------
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
I think the scientific method is wonderful. But it doesn't explain everything.
It isn't less valid than my personal faith; they are complementary to eachother.
--------------------
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
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
In my experience "scientism" is just shorthand for "science that says something I don't like" (e.g. the Earth revolves around the Sun, biological species change over time, the 'tears' from that statue are coming from a cracked waste water line, etc.) This allows someone to say science is wonderful, while still allowing the ability to dismiss inconvenient scientific findings.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Schroedinger's cat
Ship's cool cat
# 64
|
Posted
I think it is the perspective that science is the only or main realm of truth that is the problem.
Whereas religious people want their perspective to be that.
In truth, they are both valid, complimentary and parts of the truth - neither is as significant as they think they are. Neither is dominant in terms of truth, both provide some insights. SO I have a problem with scientism as I do with any other fundamentalist religious perspective.
--------------------
Blog
Music for your enjoyment
Lord may all my hard times be healing times
take out this broken heart and renew my mind.
Posts: 18859 | From: At the bottom of a deep dark well. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
In reality, very few people are absolutely scientistic. For example, most people I know who value science highly, still accept that some subjects are outside its domain, for example, aesthetics, maths, morality.
And I don't think anybody actually lives from moment to moment via science, do they? It would be odd to do that, if not impossible.
--------------------
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
What I do object to, is people saying things like "Scientism is the only truth, your religion is just a backward superstition" or stuff like that. Scientism is a belief too, and as long as its adherents admit that, I don't have much of a problem with it.
--------------------
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
Scientism is the view that any bollocks that a scientist, for a suitably broad definition of scientist, says is scientifically proven is automatically correct, especially if it has nothing to do with their area of research, or involves leaps of logic a mile wide.
For example, "science shows that women's brains are very slightly different from men's brains on average, therefore any feminist ideals beyond minimal legal equality are pointless" would be an example of scientism.
[ 02. October 2014, 19:29: Message edited by: Dafyd ]
--------------------
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
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Scientism is the view that any bollocks that a scientist, for a suitably broad definition of scientist, says is scientifically proven is automatically correct, especially if it has nothing to do with their area of research, or involves leaps of logic a mile wide.
You've been reading those climate denialist websites again. Taking the pronouncements of a civil engineer or dentist as definitive pronouncements on climatology isn't scientism, it's crankery.
[ 02. October 2014, 19:44: Message edited by: Crœsos ]
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
That, Dafyd, is the pejorative use, not the definition. And a misapplication of science as well.
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
What I do object to, is people saying things like "Scientism is the only truth, your religion is just a backward superstition" or stuff like that. Scientism is a belief too, and as long as its adherents admit that, I don't have much of a problem with it.
Problem with this is they are not equal.
Belief in the teachings of Christianity, or indeed Buddhism, require a greater level of faith.
Belief in the possibility of being able to explain the things with a naturalistic explanation has a slightly better track record.
--------------------
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:
lilBuddha: Problem with this is they are not equal.
Belief in the teachings of Christianity, or indeed Buddhism, require a greater level of faith.
Belief in the possibility of being able to explain the things with a naturalistic explanation has a slightly better track record.
No, I'm sorry. That science has explained some things very well is no guarantee that it will be able to explain other things. (Besides, this 'levels of faith' thing is pretty much meaningless to me.)
--------------------
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
Science is the investigation into how things work. It has a pretty good track record, and whilst past performance is no guarantee of future success, it is not so great a leap.
Religion is purely faith. We cannot prove, even to a reasonable level, that either Jesus or Buddha existed, much less were correct in their teachings.
They are approaching this from a more defensible position than are we. This is not to say I inherently agree with them, but the footing is not equal.
--------------------
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
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
In my experience "scientism" is just shorthand for "science that says something I don't like" (e.g. the Earth revolves around the Sun, biological species change over time, the 'tears' from that statue are coming from a cracked waste water line, etc.) This allows someone to say science is wonderful, while still allowing the ability to dismiss inconvenient scientific findings.
Yup, so often the case. ![[Mad]](angryfire.gif)
Science is categorically incapable of answering some kinds of questions: for example, no experiment can tell you whether a given action is right or wrong. Science can inform ethics, but never decide it, 'cause that kind of answer isn't quantifiable.
But cries of "scientism" so often go beyond that into claims that science must give houseroom to supernatural claims, or "show respect" to religious creation myths. Exactly the kind of material claims that science is eminently qualified to address.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
lilBuddha: Science is the investigation into how things work. It has a pretty good track record, and whilst past performance is no guarantee of future success, it is not so great a leap.
Religion is purely faith. We cannot prove, even to a reasonable level, that either Jesus or Buddha existed, much less were correct in their teachings.
In the OP, you asked what bothers people about Scientism. It is mostly people saying things like this ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
I do think the leap is very large, regarding to some Big Questions™ that Science hasn't been able to answer. And I don't think it is fair to judge faith by what it can or cannot prove. It is not the purpuse of faith to prove things.
--------------------
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 LeRoc:
quote:
lilBuddha: Science is the investigation into how things work. It has a pretty good track record, and whilst past performance is no guarantee of future success, it is not so great a leap.
Religion is purely faith. We cannot prove, even to a reasonable level, that either Jesus or Buddha existed, much less were correct in their teachings.
In the OP, you asked what bothers people about Scientism. It is mostly people saying things like this
But what is wrong about my statement? What inspires the ire?
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
I do think the leap is very large, regarding to some Big Questions™ that Science hasn't been able to answer.
It was not that long ago, in our existence as modern humans, that we thought the sun rotated around the earth. How far we have come, it is not unreasonable to think we will continue to grow in understanding.
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
And I don't think it is fair to judge faith by what it can or cannot prove. It is not the purpuse of faith to prove things.
No, it is not the purpose of faith to prove things, this is one reason it is called faith.
To me, faith and science are different paths for different quests. But I do not find offencive those who feel science is all that is necessary.
--------------------
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:
lilBuddha: But what is wrong about my statement? What inspires the ire?
Ire is a big word, let's call it a mild irritation.
quote:
lilBuddha: It was not that long ago, in our existence as modern humans, that we thought the sun rotated around the earth. How far we have come, it is not unreasonable to think we will continue to grow in understanding.
And we will (although the progress of scientific discovery seems to have slowed down significantly in the last couple of decades). But that's not the point. I believe that there are some questions that lay without the realm of the scientific method. It hasn't even begun to find ways to answer them.
quote:
lilBuddha: No, it is not the purpose of faith to prove things, this is one reason it is called faith.
To me, faith and science are different paths for different quests. But I do not find offencive those who feel science is all that is necessary.
I agree, and neither do I.
--------------------
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
|
|
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274
|
Posted
Isn't "scientism" meant to refer to statements that claim to be scientific in nature but cannot be verified as such? Very often they involve a confusion of fact and value. Social Darwinism would be an example.
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Why is it stupid?
It's not stupid. What it is is threatening to authoritarian religion.
Scientism is the philosophy of science applied to life. And that philosophy has no place for religious authority.
It says that science will get there in the end because every wrong hypothesis, every mis-step on the way to truth, will be questioned and doubted until someone finds experimental evidence to correct it.
What could be more subversive of religious authority ?
Best wishes,
Russ
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Scientism is the view that any bollocks that a scientist, for a suitably broad definition of scientist, says is scientifically proven is automatically correct, especially if it has nothing to do with their area of research, or involves leaps of logic a mile wide.
You've been reading those climate denialist websites again. Taking the pronouncements of a civil engineer or dentist as definitive pronouncements on climatology isn't scientism, it's crankery.
Could you explain why exactly you decided to ignore the example I actually gave, and substitute an example of your own, which you yourself concede is completely irrelevant?
--------------------
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
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
That, Dafyd, is the pejorative use, not the definition. And a misapplication of science as well.
That's rather like saying that 'prejudice against LGTB etc' is the perjorative use of homophobia, not the definition. By definition, the term is perjorative. Which doesn't mean it's not applicable.
Likewise, I don't see why saying that it's a misapplication of science is an objection. One would think that the point of using the term 'scientism' is to intimate that science can be misapplied.
For example, economics for the past hundred years and change has been trying to ape the methods of science, or the scientists. The principle is that the more something looks like science the more authority it has, and the less authority lay people and outsiders have to disagree with you.
Likewise, a pop psychologist can put forward Just So stories about the evolution of your favoured behaviour in early hominids in the Rift Valley that gives you extra credibility, because evolution and early hominids are Science, and therefore anyone who thinks you're putting forward Just So Stories is on a par with flat earthers and creationists.
If you're Matt Ridley you can do both at the same time.
--------------------
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
|
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
.....because it's infused with the human pride that says, 'We can know everything; and in knowing everything we can make it all better',and when it is held up to religious fundamentalism, all the same ugliness it purports to be rid of is reflected in its self absorbant gaze.
--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Scientism is the philosophy of science applied to life. And that philosophy has no place for religious authority.
It says that science will get there in the end because every wrong hypothesis, every mis-step on the way to truth, will be questioned and doubted until someone finds experimental evidence to correct it.
The philosophy of science applied to life seems to be pretty much how neoclassical economics likes to think of itself.
That neoclassical economics does question and doubt every wrong hypothesis and every mis-step on the way to truth is I think open to doubt.
One might think that Keynesian economics has a better record of success in both describing life, and indeed in questioning itself when it gets things wrong. But one of the things that Keynesians tend to reject is the idea that economics is or should be one of the sciences. That is, Keynesians tend to believe that economic beliefs are inevitably formed with political and value judgements taken into account, and therefore cannot aspire to the value neutrality of the physical or life 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
|
|
itsarumdo
Shipmate
# 18174
|
Posted
I've got nothing against science - my original training was engineering an then I was in various research jobs on and off for the next 20 years.
But the problem is that Science is a series of Hypotheses that are used as Models that are constantly being revised, tweaked, confirmed, debated, pulled apart and rewritten. Scientism otoh is a belief held by set of people who call themselves scientific but think the models are real an that it's all guaranteed, foolproof, in tablets of stone and definitive of the limits of possible realities.
Science as applied in the West - very successfully - is also reductionist. It does not handle holistic systems very well - it does much better at breaking things down and looking at the parts. So the natural conclusion IF one believes that everything is reducible without losing something important, is that life is an automaton an there is no free will - it is all deterministic if we could only do enough calculations. When this belief is turned round and applied in social policies, ethics, etc, it's a disaster. There is no basis for morality other than a set of rules that could be any other set of rules. And again, the people who put these together seem to have insufficient self awareness (partly because they believe in Science and Objectivity) that the reason those rules have been chosen is not objective rationality in its modern sense, but is subjective feelings that are turned unconsciously into a rationalist storyline.
Another aspect of Scientism is a belief in Occams Razor. Strange? Absolutely. NOTHING exists unless it is proven by science. Which means that some things that "exist" don't actually exist, but science happens to be wrong; and other things do exist but don't because science has not demonstrate them yet to the point that a common consensus has been reached. Some Christian sects have taken this one step further by declaring anything that is not proven by science to be the work of the Devil.
William of Ockham must surely be turning in his grave.
--------------------
"Iti sapis potanda tinone" Lycophron
Posts: 994 | From: Planet Zog | Registered: Jul 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Likewise, I don't see why saying that it's a misapplication of science is an objection. One would think that the point of using the term 'scientism' is to intimate that science can be misapplied.
Science can certainly be misapplied. As can religion.
Your example, to which I was referring, is science misapplied, not scientism in total.
Homophobia refers to prejudice against LGBT+. Whether someone thinks it justified is irrelevant to the meaning of the word. You can argue for the use of a different term to discuss those who you do not think fit, but the term was coined to broadly encompass.
Scientism is a POV that can coexist with valid, thorough scientific processes. It was coined to describe a POV that does not need any philosophy, not one that does science poorly. That is a misuse which, at best, has become a secondary meaning.
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
.....because it's infused with the human pride that says, 'We can know everything; and in knowing everything we can make it all better',and when it is held up to religious fundamentalism, all the same ugliness it purports to be rid of is reflected in its self absorbant gaze.
Ah, then, if it is the arrogance then fine. But I would posit that scientism is no more inherently arrogant than any particular religious belief. I do not think one need restrict to fundamentalism to find said arrogance.
--------------------
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 Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Scientism is the view that any bollocks that a scientist, for a suitably broad definition of scientist, says is scientifically proven is automatically correct, especially if it has nothing to do with their area of research, or involves leaps of logic a mile wide.
You've been reading those climate denialist websites again. Taking the pronouncements of a civil engineer or dentist as definitive pronouncements on climatology isn't scientism, it's crankery.
Could you explain why exactly you decided to ignore the example I actually gave, and substitute an example of your own, which you yourself concede is completely irrelevant?
Your opposition to women's rights on the basis you've cited is also crankery, not scientism. It's an almost exact parallel to climate denialism: pet theories posited by someone without real expertise in the field.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
What I do object to, is people saying things like "Scientism is the only truth, your religion is just a backward superstition" or stuff like that. Scientism is a belief too, and as long as its adherents admit that, I don't have much of a problem with it.
Problem with this is they are not equal.
Belief in the teachings of Christianity, or indeed Buddhism, require a greater level of faith.
Belief in the possibility of being able to explain the things with a naturalistic explanation has a slightly better track record.
I would go with LeRoc that scientism requires faith, and also that faith is non-quantifiable, and hence difficult to compare across belief systems.
Scientism requires faith that the scientific method is applicable across the whole of our lives. It has a solid foundation in the very successful track record of describing the physical universe. But, scientism then extrapolates from the success in describing the physical universe to a belief that science will also be successful in describing art, morality, ethics, human relationships, etc, and explaining these (whereas, science doesn't even offer an explanation for the physical universe that is does so well to describe). Extrapolation from what is known to what is uncertain is faith.
That description of working from a secure foundation to belief if things that are based on but not conclusively demonstrated by that foundation is actually very close to how I came to faith in Christ. Which is why I have no problem describing scientism as a religious belief.
There is one additional point about scientism that tends to get under my skin, and hence raise (in me) a level of antagonism that I don't feel towards other religious beliefs. That is that believers tend to present scientism as being synonymous with science. Which it isn't - I'm a practising scientist, that doesn't make me a scientism-ist. There is also a tendency among scientism-ists to talk of science having proved something, whereas any scientist should know is that science can prove nothing. It becomes especially galling when scientism-ists make statements like "science proves there is no god", whereas what they really mean (or, what I think they should be saying) is "modern science does not require a supernatural entity to describe the behaviour of physical systems". There is a big difference between those two statements. Not least that the deity scientism-ists dismiss is a god-of-the-gaps, but even the very high probability of the non-existence of such a deity has not been demonstrated by 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
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
Alan Cresswell expressed much better what I wanted to say.
I'd still like to make a remark about this:
quote:
Alan Cresswell: That is that believers tend to present scientism as being synonymous with science.
This irritates me too. (It happens on the Ship rather frequently.) The reason why this irritates me isn't that this would be a threat to religion. It is because I see it as an insult to Science.
--------------------
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
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
It's "universal applicability" that's the problem.
There are vast realms of life, mostly about the way human beings deal with each other and interact with each other, where science is very limited or prioritises things in a way that is unhelpful. To some branches of science, I am a walking bag of chemicals and electrical impulses. Which is in fact very helpful to know when certain things go wrong with my chemical balance, for example, but is hopelessly inadequate as a means of discussing what happens when I fall in love or when I'm angered by injustice.
And one of the reasons for getting hot and bothered about elevating science as the answer to everything is that it frequently involves a secondary belief, that "the ancients" were a bunch of nincompoops that have nothing of any value to say to us because they lacked the requisite level of science.
Which is why, in these kinds of discussions, I always ask whether the way humans relate to each other has actually changed that much over the last few thousand years. Friends, enemies, parents, children, lovers are not science. They are human relationships. We've been having those for a very long time. People have had brains and eyes for a very long time. The fact that in some cases their explanations of an observed event wouldn't match our scientific ones doesn't mean that they were a bunch of unreliable idiots.
--------------------
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 Alan Cresswell:
Extrapolation from what is known to what is uncertain is faith.
But religion, and I am including Buddhism, extrapolates from far less.
Yes, science is describing how things work. This is why you can have good Hindu, Christian, Buddhist, atheist, etc., scientists working together happily.
ISTM, the describe v. explain is largely semantic.
I do not generally find peoples' particular brand of faith, or lack thereof, annoying or irritating. What I do find irritating is the "I'm right, your wrong and stupid to be so". But I find this in every POV I encounter. (Well, above a relative threshold number of individuals)
But be annoyed because adherents to a particular POV believe in an extrapolation as cold, hard evidence? Could not be on this website if I did. We cannot all be right, after all.
--------------------
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:
lilBuddha: But religion, and I am including Buddhism, extrapolates from far less.
That might be true, I'm not sure.
You seem to put a lot of importance on which belief extrapolates from much and which belief extrapolates from less, building some kind of comparison system between beliefs based on this. I don't really see the value or the sense of such a comparison system.
Would a belief that extrapolates from much be worth more than a belief that extrapolates from less? Why?
--------------------
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 orfeo:
The fact that in some cases their explanations of an observed event wouldn't match our scientific ones doesn't mean that they were a bunch of unreliable idiots.
Was Newton an idiot because he did not understand what Einstein later described? Was his research useless? No to both, but he was still not quite completely right.
As to the mind, It is observable that changes in the physical structure of your brain alter the perceivable "You".
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
And one of the reasons for getting hot and bothered about elevating science as the answer to everything is that it frequently involves a secondary belief, that "the ancients" were a bunch of nincompoops that have nothing of any value to say to us because they lacked the requisite level of science.
You are arguing against the expression by some individuals, not the POV itself.
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
I don't really see the value or the sense of such a comparison system.
The only reason I make a comparison is against the sense that they are any more ridiculous than we are.
--------------------
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:
lilBuddha: The only reason I make a comparison is against the sense that they are any more ridiculous than we are.
I don't find them (scientismists) ridiculous. At least not in principle. Some of the things they say can be ridiculous. But so can some of the things religious people say.
TBH I'm a bit cautious about comparing beliefs like you did. That's not to say you can't compare them at all. You can compare them by their fruits for example. But this kind of system based on numerical notions of 'more' and 'less' doesn't really seem to lead anywhere.
--------------------
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
I would rather not compare in that fashion either. Discuss and debate, yes. But not to the point of x is better than y.
--------------------
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:
lilBuddha: I would rather not compare in that fashion either. Discuss and debate, yes. But not to the point of x is better than y.
Exactly. I don't think that would be particularly helpful in this case.
--------------------
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
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
ISTM, the describe v. explain is largely semantic.
How so?
I can describe the physical properties of an object, such as the desk my computer sits on, it's colour, density, capacity to bear the weight of my computer and a cup of coffee etc. But, does it explain why my desk has those properties?
We could go down two routes. One is to start talking about the molecules that make up the components of my desk, how they reflect light to give colour, how they bond to give strength and density etc. But have I explained why my desk has the properties it has? No, all I've done is add a further layer to the description of the properties of my desk. We could go on, molecules are made of atoms, properties of atoms are described by their electronic structure, which in turn is described by quantum mechanics. All I'm going is adding layers of description, not explanation for why my desk has the properties it has. Ultimately I suppose we get to the question "why does quantum mechanics work to describe the fundamental properties of matter?" which could be an explanation - but one that science can't currently answer. And, if science does answer that in the form of some Theory of Everything all it's done is add yet another layer of description rather than explanation and the question "why this theory of everything?" remains.
The alternative route to explaining the properties of my desk is to talk about a furniture designer. He designed my desk with certain requirements (strong enough to support my computer, large enough that I could sit at a chair with my feet under it, low enough density that it could be transported and assembled without specialist lifting gear etc), and also aesthetic considerations - why that particular shade of green for the surrounds? This is a fundamentally different approach than the reductionist scientific one. And, one that is much more of an explanation than a description.
--------------------
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:
You are arguing against the expression by some individuals, not the POV itself.
In that part of my post I am, yes. And? Are we supposed to confine ourselves to discussion of abstract principles, rather than the way people apply those principles in practice?
[ 03. October 2014, 03:58: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
If your characterisation were a function of scientism, or if it were a characteristic of most of its adherents, it would be fair. But, IME, it is not. Not anymore than Fred Phelps was a good example of Christianity.
--------------------
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
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
If your characterisation were a function of scientism, or if it were a characteristic of most of its adherents, it would be fair. But, IME, it is not. Not anymore than Fred Phelps was a good example of Christianity.
Okay, so just focus on the first part where, in terms not dissimilar to Mr Cresswell, I criticise the notion of 'universal application'.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Timothy the Obscure
Mostly Friendly
# 292
|
Posted
The first definition of scientism I ever encountered was "the belief that the methods of natural science should be applied in all domains of human understanding." Richard Dawkins put it nicely when he said "all truths are scientific truths" (which is self-refuting, but whatever...)
It's not so much offensive as just lame.
--------------------
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
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
orfeo,
Sorry, it still hasn't twigged. Perhaps I am being thick, wouldn't be an isolated incident, but I do not get why thinking of the universe in a naturalistic form is such a horrible thing. Why must there be more?
What is an atheist supposed to think about how the universe works? You are asking them to have a belief in some mystical force. Some do, ISTM, but what about those who do not? What else would they believe other than that everything could potentially be explained?
[ 03. October 2014, 05:38: 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
Clearly, atheists believe that there is nothing outside the universe, no super-natural entities or deities. That's pretty much what "atheist" means.
But atheism is not the same as scientism. Atheism need not expect that human intellect will be able to comprehend everything. And, an atheist need not accept that the only valid way of explaining anything is through science.
Reflecting a bit more, IMO the biggest issue with scientism is that it takes the scientific method and misapplies it into areas of life and study where it will not work.
The scientific method is a tool to help us understand the world. It is a versatile and very effective tool. It is like an intellectual adjustable spanner, able to adapt to fit lots of different scenarios. But, sometimes what you need is a hammer.
--------------------
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
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
ISTM, the describe v. explain is largely semantic.
How so?
I can describe the physical properties of an object, such as the desk my computer sits on, it's colour, density, capacity to bear the weight of my computer and a cup of coffee etc. But, does it explain why my desk has those properties?
We could go down two routes. One is to start talking about the molecules that make up the components of my desk, how they reflect light to give colour, how they bond to give strength and density etc. But have I explained why my desk has the properties it has? No, all I've done is add a further layer to the description of the properties of my desk. We could go on, molecules are made of atoms, properties of atoms are described by their electronic structure, which in turn is described by quantum mechanics. All I'm going is adding layers of description, not explanation for why my desk has the properties it has. Ultimately I suppose we get to the question "why does quantum mechanics work to describe the fundamental properties of matter?" which could be an explanation - but one that science can't currently answer. And, if science does answer that in the form of some Theory of Everything all it's done is add yet another layer of description rather than explanation and the question "why this theory of everything?" remains.
The alternative route to explaining the properties of my desk is to talk about a furniture designer. He designed my desk with certain requirements (strong enough to support my computer, large enough that I could sit at a chair with my feet under it, low enough density that it could be transported and assembled without specialist lifting gear etc), and also aesthetic considerations - why that particular shade of green for the surrounds? This is a fundamentally different approach than the reductionist scientific one. And, one that is much more of an explanation than a description.
This is really well said, and pretty much what I was thinking.
The idea that the distinction between describing and explaining is semantic is nonsense. You can't say you've explained the significance of something simply by saying what it is made of. This, to me, is one of the main problems with scientism.
That, and the fact that it also rests on a priori, axiomatic assumptions. Like the proposition that the senses are reliable indicators of what is real - a faith statement if ever I heard one.
--------------------
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
|
|
Dark Knight
Super Zero
# 9415
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
The first definition of scientism I ever encountered was "the belief that the methods of natural science should be applied in all domains of human understanding." Richard Dawkins put it nicely when he said "all truths are scientific truths" (which is self-refuting, but whatever...)
It's not so much offensive as just lame.
Agreed. Some of us have been trying to rescue the social "sciences" (ridiculous misnomer if there ever was one) and the humanities from the misappropriation of the scientific method for some time. And expect to be for some time to come.
--------------------
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
|
|
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636
|
Posted
I think the problem with scientism lies in the final phrase of the definition in the OP: "to the exclusion of all other viewpoints". Taken to its logical conclusion it says that the only meaningful statements are scientific statements. This has two flaws: first it rules huge areas of life as we experience it out of court - ethics, aesthetics, history (to some extent) and many others; secondly it is self undermining in that the scientific method offers no way of establishing whether the scientific method is universally applicable, or whether it is the most valuable part of human learning, let alone that other viewpoints should be excluded.
Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
Some of us have been trying to rescue the social "sciences" (ridiculous misnomer if there ever was one)
Only a misnomer because the physical sciences have appropriated the word "science" to exclusively cover their particular disciplines.
--------------------
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
Not really. In the early, positivistic days of disciplines like sociology, it was believed that the application of scientific methods to social "facts" (to use Durkheim's terminology) would yield the capacity to predict social behaviour. We are less sanguine now about predictions, yet many of the methods remain.
--------------------
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
|
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
Posted by LilBuddha:
quote:
But I would posit that scientism is no more inherently arrogant than any particular religious belief. I do not think one need restrict to fundamentalism to find said arrogance.
Very likely true, but that doesn't actually change the point.
--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
orfeo,
Sorry, it still hasn't twigged. Perhaps I am being thick, wouldn't be an isolated incident, but I do not get why thinking of the universe in a naturalistic form is such a horrible thing. Why must there be more?
What is an atheist supposed to think about how the universe works? You are asking them to have a belief in some mystical force. Some do, ISTM, but what about those who do not? What else would they believe other than that everything could potentially be explained?
Alan has already answered this in terms I find thoroughly acceptable, but let me put some thoughts in my own words anyway.
No, I'm not asking them to have a belief in some mystical force. I'm not asking them to have a belief in anything at all. More than anything I'm asking them to leave some stuff alone.
You refer to "the universe". I'm not actually that interested in "the universe". I'm interested in human interactions, in emotions, in art, in the sheer wonder of experience. I'm interested in saying that such things don't automatically need dissecting into the component parts of a mechanical process.
You mentioned before that someone could point to changes in my brain to correlate to changes in the perceivable "Me". Sure. But is that actually a useful thing to do? It is if something goes wrong with "Me" and I want it to be fixed, but otherwise I'd suggest a scientific explanation of what makes "Me" is probably missing the point of "Me" altogether.
Frankly, in most contexts it matters very little precisely what in my brain makes me like doing the things that I like (such as my job, most of the time), makes me prefer certain foods, enjoy certain styles of comedy or find myself attracted to certain kinds of people. Analysing these things isn't going to make any of them better.
Suppose that science could explain why I'm homosexual. Heck, maybe one day science could work out how to make me heterosexual. Science isn't going to tell you whether it's a good idea to put that knowledge into practice.
I've got nothing against science. I'm a thoroughly analytical person, and I liked science enough to get a degree in it. But the notion that science is the right approach to everything, at all times, is one I cannot subscribe to.
I don't always need to know how the universe works. Sometimes I just need to live in it.
--------------------
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
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Scientism is a POV that can coexist with valid, thorough scientific processes. It was coined to describe a POV that does not need any philosophy
Scientism is a philosophy.
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Your opposition to women's rights on the basis you've cited is also crankery, not scientism. It's an almost exact parallel to climate denialism: pet theories posited by someone without real expertise in the field.
I do hope you omitted some words such as 'example of' between 'Your' and 'opposition' by accident.
This appears to be a case of tactical redefinition.
When the President of Harvard University (an economist - as I noted earlier economists seem particularly given to scientism) says that inequalities between men and women in science may be down to differences in ability, it's pushing things to say the Professor of Harvard is merely indulging in an eccentric notion. (Oxford University maybe - Oxford likes to regard itself as a hotbed of eccentricity; but Harvard?)
I believe the scientific work that is cited in this regard is generally associated with Simon Baron-Cohen. (Difficult to call him a crank.)
Cordelia Fine, a neuroscientist, reviewed the work of Simon Baron-Cohen in her Delusions of Gender. Here. In response to studies reporting cognitive differences between men and women, she cites studies showing that you can alter the distribution of those differences simply by adding or removing a question asking the test subject's gender.
If we look at the wikipedia page we see that in addition to the positive reviews, there are some negative reactions. Simon Baron-Cohen himself is defensive, for obvious reasons. (Nobody likes to be told that their work is invalid because they're importing unconscious sexist assumptions.)
But Lewis Wolpert? Why's he so anti?
Well, an obvious explanation is as follows. He believes only science provides knowledge. Therefore, an explanation using concepts from within the remit of the natural sciences, however weakly evidenced, must be automatically superior to an explanation derived from concepts outside the natural sciences, however strongly evidenced.
An explanation in terms of biology and neuroscience for sex differences, as long as there is any evidence at all in favour of it, absolutely trumps any explanation in terms of unconscious social pressures.
Again, I find it hard to describe Lewis Wolpert as a crank.
The idea behind the label of crankery appears to be to declare anything said using scientific support that later turns out to be wrong as never having been real science to begin with. But the whole defence of science as an enterprise in the modern world turns on the idea that science can and does overcome its own errors. From which it follows that erroneous doctrines cannot be excluded from science merely because erroneous. Nor can it be assumed that the process of rejection is always immediate and uncontroversial within science.
Labelling anything that claims the authority of science, but which is in error, as crankery and therefore irrelevant to the perceived authority of science, looks like an attempt to substitute an idealised version of the scientific process for the real messy version.
--------------------
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
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Likewise, I don't see why saying that it's a misapplication of science is an objection. One would think that the point of using the term 'scientism' is to intimate that science can be misapplied.
Science can certainly be misapplied. As can religion.
Your example, to which I was referring, is science misapplied, not scientism in total.
The OED says that the term scientism applies to three different doctrines:
1) Only knowledge derived from scientific research is valid;
2) Extreme and excessive faith in science and scientists;
3) Beliefs that the methodology of the physical sciences should be applied to other disciplines, such as sociology or philosophy.
The three beliefs as stated are logically independent, although obviously there are reasons why someone who holds one might well hold the other two. (Also, nobody is going to consciously admit to holding 2. ) I think it's fair to say that the conjunction of one and three implies that it is hard if not impossible to misapply science. Therefore, if you're claiming that science has been misapplied you're rejecting scientism as false.
quote:
Homophobia refers to prejudice against LGBT+. Whether someone thinks it justified is irrelevant to the meaning of the word.
I don't believe the word 'homophobia' is widely used by people who regard it as a positive or a neutral thing.
quote:
Scientism is a POV that can coexist with valid, thorough scientific processes. It was coined to describe a POV that does not need any philosophy, not one that does science poorly. That is a misuse which, at best, has become a secondary meaning.
I am a bit struggling to construct a coherent argument out of this paragraph. What I think you're saying is that merely because someone holds to scientism doesn't automatically invalidate any proper scientific work that they're doing. Well, no, it doesn't. I don't think anyone says it does. (I can't speak for Evensong.) But that's irrelevant to anything I was saying.
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).
--------------------
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
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
