Who here believes in "Scientism"?

[MikeF]

You may, but standard accepted and understood terminology describes what you would describe as Scientism when for example simply describe it as physicalism works., and avoid the prevalent misuse of the word;

Perhaps it would help if I knew what governing body or institution is responsible for setting and standardizing the definition of 'scientism'. Who is the authority that defines the term and establishes how and when it is to be used?

 

[MikeF]

News reporting of current events and persons, and history are not sciences. They may use science to confirm sone news reporting and history.

Which, if you read carefully, was my point. My comment was in response to someone else who gave news reporting as a source of evidence not derived through science. I was questioning whether information from the news rises to the level of evidence on par with scientific evidence, or is it more appropriate to view it as raw information that may, for example, have factual errors or represent a biased view of events.

 

[Bear Wild]

It is not possible for Metaphysical Naturalism to research, study or falsify the existence or nature of any Gods, or the numerous possible beings such as angels, demons of fairies.

Yet they are a part of a metaphysical Naturalism. That does not mean that all people with a metaphysical naturalism view accept them but neither does it automatically reject them in many societies around the world and in a growing number of people within the western culture. The spiritual may not be easily accessible to science but that does not mean it is not real. Thus, there is a division within the people who hold this metaphysics and a term like scientism seems to accurately apply to people who deny what cannot be tested using the scientific method.

 

[shunyadragon]

Perhaps it would help if I knew what governing body or institution is responsible for setting and standardizing the definition of 'scientism'. Who is the authority that defines the term and establishes how and when it is to be used?

Origin of the word "scientism." Drop the "ce. we do not want anyone to ;see," and with a bandaid attach an "ism"

Meaning - You cannot :see" science.

 

[shunyadragon]

Yet they are a part of a metaphysical Naturalism. That does not mean that all people with a metaphysical naturalism view accept them but neither does it automatically reject them in many societies around the world and in a growing number of people within the western culture. The spiritual may not be easily accessible to science but that does not mean it is not real. Thus, there is a division within the people who hold this metaphysics and a term like scientism seems to accurately apply to people who deny what cannot be tested using the scientific method.

Again Methodological; Naturalism is neutral ti existence or non-existence of anything beyond objective verifiable evidence of the physical, As far as science is concern all Gods, Divine beings, spiritual worlds may or may not exist.

People cannot legitimately use Methodological Naturalism to deny what cannot be tested exists or not. What cannot be tested, cannot be falsified. It is the same problem of attempting to objectively prove God by any other name exists or not.

The most prevalent belief in Metaphysical Naturalism and Atheism is that there is no reason to believe when Science provides an adequate explanation of our physical existence without the necessity of Gods. By far most do not attempt to prove Gods do not exist, This an interesting property in science today that some believers evoke the accusation of 'Scientism' and believe science cannot explain things like evolution and abiogenesis without an 'Intelligent Designer.' and down Alice's rabbit hole they go.

 

[Bear Wild]

Again Methodological; Naturalism is neutral ti existence or non-existence of anything beyond objective verifiable evidence of the physical, As far as science is concern all Gods, Divine beings, spiritual worlds may or may not exist.

People cannot legitimately use Methodological Naturalism to deny what cannot be tested exists or not. What cannot be tested, cannot be falsified. It is the same problem of attempting to objectively prove God by any other name exists or not.

The most prevalent belief in Metaphysical Naturalism and Atheism is that there is no reason to believe when Science provides an adequate explanation of our physical existence without the necessity of Gods. By far most do not attempt to prove Gods do not exist, This an interesting property in science today that some believers evoke the accusation of 'Scientism' and believe science cannot explain things like evolution and abiogenesis without an 'Intelligent Designer.' and down Alice's rabbit hole they go.

When you say the most prevalent belief in metaphysical Naturalism you are doing so from a western perspective but that i not the only perspective that is valid. In other societies the view of nature includes the gods, spirits and other beings and there is no supernatural. This is still a metaphysical Naturalism which includes things that to date cannot be studied by our scientific method. So within this metaphysics there are differences in what is accepted as reality that include most indigenous religions, pagan religions, atheists who are spiritual and atheists who limit reality to only what can be revealed by science. So, what word or phrase would you use for this last group?
As for the misuse of the word scientism as a negative term, I would just say those who do believe that only science holds the truth should just embrace the term and make it theirs the same way that modern witches have. The term is probably used because of people who argue that only rational and scientific thought has truth and not all of us agree.

 

[PureX]

Again Methodological; Naturalism is neutral ti existence or non-existence of anything beyond objective verifiable evidence of the physical, As far as science is concern all Gods, Divine beings, spiritual worlds may or may not exist.

People cannot legitimately use Methodological Naturalism to deny what cannot be tested exists or not. What cannot be tested, cannot be falsified. It is the same problem of attempting to objectively prove God by any other name exists or not.

The most prevalent belief in Metaphysical Naturalism and Atheism is that there is no reason to believe when Science provides an adequate explanation of our physical existence without the necessity of Gods. By far most do not attempt to prove Gods do not exist, This an interesting property in science today that some believers evoke the accusation of 'Scientism' and believe science cannot explain things like evolution and abiogenesis without an 'Intelligent Designer.' and down Alice's rabbit hole they go.

The problem here is that what you are accepting as an “explanation” is not an explanation of anything but some physical processes. And we don’t have any idea of the actual foundation of those processes or of their origins. So this does not suffice as an “explanation” for a whole lot of people. You say it’s explained and want to move on. But it’s not really explained at all. Except for people that think physical processes are all there is to existence. Again with the idiocy of philosophical materialism. And most people know better than to buy that.

 

[MikeF]

Very good questions, as always Mike. And, as with all "very good questions" there is no "fortune cookie answer." Some journalism is different than other journalism. I would be prone to say that there is a form of journalism that is evidence-based.

A news story might cover a fire that broke out in an apartment building. A journalist visits the hospital and inquire about the number of injuries and deaths. She also speaks with the fire department about what they think was the cause of the fire. She also visits the site and does some direct observation. That is (arguably) evidence based. And she (arguably) produces reliable (but not perfect) information. Thoughts on that?

Another grey area might be history. Examining records, documents, ancient sales receipts, and written accounts kind of count as evidence don't they? But they are hardly scientifically rigorous observations?

Isn’t this my point, though? If journalism is conducted within a framework of rational skepticism that acknowledges both the fallibility of the journalist, fallibilities in the institution of journalism itself, and active steps are taken to mitigate that fallibility to the greatest possible extent, isn’t that being scientific? Doesn’t a good journalistic news outlet give indications as to the degree of confidence that is held in the information being presented as well as making clear distinctions between what constitutes fact and what constitutes opinion? Isn’t it the adherence to principles and standard in the journalistic process that gives us confidence in the work product, such that it can be viewed as “evidence” on par with that of “science”? If so, then what can be considered evidence from journalistic efforts can not be considered as a source of evidence “outside of science”.

My argument is that ‘science’ is the philosophy of old, seeking valid knowledge of the world, just conducted within a framework that acknowledges human flaws and fallibilities and takes active steps to mitigate them. That is all that science is. How that is accomplished just gets into the details of all the many ways Homo sapiens can get things wrong and go astray in their pursuit of valid knowledge.

Let’s look at your history example. You say:

“Examining records, documents, ancient sales receipts, and written accounts kind of count as evidence don't they? But they are hardly scientifically rigorous observations?”

I think academic historians would be quite offended by your assertion that their efforts are in no way rigorous. I would ask, how is the task of the historian trying to develop a body of valid knowledge about ancient Sumer in the fifth millennium BCE any less challenging than a biologist trying to gain valid knowledge about how life began on Earth? Both endeavors are faced with a paucity of hard evidence. Really, it might be argued that the historian has a lot more to work with than the biologist in their effort to create a valid body of knowledge regarding their subject. If the historian conducts their efforts within a framework that acknowledges flaws and fallibilities inherent in historians and in the academic discipline of History, and active steps are taken to mitigate the inherent flaws and fallibilities, can that not be seen as a knowledge pursuit conducted scientifically?

Science isn’t specific means and methods or the subject in question. Means and methods are dependent and specific to the question at hand. Science, in my view, simply means that the required means and methods necessary to address the specific question at hand, whatever the question, will be done within a framework that mitigates the inherent fallibility of the investigator. That is it in a nutshell.

 

[MikeF]

Origin of the word "scientism." Drop the "ce. we do not want anyone to ;see," and with a bandaid attach an "ism"

Meaning - You cannot :see" science.

Apologies. I can make neither heads nor tails of this.

 

[shunyadragon]

The problem here is that what you are accepting as an “explanation” is not an explanation of anything but some physical processes. And we don’t have any idea of the actual foundation of those processes or of their origins. So this does not suffice as an “explanation” for a whole lot of people. You say it’s explained and want to move on. But it’s not really explained at all. Except for people that think physical processes are all there is to existence. Again with the idiocy of philosophical materialism. And most people know better than to buy that.

This does not make sense at all and does not respond to my post. All that science can explain are the products of Natural Laws and physical processes. Your appealing to those that want or demand an explanation for 'origins' beyond the physical. They can of course appeal to the many diverse conflicting subjective theological and philosophical explanations, but the reality is there is little or no consistency in the explanations they have to offer.

Science can offer explanations of the nature of our physical existence down to the boundless Quantum World, which possibly may be all there is. Science is consistent and predictable in providing the knowledge and understanding of our physical existence, Yes, there will always likely remain unanswered questions, but that is nature id science .

How could science possibly study, research and falsify hypotheses and theories of the subjective worlds for an explanation of our origins beyond out physical existence?

 

[shunyadragon]

Apologies. I can make neither heads nor tails of this.

Appeal to your sense of humor.

 

[MikeF]

How could science possibly study, research and falsify hypotheses and theories of the subjective worlds for an explanation of our origins beyond out physical existence?

What are "subjective worlds"?

If an explanation of our origins (Homo sapiens? Life in general?) is beyond the scope of science, what discipline does that explanation fall to, and why should we have any confidence in that discipline's ability to provide a valid explanation?

 

[MikeF]

Appeal to your sense of humor.

I'll try.

 

[shunyadragon]

What are "subjective worlds"?

The worlds of Gods, angels, demons, souls, ghosts and other supernatural and miraculous events beyond the physical existence

If an explanation of our origins (Homo sapiens? Life in general?) is beyond the scope of science, what discipline does that explanation fall to, and why should we have any confidence in that discipline's ability to provide a valid explanation?

It is not beyond the scope of science. The confidence in science is the consistency and predictability of the recent history of the volving changing world of scientific knowledge. Don't confuse the lack of knowledge and answers in the fronteers of science with the ability of providing explanations.

 

[MikeF]

The worlds of Gods, angels, demons, souls, ghosts and other supernatural and miraculous events beyond the physical existence

I'm trying (perhaps badly) to hone in on exactly what your position is on these matters. In your view, are subjective worlds actual worlds, or simply concepts or ideas only found in thought? Do they exist independently of the mind?

It is not beyond the scope of science. The confidence in science is the consistency and predictability of the recent history of the volving changing world of scientific knowledge. Don't confuse the lack of knowledge and answers in the fronteers of science with the ability of providing explanations.

When you said, "How could science possibly study, research and falsify hypotheses and theories of the subjective worlds for an explanation of our origins beyond our physical existence?", are you saying we have origins beyond our physical existence? The sentence was not clear to me. Your wording made it sound like "our origins beyond our physical existence" is a thing, but that it can't be explained by science studying subjective worlds, which you may or may not think are an actual thing, I'll have to wait for an answer to the first question above to see.

 

[PureX]

This does not make sense at all and does not respond to my post. All that science can explain are the products of Natural Laws and physical processes. Your appealing to those that want or demand an explanation for 'origins' beyond the physical.

Thank you for acknowledging that science cannot give us the truth about existence that we seek. The scientism crowd will not acknowledge this, mostly because as philosophical materialists they cannot acknowledge that there is any question to be asked beyond physical process.

They can of course appeal to the many diverse conflicting subjective theological and philosophical explanations, but the reality is there is little or no consistency in the explanations they have to offer.

Since when is consistency a requirement of truth when change is said to be the one existential constant?

Science can offer explanations of the nature of our physical existence down to the boundless Quantum World, which possibly may be all there is.

So can philosophy, art and religion. It’s what they’re for. But science stops at the mechanics, and cannot go any further. These other areas of study can go further.

Science is consistent and predictable in providing the knowledge and understanding of our physical existence, Yes, there will always likely remain unanswered questions, but that is nature id science .

It’s also the limitation of science. That it requires predictability. This is what the scientism crowd will not grasp.

How could science possibly study, research and falsify hypotheses and theories of the subjective worlds for an explanation of our origins beyond out physical existence?

It can’t. That is the whole point and reason for philosophy, art, and religion.

 

[Augustus]

This gets to the core of my position. Science is philosophy. Philosophy 2.0 is an abstract system with improvements over Philosophy h 1.0, and it is an abstract system or framework that requires demarcation between the falsifiable and the non-falsifiable to which you refer. How else is one aware of whether falsifiability is relevant and applicable if there is not the active intent to establish and keep track of the demarcation between the falsifiable and non-falsifiable? This is all part of the mandate for error mitigation, and hence the necessity to bring all forms of rational inquiry within the error mitigating framework of Philosophy 2.0, incorporating mechanisms with which to establish this demarcation between what is falsifiable and what is not, as well as acknowledging and clearly demarcating subjective preference in order to address and evaluate it as such.

I’m happy to view science as a subset of philosophy. It is more natural philosophy 2.0 (give or take) though rather than philosophy 2.0.

Much of the rest of philosophy is still as it was as it can not be turned into science in any recognisable sense of the term (logic, ontology, ethics, epistemology, etc.)

You have defined scientism as an individual having an excessive belief in the accuracy and scope of scientific methods when applied to all areas of inquiry.

I think your comments quoted above pertain primarily to the second aspect of your definition, of one having an excessive belief in the scope of scientific methods when applied to all areas of inquiry. My interpretation here is that you are saying there are areas of inquiry where science should not apply or is inappropriate. Am I correct in that interpretation?

I’m more concerned with the accuracy, but it’s just you don’t seem to have any issues with accepting many areas of science are far less reliable than others. It’s a pretty straightforward argument after all.

Scope and accuracy are related though. The further away from the traditional, hard sciences we apply scientific methods the less reliable they become.

Scope and accuracy are not entirely independent variables.

Overall though, I focus on how science exists as a human activity and how it is used and misused in the real world. Too many people who object to the term scientism tend to talk about science in normative terms relating to how things should work.

Here is the link to my response to this definition of 'scientism' in that thread: LINK

I’d say here you misunderstand his arguments, in the same way you seem to misunderstand what certain people are arguing in this thread.

1, 2 and 5 may involve charlatanism, but are really just about the prestige of science in the modern world and a tendency to want to make things more “scientific”. This is often done with very serious, scholarly and well meaning intentions.

You are worried about people presenting opinion and subjectivity as objective fact, but science is a far greater source of this than formal philosophy these days.

I’d say that, in a not insignificant number of cases, the social sciences are impacted by the personal beliefs of the researchers.

Let’s take a specific example. It is my recollection that in the past you have said that the Philosophy of Morals and Ethics is outside of the scope of science (and of course, correct me if my recollection is incorrect). If the Philosophy of Morals and Ethics as a discipline acknowledges the inherent fallibility of the moral philosopher and takes active measures to mitigate that fallibility as well as establishes mechanisms with which to clearly demarcate between what can be considered falsifiable and that which cannot, how can this be considered anything other than a scientific approach? If none of that is done, then shouldn’t that affect our confidence in the work product derived from the discipline Philosophy of Morals and Ethics?

Case in point.

Many people think a scientific approach to ethics would be an improvement (and usually think it would support their ethical values).

Science can play a role in identifying people’s preferences and the best way to achieve these, but this relates as much to policy as it does to ethics.

Science cannot tell you which of many competing values are superior though. For example, should we be utilitarians? If we are, where do we draw the line between greater good and individual rights?

So I can’t in any way see this as representing “scientific ethics”, and by adding the label to give greater credibility, it muddies the water between subjective preference and objective fact. Many would accept moral philosophy has many subjective variables after all.

We can see the problems of 'scientific' ethics in the past, where things like social Darwinism and Marxism had ethical principles believed to be scientific and thus objective truths.

“Scientific” ethics can be a way to turbocharge error.

These would also be examples of scientism where scientific principles were applied beyond their effective boundaries. We would call these pseudoscience nowadays, but that is not how they were always seen at the time (Although scientism as a pejorative was basically invented to critique Marxist pretensions of objectivity and rigour when creating their social and historical theories). Social Darwinism and eugenics were widely accepted within the respectable scientific community though.

Unsurprisingly, scientific ethics are not inherently humanistic or positive, they simply reflect the values of those who are creating them with a veneer of scientistic objectivity.

Turning back to your definition of ‘scientism’, if there is no line of inquiry outside the scope of science, then your definition of scientism contracts to “an individual having an excessive belief in the accuracy of scientific methods when applied to all areas of inquiry.” Which, of course, we would recognize as such because the belief would be established as being excessive scientifically, yes? If the excessive belief is due to ignorance or lack of fluency in science on the part of the individual, is it really necessary to categorize such folks into an -ism? If we are referring to folks who are highly fluent in the sciences that make excessive claims, then it would seem we are instead talking about a psychological issue, something that might be better described in the DSM?

The -ism matters as it is something humans do that needs a label so we can try to avoid it.

Because of the status of science in the modern world, and the fact that labelling things 'scientific' functions in a manner similar to labelling them 'objectively true' we need to understand that people often overestimate the accuracy of scientific knowledge in many fields.

And we need to accept the limited utility of science in fields where it is not reliable, and that in complex domains (lets say economics), trying to force reality into a form that can be quantified 'scientifically' often misses out or distorts reality in. a manner that can render the information actively harmful (plenty examples of "scientific" theories leading to errors and even financial crises often because they make people overconfident in their accuracy.

Sometimes non-scientifc insights, expertise, experiences, heuristics and so forth are the best we have, but when people think "more scientific = better" we increase the chances of error.

 

[shunyadragon]

Thank you for acknowledging that science cannot give us the truth about existence that we seek. The scientism crowd will not acknowledge this, mostly because as philosophical materialists they cannot acknowledge that there is any question to be asked beyond physical process.

Since when is consistency a requirement of truth when change is said to be the one existential constant?

Science does not claim truth, which is a rather egocentric extreme claim by fallible humans. Consistency and predictability are requirements for Methodological Naturalism to be valid explaining the physical world with confidence,

So can philosophy, art and religion. It’s what they’re for. But science stops at the mechanics, and cannot go any further. These other areas of study can go further.

Actually in terms of a response what I said no. Art is more a medium of communication and does not offer answers, The problem with religion is it is too inconsistent and variable with to many different divisions providing different explanations and in turn accusing the others as wrong.

It’s also the limitation of science. That it requires predictability. This is what the scientism crowd will not grasp.

That is very coherent requirement if you want to have reliable consistent knowledge.

Without consistency and predictability by what criteria do you determine which of the many conflicting religions or belief systems is the true one?

It can’t. That is the whole point and reason for philosophy, art, and religion.

I still object to your egocentric view and use of 'Scientism' in a derogatory negative way, which is one of the reasons I object to it.

Do you accept the sciences of evolution as our present knowledge of the history of life?

More to follow it is getting late.

 

[Augustus]

The problem with the nebulous use of scientism is it is a philosophy not science. It is better described specifically as strict Naturalism, Physicalism. Metaphysical, Philosophical or Ontological Naturalism. Scientism is most often used in a negative context against science which is irrelevant to science as science. Actually this philosophy under a general term Physicalism does not have a basis in MEthodological Naturalism.

I've no idea why you quoted me, what you wrote has absolutely nothing to do with anything I said. You couldn't have misunderstood more.

The problem as cited by many who misuse the term like @Augustus is that it is a negative name calling term sometimes proposing foggy boundaries that may include science where it does not belong.; The accepted terminology used in philosophy and science is more than adequate

I don't "misuse" the term, but as you seem unable to comprehend the discussion you jumped and, from past experience, you tend to prefer to double down on your errors and misunderstandings rather than correct them there is little point in explaining.

 

[PureX]

Science does not claim truth, which is a rather egocentric extreme claim by fallible humans.

And by the scientism crowd, specifically.

Consistency and predictability are requirements for Methodological Naturalism to be valid explaining the physical world with confidence,

Science does not explain the physical with confidence or with anything else. It can only explain some of the physical mechanisms so that we can manipulate them with confidence. It’s both weird and sad that this fact just cannot enter into the worldview of the philosophical materialists.

Actually in terms of a response what I said no. Art is more a medium of communication and does not offer answers,

Art communicates the truth as we humans experience it. It does not give us “answers”.

The problem with religion is it is too inconsistent and variable with to many different divisions providing different explanations and in turn accusing the others as wrong.

That‘s a problem for you because you apparently think truth requires consistency. That we should not each be experiencing it in our own way. But that is the failure of scientism, and of philosophical materialism. It’s a failure of vision In favor of control.

That is very coherent requirement if you want to have reliable consistent knowledge.

Rather, if you want to use knowledge as a means of control.

Without consistency and predictability by what criteria do you determine which of the many conflicting religions or belief systems is the true one?

I don’t need to. They can all be true. Not understanding this is the failure I was referring to.

I still object to your egocentric view and use of 'Scientism' in a derogatory negative way, which is one of the reasons I object to it.

It is what it is whether you like it or object to it or not.

Do you accept the sciences of evolution as our present knowledge of the history of life?

I have no logical reason to accept or reject it. It’s an observed physical mechanism that we only partially understand. This does not require my acceptance Nor will it change because I reject it.

More to follow it is getting late.

I appreciate your honesty and willingness to share your perspective.