In Defense of Scientism

[Audie]

While science is a useful tool, I don’t accept it as an absolute authority on any matter.

Nor does anyone we have ever heard of.
The sky god people are the ones into absolutes.

 

[Audie]

"...to determine ... how the world works and what the best and most effective social policies are." This seems worded to avoid scientism as a philosophical perspective, in favor of a practical one. And this is not the scientism I am encountering, mostly from atheists, here on RF. The scientism I am encountering is proposing that the truth of reality can and should be determined by the process of science. And they mean this truth to be far more universal, and even to subjugate, practical function. In fact, whenever I try to point out that the scientific process is not able to explore the truth of reality beyond the realm of physical functionality, and that we humans use philosophy, art, and religion to do that, they fight tooth and nail to deny it, because their goal is to dismiss philosophy, art, and religion is 'mere endeavors in fantasy' because they view human consciousness as not being a part of reality or truth. "Objectivity" has become their new "god", and through it they presume to find and verify all reality and truth. Which is an ideal that no scientist would ever assert, or accede to.

Note to those atheists here that have succumbed to scientism: "To be fair to critics of scientism, we should concede that some people have attempted to use the rigorous methodology of physics as a model for all other disciplines and have traded understanding for a mere illusion of precision. And others have belittled the power and importance of poetry, painting, music, and other non-scientific endeavors (such as philosophy and religion). Such errors deserve rebuttal."

A note to those who succombed to the hallucination that
"scientism" is something that exists outside of
creominds, and possibly a few still unodentified
but surely deranged individuals:

Get over it. Learn about one more tune.
The scientism one is about as intellectual
and entertaining as elevator music.

 

[George-ananda]

Thought?

Well my first thought is disappointment in that the OP and the article talked about 'scientism' but never gave a clear definition of what the term means. As I read the comments I see as I suspected that many do not understand the term.

I give credit to @sooda in an earlier post for presenting a definition to be discussed:

Scientism
Scientism is belief in the universal applicability of the scientific method and approach, and the view that empirical science constitutes the most "authoritative" worldview or the most valuable part of human learning-to the exclusion of other viewpoints.
Scientism - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism

Now for my thoughts on scientism: I think science is a great thing but currently limited in its knowledge of what it knows. I am a student of the paranormal myself, and through reason have concluded that dramatic things exist (and probably the very things that are most important to human experiencing) are beyond the range of today's science. I personally learn about reality from science but also from those I believe have experienced beyond what science can study with the physical senses and instruments.

I learn from science but also from the spiritual masters and teachers I have come to respect after consideration. I respect the body of the many spiritually advanced masters in the non-dual (god and creation are not-two) Advaita school of thought. This school of philosophy and its teachings dovetail with the so-called paranormal and spiritual experiences of man. The 'scientism' school seems to be in denial of the importance and reality of these things.

In conclusion I would say 'science' is of course a great thing, but 'scientism' carries things too far.

 

[Sky Rivers]

Nor does anyone we have ever heard of.
The sky god people are the ones into absolutes.

Sky god?

 

[Audie]

Scientism, ordinarily, is a logical fallacy. It is blind faith in science to produce good results. It is seen in media promotions, mostly, such as "studies have shown..." or "five out of six doctors recommend..."

It can be seen in the definition in the OP, albeit cloaked, to suggest that it is right that we should rely on science whether we are skilled and educated about it or not. In fact, blind reliance is never a good thing.

However, I agree with the sentiment.

So it is sportsism if one is influenced to
buy jordan shoes, celebism to get a dress
like some actress has, preacherism if,
politicianism if.

How btw can faith be a logical fallacy...?
No logic in it at all.

Is faith (always blind) in "god" godism, and
a logical fallacy?

Prease exprain.

 

[Audie]

Sky god?

I am using it somewhat improperly to refer to the
Abrahamic religions

 

[Augustus]

Scientism is an excessive confidence in the reliability of scientific methods and the range of situations in which they can be effectively applied.

The points made in the article relating to a 'science based social policy' (SBSP) could well be described as scientistic and are certainly ot something I would defend.

While effective social policy must, at times, incorporate scientific findings, making an iron law, where whatever is currently deemed scientific best practice will be implemented is a terrible idea for numerous reasons.

1. Society is a complex system, and this is the domain where scientific research tends to be least effective. It is also the domain where we get the most unintended consequences.
2. It is too hard to isolate specific factors to determine what is causing certain changes to occur. The potential for misinterpreting trends is very high.
3. What works in one situation, may not be generalisable to all situations due to the number of contingent factors that may be in play.
4. It is necessarily faddish. Go back and look at many of the ideas that have, at times been considered 'good science' and there are many terrible ones.
5. It is necessarily centralising, best practice should be implemented on as large a scale as possible. Diversity in social systems is good, as are small scale local solutions. As such, you maximise the harms of any mistakes.
6. Many things that work are the result of instinct, trial and error and practical experience that may not be easy to prove 'scientifically'.
7. It hubristically overestimates the rationality of humans and starts with the assumption that tradition is bad without considering that that which survives a long time often has significant merit, even if that merit is not easy to measure scientifically.


Any truly rational, sceptical, scientific social policy should start from the perspective that we are nowhere near as smart as we think, and scientific methods only have limited usage within complex and diverse social systems such as our own.

 

[Audie]

Scientism is an excessive confidence in the reliability of scientific methods and the range of situations in which they can be effectively applied.

The points made in the article relating to a 'science based social policy' (SBSP) could well be described as scientistic and are certainly ot something I would defend.

While effective social policy must, at times, incorporate scientific findings, making an iron law, where whatever is currently deemed scientific best practice will be implemented is a terrible idea for numerous reasons.

1. Society is a complex system, and this is the domain where scientific research tends to be least effective. It is also the domain where we get the most unintended consequences.
2. It is too hard to isolate specific factors to determine what is causing certain changes to occur. The potential for misinterpreting trends is very high.
3. What works in one situation, may not be generalisable to all situations due to the number of contingent factors that may be in play.
4. It is necessarily faddish. Go back and look at many of the ideas that have, at times been considered 'good science' and there are many terrible ones.
5. It is necessarily centralising, best practice should be implemented on as large a scale as possible. Diversity in social systems is good, as are small scale local solutions. As such, you maximise the harms of any mistakes.
6. Many things that work are the result of instinct, trial and error and practical experience that may not be easy to prove 'scientifically'.
7. It hubristically overestimates the rationality of humans and starts with the assumption that tradition is bad without considering that that which survives a long time often has significant merit, even if that merit is not easy to measure scientifically.


Any truly rational, sceptical, scientific social policy should start from the perspective that we are nowhere near as smart as we think, and scientific methods only have limited usage within complex and diverse social systems such as our own.

I can go with that I suppose.."excessive".
"Scientism " is actually an adjevtive,
nebulous and entirel subjective

A word that is less of value to describe than incite.

 

[Audie]

Well my first thought is disappointment in that the OP and the article talked about 'scientism' but never gave a clear definition of what the term means. As I read the comments I see as I suspected that many do not understand the term.

I give credit to @sooda in an earlier post for presenting a definition to be discussed:

Scientism
Scientism is belief in the universal applicability of the scientific method and approach, and the view that empirical science constitutes the most "authoritative" worldview or the most valuable part of human learning-to the exclusion of other viewpoints.
Scientism - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism

Now for my thoughts on scientism: I think science is a great thing but currently limited in its knowledge of what it knows. I am a student of the paranormal myself, and through reason have concluded that dramatic things exist (and probably the very things that are most important to human experiencing) are beyond the range of today's science. I personally learn about reality from science but also from those I believe have experienced beyond what science can study with the physical senses and instruments.

I learn from science but also from the spiritual masters and teachers I have come to respect after consideration. I respect the body of the many spiritually advanced masters in the non-dual (god and creation are not-two) Advaita school of thought. This school of philosophy and its teachings dovetail with the so-called paranormal and spiritual experiences of man. The 'scientism' school seems to be in denial of the importance and reality of these things.

In conclusion I would say 'science' is of course a great thing, but 'scientism' carries things too far.

And "spiritualism takes you out past the limits of svience,
effectively giving you the power to know more than any
scientist on earth.

There's a remarkable number of such people here,
gifted with more knowledge than any / all scientists.

Every one of the creationists, and more besides.

 

[Augustus]

I can go with that I suppose.."excessive".
Nebulous and entirely subjective.

A word that is less of value to describe than incite.

Lots of words we use incorporate subjective aspects and remain perfectly useful.

A claim of scientism would require supporting evidence/argumentation to be persuasive, but to describe a phenomenon it is apt.

 

[Audie]

All true, though I see you did not address
my comment on the word's primary function.

 

[Augustus]

All true, though I see you did not address
my comment on the word's primary function.

The word's primary function is to describe an excessive confidence in the reliability of scientific methods and the range of situations in which they can be effectively applied.

That some people also choose to use it for religious apologetics or things of a similar ilk doesn't change this.

 

[George-ananda]

And "spiritualism takes you out past the limits of svience,
effectively giving you the power to know more than any
scientist on earth.

There's a remarkable number of such people here,
gifted with more knowledge than any / all scientists.

Every one of the creationists, and more besides.

Yes, I believe the better quality spiritual and psychic masters I respect know things beyond what science knows.

 

[Audie]

The word's primary function is to describe an excessive confidence in the reliability of scientific methods and the range of situations in which they can be effectively applied.

That some people also choose to use it for religious apologetics or things of a similar ilk doesn't change this.

So the modt common use is not the primary one?

 

[Audie]

Yes, I believe the better quality spiritual and psychic masters I respect know things beyond what science knows.

Close. But you cannot quite bring yourself
to say it straight out about yourself?

 

[George-ananda]

Close. But you cannot quite bring yourself
to say it straight out about yourself?

Straight out I'd say I know things beyond science from my study of the paranormal and the best quality spiritual and psychic masters.

 

[Audie]

Straight out I'd say I know things beyond science from my study of the paranormal and the best quality spiritual and psychic masters.

Dont suppose you would care to share some of
those facts you have learned?

And

Do you find it as remarkable that so many here
know more than any researcher on earth?

 

[Augustus]

So the modt common use is not the primary one?

The most common usage is this one. Whether or not the situation in question can legitimately be described as scientistic is something else though.

 

[Audie]

The most common usage is this one. Whether or not the situation in question can legitimately be described as scientistic is something else though.

That is pretty much the reason to avoid using the word.

 

[George-ananda]

Dont suppose you would care to share some of
those facts you have learned?

We're talking about vast things. The first point would be planes of reality beyond our familiar three-dimensional physical plane.

And

Do you find it as remarkable that so many here
know more than any researcher on earth?

Your use of the term researcher probably refers to those who study only the physical plane. Yes, I find it remarkable that there is so much more to reality than what we can see but I also believe it is so from objective consideration.