Is 'scientism' a thing, or just a slur?

[tas8831]

Not sure if you mean "in real life" or are also including media-based usage. If it's the former then you can disregard this.

If it's the latter, that would basically be an acknowledgement that you've never made any kind of good-faith effort to understand what scientism or why it occurs and simply have dismissed it out of hand based on prejudice.

The term obviously has a wide scholarly usage, see: Scientism - Google scholar

"In reality, every person I have ever encountered that uses the term 'scientism' as a pejorative do not, in fact, know what science is and are also, in fact, 100% likely to be followers of some religious cult or another (e.g., Trumpism, creationism, religionism, conservatism, woo-ism, QAnonism, etc.)."

 

[Augustus]

"In reality, every person I have ever encountered that uses the term 'scientism' as a pejorative do not, in fact, know what science is and are also, in fact, 100% likely to be followers of some religious cult or another (e.g., Trumpism, creationism, religionism, conservatism, woo-ism, QAnonism, etc.)."

The term is pejorative in its scholarly usage given it relates to an excessive faith in the scope and accuracy of scientific methods of enquiry.

 

[cladking]

The term is pejorative in its scholarly usage given it relates to an excessive faith in the scope and accuracy of scientific methods of enquiry.

I would not consider this "pejorative" per se. Any faith at all in the "scientific method" is simply damning.

"Scientism" is faith in science and peers to the exclusion of reason and experiment.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Literature. Art. Music. Much of history, too. You don't get far understanding works of art by applying the methods of science. Whereas, as I understand scientism, it argues that only a scientific approach to anything can have any validity.

It's rather an extreme and absurd position to take, and I don't think many people really do argue this. That's why I say I think scientism is a bit of an Aunt Sally.

Reading this, an obvious question that pops in my mind is the following....

Do "followers of scientism" actually argue that the scientific method must be applied to understand works of art?

I've seen MANY people being accused of "scientism", but I have NEVER seen anyone even only suggest that "science" as a method can be used to "understand art".

 

[exchemist]

Reading this, an obvious question that pops in my mind is the following....

Do "followers of scientism" actually argue that the scientific method must be applied to understand works of art?

I've seen MANY people being accused of "scientism", but I have NEVER seen anyone even only suggest that "science" as a method can be used to "understand art".

Well there you put your finger on the $64k question, I think. Who, exactly, are these practitioners of "scientism" and what is it they claim?

The definitions of the term, in its modern sense, that I have read all stress the inappropriate extension of the scientific method into arenas for which it is not suited. But I wonder who actually does this. Or is it really just used as an epithet to throw around, when someone resents science being applied to a pet belief?

 

[cladking]

Well there you put your finger on the $64k question, I think. Who, exactly, are these practitioners of "scientism" and what is it they claim?

The definitions of the term, in its modern sense, that I have read all stress the inappropriate extension of the scientific method into arenas for which it is not suited. But I wonder who actually does this. Or is it really just used as an epithet to throw around, when someone resents science being applied to a pet belief?

This is simple enough; all scientific belief is "scientism". If you believe "experiment", "reductionism", or "science" are the only means to understand reality then you are practicing "scientism". If you believe things fall because of "gravity" or that the law of gravity is why things fall then that is "scientism". Many scientists are guilty of scientism as are most laymen who see reality in terms of what they think is "science".

While extrapolation and interpolation of experimental knowledge is mostly unavoidable the fact is that it is not science. Any certainty about anything other than metaphysical truths is not science. Everything believed about science is at heart "scientism".

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Or is it really just used as an epithet to throw around, when someone resents science being applied to a pet belief?

That seems to be the case imo.

Every time I see the "accusation" pop-up, it seems to be in some context where a subject is being discussed where one side is using science and the other some type of pseudo-science (or not even that). And it's always the latter that "accuses" the former of "scientism". Usually this happens whenever the problems with the pseudo-science are pointed out. The problems that make it "pseudo" instead of just "science".

So every time I see the accusation being thrown around, it seems to be used as a means to dismiss questions and / or avoid having to deal with serious problems underpinning ones case.


In short, in context, it usually simple seems to mean that the one being accused of it, simply will not allow for "magic" to be part of a scientific explanation (for the reason that there is no evidence justifying the invocation thereof).

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

This is simple enough; all scientific belief is "scientism". If you believe "experiment", "reductionism", or "science" are the only means to understand reality then you are practicing "scientism". If you believe things fall because of "gravity" or that the law of gravity is why things fall then that is "scientism". Many scientists are guilty of scientism as are most laymen who see reality in terms of what they think is "science".

I'm having problems understanding the trail of thought here.

Why would it be a bad thing to think that things fall because of gravity?
What is wrong with accepting that the scientific method currently is our best shot of understanding the natural world? I mean, it's track record pretty much demonstrates this, wouldn't you say?

I'm not aware of any other method with a better track record of coming up with useful and accurate answers to questions about the natural, observable world.

While extrapolation and interpolation of experimental knowledge is mostly unavoidable the fact is that it is not science.

What do you mean by that?
Explain with an example, that should make it clear easily.

Any certainty about anything other than metaphysical truths is not science.

1. what "metaphysical truths" and how did you determine them to be "truths"?

2. science doesn't deal in certainties. Not sure why you think otherwise.

Everything believed about science is at heart "scientism".

???

So is it a bad thing to believe / accept the conclusions of science?
Or not?

And why?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm having problems understanding the trail of thought here.

Why would it be a bad thing to think that things fall because of gravity?
What is wrong with accepting that the scientific method currently is our best shot of understanding the natural world? I mean, it's track record pretty much demonstrates this, wouldn't you say?

I'm not aware of any other method with a better track record of coming up with useful and accurate answers to questions about the natural, observable world.



What do you mean by that?
Explain with an example, that should make it clear easily.




1. what "metaphysical truths" and how did you determine them to be "truths"?

2. science doesn't deal in certainties. Not sure why you think otherwise.




???

So is it a bad thing to believe / accept the conclusions of science?
Or not?

And why?

For some people any science that they do not understand is "scientism". And those people tend to not understand quite a bit of science.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

For some people any science that they do not understand is "scientism".

Or any science that contradicts their a priori faith-based beliefs.

 

[Augustus]

So every time I see the accusation being thrown around, it seems to be used as a means to dismiss questions and / or avoid having to deal with serious problems underpinning ones case.

In short, in context, it usually simple seems to mean that the one being accused of it, simply will not allow for "magic" to be part of a scientific explanation (for the reason that there is no evidence justifying the invocation thereof).

While this certainly happens, considering it the key function of the term is really just evidence of selection bias.

Those who claim the term is simply a means to reject science because they only see it used in that way are really demonstrating that they only consume a certain type of media and don't make much of an attempt to understand the substance of the issue. A cursory googling of the term, or browse of a scholarly database would demonstrate its legitimate usage.

It is quite obvious that some people do put excessive faith in the scope and accuracy of scientific methods and that this can be harmful. Any rational person who believes the sciences have a lot to offer should agree with this. The question then is in what situations is this happening and how can it be prevented.

The term clearly has value in certain contexts and if we dismissed out of hand any term that has a bad-faith usage, we'd be left with no abstract language whatsoever.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

While this certainly happens, considering it the key function of the term is really just evidence of selection bias.

I don't know about that. I think usually words are defined by their usage. And every time I see the word being used...

But I'll also say that for the purpose of this thread, I didn't look it up in the dictionary yet.
In this thread, it seemed appropriate to have the people who wish to discuss or use this term, to define it.

Those who claim the term is simply a means to reject science because they only see it used in that way are really demonstrating that they only consume a certain type of media and don't make much of an attempt to understand the substance of the issue. A cursory googling of the term, or browse of a scholarly database would demonstrate its legitimate usage.

True. But as I said, it seemed appropriate to at least start engaging in this thread by having the people who wish to discuss and use it, define it.

If I enter this thread with a different definition, it would only be confusing (regardless of which definition is the "correct" one)

It is quite obvious that some people do put excessive faith in the scope and accuracy of scientific methods and that this can be harmful.

Not that I'm denying that this happens, but can you give an example?

The term clearly has value in certain contexts and if we dismissed out of hand any term that has a bad-faith usage, we'd be left with no abstract language whatsoever.

Sure. But in that case, I'ld say that you would have to agree that it's probably a good idea to let the people who bring it up, define what it is exactly that they mean by it?

As I said though, I don't remember ever hearing the word "scientism" be used in any other context then as a means to try and undermine valid scientific reasoning.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I don't know about that. I think usually words are defined by their usage. And every time I see the word being used...

But I'll also say that for the purpose of this thread, I didn't look it up in the dictionary yet.
In this thread, it seemed appropriate to have the people who wish to discuss or use this term, to define it.



True. But as I said, it seemed appropriate to at least start engaging in this thread by having the people who wish to discuss and use it, define it.

If I enter this thread with a different definition, it would only be confusing (regardless of which definition is the "correct" one)



Not that I'm denying that this happens, but can you give an example?



Sure. But in that case, I'ld say that you would have to agree that it's probably a good idea to let the people who bring it up, define what it is exactly that they mean by it?

As I said though, I don't remember ever hearing the word "scientism" be used in any other context then as a means to try and undermine valid scientific reasoning.

Okay, actual scientism is rare as per the following definition: Everything can be done in a positive way with science and I can get positive answer using science about what is correct for non-science as per this: https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/whatisscience_12

So scientism is in effect the claim that science can do, what this link claims it can't.

That is the strict strong version of scientism.

But here is the weak version:
I am rational with evidence and you are not, so what you believe in not useful for anybody and I speak for a we for all humans for all cases of useful for all relevant cases. Further I decide what is relevant, meanningfull, matters and makes sense. You don't and you are not really in reality.

Of course, it is individual as in its a personal belief system, but it does have some common markers. In the end, it is that what is subjectively useful and so on, can be made in effect objective for all humans using evidence and so on in a naturalistic sense.

Of course those who do it, deny it, because they can't catch, hold and examine, that they are subjective in the end. Just as some religious believers don't understand when they are subjective.

So here are the relevant definitions of objective as I use them:
Definition of OBJECTIVE

I use 1 and 2 in the short version.
1a, 2a and 2b for objective as an adjective.
I then compare it with subjective as per this quote:
"Man is the measure of all things: of the things that are, that they are, of the things that are not, that they are not."
Measure is subjective here and scientism is in the end: I don't do that kind of measure, because I am rational and can do it objectively for all measurements including what matters and so on.

 

[tas8831]

I would not consider this "pejorative" per se. Any faith at all in the "scientific method" is simply damning.

"Scientism" is faith in science and peers to the exclusion of reason and experiment.

What do you call faith in your own delusions of grandeur?

 

[tas8831]

This is simple enough; all scientific belief is "scientism". If you believe "experiment", "reductionism", or "science" are the only means to understand reality then you are practicing "scientism". If you believe things fall because of "gravity" or that the law of gravity is why things fall then that is "scientism". Many scientists are guilty of scientism as are most laymen who see reality in terms of what they think is "science".

While extrapolation and interpolation of experimental knowledge is mostly unavoidable the fact is that it is not science. Any certainty about anything other than metaphysical truths is not science. Everything believed about science is at heart "scientism".

Says the person that believes his merely asserting that 'infants choose to grow a broccas [sic] area' is him citing evidence....

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Says the person that believes his merely asserting that 'infants choose to grow a broccas [sic] area' is him citing evidence....

Well, I doubt that scientism is that common among actual scientists. But the subjective misuse of objective, rational, evidence and so on can be found at least in some cases on the Internet.

 

[cladking]

Why would it be a bad thing to think that things fall because of gravity?

That things fall is an observation. That they fall at 32 ft/s/s is a measurement. That they fall because all masses attractive one another by an unknown means is a fact. Calling all this "gravity" is fine only so long as it is remembered that the means by which things fall is unknown.

Semantics is always irrelevant and it's easy to substitute words and beliefs for knowledge.

What is wrong with accepting that the scientific method currently is our best shot of understanding the natural world?

There's nothing wrong with it until people start believing they know everything like why things fall and what makes the sun come up in the morning. It's not chickens and inertia is just another observation.

I'm not aware of any other method with a better track record of coming up with useful and accurate answers to questions about the natural, observable world.

I am! There are likely numerous possible sciences each with their own metaphysics. Termites did not invent agriculture through experiment so that shows there are at least two sciences.

What do you mean by that?
Explain with an example, that should make it clear easily.

We know that gravity travels at around the speed of light but we can't say that gravity and light share any properties or natures. It merely appears there is some commonality.

1. what "metaphysical truths" and how did you determine them to be "truths"?

A + B = B + A. In the real world even this breaks down however since mister A plus miss B does not equal miss B plus mister A plus C(hild).

2. science doesn't deal in certainties. Not sure why you think otherwise.

Tell this to those practicing scientism because it is wasted on me.

So is it a bad thing to believe / accept the conclusions of science?

Yes!

Science doesn't deal in certainties so all conclusions are tentative. To believe otherwise is scientism. To believe at all is scientism.

 

[cladking]

Well, I doubt that scientism is that common among actual scientists.

Actually it's very common and it afflicts everyone to a greater or lesser extent, even metaphysicians.

But many scientists are virtually mystics because of their deep seated beliefs about almost everything. This doesn't apply to people like Feynman or Einstein so much but we all are the same species and our species holds all of our knowledge in taxonomies, models, and beliefs. These are abstractions that don't exist in the real world so all of our knowledge is not applicable nor does it resonate with reality. We can also model the rules that govern the usage of knowledge and eliminate many of the incongruities but we still can't make prediction because of the limitations of science and the limitations of our models.

Dogma changes one funeral at a time.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Actually it's very common and it afflicts everyone to a greater or lesser extent, even metaphysicians.

But many scientists are virtually mystics because of their deep seated beliefs about almost everything. This doesn't apply to people like Feynman or Einstein so much but we all are the same species and our species holds all of our knowledge in taxonomies, models, and beliefs. These are abstractions that don't exist in the real world so all of our knowledge is not applicable nor does it resonate with reality. We can also model the rules that govern the usage of knowledge and eliminate many of the incongruities but we still can't make prediction because of the limitations of science and the limitations of our models.

Dogma changes one funeral at a time.

Yeah, you have your beliefs and I have mine.

 

[cladking]

Yeah, you have your beliefs and I have mine.

Exactly.

But I try to recognize all my beliefs for what they are and then I work to expunge them when they are identified.