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

[MikeF]

Yes, that's true. The same is true of the word 'wrong'. But that perjorative usage doesn't discredit the concept of scientism any more than it discredits the idea of right and wrong.

Those who employ the concept of 'scientism' aren't typically doing so to attack science per se. They use it to criticise what they perceive as scientific overreach and authoritarian uses of science.

Have you ever seen anyone claiming that what they are proposing is wrong, but continuing to advocate for it anyway? Isn't 'wrong' an idea that's more typically wielded by critics of the proposed idea or action? That doesn't in and of itself discredit the idea that some beliefs and actions are indeed wrong.

I think I would expect someone to use the word 'wrong' in reference to a specific misuse of science. To my mind, creating the word 'scientism' implies a fatal flaw in the way science is practiced in general.

I often hear this nebulous criticism of scientific overreach and authoritarian use of science. I would love to have concrete examples of both categories to evaluate such claims.

You seem to me to be inching dangerously close to the idea that science shoud be immune from criticism and that those who speak in the name of science must automatically be believed as society's ultimate authorities in all spheres of human life. That may or may not be what you meant to imply, but I find the idea to be quite authoritarian.

I find the suggestion that I am implying science should be immune from criticism quite amusing. The whole idea of science is to apply reasoned and rational skepticism to everything we think we know, that nothing is exempt from reevaluation. That is the whole point. We human observers of reality are flawed and fallible creatures. We need some method of quality control to mitigate our fallibility. Science, the principles and standards of science, are required in knowledge pursuits that address what is real and existent. It does not cure human fallibility, it only mitigates it, and science done properly understands and embraces that fact.

If there is a better method outside of the way Science is currently conducted that would better achieve the goal of discerning what is real and existent, then Science would love to hear it, for that would be 'doing science'.

When you reference 'all spheres of human life', it would be nice to know what you mean by that. What sphere of human life to you consider to be negatively impacted by Science?

 

[Windwalker]

If we are speaking of what is know, regardless of how well understood, I too feel awe and wonder. However, magic need not be assumed to do so.

Ah, but as it goes so far beyond our human abilities of the mind to comprehend, it does become magical. That's what makes the Mystery, so inspiring. That standing wrapped in awe at that which transcends comprehension, is seeing life through the eyes of a child. And children see magic.

To believe as an adult we no longer should, can lead to one being "good as dead". When science becomes Scientism, we're on that path to no longer being able to see the mystery anymore.

 

[MikeF]

Ah, but as it goes so far beyond our human abilities of the mind to comprehend, it does become magical. That's what makes the Mystery, so inspiring. That standing wrapped in awe at that which transcends comprehension, is seeing life through the eyes of a child. And children see magic.

To believe as an adult we no longer should, can lead to one being "good as dead". When science becomes Scientism, we're on that path to no longer being able to see the mystery anymore.

Are you saying that if one is aware of all the backstage props and rigging, one cannot suspend that awareness and immerse themselves in the performance on stage, to form emotional attachment to the characters and the unfolding story?

 

[firedragon]

From my experience, the word 'scientism' is used in a pejorative manner as a way to somehow weaken the credibility of arguments based on scientific understanding, or to weaken the image of Science as a whole.

I don't see anyone claiming to adhere to scientism and I don't see it as anything other than an intended slur.

Am I missing something?

You said "from my experience" and made up a huge strawman argument. Then you said "I dont see anyone claiming" when the previous strawman was also something no one "claims".

Yes you are missing something. Absolutely.

Do you know the word "Christian"? It was not something Christians themselves made up for themselves. It was a word used by others to address them in Turkey. It was only later the Christians seems to have started using this name to address themselves. "Buddhism" or Baudhdha was a term that is not taught to be used in the Thripitaka, but it was apparently those who addressed the people who were narrating the Buddhas teachings much after the Buddha himself, through generations called "Sanjayana".

So terms like that are not necessarily "claimed" by themselves. It is sometimes or at least in the subject of these two huge groups, developed by others.

Also, the word scientism maybe used pejoratively. That is true in my opinion. But it is not to weaken the credibility of scientific arguments or to weaken the image of science which you have turned it into. And by that itself, it shows that you are claiming science for yourself, your monopoly, and everyone else is out to get you, and in the meantime also "weaken the image of science as a whole". Those who are called to be adherents of scientism have this attitude.

The word scientism is used to address those who make claims to science as the only way to answer all the questions. But I agree that it is used as a pejorative in modern times. Just not in the way you had described.

 

[Windwalker]

Are you saying that if one is aware of all the backstage props and rigging, one cannot suspend that awareness and immerse themselves in the performance on stage, to form emotional attachment to the characters and the unfolding story?

A believer in Scientism would be one of those who probably could not.

 

[exchemist]

Yes. Science is not the correct tool for understanding the mysteries of life, which includes the subjective. You need other areas such as the arts and humanities, spiritual practices, and the like. The meaning of life is more than just a rational puzzle.

But to those who think the subjective and the personal are just "merely" or "only" and not critical to human existence, those who believe Science with a capital S is the source to answer all life's mysteries, are believing in Scientism as a matter of faith. I embrace science as a tool, not as the end all be all source of all knowledge. It simply is not.

Agreed. But I'm not sure who those people actually are, if they exist at all.

 

[MikeF]

A believer in Scientism would be one of those who probably could not.

And although I've seen the label applied, I have yet to see it fit.

 

[Windwalker]

Agreed. But I'm not sure who those people actually are, if they exist at all.

I've spoken with quite of few of them on forums, and in real life as well.

While I agree we should use our rational faculties to understand the world, a science is a great tool for that, to use reason to gut the mystery out of life, "all spiritual experiences are the result of brain activities and chemicals", are doing just that.

 

[Windwalker]

And although I've seen the label applied, I have yet to see it fit.

To yourself? I wouldn't know. I don't know your views that well. However, I have seen it fit quite well to others, who typically were former believers in God, now believers in science the same ways. "God said, I believe it, and the settles it for me," is replaced with, "That's not real, where's your scientific evidence that the spiritual is nothing more than just brain activities and chemical responses?" As if science can be consulted as Holy Scriptures was in the previous faith system.

As I said before, it's the elevation of science to Light of the World, that moves it from doing science, to Scientism as a matter of religious faith. All or nothing. It either can be explained by science, or it's just "merely subjective", or some other such nonsense. I embrace science as a tool, not some mythological Saviour of mankind. I think the subjective is more key to that.

What Scientism really is, is more a populist form of Logical Positivism.

 

[cladking]

Says the guy who claims to know how the pyramids were REALLY built despite not having any track record of publication and has done no actual research.

You can go with Egyptology and scientism and aver that "they mustta used ramps", or you can go with me and say all the facts and logic including the ancient writing clearly shows they used linear funiculars.

Or mebbe they really were built by aliens.

People who believe in science see no mysteries and see only their beliefs. Even most scientists won't know a mystery if it bites them on the nose. Despite the fact all science including modern science and ancient science progresses almost solely through the study of anomalies most people can't see anomalies because they already have all the answers; homo omnisciencis.

"Scientism" is a point of view and it blinds people rather than opening their eyes.

 

[cladking]

Anyone who experiences it. Take what Einstein had to say about it.

“The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and science. He to whom the emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand wrapped in awe, is as good as dead —his eyes are closed. The insight into the mystery of life, coupled though it be with fear, has also given rise to religion. To know what is impenetrable to us really exists, manifesting itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty, which our dull faculties can comprehend only in their most primitive forms—this knowledge, this feeling is at the center of true religiousness.”

- Albert Einstein, Living Philosophies​

Thank Einstein for illustrating mine.

Einstein was one of the least mystic scientists of all time. This isn't to say there are no great scientists today merely that we mostly don't know their names and many might never make an important discovery or devise an important experiment. Now days technology is derived ever more simply from understanding but new understanding is coming slower and slower.

People who don't understand metaphysics are mystics. People without the ability to experience awe at nature will never see an anomaly and never make an important discovery. I'm not sure that this awe is even really an "emotion" as Einstein suggested but it is certainly an experience and that will occur to anyone who doesn't have every single answer.

Thanks for the quote. I hadn't seen this one. Of course I also disagree about the origin of religion but not its nature.

 

[Yazata]

I think I would expect someone to use the word 'wrong' in reference to a specific misuse of science. To my mind, creating the word 'scientism' implies a fatal flaw in the way science is practiced in general.

That isn't necessarily what critics of scientism are thinking or intend to communicate. 'Scientism' needn't imply any flaw in science. It's more about how some people (typically non-scientists) try to use the prestige of science to support their own assertions.

I often hear this nebulous criticism of scientific overreach and authoritarian use of science. I would love to have concrete examples of both categories to evaluate such claims.

Examples of scientific overreach might be the expectation that science can answer metaphysical questions, the idea that science is synonymous and coextensive with reason, and ignoring the is-ought distinction.

Examples of the authoritarian use of science might include the increasingly prevalent idea that anything prefaced by "scientists say..." must automatically be believed by laypeople in the general public on pain of being denounced as "deniers". (Today's equivalent of medieval 'heathen'.)

 

[Vee]

From my experience, the word 'scientism' is used in a pejorative manner as a way to somehow weaken the credibility of arguments based on scientific understanding, or to weaken the image of Science as a whole.

I don't see anyone claiming to adhere to scientism and I don't see it as anything other than an intended slur.

Am I missing something?

Well, until I read your post I had never seen that word before, so I guess I'm missing more than you.

 

[Windwalker]

Einstein was one of the least mystic scientists of all time.

That depends upon how you are defining what a mystic is. I've heard a lot of fantastical ideas about that, calling things like prescientific magic as "mysticism", which it is not. In reality, yes, Einstein clearly did fall into the mystical camp in many of his writings.

This collection of writings from the world's greatest physicists touching on their mystical writings, includes Einstein as well. Believers in Scientism, would call these sort of ideas "woo woo", but they are coming from the greatest minds the world has known. That says something about some people's ideas about these bigger-picture questions, not getting it and conflating the mystical with magical thinking, like Noah's Ark and such.

https://www.amazon.com/Quantum-Questions-Mystical-Writings-Physicists/dp/1570627681

People who don't understand metaphysics are mystics.

I don't accept that as what defines mysticism. Besides, metaphysics is philosophy, not science. If anything, it is the mystics who speak to metaphysical questions. That's the exact opposite of not understanding the metaphysical. The mystic directly looks into the metaphysical.

And that, is exactly what that quote from Einstein says, to paraphrase, 'To know what is impenetrable to us using the dull faculties of reason and science, really exists, is the source of all true science and religion." That is the eye of the mystic that sees that, not the eye of reason and science, says Einstein in so many words.

People without the ability to experience awe at nature will never see an anomaly and never make an important discovery. I'm not sure that this awe is even really an "emotion" as Einstein suggested but it is certainly an experience and that will occur to anyone who doesn't have every single answer.

Thanks for the quote. I hadn't seen this one.

I myself don't care for his use of calling it "an emotion", though technically it is. I prefer the term inspiration. And that does involve the emotions, as well as the imagination, like poetry lifts the soul beyond the confines our our mundane understandings of the mind. It is the eye of the mystic that sails beyond reason, into the transcendent or the Mystery, as some like Einstein referred to it as.

I think this understanding might help to distinguish between the pre-rational, such as magical thinking, and mythic-literal beliefs, and the transrational or mystical components of the human mind.

The Pre/Trans Fallacy

Equipped with this new evolutionary understanding, Ken noticed a core confusion that made it very difficult to discern between the lower stages and the higher stages. Trans-rational mystical experiences were often being dismissed as pre-rational fantasy, postmodern values were being erroneously projected onto pre-modern cultures, and pre-modern impulsiveness and hedonism were being celebrated by the postmodern counterculture. Rather than viewing psychology as a developmental process running from pre-rational to rational to trans-rational (or pre-differentiated fusion to differentiation to post-differentiated integration), a person was seen as being either rational or not—resulting in the trans-rational baby getting thrown out with the pre-rational bathwater.

This misconception between “pre-” and “trans-” became known as the pre/trans fallacy, one of Ken’s most popular and profound theoretical contributions, and one that continues to help us make sense of many of the central conflicts and confusions running through Western psychology and academia.

The pre/trans fallacy actually formed one of the major fault lines between two of modern psychology’s greatest founders, Sigmund Freud and Carl Jung, both of whom stood on opposite sides of this fallacy—Freud would reduce spiritual states to a resurrection of infantile feelings, while Jung would elevate pre-rational mythology to trans-rational glory. The pre/trans fallacy allows us to put the pieces together into a more comprehensive whole, to liberate and integrate the genuine insight offered by these two pioneers, and to detangle their brilliance from the misunderstandings that were so rampant before this developmental view finally emerged.

This reconciliation of seemingly irreconcilable or incompatible ideas is perhaps the defining characteristic of Ken’s entire career and philosophy: finding the patterns that connect, uniting seemingly disparate theories, transcending and including the greatest minds of history into a single integrated model of life, the universe, and everything—a model that would continue to become more inclusive, more comprehensive, and more elegant with each and every step.

The Pre/Trans Fallacy – Integral Life​

 

[cladking]

Sorry, but both Freud and Jung were mystics. Freud intellectualized a dalliance with his sister in law and Jung intellectualized everything else.

I don't accept that as what defines mysticism. Besides, metaphysics is philosophy, not science. If anything, it is the mystics who speak to metaphysical questions. That's the exact opposite of not understanding the metaphysical. The mystic directly looks into the metaphysical.

"Metaphysics" as I'm using the term means "foundation of science" and includes axioms, definitions, and experiment. It is not really "philosophy" though is usually treated as such. I believe that without understanding metaphysics it is impossible to understand either experimental results or the limits of one's own knowledge. "Knowledge" is mere book learning if you don't understand how it was discovered and its limitations. Most "science" reported by the popular press today is not science at all. Much of what is reported isn't even true and the little that is true contains numerous errors. Even the science journals contain endless errors of omission. "Theory" itself is sometimes questionable in metaphysical terms.

People believe things that are not true. When these beliefs include the omniscience of science we have "scientism". Some things can't even be studied scientifically but people still have "explanations" in the form of assumptions. We are almost wholly ignorant and nobody can predict the future yet everyone seems to know everything!!!

 

[Augustus]

From my experience, the word 'scientism' is used in a pejorative manner as a way to somehow weaken the credibility of arguments based on scientific understanding, or to weaken the image of Science as a whole.

I don't see anyone claiming to adhere to scientism and I don't see it as anything other than an intended slur.

Am I missing something?

Might be of interest (the speaker is a scientist and an atheist btw)

Also

The Problem with Scientism

 

[syo]

Personally, I have no respect for science. ''Scientism'' as a slur, is not a surprise.

 

[MikeF]

You said "from my experience" and made up a huge strawman argument. Then you said "I dont see anyone claiming" when the previous strawman was also something no one "claims".

Yes you are missing something. Absolutely.

Do you know the word "Christian"? It was not something Christians themselves made up for themselves. It was a word used by others to address them in Turkey. It was only later the Christians seems to have started using this name to address themselves. "Buddhism" or Baudhdha was a term that is not taught to be used in the Thripitaka, but it was apparently those who addressed the people who were narrating the Buddhas teachings much after the Buddha himself, through generations called "Sanjayana".

So terms like that are not necessarily "claimed" by themselves. It is sometimes or at least in the subject of these two huge groups, developed by others.

Also, the word scientism maybe used pejoratively. That is true in my opinion. But it is not to weaken the credibility of scientific arguments or to weaken the image of science which you have turned it into. And by that itself, it shows that you are claiming science for yourself, your monopoly, and everyone else is out to get you, and in the meantime also "weaken the image of science as a whole". Those who are called to be adherents of scientism have this attitude.

The word scientism is used to address those who make claims to science as the only way to answer all the questions. But I agree that it is used as a pejorative in modern times. Just not in the way you had described.

If scientism has a negative connotation and it is a label attached to a perceived group who share the quality of misapplying science or overstating scientific findings, one would certainly have to show justification for the criticism or accusation. I'm sure you agree that someone may apply the term scientism incorrectly. If it is intentionally used incorrectly, use of the term would simply be a propaganda technique to discredit the one labeled as practicing scientism.

You state that the label scientism should be applied to those who claim science is the only way to answer all the questions. That science is applied to and and all questions seems to be quite an exaggeration. To which specific types of questions has science been applied incorrectly?

So far I'm not sure the term scientism is describing an actual problem and would love to have the problem illustrated.

 

[firedragon]

If scientism has a negative connotation and it is a label attached to a perceived group who share the quality of misapplying science or overstating scientific findings,

Strawman.

 

[MikeF]

Well, until I read your post I had never seen that word before, so I guess I'm missing more than you.

Then I guess you haven't expressed yourself in a manner that those who use the term would apply it to you or what you have said.