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

[firedragon]

You state that the label scientism should be applied to those who claim science is the only way to answer all the questions.

Strawman. You are misquoting whole sale. Didnt say "should be". Please read the posy once more.

 

[MikeF]

Strawman.

Ok. In what way? I'm here to learn.

 

[firedragon]

Ok. In what way? I'm here to learn.

Who said this referring to scientism?

"group who share the quality of misapplying science or overstating scientific findings,"

 

[MikeF]

Who said this referring to scientism?

"group who share the quality of misapplying science or overstating scientific findings,"

It is my wording paraphrasing responses here and the referenced wikipedia page.

 

[firedragon]

It is my wording paraphrasing responses here and the referenced wikipedia page.

Refer to the post you are responding to.

1. Misapplying science
2. overstating scientific findings

Where did those two standards you mentioned come from. I never said anything of the sort brother.

 

[firedragon]

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?

Sorry to say this, but this is the height of the strawman fallacy. I didnt say 'should be', and neither did I say "science is applied this way or that way". I think I have to cut and paste what I said.

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.

 

[MikeF]

Sorry to say this, but this is the height of the strawman fallacy. I didnt say 'should be', and neither did I say "science is applied this way or that way". I think I have to cut and paste what I said.

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.

I am trying to represent the common understanding of scientism as has been express on this thread by you and others. If you do not agree with how I have characterized it, simply give me an alternative that you find more appropriate.

In your quote of yourself above, you imply the error made by those to whom the label scientism can be applied is to "claim science as the only way to answer all the questions." That would seem to fit under "misapplying science", wouldn't you agree? The presumption being that science cannot be applied to all questions and to do so would be a misapplication of science.

Are we on the same page yet?

 

[leroy]

It's mostly just an excuse to wave away a rebuttal that a creationist can't refute. When a creationist is confronted with scientific info and they don't know how to counter it, a common tactic is to say something like "Well you just think science has all the answers" or "You worship science", which eventually becomes "You believe in scientism".

Most of what you see from creationists are little more than defensive mechanisms that help them cope with the fact that their position is directly contradicted by reality. Flat-earthers do the same thing.

Flat-earthers do the same thing

The way I see it is the exact opposite, the flat earth movement is a parody of scientificism , you cant show that the earth is round using just science (at some point you have to use logic, commonsense and intuitions)

For example the claim that the stars move and the earth is static is empirically equivalent to the earth moves and stars are static. Both models make the same predictions,

 

[firedragon]

I am trying to represent the common understanding of scientism

No you didnt. In that case you have not understood the "common understanding of scientism".

If you do not agree with how I have characterized it, simply give me an alternative that you find more appropriate.

Okay. Let me cut and paste again. 3rd time.

The word scientism is used to address those who make claims to science as the only way to answer all the questions.

 

[MikeF]

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

Also

The Problem with Scientism

I will look at your references when I have a moment. Thanks for sharing them.

The link to The Problem with Scientism is an essay on the American Philosophical Association website. Might I anticipate a little bias as Philosophy is one groups feeling pressure from Science?

 

[Jose Fly]

The way I see it is the exact opposite, the flat earth movement is a parody of scientificism , you cant show that the earth is round using just science (at some point you have to use logic, commonsense and intuitions)

For example the claim that the stars move and the earth is static is empirically equivalent to the earth moves and stars are static. Both models make the same predictions,

I have nothing to add to that, other than to point out that this is why I generally don't bother replying to your posts.

 

[MikeF]

No you didnt. In that case you have not understood the "common understanding of scientism".


Okay. Let me cut and paste again. 3rd time.

The word scientism is used to address those who make claims to science as the only way to answer all the questions.

So your statement fully represents the sentiment expressed with the term 'scientism' and reflects the usage by all others on this thread?

 

[firedragon]

So your statement fully represents the sentiment expressed with the term 'scientism' and reflects the usage by all others on this thread?

You want me to represent all others in the thread? Its not a political party.

 

[Windwalker]

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

Jung was a mystic, of sorts. I don't think you can or should say that about Freud. Freud and Jung split over that very issue, with Freud saying point blank he not want to go where Jung was going, that he wanted to keep the study in the realm of Western science and not get 'mired in the black muck of the occult', or something to that direct effect he said. So no, Freud was not a mystic.

And if you believe that Jung "intellectualized everything else", then you haven't ever opened his Red Book for a look around. Jung had actual experience in these states of consciousness himself. That makes him opening directly with mystical states experientially, not intellectually.

To be clear, by mystic, I mean those who have mystical experiences, either through meditation, or other means. The mystic peers into the Deep in such states. This is beyond rationalism.

"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.

I think we are using the term much differently. While metaphysics is a huge topic in itself, as you can gather by just reading about it here in this philosophy article from Stanford University, that term can be almost as bad as using the term "spiritual" or "soul" is. It is after all, dealing with things that include being 'beyond physics', into the nature of essence and being. It's that "beingness" and "suchness" or things like this, that I mean when using the term. It's big-picture stuff, beyond what the empirical sciences as such can penetrate.

That is where you move beyond rationality into the transrational, or mystical perceptive, granted one though various higher states of consciousness, which have been mapped out in many systems of study throughout Eastern systems, such as Buddhism, Hinduism, and such. The West sorely lacks that information, until more recently. That's what I mean and I referring to in using the term "mysticism".

"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!!!

You and I are in agreement here. Our assumptions of reality are through our biased programming through culture and language. That is in fact what the mystical experience exposes us to, letting us see beyond that. It sees the illusion of all of it, and seeks instead to know the naked Truth.

 

[MikeF]

You want me to represent all others in the thread? Its not a political party.

You crack me up. You seem very reluctant to support your statement.

And as you are fully aware, I am not asking you to represent anyone, I am simply asking you to come to some common understanding about what scientism means so that we agree that we are talking about the same darn thing.

Not to mention, I showed you how your statement falls under my category of "misapplication of science" and you have ignored the point.

If you are not feeling confident in your position, simply let me know you no longer wish to discuss this topic.

Cheers.

 

[Augustus]

I will look at your references when I have a moment. Thanks for sharing them.

The link to The Problem with Scientism is an essay on the American Philosophical Association website. Might I anticipate a little bias as Philosophy is one groups feeling pressure from Science?

It's written by the same guy in the video, who is both a philosopher of science and a biologist.

I'd say understanding both puts you in a much better position to understand than only understanding one of them which includes most people who say scientism doesn't exist.

One of his points in the speech is that people who are proud of their ignorance of philosophy are the most insistent it is useless, largely because they don't understand what it is and why they rely on it.

 

[rational experiences]

As we are all humans first and own one self presence each. A term ism is used to teach. Human one self to human one self. Balances first. Equal first.

As we talk to each other claiming sense sensible and teaching methods.

If I said O earth faces the sun then doesn't face the sun is that status science?

No. Science in human life is about what they own and can dig out of the planet.

Why thinking to argue was quantified to be law first as human representatives. Who used science space laws against us by machine effects in causes actually.

The reason for those other organisations being equal as an organisation with human purpose equal rights.

 

[firedragon]

And as you are fully aware, I am not asking you to represent anyone, I am simply asking you to come to some common understanding about what scientism means so that we agree that we are talking about the same darn thing.

Brother. I have said what scientism is as generally understood in modern times. First you ask me if that is what everyone in the thread says, which I have no clue about what everyone in the thread says because of course I won't go reading every single comment, and now you want common understanding etc etc.

If you dont agree with what scientism means or if I have said what it doesnt mean, then just say "you are wrong" and define it as you have heard from where ever you have and that's that.

 

[firedragon]

Not to mention, I showed you how your statement falls under my category of "misapplication of science" and you have ignored the point.

Thats false. So I can't be winning and not failing in trying to keep up with false statements.

 

[MonkeyFire]

If faith manifest omniscience, and that manifest science then it is alright.