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

[RestlessSoul]

Thanks for the post. Looking over the article it seems that the term is used by two groups under pressure from Science, Philosophy and Religion.

Why do you think philosophy and religion are under pressure from science?

 

[firedragon]

Why do you think philosophy and religion are under pressure from science?

What do you mean by that? You mean all of philosophy and all of religion are under pressure in what sense? Are they threatened? Whats the scientific indication for that?

Can I ask you a curious question? Can you explain why "the scientific method" would be "under pressure (what ever you mean by that" by science itself?

Please explain.

 

[RestlessSoul]

What do you mean by that? You mean all of philosophy and all of religion are under pressure in what sense? Are they threatened? Whats the scientific indication for that?

Can I ask you a curious question? Can you explain why "the scientific method" would be "under pressure (what ever you mean by that" by science itself?

Please explain.

You’ve misunderstood I think.

I asked a question of another poster, not sure how or why you are reading my question in the way you have?

 

[firedragon]

You’ve misunderstood I think.

I asked a question of another poster, not sure how or why you are reading my question in the way you have?

I think I asked from the wrong person. I beg your pardon.

 

[PureX]

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're 'missing' two things. One is that being something does not require admitting to it. There are many, many racists among us, and yet almost none of them ever admit that they are racists. There are many religious zealots in the world that do not label themselves religious zealots. There are many fascists in the world that don't believe they are fascists even though they espouse and support a whole array of fascist ideals. So when we're talking about these various forms of bigotry, two things become fairly evident. People very often cannot recognize their own bigotry as bigotry. They simply see it as "truth". And so they cannot acknowledge to anyone else that they are being irrationally biased when they don't believe they are.

The other thing you're 'missing' here is that for you to perceive something as a slur, something has to be there to be perceived as such. If I call you a 'nornging'; a label that has no content, you couldn't reasonably perceive it as a slur, because it has no content. So claiming that "scientism" (i.e., a science-based, materialist form of ideological zealotry) has no valid content, and yet perceiving it as a slur is not logically reasonable.

It appears to me that 'one doth protest too much', here. Instead of trying to dismiss the label as meaningless because you don't like what it implies, it would be more reasonable to investigate why the label has come to exist, and what is it's implied content. Which I am hoping is what you are doing, here.

 

[PureX]

Not just them. Anyone who thinks the rest of the Humanities have value, too.

But scientism, in the sense of claiming that everything can be reduced to physical observation and treated satisfactorily by the scientific method, is a bit of a straw man I think. Barely anybody would really argue that. Not even Dawkins.

And yet it IS a position that is often being expressed right here on RF.

It's a form of bigotry (or zealotry). And the bigots/zealots never see themselves as being irrationally biased. So of course they will never acknowledge when they are expressing that irrationally biased viewpoint, or when they see someone else expressing it, even as both are happening.

 

[PureX]

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?

It's when one thinks that only the props and mechanisms are "real", while the performance is just "make-believe".

 

[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.
...
Am I missing something?

How do you define science btw?

Do you think it is possible to have “An exaggerated trust in the efficacy of the methods of natural science applied to all areas of investigation"?

If so, scientism exists and aiming to identify it and prevent it actually strengthens science.

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

In the neutral sense it describes a philosophical position regardless of whether people like the name or not, either they hold to such a position or they don't.

The people who adhere to it will call it something like a 'scientific mindset' or 'rationalism' or something. What the label is is unimportant.

The will hold beliefs such as the following though:

"The belief that the methods of natural science, or the categories and things recognized in natural science, form the only proper elements in any philosophical or other inquiry"

 

[MikeF]

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.

I have watched the video and it confirms my impression of the creation and use of the term scientism. Right out of the gate it is presented as a response to the dismissiveness of prominent scientists towards Philosophy. In essence it is a lashing out at science, as Philosophy continues to feel increasingly marginalized.

I want to acknowledge that the problems Dr. Pigliucci presents are real, however, they are presented in a misleading way.

To illustrate my concern, let's look at one example that he gives that represents the first element of what constitutes scientism. The first element is "Using words like science and scientific as honorific terms of generic epistemic praise." The first example of this behavior is the advertising slogan "9 out of 10 dentists recommend brand X toothpaste". This is a real issue, but is it strictly a science issue? What if we said "9 out of 10 soccer mom's choose brand x minivan." Or perhaps "9 out of 10 Super Bowl winning football players choose brand X itch cream". In each case, the marketer is trying to co-opt the reputation or esteem of a group seen to have authority on the subject and attach it to their product. When science is used this way, it simply speaks to strength of the reputation of science. The stronger the reputation, the greater the incentive to co-opt that reputation.

I think what galls philosophers is that they know they will never hear the phrase "9 out of 10 philosophers recommend ....".

 

[exchemist]

And yet it IS a position that is often being expressed right here on RF.

It's a form of bigotry (or zealotry). And the bigots/zealots never see themselves as being irrationally biased. So of course they will never acknowledge when they are expressing that irrationally biased viewpoint, or when they see someone else expressing it, even as both are happening.

I don't think I have seen any examples of that on RF. Do you have any in mind?

What I have seen is people whose worldview is physicalism, but that is very different.

 

[MikeF]

How do you define science btw?

I would define Science in the following way:

Science is the academic and professional study of general and fundamental questions, such as those about existence, reason, knowledge, values, mind, and language, with the express acknowledgement that it is human beings that are engaged in this study, that human beings are imperfect and fallible, and as such, those engaged in Science must make concerted effort to identify all potential sources of human error and mitigate them to the greatest possible extent.

 

[MikeF]

You're 'missing' two things. One is that being something does not require admitting to it. There are many, many racists among us, and yet almost none of them ever admit that they are racists. There are many religious zealots in the world that do not label themselves religious zealots. There are many fascists in the world that don't believe they are fascists even though they espouse and support a whole array of fascist ideals. So when we're talking about these various forms of bigotry, two things become fairly evident. People very often cannot recognize their own bigotry as bigotry. They simply see it as "truth". And so they cannot acknowledge to anyone else that they are being irrationally biased when they don't believe they are.

The other thing you're 'missing' here is that for you to perceive something as a slur, something has to be there to be perceived as such. If I call you a 'nornging'; a label that has no content, you couldn't reasonably perceive it as a slur, because it has no content. So claiming that "scientism" (i.e., a science-based, materialist form of ideological zealotry) has no valid content, and yet perceiving it as a slur is not logically reasonable.

It appears to me that 'one doth protest too much', here. Instead of trying to dismiss the label as meaningless because you don't like what it implies, it would be more reasonable to investigate why the label has come to exist, and what is it's implied content. Which I am hoping is what you are doing, here.

And if the accusation of ideological zealotry is incorrectly applied, would that be a slur?

 

[MikeF]

The will hold beliefs such as the following though:

"The belief that the methods of natural science, or the categories and things recognized in natural science, form the only proper elements in any philosophical or other inquiry"

Let's look at your statement above. First you use the term 'natural science' as opposed to just plain 'science'. That to me signals a loaded question. What would non-natural or un-natural science be? The other issue is use of the term methods. As Dr. Pigliucci acknowledged in the video clip you posted, there is no set method or same methods that are used to answer every question. The methods needed to create sub-atomic particles and observe them is dramatically different from the methods employed to observe and document Gorilla behavior.

The primary element of any inquiry is to acknowledge that it is imperfect and fallible human beings conducting the inquiry and steps must be taken to mitigate the potential errors that can result from this fact. Without this element you cannot have a proper inquiry.

 

[Augustus]

I have watched the video and it confirms my impression of the creation and use of the term scientism. Right out of the gate it is presented as a response to the dismissiveness of prominent scientists towards Philosophy. In essence it is a lashing out at science, as Philosophy continues to feel increasingly marginalized.

Other than 'mind-reading' Dr Pigliucci to insist on his bias and misrepresenting his examples of people who hold to scientistic views as 'lashing out at science', you are ignoring the fact that he is a doctor in Genetics and a doctor in biology as well as a doctor in the philosophy of science and a former professor of ecology and evolution.

He was a successful scientist before he was a successful philosopher of science. Why then would he be 'lashing out at science'?

With him having a background in both science and philosophy, what makes you think he is less well informed than people and more biased than people who freely admit they have never read any significant works of philosophy and have equal, if not more, motivation to dismiss a field about which they are completely ignorant?

Also, given that an argument against scientism requires him to point out the philosophical flaws in the position based on a poor understanding of philosophy, you create a closed system of logic whereby making such an argument automatically renders your opinion invalid due to bias.

Someone else who was a philosopher of science as well as a scientist was Einstein. Was he simply 'lashing out at science' when he said this?

I fully agree with you about the significance and educational value of methodology as well as history and philosophy of science. So many people today—and even professional scientists—seem to me like somebody who has seen thousands of trees but has never seen a forest. A knowledge of the historic and philosophical background gives that kind of independence from prejudices of his generation from which most scientists are suffering. This independence created by philosophical insight is—in my opinion—the mark of distinction between a mere artisan or specialist and a real seeker after truth.
...
Concepts that have proven useful in ordering things easily achieve such an authority over us that we forget their earthly origins and accept them as unalterable givens. Thus they come to be stamped as “necessities of thought,” “a priori givens,” etc. The path of scientific advance is often made impassable for a long time through such errors. For that reason, it is by no means an idle game if we become practiced in analyzing the long commonplace concepts and exhibiting those circumstances upon which their justification and usefulness depend, how they have grown up, individually, out of the givens of experience. By this means, their all-too-great authority will be broken. They will be removed if they cannot be properly legitimated, corrected if their correlation with given things be far too superfluous, replaced by others if a new system can be established that we prefer for whatever reason. (Einstein 1916, 102)
...

It has often been said, and certainly not without justification, that the man of science is a poor philosopher. Why then should it not be the right thing for the physicist to let the philosopher do the philosophizing? Such might indeed be the right thing at a time when the physicist believes he has at his disposal a rigid system of fundamental concepts and fundamental laws which are so well established that waves of doubt can not reach them; but it can not be right at a time when the very foundations of physics itself have become problematic as they are now. At a time like the present, when experience forces us to seek a newer and more solid foundation, the physicist cannot simply surrender to the philosopher the critical contemplation of the theoretical foundations; for, he himself knows best, and feels more surely where the shoe pinches. In looking for a new foundation, he must try to make clear in his own mind just how far the concepts which he uses are justified, and are necessities.

Einstein’s Philosophy of Science (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Why do you believe that Einstein was mistaken when he identified knowledge of the history and philosophy of science as being hallmarks of a good scientist?

To illustrate my concern, let's look at one example that he gives that represents the first element of what constitutes scientism. The first element is "Using words like science and scientific as honorific terms of generic epistemic praise." The first example of this behavior is the advertising slogan "9 out of 10 dentists recommend brand X toothpaste". This is a real issue, but is it strictly a science issue? What if we said "9 out of 10 soccer mom's choose brand x minivan." Or perhaps "9 out of 10 Super Bowl winning football players choose brand X itch cream". In each case, the marketer is trying to co-opt the reputation or esteem of a group seen to have authority on the subject and attach it to their product. When science is used this way, it simply speaks to strength of the reputation of science. The stronger the reputation, the greater the incentive to co-opt that reputation.

That is the point, that people borrow the reputation of science in certain fields to buttress the value of 'scientific' findings in other fields where findings are much less reliable.

Scientism is excessive faith in the accuracy and utility of science in areas where its performance doesn't justify such faith. Published findings in certain fields (psychology, neuroscience, etc.) are more likely to be false than true. Yet as 'science' they often carry more weight than they should.

I think what galls philosophers is that they know they will never hear the phrase "9 out of 10 philosophers recommend ....".

Even when they are also scientists? That doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

 

[Augustus]

I would define Science in the following way:

Science is the academic and professional study of general and fundamental questions, such as those about existence, reason, knowledge, values, mind, and language, with the express acknowledgement that it is human beings that are engaged in this study, that human beings are imperfect and fallible, and as such, those engaged in Science must make concerted effort to identify all potential sources of human error and mitigate them to the greatest possible extent.

OK, then you believe philosophy is important, you just don't realise it or are defining it out of existence. Existence, reason, knowledge, values, mind, and language are all dependent on numerous philosophical values, assumptions and questions

Ontology, epistemology, ethics, philosophy of language, etc.

Knowledge of these kind of things and the assumptions on which your beliefs rest was what Einstein was getting at when he talked about the value of philosophy in science.

 

[PureX]

And if the accusation of ideological zealotry is incorrectly applied, would that be a slur?

Sure. Racists never think they're racists, but they are racists, nevertheless. They also never see other racists as being racist because they don't see racism as racism. But they are racist, nevertheless. And sure, the label can be misapplied to those who are not racists, and they, too, will deny being racists, because they aren't.

So the bottom line is that anytime anyone is being labeled a racist, they will deny it whether they are racist or not. And the same thing happens with scientism. Those who are under it's spell will deny that they are under it's spell because they cannot see it as anything but the simple truth. While those who are not under it's spell will deny being under it's spell because they aren't. No one is going to accept that label whether it applies to them, or not. Because even if it does apply to them they will not be able to see that. Only those who are NOT under the spell of 'scientism' can see it for what it is.

I have been impressed by how many posters on this thread do see it for exactly what it is, and have been able to articulate it. This gives me hope.

I also very much appreciate that you took the time to look the term up, and start a thread to investigate it. This speaks well of your honesty, intelligence, and curiosity. And it deserves to be noted.

 

[gnostic]

I have watched the video and it confirms my impression of the creation and use of the term scientism. Right out of the gate it is presented as a response to the dismissiveness of prominent scientists towards Philosophy. In essence it is a lashing out at science, as Philosophy continues to feel increasingly marginalized.

I don’t see myself as a scientist. I am more of engineer than a scientist.

And yet, I see that “some” philosophies while there may be some merits, I think the majority of them are useless, and largely overrated.

There are so many different philosophies, and many conflict with each other over different matters, so how would you objectively determine which one is right or better than others.

The philosophers will always think their philosophies are the right ones, thereby exhibiting biases for their own schools of thought.

I would define Science in the following way:

Science is the academic and professional study of general and fundamental questions, such as those about existence, reason, knowledge, values, mind, and language, with the express acknowledgement that it is human beings that are engaged in this study, that human beings are imperfect and fallible, and as such, those engaged in Science must make concerted effort to identify all potential sources of human error and mitigate them to the greatest possible extent.

Well, that was...to put it mildly...so not “science” at all.

 

[MikeF]

OK, then you believe philosophy is important, you just don't realise it or are defining it out of existence. Existence, reason, knowledge, values, mind, and language are all dependent on numerous philosophical values, assumptions and questions

Ontology, epistemology, ethics, philosophy of language, etc.

Knowledge of these kind of things and the assumptions on which your beliefs rest was what Einstein was getting at when he talked about the value of philosophy in science.

For me, Science is the new and improved Philosophy. Perhaps think of Science as Philosophy 2.0. So what's the difference? The difference is in acknowledging the fallibility of the philosopher/observer and reconciling or mitigating that fallibility. To me, not acknowledging all the ways our perception and judgement can be impacted is a fatal flaw or vulnerability of philosophy done "the old way."

Would you agree with this assessment of the difference between the two?

 

[PureX]

I don't think I have seen any examples of that on RF. Do you have any in mind?

What I have seen is people whose worldview is physicalism, but that is very different.

How do you see "physicalism" being different from 'scientism'? From where I sit, they look VERY much alike.

 

[MikeF]

Well, that was...to put it mildly...so not “science” at all.

Would you agree that Science was born out of Philosophy? What is the difference between Science and Philosophy for you?