exchemist
Veteran Member
Physicalism simply says that the physical world is all there is. That is perfectly compatible with recognising that systems of thought other than science - literary criticism, for example - can represent real knowledge.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Is 'scientism' a thing, or just a slur?
- Thread starter MikeF
- Start date
cladking
Well-Known Member
Believers in science have an answer to everything. Scientists, especially good scientists, know better but believers can quote chapter and verse from wiki or use google to find a scientists or a group of Peers that believe it.
To me "scientism" is having all the answers or the ability to ask Siri.
RestlessSoul
Well-Known Member
From the Greek Philo meaning love, Sophia meaning wisdom
So philosophy is the love of wisdom.
If love has any currency in the vocabulary of science, then perhaps we can say that science is the love of knowledge.
So, love of wisdom vs love of knowledge. These are not quite the same thing, but clearly they do overlap.
Further, we can say that the two disciplines have different functions and applications.
The main application of science is in the development of technologies, many but by no means all of which have been known to improve the lot of humanity.
The main application of philosophy is in the development of designs for living, many but by no means all of which have been known to improve the lot of humanity.
It is a tragic indictment, perhaps of our own nature, that the two together have more than once brought whole societies, and now perhaps humanity itself, to the brink of annihilation.
However, we’re all still here, for now. Despite the historic willingness, since the advent of the Bronze Age, of many scientists to sell their skills to the weapons industry, we have not destroyed ourselves yet.
That seems a rather narrow definition of Science. Are there no scientific endeavors outside of technology? What about biology, is that about developing technology? Is psychology a technical science? What about geology or oceanography?
This definition of philosophy seems equally narrow. How does Metaphysics and Epistemology relate to designs for living? I suppose Morals and Ethics could be construed that way. How about Logic?
Augustus
…
No. Science is not philosophy 2.0, and philosophy is not simply a primitive version of science. They do not have the same purpose and do not deal with the same things.
Modern science wasn't the product of scientific investigation, it was the product of changing philosophical assumptions regarding the limitations of human reason and the rejection of classical assumptions.
People stopped doing philosophy 'the old way' a long time ago, and philosophy is certainly interested in the ways our perceptions and judgements can be flawed.
Science and philosophy are not in competition, they are complementary. Good science requires good philosophy, even if those practising science are unaware of the philosophical foundations of what they are doing.
Some aspects of philosophy that are complementary with science:
What is science? What is 'not science'?
What is the purpose of science?
What are the limitations of science?
What is knowledge?
What makes something justified true belief?
In what areas does science work well and in what areas is it less effective?
What are valid scientific methodologies?
Which domains do these methodologies work well in?
What assumptions do our methods rely on?
How do we know if these assumptions are correct?
How should we deal with uncertain knowledge?
How do our values and beliefs influence science?
How should we deal with the ethical questions that arise from the scientific process?
What are valid forms of deductive and inductive reasoning?
What is the relationship between language and reality?
What is reality?
What does it mean for something to exist?
Does maths exist independently of the human mind?
etc.
Science is the best tool we have for understanding many aspects of our reality, but it cannot do this independently of philosophy. As science evolves and adapts, so do its philosophical foundations and assumptions, same as they always have done (if you want a more recent example see reductionism v complexity science).
gnostic
The Lost One
From Natural Philosophy of Ancient Greeks residing in Greece, Asia Minor and Italy, yes.
But you need to understand the Natural Philosophy I am talking about actual studies that Greek natural philosophers did, when they attempt to explain nature with rudimentary physics and maths, trying to understand the properties of the physical objects.
For instances, when some of the philosophers attempt to explain the shape of the Earth as a spherical Earth, and some have attempted to calculate the Earth’s circumference.
Or Aristarchus of Samos who first proposed heliocentric planetary motion, where the Earth and other planets orbiting around the Sun, as opposed to more ancient and more popular geocentric model of Babylon, later consolidated in Claudius Ptolemy’s treatise. Heliocentric model was more correct, but it was unpopular for over 1500 years.
Or the attempt to explain smallest elementary particle of the time - the atom - by Leucippus and Democritus in the 5th century BCE, or even earlier by Indian philosophers of previous century. Of course, neither the Greeks, nor the Indians, knew anything about nucleus, proton, neutron and electron back then, but it was a start in the right direction.
And the famous 3rd century BCE, Archimedes of Syracuse, was the original Renaissance man long before Leon Battista Alberti and Leonardo da Vinci. Archimedes didn’t just tried to explain nature and physical world, he tried to explain how they work, through invention and experiments.
BUT there are so many other philosophies that have nothing to do with science, and YOU haven’t been specific of which philosophy you was talking about, because not all philosophies are considered “scientific” in nature.
Today, the philosophies most connected to how science should work, are empiricism, logical positivism, methodological naturalism, and only specific parts of epistemology, which built the framework of Scientific Method, and the need to test and gather evidence.
Scientific Method isn’t philosophy, but processes of formulating explanatory and predictive hypothesis, and how one would test this hypothesis through observations (eg finding evidence or performing experiments).
No hypothesis is considered science until hypothesis have been tested.
I think people should spend more times on real work of science and less time philosophizing.
rational experiences
Veteran Member
When men using men thinking owning preaching teaching as human by word use a quote science is a tool hence so is invention.
O earth a form reactor in theism their first mistake. God is not any machine as it owns no controls.
Man in life proved they too lost self control.
As family natural group hierarchy is first.
Science is not natural it is inferred changes to natural.
Medical science observation of present living human form.
Biology of human life.
Egotism I will pretend as theism I am a God creating.
Yet no God created.
Science knows evolution in a space womb the status presence of formed creation.
Philosophy was taught after science harmed life to bring realisation to man's ego.
Man nearly destroyed earth by claiming a God had created its body.
Philosophy said it was God itself first fixed body creating beyond its owned form by using its own form. A planet.
Gods plan ET he said in science description H was earth with a heaven owning extra in its terrestrial.
Origin of ET not any alien.
Which stated natural rotation owned it's force naturally.
So science then said forces just a preaching existed as beyond what first existed by causes.
Which is not any control. It was a cause effect.
What natural science meant. Describing by the love of knowledge knowing that only God the planet owned natural forces.
As love does not destroy.
Magnetism.
O earth a form reactor in theism their first mistake. God is not any machine as it owns no controls.
Man in life proved they too lost self control.
As family natural group hierarchy is first.
Science is not natural it is inferred changes to natural.
Medical science observation of present living human form.
Biology of human life.
Egotism I will pretend as theism I am a God creating.
Yet no God created.
Science knows evolution in a space womb the status presence of formed creation.
Philosophy was taught after science harmed life to bring realisation to man's ego.
Man nearly destroyed earth by claiming a God had created its body.
Philosophy said it was God itself first fixed body creating beyond its owned form by using its own form. A planet.
Gods plan ET he said in science description H was earth with a heaven owning extra in its terrestrial.
Origin of ET not any alien.
Which stated natural rotation owned it's force naturally.
So science then said forces just a preaching existed as beyond what first existed by causes.
Which is not any control. It was a cause effect.
What natural science meant. Describing by the love of knowledge knowing that only God the planet owned natural forces.
As love does not destroy.
Magnetism.
Then we are simply talking about how we want to categorize and demarcate related ideas. For me, most of these questions are part of the self-reflective quality control of engaging in scientific inquiry.
As things stand now, I see much of Philosophy as being shielded from the quality control mechanisms integrated into science, especially in terms of mitigating human error. I see changing the overarching label from Philosophy to Science as a way of putting all human inquiry under the same umbrella that incorporates this fundamental standard.
Realistically, they both have a long history of use with a lot of assumptions attached. Perhaps it is time to make up a new overarching label.
I came across the following passage on Wikipedia under Hegelianism:
"Hegel's method in philosophy consists of the triadic development (Entwicklung) in each concept and each thing. Thus, he hopes, philosophy will not contradict experience, but experience will give data to the philosophical, which is the ultimately true explanation."
Hegelianism - Wikipedia
Hegelianism - Wikipedia
Here Hegel seems to be saying that Philosophy, when in conflict with experience, experience should be disregarded in preference to the philosophical since Philosophy is the only true explanation. Did I get this right?
Seeing this passage made me curious as to your view on the relationship between Philosophy and observed reality. Which one do you think should control? Does Philosophy trump observation/experience or vise versa?
You stated science is best for understanding many aspects of reality, which implies that it does not help us understand all. Where do you draw the line as to what constitutes science and what constitutes philosophy(or that which science cannot provide understanding)?
Just so I have a ballpark, when would you date the transition from doing Philosophy the old way?
Lastly, you end that sentence by saying “philosophy is certainly interested” in flawed perception. For me, simply being interested is well below the mark. If your statement is accurate, then this gets to the heart of my concern. If we do not address this fundamental fact up front, then what value is there in the product of inquiry?
gnostic
The Lost One
No, it doesn’t.
Where did you get the idea that science supposed to understand or explain “all”.
Many aspects don’t mean “everything”, nor does it have to be everything “at once”.
Science is progressive accumulation of knowledge.
For instance, stargazers for millennia used to rely only observations unaided, the naked eye. Then along come the invention of these telescopes in the early 17th century, and Galileo was able to see stars that weren’t visible to the naked eye. He was able to see that the planets orbited around the sun, not around the Earth.
But Galileo didn’t have all the answers as about astronomy. He and others (Charles Messier, William Herschel) after him before 1919, thought the Andromeda was a nebula within the Milky Way, not a separate galaxy; they all thought Milky Way was the only galaxy. No one realize this was a mistake until Edwin Hubble discovered that Andromeda is another galaxy, when he looked through the most powerful telescope at that time, the Hooker Telescope (1919).
But Hubble also discovered there were many more galaxies, and the universe wasn’t confined to the Milky Way. This discovery led to new research on the cosmology - the Static Universe, Steady State model, the expanding universe model (later known as the Big Bang). But Hubble didn’t know everything.
We learned even more over the decades, constructing even larger telescopes, then radio telescopes that allowed us see even more that weren’t visible. Then we developed space observatories to see more things ever before, but we still don’t know everything. Because we are still learning new things, accumulating knowledge, as we go.
The knowledge is accumulative and progressive.
Your claim that science know or understand “all” is misrepresentation of how science work.
RestlessSoul
Well-Known Member
Yeah, I wasn’t attempting comprehensive definitions of either science or philosophy. If you wish to offer such a definition of either, I’d be interested to read it. You would have to set aside any prejudices you have in order to make the attempt of course, but you already know that.
Anyway, I’m heartened that you consider psychology a science; not everybody does.
From the Greek psyche, meaning spirit or soul, and logia meaning study.
A science that acknowledges the existence of a spirit, then. As Carl Jung most certainly did.
Biology, geology and oceanography all have technical applications. I doubt there’d be research funding in these fields if they didn’t.
Metaphysics is the branch of philosophy that is closest to mysticism and religion. And poetry, of course. Does poetry have value in your worldview? It does in mine.
Logic is a facet of philosophy that is closest to science. Indeed, it’s a pre-requisite of scientific enquiry, is it not?
Incidentally, regarding the question at the head of this thread, I think labels, especially when applied to human attributes, schools of thought etc, should be used with caution. So I don’t blame you for distrusting the term “scientism”. It sounds pejorative, and besides, it’s an ugly word; the poet in me recoils from it.
God spare us, however, from a world in which anything that cannot be quantified, dissected, and understood, is deemed to have no value. Such a nightmare scenario brings to mind this description by Percy Shelley, of triumphant, rapacious man bestride conquered nature;
“The lightening is his slave; heaven’s utmost deep
Gives up her stars, and like a flock of sheep
They pass before his eye, are numbered, and roll on!
The tempest is his steed, he rides the air;
And the abyss shouts from her depth laid bare,
Heaven, hast thou secrets? Man unveils me; I have none.”
Augustus
…
They are philosophy and necessarily so.
For example, the demarcation problem in the philosophy of science can't be answered using a scientific method.
Just saying 'these areas of philosophy should now be called science' does nothing to improve 'quality control', it just changes the label we use.
If you say philosophy is useless simply because you've decided to arbitrarily rename any useful philosophy as science because
science is 'good knowledge' and not science is 'bad knowledge', it's very hard to say scientism doesn't exist.
Many 'useless, bitter' philosophers would suddenly become noble, important scientists without changing what it is they actually do. Doesn't that seem a bit strange to you?
Hegel was basically the most wrong person in the world ever so I wouldn't get too caught up in what he said
But we know this as his philosophy comes into contact with reality, which is how we measure utility. Despite what you think, philosophy does have quality control (at least some parts of philosophy).
Also, that we must discard reality in favour of theories is not an unknown view among scientists, particularly economists trying to explain why their models failed despite the 'science' saying this was almost impossible.
These were evolutions that occurred over the medieval and early modern period, rather than a single event lead by a single figure, but for convenience Bacon's 'New Organon' ('Organon' was a work by Aristotle) in the 17th C.
Novum Organum - Wikipedia
Interestingly 'The Renaissance' and later 'Scientific Revolution' are often put down to the 'rediscovery' of Greek science. Whereas they key change was actually its rejection and replacement.
Logic, reasoning, etc. contribute to flawed perception and are philosophical issues often outside the scope of scientific methodologies.
PureX
Veteran Member
Science is not 'scientism'. Of course "physicalism" (the actual philosophical term is 'materialism') is not the same as science. But is it part-n-parcel with 'scientism', or "physicalism" as you call it. No real scientist agrees with the ideals espoused by 'sceintism'. They know better than anyone what science can and cannot investigate, how, and to what result.
It seems I am not communicating very effectively.
You have illustrated nicely the progressive way in which science works. I agree wholeheartedly.
My intent was not to say science knows or understand all. It is my position that what we know we hold with degrees of confidence and outside of that is all that remains unknown. Allthough we continue to progress into the unknown, we, as a species, may never know or understand everything.
What I am trying to say is Science can ask, and attempt to answer, any question that isn't purely subjective preference. For we all know, there is no accounting for taste.
Hmmmm. I thought we covered this. To what scientific method do you refer? There is no such thing as a singular method. As a matter of fact, any set of methods employed to answer a specific question would be tailored to that question. It all depends on identifying and accounting for all variables and constants that apply to the problem and determining the methods necessary to evaluate that set. And as always, the investigator is always a variable that must be accounted for.
Whatever method or methods you choose to solve the demarcation problem would be the scientific method employed. And there is always the possibility that there is no problem. That science and philosophy are the same thing, or rather have the same purpose and goal.
Ahhh. We are getting close to the light-bulb moment.
If we move everything under one banner, and to be a member of that set means that reasoned and rational skepticism is applied to all set members, that no set member is immune from re-evaluation, and all activity within this set must be performed under principles and standards that provide the best possible quality control, then I do not see the problem.In what you consider to be Science today, there have been ideas and theories that were shown to be incomplete or entirely wrong. These ideas then simply become part of the history of science and help document the journey. The work of many useless and bitter philosophers would be evaluated under the principles and standards of this new overarching banner, and if found to be useless, the proponents of those ideas would not become noble or important. They would simply be another part of the story of mankind's quest to answer general and fundamental questions.
And so, Hegel, moved under a new overarching label, would remain wrong.
Well, measuring utility seems like science to me.
As to the last sentence, you add the qualifier that only “some parts of philosophy” have some form of quality control. Does that mean the majority of Philosophy has no quality control measures, no method with which to evaluate veracity, no mechanism to mitigate the imperfection and fallibility of the investigator?
At a fundamental level, what is the point of asking any question? Presumably to get some real, valid result. The result will either be a valid answer, or a conclusion that there is not enough information to provide an answer or there is no answer, or lastly, that the question itself was flawed or invalid. Some mechanism or metric must be employed to evaluate the process and the resulting conclusions, otherwise, what is the point? We simply make up answers and whoever lobbies the most support for their imagined conclusion will be considered to have answered the question satisfactorily?
If we truly wish to find answers to our questions, every conclusion must be subject to reasoned and rational skepticism. Wouldn’t you agree? If yes, then the overarching label for this whole endeavor of asking questions should reflect that requirement. Using the label Science, to me, seems to achieve this goal.
This statement certainly needs clarification for me. Are they discarding reality or simply acknowledging that they are not working with a complete understanding of reality, have yet to identify all the variables?
The period you describe seems to mark the divergence of Science from Philosophy. Are you saying that at this same time there was a change in the way 'non-science Philosophy' was practiced, that prior to this, Philosophy was performed the “old way”, and from this point emerged both Science and Modern Philosophy? And I certainly understand that all the changes we are speaking of are the result of evolving processes and that phraseology such as “the old way” is quite nebulous. I just want to clarify whether you are saying that what you consider to be Philosophy has undergone a change in practice that is distinct from how Philosophy was generally practiced before this point.
I agree that logic and reasoning can contribute to flawed conclusions (with logic and reasoning being applied to perceptions). However, to me, they are of fundamental concern to Science and are questions that must be addressed with all the vigor of Scientific Inquiry. Since some valid method is required to answer a question, and the point of science is to answer questions, then such methods are scientific methods and within the scope of Science.
You seem to hold a position that Science is limited to some narrow scope or class of methodologies. That the tools of Science are limited to certain specific tools and science is only done when it is with these tools. Outside of this is Philosophy. Yet you already acknowledge the adaptability and evolving process of science when you said in post #85, “As science evolves and adapts, so do its philosophical foundations and assumptions, same as they always have done.” which indicates to me some understanding that the toolbox of science is in no way fixed and static.
I’m beginning to conclude that you are arguing to preserve Philosophy as separate from Science specifically because you want to protect Philosophy from quality control and verification. There seems to be an underlying fear that there are aspects of Philosophy (potentially large aspects, by your comments) that will not hold up under the standards set by Science.
Last edited:
Poetry, and Literature more broadly, have great value in my worldview.
I was certainly not asking you to list all the things that may fall under either category, I was simply asking for some clarification. I do not agree that the primary concern of Science is the discovery of technology, but yes, technology is a byproduct and can be a specific goal.
For my definition of Science, I provided:
As for Philosophy, I am in essence saying that Philosophy is Science without quality control.
And to your last comment, certainly Aesthetics need no justification to have value.
And I would also say that the desire to know and understand does not make one rapacious. You almost seem to be saying the whole enterprise of discovery is harmful and leads to misery, that only in ignorance shall we find bliss.
cladking
Well-Known Member
This simply isn't true. Nobody knows the limitations of science even in the here and now. Saying such limits are known postulates that current knowledge is accurate and complete within itself.
I certainly agree that real scientists have a pretty good handle on what can be investigated right now and the meaning of what is already known. However I suspect the number of real scientists is far lower than what you think. I doubt there are more than several hundred in the world. And not one of them works in some rather major fields. There are millions of competent scientists who aren't up to date with state of the art except in very their own fields but many of these don't understand the limitations of science even in their own specialties.
Every new breakthrough extends the limits of what is possible to learn. However, we can never understand all of reality through experiment alone. It has been a long time since there was any major breakthrough but it might not be much longer. Technology is catching up with theory.
PureX
Veteran Member
Science does not ask any questions. Science simply formulates objective methods of testing the functional viability of our various proposed theoretical answers to the questions we humans ask. Asking questions is no more scientific than it is religious, or philosophical, or artistic. Humans ask questions because that's what humans are designed to do, to survive. And we test our theoretical 'answers' to the questions we ask for their functionality because increased functionality is more precisely how we survive. None of this is a pursuit of truth so much as it's a pursuit of functionality for the sake of our continued survival. And in that pursuit scientific methodology has shown itself to be very effective.
Unfortunately, (or fortunately, depending on how you look at it) our natural human curiosity gets us asking questions for which we cannot ascertain a universal objective answer. We can only formulate various possibilities. And those, the scientific process of investigation cannot explore, validate, or invalidate, because these are not questions related to the realm of function, but rather to the realm of meaning, and purpose. And it's in response to these kinds of questions that philosophy, religion, and art are humanity's way of exploring and evaluating these various possibilities (theoretical answers) for these kinds of questions.
You are clearly a philosophical materialist. So for you, many of these questions are simply "immaterial". Or a "subjective preference" to consider. A kind of aberration of the human thought process which is and should be kept in the service of increasing our objective functionality. And that is very much in the character of 'scientism'. A kind of philosophical materialism on steroids; elevating science, which is only a process for investigating physical functionality, to something far greater than it ever was, or ever could be.
What you mean is "without functional validation". Functionality being the quality required for the validation of any philosophical theory, in your mind. But the purpose of philosophy is not to achieve maximum functionality. It is to explore the valuable possibilities within the questions of meaning and purpose. You are in essence calling an apple a failure for not meeting the criteria of being an orange. Same with the other methods of human investigation intended to explore the questions meaning and purpose, like religion and art.Poetry, and Literature more broadly, have great value in my worldview.
As for Philosophy, I am in essence saying that Philosophy is Science without quality control.
Actually, 'aesthetics' is a whole category of philosophical exploration related to the content, meaning, and purpose of 'art'. Every philosopher from Plato onward threw his 2 cents into that debate, and they're still arguing about it to this day.
And amazingly enough, ALL their arguments were and are valid, to a degree, and within their proper context. Which is why, of all the ways we humans endeavor to explore our questions, I appreciate art the most. It does the least harm, while providing the most freedom.
Last edited:
Yazata
Active Member
Until the early 19th century, what we call 'science' today was known as 'natural philosophy'. Isaac Newton thought of himself as a "natural philosopher".
What happened was that after the 17th century "Scientific Revolution", what we today call 'science' experienced great success applying simple mathematics to regularities observed in nature. So doing that, and approaching problems in that sort of way, started to be institutionalized. It acquired its own professional organizations, publications and university departments. People started to specialize in solving particular sorts of problems in particular sorts of ways.
I guess that what I'm suggesting is that the distinction between philosophy and science might be as much historical and sociological as anything else. "Natural science" is a former philosophical specialty that spun off for historical reasons and gradually acquired its own separate identity.
Having said that, I agree very strongly with what I take to be your point that science in no way makes philosophy obsolete or replaces philosophy. In fact the belief that it does seems to me to probably be an example of scientism.
And along with the growth and institutionalization of science was the idea prevalent in the 'Enlightenment' and 19th century down to today, that if the successful methods of the natural sciences could just be applied to every sort of question, superstition and obscurantism could be swept aside and the Earth turned into a paradise. So that's another source of scientism.
The way I conceive of it, in the "analytic" tradition at least, is that philosophy as it's practiced today is an inquiry into the most fundamental concepts and deepest assumptions of any field of study. So in the study of religion, a philosopher of religion might inquire into what the word 'God' means, into how human beings can acquire knowledge of transcendant realities, how true revelation can be distinguished from false, what 'faith' means, and all sorts of questions like that.
It's just false to think that philosophy doesn't accept that our perceptions and judgements can be flawed. That kind of skepticism about the possibility of knowledge was the bread and butter of the ancient skeptics like Sextus Empiricus, whose writings were recovered in the Renaissance and might arguably have provided some of the impetus for the 'Scientific Revolution'. The influence of the Pyrrhonists can obviously be seen in Montaigne and in the first part of Descartes' Meditations.
Yes!! I agree 110%. Your examples of philosophical questions implicit in science and in the practice of science are very good. Science needs to constantly examine its own concepts and assumptions. Scientistic critics of philosophy (often physicists who imagine themselves as the world's new metaphysicians I guess, laying down what is and isn't ultimately real) always seem to just assume the validity of their own concepts and their own methodology, without a great deal of examination of what their concepts mean and how they are justified, and why their methodology seems to them to work.
Einstein pointed that out. It was easy for 19th century classical physics to take its foundations for granted. It was what they were all taught in college for heavens sake! But then along came relativity and quantum theory that threw everything in doubt and demanded a reexamination of physics' most entrenched concepts.
So physicists were forced out of their comfort zone and the best of them were forced to once again become philosophers. Philosophy is inquiry into the deepest foundational levels of any human intellectual activity.
Last edited:
Science does not ask any questions. Science simply formulates objective methods of testing the functional viability of our various proposed theoretical answers to the questions we humans ask. Asking questions is no more scientific than it is religious, or philosophical, or artistic. Humans ask questions because that's what humans are designed to do, to survive. And we test our theoretical 'answers' to the questions we ask for their functionality because increased functionality is more precisely how we survive. None of this is a pursuit of truth so much as it's a pursuit of functionality for the sake of our continued survival. And in that pursuit scientific methodology has shown itself to be very effective.
Unfortunately, (or fortunately, depending on how you look at it) our natural human curiosity gets us asking questions for which we cannot ascertain a universal objective answer. We can only formulate various possibilities. And those, the scientific process of investigation cannot explore, validate, or invalidate, because these are not questions related to the realm of function, but rather to the realm of meaning, and purpose. And it's in response to these kinds of questions that philosophy, religion, and art are humanity's way of exploring and evaluating these various possibilities (theoretical answers) for these kinds of questions.
You are clearly a philosophical materialist. So for you, many of these questions are simply "immaterial". Or a "subjective preference" to consider. A kind of aberration of the human thought process which is and should be kept in the service of increasing our objective functionality. And that is very much in the character of 'scientism'. A kind of philosophical materialism on steroids; elevating science, which is only a process for investigating physical functionality, to something far greater than it ever was, or ever could be.
What you mean is "without functional validation". Functionality being the quality required for the validation of any philosophical theory, in your mind. But the purpose of philosophy is not to achieve maximum functionality. It is to explore the valuable possibilities within the questions of meaning and purpose. You are in essence calling an apple a failure for not meeting the criteria of being an orange. Same with the other methods of human investigation intended to explore the questions meaning and purpose, like religion and art.
Actually, 'aesthetics' is a whole category of philosophical exploration related to the content, meaning, and purpose of 'art'. Every philosopher from Plato onward threw his 2 cents into that debate, and they're still arguing about it to this day.
I get it. You want to preserve a home for artificial constructs of reality, where they can remain unmolested, and that home is Philosophy. And I certainly get why. You have shown deep concern that without objective morals and ethics external to humanity, anarchy will ensue and humanity will destroy itself. However, I simply disagree with this. I think we can, as a species and at some future time, set aside our need for artificial constructs of reality, be confident in what is know, live peacefully in the known world, and be comfortable with there being a persistent, great unknown.
And this does not mean imagination, wonder, awe, creativity all goes away when we give up artificial constructs of reality. Imagining, dreaming, speculating, guessing, hoping are all part of being human and all necessary to our continued development as a species.
It is not ideological radicalism to want what is consider to be real, upon which real life communal decisions are made, to actually be real. The more I look at this idea of scientism, the more confident I become that it is merely backlash from the perceived threat to the preservation of artificial constructs of reality.
All this is not to say that the real problems that have been used to support the idea of scientism are not real problems, they are. But they are the same problems shared by every academic and professional discipline. That science is misused by the lay community, that poor science gets done, that some will exaggerate scope and meaning of findings, all this is expected by science because science acknowledges that it is we imperfect humans engaged in this process. What stands out in regards to science, is that science a least makes a concerted effort to identify and correct these issues. Can that be said of all other disciplines?
PureX
Veteran Member
Every scientist knows that relative functionality does not equate to "truth". No scientist ever claims that they have discovered any truth. Nor even that they have proven any theory, true. Scientists understand full well that what they are investigating is ONLY whether or not a proposed theory about how some aspect of existence functions, does or doesn't, within the parameters of the experiment that we set up to test it. That's it. ... No truth. No proof. No wisdom. No meaning. No purpose. No God or not God. No moral or ethical imperatives, just 'this particular theory functions in this particular objectively tested context'. That's it. Everything else is 'scientism'. And it is clearly running rampant here on RF.