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

[MikeF]

Philosophy has always changed. There were limited forms of empiricism in the Greek, Roman and Arabic philosophical traditions.

If you want an overview this is a good place to start and covers a lot (it will take several hours of your time though). While it is about science and religion, these were really inseparable in many ways.


Science religion and modernity lecture series

From an old thread: Science and religion: history

This is a fascinating series of lectures delivered as part of the prestigious Gifford Lectures series Edinburgh University by the academic historian of science Peter Harrison (formerly of Oxford University and now of the University of Queensland: just to clarify it is not 'religious apologetics').

It focuses on the relationship between religion and science in the Western tradition and is a comprehensive refutation of the 'conflict thesis' that exists in popular discourse (although long since discredited among historians).

It's not really presented as a refutation as such, more a comprehensive history of the development of both the concepts of religion and science throughout history.

More than simply making the point that the narrative of conflict between the disciplines is wrong, it really makes the point that it is nonsensical as neither religion or science in the modern usages of the term really existed prior to the 18th C.

Starting from the ancient Greeks, it argues that natural philosophy, which is often seen as proto-science bears little resemblance to modern conceptions of science. As the name suggests, natural philosophy was a branch of philosophy and had different aims to modern science rather than simply being the same thing under a different name.

For the Greeks philosophy was a method of cultivating virtue and the good life and science was a means to an end in this regard. 'Science' was thus an internal virtue rather than a reified discipline.

Moreover, the idea that science was a 'handmaiden of theology' was not a Christian formulation, but was Aristotelean in origin. Theology was thus intrinsic to Greek science.

With the rise of Christianity, the theological component of Greek knowledge was ignored due to being superseded by Christian theology, but natural philosophy always remained a discipline in which God played a significant role.

Due to certain theological beliefs such as the Fall of Man, Christian scientists like Boyle, Newton and Bacon rejected the Greek belief that reason alone was sufficient in order to practice natural philosophy. This gave rise to the experimental approach prevalent in modern science. At first this approach was widely mocked as being useless, and mainly gained social legitimacy (and thus funding and longevity) due to its perceived benefit to theology.

In the early modern period, science and religion transformed from being internal virtues to become externalised, reified concepts that developed into the modern terms as we would recognise today. This resulted in the modern idea that science, and society in general, progress on a gradually upward arc, and the contrasting belief that religion was regressive and held back progress. Prior to this, presenting such a view would have made little conceptual sense.

While I appreciate most people will have no intention of listening to 6 hours worth of lectures, the odd person might. I would especially recommend it to anyone who believes in the Conflict Thesis as it explains very clearly the massive flaws in such beliefs with recourse to numerous primary texts and analysis of historical data.

If you only watch/listen to one of them then I'd recommend 5 science and progress.

After reading the abstracts for the lectures and what you have written above, I would not consider this a neutral or objective treatment of the subject.

 

[Augustus]

After reading the abstracts for the lectures and what you have written above, I would not consider this a neutral or objective treatment of the subject.

What specifically makes you think that given you are presumably pretty unfamiliar with the topics covered?

History is not a neutral or objective discipline. Much science isn't even neutral or objective. The lectures are an explanation of a complex issue based on lots of evidence delivered by a leading secular scholar in the field. It is necessarily interpretive of the facts as all history is.

What you are saying though I guess is that you have prejudged it as biased and thus worthless.

If you prejudge everything that doesn't say what you want it to (philosophers are biased and can be dismissed out of hand, historians of science are biased and can be dismissed out of hand) then you just exist in a comfortable thought bubble rather than trying to get as complete an understanding as possible and end up arguing against these false representations of the disciplines you think need to be thrown in the bin.

 

[Augustus]

think it is safe to say that we both agree that a significant change in attitudes occurred regarding the subcategory of Natural Philosophy around the 17th century such that a schism occurred. This schism resulted, eventually, into this subcategory of Philosophy branching off into what will become a separate and distinct discipline, later to be called Science.

Is it not important to ask why this schism occurred? What changed that a subcategory of Philosophy felt it no longer appropriate to be considered a part of Philosophy? After the schism, the overarching goals of the two disciplines were still the same, to obtain answers to general and fundamental questions. If the goals didn’t change, then is it the approach that is different? There is general consensus in the acknowledgement of the success of this off-shoot discipline to find answers and build an understanding of the questions it sets before itself. Is the success of this new discipline simply related to the types of questions asked, or is it more fundamental than that? Is it not important to examine what is the difference between the approach of these now separate disciplines that still have the same fundamental goal? What is gained by keeping them separate? What might be gained by bringing them together under the same fold? For me, these are important questions.

The hard distinction between the 2 discipline is the legacy of positivists like August Comte, who founded sociology, and believed you could create a 'science of everything'. He had a teleological view of history where you progressed through 3 stages religious - metaphysical - scientific, which, ironically, is a very unscientific stance to take.

Scientific Philosophy (Science) has means to convey the surety of ideas that seems to be lacking in Philosophy. Scientific Philosophy has fact, hypothesis, theory, and law. Philosophy makes no such distinctions. Each Philosophical Study is presented as a finished work. Unlike Scientific Philosophy, whereby ideas that are found to be no longer valid are either revised or superseded and set aside (eg. Geocentrism), philosophical works seem immune to such fate. How many philosophical works on mind and consciousness have been removed from philosophical canon? Are none found to be lacking?

This is where I think you are creating a strawman philosophy to argue against.

Why do you think 'Each Philosophical Study is presented as a finished work'? What would be your examples? Many philosophical texts are revisions or additions to previous texts which suggests the author's are well aware that texts are not 'finished work'.

Also you seem to be arguing that philosophical ideas are never 'revised, superseded or set aside' in the same post you noted how in the 17th C many ideas were 'revised, superseded or set aside' (and many others have been before and after)

They might still teach Aristotle today, but that doesn't mean his ideas haven't been revised, superseded or set aside'.

Logical Positivism, the father of modern scientism, has generally been rejected. One reason being its reliance on reductionism, the idea that phenomena can be explained by isolating individual components of larger systems.

This doesn't allow for systems to have emergent properties: Emergence - Wikipedia

How many philosophical works on mind and consciousness have been removed from philosophical canon? Are none found to be lacking?

As mentioned before, "removed from the canon" and "is generally rejected as outdated" are 2 different things.

Plato's theory of mind for example would be "part of the canon" and also "generally rejected as outdated" as people no longer believe that the mind is completely rational.

Philosophy and Science seem to be siloed into very distinct categories. I think it is time to rethink that.

I agree, but it is mostly practitioners of science who are the ones who are doing this.

Philosophers of science don't think that, although scientistic thinkers like Tyson, Dawkins, Krauss, etc. do.

As Einstein noted, science would be well served to remember its historical and philosophical foundations to help avoid the axiomatic and methodological ruts that impede progress.

 

[PureX]

To be fair, you are strongly motivated to maintain the status quo as you see it. I don't see you as being open to reassessments in regards to this subject.

To be fair, I don't think you have any idea what I am motivated to think or do. I will happily "reassess the status quo" regarding the differences between philosophy and science so long as I am given a logical reason to do so.

PureX - "It would certainly appear that there are four primary ways in which we humans try to understand our existential experience. Those are art, science, religion, and philosophy. And they are designated as separate endeavors because they are each addressing the mystery from a very different perspective."

"Art addresses the mystery by seeking out, capturing/depicting, exploring (and often testing) "what matters" to us. What has significance, and value, and meaning to us. Art explores who we are, and how we are, and shares what it finds with us all."​

I look at this category differently. For me the category represents communication of ideas. Art would broadly include the visual as well as Literature and Performance, etc. As communication, it can be used to communicate all the things you suggest above, but it can also communicate the silly and the mundane or simply non-sensical. This category is highly subjective. The artist may intend to communicate a particular thing, while the viewer or receiver of the communication may perceive or receive something entirely different. What may be meaningful to one is not universally meaningful, and that's ok.

Of course art is highly subjective. What matters to us is subjective, and art is about what matters to us. It seek to identify and present what matters to us, to us, so we can learn about it, and from it, and about each other from it. Not just what we perceive as being significant, but also why.

Religion, on the other hand, explores the subject of how we behave, and how the world behaves in return. Art explores the VALUE of existence, and religion explores the BEHAVIOR of existence. Of course these areas of investigation overlap in some ways, but they remain fundamentally different ways of interacting with and trying to understand the mystery of our own existence.

For me, religion, the myth stories of religion, arose at our most primitive beginnings. This new species with a rational brain can now recognize event patterns, draw meaningful conclusions, and anticipate consequences. Now aware and able to anticipate all the random and uncontrollable threats in the world, our primitive ancestors imagined agency in these events and sought means to appease and control the agents of chaos and random misfortune.

We are still "not aware and able to anticipate all the random and uncontrollable threats in the world", and we are still seeking "agency in these events and means to appease and control the agents of chaos and random misfortune"; mostly through behavioral modification. Through trying to align our behavior with that mysterious existential 'agency'.

These early beliefs were passed to successive generations and evolved as human society evolved. And as you suggest, religion became intertwined throughout all aspects of society and culture. The myths of religion are mankind's subjective and emotional way of dealing with tragedy, misfortune, the unknown, and mortality.

Religion is one of a number of significant ways that we humans endeavor to deal with the mystery of our own existence. Yes. And it's fundamentally behavioral. As I stated.

In regards to philosophy, I don't understand what you mean by exploring and testing logical paradigms.

Well, for example, philosopher "A" proposes a materialist paradigm as a 'true' conceptualization of existence, complete with a set of logical assertions intended to support this contention. Then philosopher "B" takes on the task of debating the logic laid forth in support of this philosophical paradigm, to see if the logic holds up. If it does, then the proposed philosophical paradigm stands until someone comes along to undermine it's logic. If it doesn't hold up, philosopher "A" goes back to his 'study' and looks to correct his errors. And so on it goes. Philosophy is a process of identifying, proposing, and testing through logical debate, a conceptual truth-paradigm.

The way you have described things above, it seems both Science and Philosophy are exploring the existential mystery of being. So to me, the goal seems the same. So how exactly are they different?

All of these endeavors are exploring the existential mystery of being. But they are each endeavoring to do it in a different way: with different goals and processes. With art, our goal is to identify and give form to "value". So that we can understand what it is, and what it means to us, and why. With religion, our goal is to gain some means of control (agency) in relation to this mystery that frightens us, circumstantially. And we try to do this by studying behavioral interaction. We try to control our circumstances by controlling our behaviors in relation to those circumstances.

With philosophy, our goal is to gain some understanding of this existential mystery through logical reasoning, and debate; with the assumption that the truth is logical and that existence can therefor be logically ascertained. While with science, our goal is to uncover the mechanisms at work within the physicality of existence. Not just for our own increased functionality, but to give is a 'working picture' of physical existence.

 

[cladking]

Why would ancient Egyptians needed to have a word for "geyser"??

"Geysers are rare; most of the world’s active geysers occur in just five countries: Chile, Iceland, New Zealand, Russia, and United States of America. "

You seem to want to talk about everything but the subject. This is one of the most common symptoms of scientism.

But then you'll come to a thread where "geysers" or Ancient Language is the subject and talk about anything else. Above all you have a deep and abiding belief in the omniscience of science without even understanding the meaning of metaphysics/ epistemology.

 

[gnostic]

But then you'll come to a thread where "geysers" or Ancient Language is the subject and talk about anything else.

That because you seemed incapable of understanding that languages, translation, editing, literature, prose or poetry - regardless if they were ancient or modern - have nothing to do with science whatsoever.

Translating ancient texts, like trying to translate the ancient Egyptian word “geysers” from the Pyramid Text, don’t fall under the purview of Natural Sciences or Physical Sciences, but under philology, which itself fall under Humanities.

Anything like philology, ancient literature and translation of foreign ancient/modern languages, are studies in Humanities, therefore it doesn’t require to be Falsifiable, don’t have to follow the guidelines of Scientific Method, and don’t have to be subjected to Peer Review.

I noticed in the past thread, when you bring up these silly subjects of Ancient Languages, and how Egyptologists conspired against you, and rejecting your theory and your translation under Peer Review, your conspiracy theory is absurdly baseless because neither Egyptology, nor translation of Pyramid Text, are not subjected to Peer Review, and never have been.

Egyptology are multi-disciplines that covered Egyptian history, Egyptian art/architecture and Egyptian texts (eg hieroglyphs, hieratic or demotic), all fall under Humanities, not sciences.

So your argument is nonsense.

 

[oldbadger]

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?

Useful info...
I might use it in future.
These days I wonder 'who is a scientist?' or 'what is science?'
A meaningless 'it' word seeking to gain credibility?

I must remember to use 'scientism' in future.

 

[Augustus]

Anything like philology, ancient literature and translation of foreign ancient/modern languages, are studies in Humanities, therefore it doesn't... have to be subjected to Peer Review... neither Egyptology, nor translation of Pyramid Text, are not subjected to Peer Review, and never have been.

No idea where you got that idea from, but it is completely wrong.

Most scholarly journals in the humanities are certainly subject to peer review.

What makes you think they are not?

 

[Willamena]

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?

I don't think you are missing anything. Scientism is a fallacy.

 

[MikeF]

The hard distinction between the 2 discipline is the legacy of positivists like August Comte, who founded sociology, and believed you could create a 'science of everything'. He had a teleological view of history where you progressed through 3 stages religious - metaphysical - scientific, which, ironically, is a very unscientific stance to take.

Well, I think we are making progress. You agree that at the very least there is not a hard distinction between Philosophy and Science, which leaves room for my thesis that they are labels that describe the same purpose and goal, just practiced in different ways.

You love to throw out the philosophy term Logical Positivism, whatever that is exactly. One technique people use in discussions is to associate what someone is saying with a particular label that carries a whole set of associated ideas, along with all their related problems and issues.

I am not advocating or arguing from a position of Logical Positivism. If you want to throw a label on my ideas try something like "MikeF's Views".

This is where I think you are creating a strawman philosophy to argue against.

Why do you think 'Each Philosophical Study is presented as a finished work'? What would be your examples? Many philosophical texts are revisions or additions to previous texts which suggests the author's are well aware that texts are not 'finished work'.

Also you seem to be arguing that philosophical ideas are never 'revised, superseded or set aside' in the same post you noted how in the 17th C many ideas were 'revised, superseded or set aside' (and many others have been before and after)

They might still teach Aristotle today, but that doesn't mean his ideas haven't been revised, superseded or set aside'.

Certainly 'finished work' was a poor turn of phrase. I settled on a phrase that does not adequately express what I am trying to convey.

Let's look at Plato for a moment. How would you characterize Plato's attitude towards his idea of The Forms? Did he consider it a working hypothesis? Did he consider it a Theory? Or was Plato quite convinced that the Forms were fundamental and true?

Historically, I do not get the impression that philosophical schools of thought or philosophical -ism's are presented as hypotheses.

I see much of Philosophy as an expression of the anthropocentric personality and psychology of the Philosopher. Yes, Philosophy changes over time, yes philosophical ideas get set aside. But why? They are only set aside in the light of our ever increasing understanding of how life and the cosmos actually work. Absent the confrontation of actual reality, no philosophy would be set aside if it continued to personally speak to its adherents. The coexistence of Platonism, Stoicism, and Epicureanism, I think, speaks to this idea of Philosophy reflecting personality.

Logical Positivism, the father of modern scientism, has generally been rejected. One reason being its reliance on reductionism, the idea that phenomena can be explained by isolating individual components of larger systems.

This doesn't allow for systems to have emergent properties: Emergence - Wikipedia

Logical Positivism, again, is a philosophical concept and is a reflection of the discipline of Philosophy. So too is the word Reductionism.

Let's not forget what we are talking about here. We are talking about how best to solve problems and gain understanding of complex subjects. There are great benefits to breaking complexity down into identifiable contributing parts to understand the properties of these constituent parts. And as you suggest, we still need to put the pieces back together and see how the whole functions in our new-found understanding of the underlying parts.

Good investigation is about using any and all applicable methods and tools to help us solve the problem. To both be able to narrowly focus on on small aspect, while always keeping in mind the complexity of how everything is interacting together.

I think there is a great disadvantage to this philosophical mindset of categorical thinking, compartmentalizing ideas and labeling them with an '-ism'.

I agree, but it is mostly practitioners of science who are the ones who are doing this.

Philosophers of science don't think that, although scientistic thinkers like Tyson, Dawkins, Krauss, etc. do.

As Einstein noted, science would be well served to remember its historical and philosophical foundations to help avoid the axiomatic and methodological ruts that impede progress.

Whether Scientist or Philosopher, we are talking about people, and for the most part we are talking about very bright people.

If we look back to your list of questions that you considered philosophical:

"....
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?
etc ..."
​

The scientists that you reference would consider your philosophical questions as integral and part of the whole process of 'doing science well'. That instead of seeing these questions as belonging to a separate discipline, it is all part-and-parcel to the same discipline. "Good Philosophy' is all part of 'Good Science.'

So what is it that they are actually rejecting? I would suggest that they are rejecting an anthropocentric ego based practice of Philosophy. The questions are the same for Philosophy and Science, it is the approach to these questions that differ. The scientific approach is an incremental one that fully realizes that we do not see the whole picture. That to answer these fundamental questions, we must start with what is known and understood about the world and continue to build from there. The scientific approach holds knowledge with degrees of confidence, that without knowing the complete picture, newly acquired information can always change or reshape our understanding of what is known. And the scientific approach has the confidence to declare that there are things we just don't know, that there are questions that remain unanswerable because we have insufficient information. And as always, the scientific approach is about mitigating the psychological needs and wants of the investigator, the fallible human observer, to take the ego out of the process.

It is Philosophy based on insufficient information that the scientist you listed are rejecting. My example of the philosophical approach to the mind illustrates this.

For me, the only reason to keep Philosophy separate from Science is to allow Philosophy to be practiced untethered from a grounding or foundation in reality.

 

[MikeF]

Useful info...
I might use it in future.
These days I wonder 'who is a scientist?' or 'what is science?'
A meaningless 'it' word seeking to gain credibility?

I must remember to use 'scientism' in future.

Science seeking credibility? Hardly. It is Philosophy that is trying to hold on to credibility in light of Science.

 

[MikeF]

To be fair, I don't think you have any idea what I am motivated to think or do. I will happily "reassess the status quo" regarding the differences between philosophy and science so long as I am given a logical reason to do so.

You are right. I cannot speak to your motivation in this regard. I apologize.

Well, for example, philosopher "A" proposes a materialist paradigm as a 'true' conceptualization of existence, complete with a set of logical assertions intended to support this contention. Then philosopher "B" takes on the task of debating the logic laid forth in support of this philosophical paradigm, to see if the logic holds up. If it does, then the proposed philosophical paradigm stands until someone comes along to undermine it's logic. If it doesn't hold up, philosopher "A" goes back to his 'study' and looks to correct his errors. And so on it goes. Philosophy is a process of identifying, proposing, and testing through logical debate, a conceptual truth-paradigm.

This is all mental gymnastics if none of it is based or grounded in what is real or fact. Now you will tell me that there is no 'real' and there is no 'fact', which only further disqualifies this whole process.

If this is what Philosophy is, then this is why Philosophy has no value and cannot make any gains in our actual understanding life and the cosmos.

What we know is what we experience. Confidence in what we know only increases with verification and corroboration. This is how we accumulate knowledge and understanding of the world. The mental gymnastics you describe above only has value if it is based on knowledge that we have confidence in. Science is Philosophy, just with a better foundation and the ability to acknowledge that for many questions there is insufficient information on which to provide a meaningful answer.

Philosophy seems perfectly content to provide answers without sufficient information, which is a problem.

 

[gnostic]

No idea where you got that idea from, but it is completely wrong.

Most scholarly journals in the humanities are certainly subject to peer review.

What makes you think they are not?

Arts also fall under the category of humanities.

Can you Peer Review drawing, paintings, or sculpture?

Literature have wide range subject matters, many of them highly subjective, can you peer review all of them?

And of what writings or ancient arts? Are there ancient peer reviewers for their works?

Did someone peer review the Pyramid Text or Homer’s Iliad or Virgil’s Aeneid when they were originally composed?

Art and literature can imaginative and individualistic and personal as the artists and authors wanted to be. And while scientists can be imaginative too, Science should be about their works and not about scientists themselves, for example, a scientific theory shouldn’t be personal, otherwise it will lead to bias.

Sure there may be experts in some fields, but humanities disciplines do not require peer reviewers to ensure that artists or authors to follow the requirements of scientific method, such as evidence needed to be found and tested, experiments needed to repeatable, and that evidence or experiments must either verify or refute the models.

Humanities are not the same things as science, and humanities don’t need to be objective.

 

[MikeF]

What specifically makes you think that given you are presumably pretty unfamiliar with the topics covered?

History is not a neutral or objective discipline. Much science isn't even neutral or objective. The lectures are an explanation of a complex issue based on lots of evidence delivered by a leading secular scholar in the field. It is necessarily interpretive of the facts as all history is.

What you are saying though I guess is that you have prejudged it as biased and thus worthless.

If you prejudge everything that doesn't say what you want it to (philosophers are biased and can be dismissed out of hand, historians of science are biased and can be dismissed out of hand) then you just exist in a comfortable thought bubble rather than trying to get as complete an understanding as possible and end up arguing against these false representations of the disciplines you think need to be thrown in the bin.

The actors in history may not be neutral or objective, but historians certainly should strive to be. And frankly, science is all about being as objective as possible.

Here is the abstract describing the sixth video in the series:

“6. Religion and the Future of Science

The last few decades have witnessed a growing public disillusionment with a scientific enterprise that for much of the twentieth century had enjoyed unparalleled prestige.

The narrative of progress without limit now also looks a little threadbare. This final lecture considers whether the new ‘flight from science’ represents a regrettable defection from reason and ‘Enlightenment values’, or whether it presents an opportunity to reconnect the study of nature with the kinds of moral and religious values that once played a prominent role in its genesis and development.”​

Do you not see an agenda being conveyed in this abstract? We both acknowledge the vastness and complexity of history. That reality means that we can all pick and choose selected facts with which to create a compelling narrative. This is especially true if we are trying to reach a desired conclusion as opposed to organically arriving at a conclusion based on all the facts. In another thread you and I have had this very discussion about the myth narratives that we as individuals and societies create.

My view is not that philosophers or historians are more or less biased, but that everyone has biases, even Einstein who you love to quote. Everything we read we must read critically. We always must ask ourselves, “Is the author giving us the whole story, what is being left out, not considered?” Surely you agree that we should not simply take things at face value. I am not saying that bias renders the product useless. It simply means that we must identify it if we can, see how it may influence conclusions, and factor that into our evaluation of the product.

Given that everyone can be biased to a varying degree for varying reasons, it is naïve on your part to assume that one cannot recognize certain speech flags that may indicate an expressed bias. Does the abstract above not raise any flags for you?

 

[Augustus]

Arts also fall under the category of humanities.

Can you Peer Review drawing, paintings, or sculpture?

Literature have wide range subject matters, many of them highly subjective, can you peer review all of them?

And of what writings or ancient arts? Are there ancient peer reviewers for their works?

Did someone peer review the Pyramid Text or Homer’s Iliad or Virgil’s Aeneid when they were originally composed?

Art and literature can imaginative and individualistic and personal as the artists and authors wanted to be. And while scientists can be imaginative too, Science should be about their works and not about scientists themselves, for example, a scientific theory shouldn’t be personal, otherwise it will lead to bias.

Sure there may be experts in some fields, but humanities disciplines do not require peer reviewers to ensure that artists or authors to follow the requirements of scientific method, such as evidence needed to be found and tested, experiments needed to repeatable, and that evidence or experiments must either verify or refute the models.

Humanities are not the same things as science, and humanities don’t need to be objective.

You seem to be mistaken about peer-review and its purpose. Intrinsically, peer-review has nothing to do with the 'scientific method', it is a form of scholarly quality control (and some would argue scholarly gatekeeping).

Can you peer-review an article on ancient texts, sculpture or analysis of the Illiad? Of course you can and of course they do.

It is simply an objective fact that there are countless peer-reviewed journals in the humanities.

You don't need to take my word for it, a cursory google search will suffice. Will take you 1 minute. Trust me

Here's a starter:

Much of the debate around peer review focuses on STEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematics) fields, resulting in humanities and social science (HSS) fields often being overlooked.
What are the similarities and differences between the disciplines’ approaches to peer review, and what can they learn from one another?

Regardless of discipline, peer reviewers are generally asked the same questions of the research they are evaluating:

• How original is it?
• How persuasive is the argument?
• What does it add to existing
  work in the field?

In other words, the aim of peer review is the same whatever the subject.

Peer Review in the Humanities and Social Sciences

 

[Yazata]

Let's look at Plato for a moment. How would you characterize Plato's attitude towards his idea of The Forms? Did he consider it a working hypothesis? Did he consider it a Theory? Or was Plato quite convinced that the Forms were fundamental and true?
...

For me, the only reason to keep Philosophy separate from Science is to allow Philosophy to be practiced untethered from a grounding or foundation in reality.

Aren't you committing precisely the same sin that you accuse Plato of committing? You sound awfully convinced that you are "tethered" and that you have "a grounding or foundation in reality". So how are you any different than the people that you criticise?

Historically, I do not get the impression that philosophical schools of thought or philosophical -ism's are presented as hypotheses.

Have you ever studied the history of philosophy?

The whole history of philosophy is the history of people proposing hypotheses and later thinkers criticising those ideas and trying to propose better ones. Plato (who you tried to criticise for being dogmatic) is known for his portrayals of what is called 'Socratic dialogue'. Somebody would ask a question, somebody would venture an answer, that answer would be criticised, a better answer proposed that took account of the criticisms, and on it went. Some of Plato's Socratic dialogues never reach a final conclusion.

Socratic method - Wikipedia

And after Plato's death, his academy later went through a skeptical phase where they started to question whether it was even possible to get final answers to many disputed questions. Some of them started to approach a surprisingly modern sounding idea that absolute knowledge of truth and falsity is impossible and that all human beings have access to is varying degrees of plausibility.

Academic skepticism - Wikipedia

 

[oldbadger]

Science seeking credibility? Hardly. It is Philosophy that is trying to hold on to credibility in light of Science.

But who is a scientist?
A chemist?
An engineer?
Civil engineer?
Etc etc?
These people are what they are, and as soon as the word science is mentioned there is a fair possibility that we are listening to s sell.

Philosophy? How is science philosophy?

 

[Augustus]

Given that everyone can be biased to a varying degree for varying reasons, it is naïve on your part to assume that one cannot recognize certain speech flags that may indicate an expressed bias. Does the abstract above not raise any flags for you?

I can see why people might jump to conclusions. Having watched it I know the conclusions they would jump to are completely wrong, but it's understandable.

I'll refer to some stuff when I get the chance to write a longer post as it's actually quite relevant to out discussion.

My view is not that philosophers or historians are more or less biased, but that everyone has biases, even Einstein who you love to quote.

Did you ever answer as to why you think Einstein was wrong when he said knowledge of the history and philosophy of science is important for scientific progress as it helps people to understand the bigger picture and free themselves from prejudice and fixed assumptions? (sorry if you did, can't remember you doing so but there have been a lot of posts so it may be my memory failing me )

Other than using the word 'philosophy', it seems like the kind of thing you would otherwise agree with.

 

[Hermit Philosopher]

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?

Nope, I’d say you’re spot on there MikeF.

Humbly
Hermit

 

[PureX]

This is all mental gymnastics if none of it is based or grounded in what is real or fact.

What is "real" is the essential question. And what is "fact" is only "factually true" relative to other sets of relatively true facts. So, yes, it's "mental gymnastics" by necessity. Philosophers pit various chains of logical reasoning against each other to try and discern which takes us closer to "the truth" of what is (that mystery of existence). It's very different from science, which seeks to uncover the physical mechanics of reality.

Now you will tell me that there is no 'real' and there is no 'fact', which only further disqualifies this whole process.

Ah, but there is logic. Philosophy is driven by the presumption that the truth of existence can be discerned via the application of logic. So they use logic to generate and sustain a theory, and then use logic to 'proof-test' it. Similarly, science uses material observation to generate theories about how physical existence functions, and then it uses material experimentation to test those theories for their actual functionality.

If this is what Philosophy is, then this is why Philosophy has no value and cannot make any gains in our actual understanding life and the cosmos.

Spoken like a true adherent of 'scientism'.

Without logic, nothing makes sense. Nothing can be discerned. There would be no art, religion, or science. So philosophers apply logic directly to their experience of being to try and discern it's truth. Really, it's the most direct approach of the four main endeavors.

What we know is what we experience. Confidence in what we know only increases with verification and corroboration.

None of which is actually netting us any truth. Rather, it's just solidifying our opinions (and bias). And for many of us this confident illusion of truth is good enough. It works, and that's all they care about. But for others, this is not good enough. The can't accept opinions as truth; even their own. So they keep seeking. By whichever method they find appropriate for themselves (art, religion, philosophy, science, or whatever else).

This is how we accumulate knowledge and understanding of the world.

Well, it's how we formulate our opinions about 'the world', and increase our surety regarding these opinions. But that has never actually made made opinions right or wrong (true or untrue).

The mental gymnastics you describe above only has value if it is based on knowledge that we have confidence in.

Our "confidence" is not a prerequisite of truth. Nor, necessarily, even an indicator of it.

Science is Philosophy, just with a better foundation and the ability to acknowledge that for many questions there is insufficient information on which to provide a meaningful answer.

You only think it's better because it's material, and you are a philosophical materialist.

Philosophy seems perfectly content to provide answers without sufficient information, which is a problem.

"Sufficient" according to whom? And by what criteria?