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

[MikeF]

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?

Are you saying that one can draw meaningful conclusion on the properties of mind and consciousness with no understanding of how the central nervous system works?

Are you saying one can declare the purpose of the cosmos and the existence of life based on our current understanding of how these actually work?

What I am saying is we can only work with what we know and we must humbly acknowledge that there are questions beyond our scope to answer. Many philosophers throughout history do not seem to share that humble acknowledgement.

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

What is my premise. A schism occurred in Western Philosophy that resulted in Science being considered separate from it's parent, Philosophy, both in purpose and method. And I am asking, is this true? Is Science different in purpose and method?

I am in no way criticizing the evolving development of Western thought, nor am a I criticizing the valuable contributions to Western thought by all the philosophers who have come before us.

However, if the scientific approach to answering these same fundamental questions is a measurable improvement, an advancement in best practices to tackle these questions, should not these best practices be adopted by the whole of Philosophy?

I am arguing that there should not be a schism. That it is all still the same purpose, the same goal, and as such should all be conducted under the same best practices.

There seems to be lots of acknowledgement of the problems facing Science, but I have yet to see any acknowledgement of any problems in the way Philosophy continues to be practiced.

 

[MikeF]

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.

Absolutely. They are all people. Imperfect and fallible, just like the philosopher. And that is why we must evaluate everything someone is selling with reasoned and rational skepticism.

Philosophy? How is science philosophy?[/QUOTE]

I can only refer you to every post I've made on this thread. If I have not made a valid case in your eyes, so be it.

 

[MikeF]

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.

Here is your Einstein quote for reference:

Compare this to Einstein:
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. (Einstein to Thornton, 7 December 1944, EA 61-574)
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)

So, to be clear, when I said, “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.”, my intent was not to imply that what you had been quoting from Einstein was biased or wrong. I was simply trying to say that even with Einstein, we should not be intimidated from thinking critically about what he says or accept his comments without question based on reputation alone.

As to the first quote, I believe it is critical to know the history of philosophy and science, to understand how this process started and that learning about the errors, missteps, and dead-ends is just as important as learning about the successes and breakthroughs. And really, this is part of my argument of reassessing where we are today with Philosophy and Science. Why the schism, and should there be a schism.

The second Einstein quote could also be construed to support my arguments in this thread, or at least the exercise of asking the question. Has this idea that Philosophy and Science have different purposes achieved “such an authority over us that we forget [its] earthly origins and accept [it] as an unalterable [given]?”

As to the word Philosophy, one of my earliest comments in this regard was to say that to bring Philosophy and Science back under the same roof, it might be necessary to create a new word for the overarching label that doesn’t carry the baggage of assumptions that have accumulated with the other two.

 

[MikeF]

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.
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.
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.
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).
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).
Our "confidence" is not a prerequisite of truth. Nor, necessarily, even an indicator of it.
You only think it's better because it's material, and you are a philosophical materialist.
"Sufficient" according to whom? And by what criteria?

I was not arguing against logic. Science relies on logic. I was trying to make the point that we can create imaginary entities and provide them with imaginary properties, and then talk logically about what we can expect from their interaction. Hell, isn't this what science fiction is all about? For the mental gymnastics to have value in answering the questions of Philosophy/Science, we must be making logical arguments involving real things.

As to confidence of experience, we need to discern between the experience of an individual observer and science. As you suggest, the individual observer is vulnerable to the imperfection and fallibility of the human condition. However, intersubjective agreement or corroboration between individuals significantly increases our confidence in our experiential knowledge. The more observers, over a greater time period, that report the same observation, the greater the confidence in the observation. For example, our macroscopic world has been experience by billions of people and documented for millennia. We have the highest confidence that our planet Earth is real, matter is real, the properties of matter we document are real. This is the reality from which we start, and from which we begin to increase our understanding of what is real.

Science adds a professionalism to this process, with principles and standards that further mitigate the imperfection and fallibility of human observation. This is how we know what we know, and hold that knowledge with confidence. It is this base of knowledge that Philosophy/Science uses to answer the questions it sets before itself.

 

[oldbadger]

Absolutely. They are all people. Imperfect and fallible, just like the philosopher. And that is why we must evaluate everything someone is selling with reasoned and rational skepticism.

Yes they are, they are chemists, engineers, researchers, builders, designers...all.
The only time we are told that these people are scientists is when we are needed to be impressed.

They aren't! They are chemists, engineers....

 

[rational experiences]

A scientist said energy equates to God as mass planet earth. Where thesis is design first to build a machine from earth matter. Can't be a scientist without a practice.

Otherwise you are just a philosopher.

The status hence no man is God in science.

Then he says I want.

I want to know everything hence I will claim I am a know it all snidely then experiment to learn. Using God string theories earth products.

Design.

Then I want beyond all things to claim exact moment as to know it all I pretend I am the process.

Yet knows if I am the process I blast burn.

Not acceptable.

So he says I therefore am beyond all things space and time.

Claim infinite as no measure as it was imposed. Can't measure it he said. Then he says an eternal being.

As he is not getting burnt. His theory I am not the process.

Human spirit promise when you die you get to exist as one higher self who never left the eternal form. Speaking forevermore to your heavenly god image human voice lived records.

Science says but I want that moment for science. Gods spirit and the eternal beyond space time.

So then he studies NDE where humans said suddenly everything was known. Father of Jesus in tunnel as I die. Is seen. Spirit of God he says.

As they want the moment for a machine thesis reaction.

Owning no common sense at all. Yet preached in a science occult community and believed.

But notice Satanists the ist ism is the quote of it. I will get and was bible promised the eternal in a science creation statement.

Yet they were promised it when they died. First a human. Natural just a human.

He says the promise is for a science reaction.

He then says so the formula would destroy said eternal. You will all die he says in hell as I will take it from you.

Very unkind of him actually to use a human spirit teaching claiming he will enact eternals destruction when it was already removed into creation.

Possessed by science a fact theist ism.

What we knew about his thinking theism to copy.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Are you saying that one can draw meaningful conclusion on the properties of mind and consciousness with no understanding of how the central nervous system works?

Are you saying one can declare the purpose of the cosmos and the existence of life based on our current understanding of how these actually work?

What I am saying is we can only work with what we know and we must humbly acknowledge that there are questions beyond our scope to answer. Many philosophers throughout history do not seem to share that humble acknowledgement.



What is my premise. A schism occurred in Western Philosophy that resulted in Science being considered separate from it's parent, Philosophy, both in purpose and method. And I am asking, is this true? Is Science different in purpose and method?

I am in no way criticizing the evolving development of Western thought, nor am a I criticizing the valuable contributions to Western thought by all the philosophers who have come before us.

However, if the scientific approach to answering these same fundamental questions is a measurable improvement, an advancement in best practices to tackle these questions, should not these best practices be adopted by the whole of Philosophy?

I am arguing that there should not be a schism. That it is all still the same purpose, the same goal, and as such should all be conducted under the same best practices.

There seems to be lots of acknowledgement of the problems facing Science, but I have yet to see any acknowledgement of any problems in the way Philosophy continues to be practiced.

Okay, here is where you are in the end incoherent:

Science requires evidence, and evidence is objective. But you use in part words to make your claim, where those words have no objective referent and thus are not evidence.
Let me explain. These bold words of yours are not science. There are no scientific theories for them like say gravity and they have no measurement standard in science like say temperature.
You are incoherent in the following sense. You claim you can answer using only science, but you don't do that. You use subjective words and rely on your subjective understanding.

So please read this:
https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/whatisscience_12

We are not doing science, we are doing philosophy proper and you run into a problem. You apparently assume that there is only one kind of Western Philosophy. There is not, there is at least 2 kinds:
"Philosophy, (from Greek, by way of Latin, philosophia, “love of wisdom”) the rational, abstract, and methodical consideration of reality as a whole or of fundamental dimensions of human existence and experience. .." philosophy | Definition, Systems, Fields, Schools, & Biographies
Do you notice the "or"? You apparently assume the first version, where as I use the 2nd one. So what philosophy depends on what you or I assume.

In short, you have to ground that you can do the rational, abstract, and methodical consideration of reality as a whole and not just take it for granted. As it stands, you are just using subjectivity, where you claim in effect objectivity.

 

[MikeF]

Yes they are, they are chemists, engineers, researchers, builders, designers...all.
The only time we are told that these people are scientists is when we are needed to be impressed.

They aren't! They are chemists, engineers....

Ahhh, I see. Should we ever be impressed by chemists, engineers, researchers, builders, designers?

Also, researcher seems to cover many disciplines, why is that in your list?

Is there such a thing as a scientist? If so, what are the criteria to qualify as a scientist?

 

[MikeF]

Okay, here is where you are in the end incoherent:

Science requires evidence, and evidence is objective. But you use in part words to make your claim, where those words have no objective referent and thus are not evidence.
Let me explain. These bold words of yours are not science. There are no scientific theories for them like say gravity and they have no measurement standard in science like say temperature.
You are incoherent in the following sense. You claim you can answer using only science, but you don't do that. You use subjective words and rely on your subjective understanding.

So please read this:
https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/whatisscience_12

We are not doing science, we are doing philosophy proper and you run into a problem. You apparently assume that there is only one kind of Western Philosophy. There is not, there is at least 2 kinds:
"Philosophy, (from Greek, by way of Latin, philosophia, “love of wisdom”) the rational, abstract, and methodical consideration of reality as a whole or of fundamental dimensions of human existence and experience. .." philosophy | Definition, Systems, Fields, Schools, & Biographies
Do you notice the "or"? You apparently assume the first version, where as I use the 2nd one. So what philosophy depends on what you or I assume.

In short, you have to ground that you can do the rational, abstract, and methodical consideration of reality as a whole and not just take it for granted. As it stands, you are just using subjectivity, where you claim in effect objectivity.

Hey mickel_the_dane, I hope your doing well.

We fully canvased this material last year. I will simply refer you to our previous conversations.

Cheers!

 

[oldbadger]

Ahhh, I see. Should we ever be impressed by chemists, engineers, researchers, builders, designers?

Also, researcher seems to cover many disciplines, why is that in your list?

Is there such a thing as a scientist? If so, what are the criteria to qualify as a scientist?

Indeed there are many kinds of researchers.... and if you like you could break down that title in to its many categories. No probs.

That's for you to tell me, 'Is there a scientist?'
I don't mind the title Science, it's useful as a collective for chemistry, physics, astronomy and whatever, or for various school subjects, but we've been sold too many failures under its title. I would love that word to go far out of fashion.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Hey mickel_the_dane, I hope your doing well.

We fully canvased this material last year. I will simply refer you to our previous conversations.

Cheers!

"RAEism: A belief in reality, all that is real and existent, as opposed to that which is imaginary or myth; that reality is knowable, and a humble acknowledgment that the totality of reality is not yet known and may never be known."

Okay, you are a believer like the rest of us.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Ahhh, I see. Should we ever be impressed by chemists, engineers, researchers, builders, designers?

Also, researcher seems to cover many disciplines, why is that in your list?

Is there such a thing as a scientist? If so, what are the criteria to qualify as a scientist?

No, there are no objective evidence or criteria to qualify as scientists. Science is a social construct and subjective like all belief systems.

 

[gnostic]

I was not arguing against logic. Science relies on logic.

No, logic is only part of what science rely on.

Logic is useful, but not the most essential.

The most essential requirement for any science is OBSERVABLE & TESTABLE EVIDENCE.

Without evidence, it isn't science.

Now, this is the part most creationists don't get.

Logic is only relevant in science, when EVIDENCE back up the logic. If the EVIDENCE don't back up the logic, then the logic isn't science.

 

[MikeF]

Indeed there are many kinds of researchers.... and if you like you could break down that title in to its many categories. No probs.

That's for you to tell me, 'Is there a scientist?'
I don't mind the title Science, it's useful as a collective for chemistry, physics, astronomy and whatever, or for various school subjects, but we've been sold too many failures under its title. I would love that word to go far out of fashion.

In this post:

Yes they are, they are chemists, engineers, researchers, builders, designers...all.
The only time we are told that these people are scientists is when we are needed to be impressed.

They aren't! They are chemists, engineers....

You are saying that the term scientist is used to convey some sort of caché or authority. Doesn't the same occur when we say physicist or paleontologist? What's the difference?

 

[MikeF]

No, logic is only part of what science rely on.

Logic is useful, but not the most essential.

The most essential requirement for any science is OBSERVABLE & TESTABLE EVIDENCE.

Without evidence, it isn't science.

Now, this is the part most creationists don't get.

Logic is only relevant in science, when EVIDENCE back up the logic. If the EVIDENCE don't back up the logic, then the logic isn't science.

Ummm, ok. Should I have said logic is an element of science? Would that have avoided the need for all-caps and bold lettering?

Since when does saying 'rely on' mean 'dependent solely on'? I didn't get that memo.

As to your point about evidence, I certainly agree, as is surely indicated by my posts.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

No, logic is only part of what science rely on.

Logic is useful, but not the most essential.

The most essential requirement for any science is OBSERVABLE & TESTABLE EVIDENCE.

Without evidence, it isn't science.

Now, this is the part most creationists don't get.

Logic is only relevant in science, when EVIDENCE back up the logic. If the EVIDENCE don't back up the logic, then the logic isn't science.

Yeah, true.
There are limits to evidence:
https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/whatisscience_12

 

[gnostic]

Yeah, true.
There are limits to evidence:
https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/whatisscience_12

Sure, but there are also limits to logic too.

Logic is still man-made reasoning...sometimes they work in real life, and sometimes they don’t.

I am not saying that science don’t require logic. Logic is a useful tool, especially maths.

Physics use quite a lot of maths, and physicists tried to formulate equations to best represent the phenomena they are investigating or trying to find possible solutions to the problems. But no matter what those equations are, those equations still needs to be tested against the evidence.

Equations are not inerrant, nor are the mathematicians, and that’s why it must be verified before they are accepted being true.

Sometimes the logic or maths are correct, and work hand-in-hand with the real world. But sometimes they are not.

So if the evidence don’t back up the logic, then evidence take precedence...and this case, the physicists or mathematicians must rethink their logic.

 

[gnostic]

Ummm, ok. Should I have said logic is an element of science? Would that have avoided the need for all-caps and bold lettering?

Just trying to emphasize what truly matters in science, testable “evidence”.

Evidence is the real world solution, while logics, like mathematical equations, are abstract.

If the “evidence” back up the logics or the equations, then and only then, you can say the logics or equations are true.

...you cannot say they are true before you have verified them.

Do you understand what I am saying?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Just trying to emphasize what truly matters in science, testable “evidence”.

Evidence is the real world solution, while logics, like mathematical equations, are abstract.

If the “evidence” back up the logics or the equations, then and only then, you can say the logics or equations are true.

...you cannot say they are true before you have verified them.

Do you understand what I am saying?

There is no evidence for real, because real is not observable. Real can't be seen, touched, manhandled nor measured, because there is no instruments, which can measure real. Real is like God, you can believe in it, but you don't have to.

 

[Augustus]

As to the first quote, I believe it is critical to know the history of philosophy and science, to understand how this process started and that learning about the errors, missteps, and dead-ends is just as important as learning about the successes and breakthroughs. And really, this is part of my argument of reassessing where we are today with Philosophy and Science. Why the schism, and should there be a schism.

Which is why isolating science form its historical origins is a mistake as it allows people to think everything before was 'useless' philosophy so not worth understanding.

This isolation is what creates the possibility for scientism advocated by science popularisers like Dawkins, Tyson et al.

The second Einstein quote could also be construed to support my arguments in this thread, or at least the exercise of asking the question. Has this idea that Philosophy and Science have different purposes achieved “such an authority over us that we forget [its] earthly origins and accept [it] as an unalterable [given]?”

I think the problem is you have everything the wrong way round.

You blame philosophy for the 'schism', but it has always been one-sided and really cam from the science side.

If you watch the last lecture in the series I posted (ignore the title, it's not about what you probably think) it addresses this particular point and how "science" became a reified discipline differentiated from other spheres of knowledge such as philosophy which was around the time "scientist" became a recognised profession ("Scientia" had traditionally described characteristics of an individual).

Around 19 mins is when he starts discussing 'the case against science' which is really about the case against rigid categorisation (not at all about saying 'science is bad' or anything like that).

As the sciences became more compartmentalised and specialised and people started to see themselves as scientists not natural philosophers many gradually became ignorant of the philosophical foundations on which the discipline rests

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.

The only reason to keep science distinct from philosophy is a desire to avoid questioning numerous values, motivations, foundations and assumptions on which the scientific process rests and overstates the extent to which these can be empirically validated using a scientific method.

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

Case in point. The idea of reductionism is philosophical but it underpins the dominant scientific methodology of the 20th C.

More recently people have become interested in complexity, emergence, non-linear dynamics.

These all are ways to facilitate thinking about systems and very much play a key role in the scientific process. But as concepts they are philosophical.

You can't define 'complex systems' using a scientific method because it is not a natural kind that exists independent of the human mind (like water or dogs) but a human classification to aid thought.

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

And this is mostly the consequence of the rise of science as distinct and the consequence specialisations of scientific disciplines rather than something specific to philosophy. Thhis fragmentation of scholarship is a modern phenomenon in the 'scientific era'.

Reductionism relies on isolating things into the smallest units that can be studied which dovetails well with increasing specialisation, and this has and can be highly effective, but not always. More modern approaches have become increasingly interdisciplinary as a result of philosophical changes.

I'd say scientists are far more prone to compartmentalisation and reification than philosophers of science are.

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.

No one is suggesting keeping philosophy separate from science except them.

Something that is quite clear is that most scientistic thinkers tend to have absolutely no interest in the history of ideas and how we came to believe the things we believe today. This is probably due to the fact that they think they are highly rational and 'see the world as it is' free of the prejudices of the age.

Unless you think we can only know about one discipline then it doesn't matter that philosophy and science answer different but related questions, in different but related ways.

As to the word Philosophy, one of my earliest comments in this regard was to say that to bring Philosophy and Science back under the same roof, it might be necessary to create a new word for the overarching label that doesn’t carry the baggage of assumptions that have accumulated with the other two.

Scientific natural philosophy seems to fit nicely