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

[oldbadger]

In this post:


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?

Yes, to win confidence, attention, trust, to impress. And do when I hear a news report about 'Scientists have found, researched, discovered, proved.. I am cautious.
When I hear about a physicist it could be in a documentary, same with a paleontologist.
Nope.... Not the same.

 

[MikeF]

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.
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.

I think this is all coming together. We each see the value of what has come before in Philosophy/Science and how it has contributed to where we are today. You take the view that I have things wrong-way-round as to the schism, and I the opposite view. Let's address it.

I think we need to look very carefully at your last paragraph above. One of Scientific Philosophy's (Science ) main premises is that we must acknowledge and address that in trying to answer any question, it is imperfect and fallible human beings that are asking and trying to answer these questions.

I can understand how you might say a particular individual may display "a desire to avoid questioning numerous values, motivations, foundations and assumption" about their particular disciple, but this is the nature of human beings. Surely you agree that this is a trait exhibited in all aspects of life, including Philosophy as practiced today. I have yet to see you acknowledge any issue or concern with the way Philosophy is practiced.

So, if we can agree that this avoidance trait is found in individuals in all endeavors, the next question to ask is, "Is this trait recognized by the discipline in question, and does this discipline take active steps to mitigate this issue?"

You want to imply that Scientific Philosophy is designed or practiced, as a discipline, to actively avoid your referenced list of things avoided. This is simply not true. The whole process of scientific philosophy is about building from what we know, and as we make progress and add to that base of knowledge, new data or information must prompt a reevaluation of old and new information together to ensure our understanding and conclusion remain intact. This was touched on in your second Einstein quote. It is this constant process of reevaluation that allows Scientific Philosophy to make meaningful progress in answering general and fundamental questions.

Let's look at Philosophy in this same light. Is there anything in Philosophy, in a branch of Philosophy that structurally wishes to avoid questioning numerous values, motivations, foundations and assumptions on which their Philosophy rests, or overstates their ability to validate their belief?

I'm not going to spoon feed you. I hope you will carefully consider and be able to come up with examples.

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.

Holy Cow! And case-in-point right back at ya. That Scientific Philosophy, or at least some practitioners, get bogged down in reductionism is not a fundamental flaw of scientific philosophy, it is a flaw of investigators. Scientific Philosophy is self-correcting, as is apparently the case in that we continue to strive to get a handle on complexity. This is the process. This is how it works. Breaking things down and looking at how constituent parts works. Putting things back together and observing the complex system with this new-found knowledge, works. This is how it is done.

Your last paragraph does not make sense to me. Granted it is probably down to ignorance on my part. What is it you mean by 'complex systems' and why is it in single quotes?

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.

To say that science has become increasingly interdisciplinary as a result of philosophical changes I will only agree with if by philosophical you mean the attitudes of the scientific disciplines. If you mean to imply that Philosophy as a discipline influenced science to become interdisciplinary, you are going to have to demonstrate that. I am incredulous.

Biology majors, for example, are required to take Physics, Mathematics, and extensive Chemistry, along with the interdisciplinary field of Biochemistry. Becoming interdisciplinary was necessitated by the work and the level of advancement in the field of Biology, a self-evident requirement.

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.

What I would suggest is that scientists took philosophy with them when the split occurred, that science still kept philosophy. The schism occurred because a portion of the Philosophical community would not adopt the new best practices of Philosophy. This resulted in those using best practices falling under the label Science, and those adhering to traditional outdated practices maintaining the label Philosophy. This is the schism. Two branches with the same goal, one branch using improved guiding principles and standards that incorporate mitigating the effects of the flawed observer, and the branch that continued to do things in an outmoded way, highly vulnerable to human fallibility.

I am by no means saying that nothing of value has come from Philosophy since the schism. What I am saying, however, is that there are aspects of current philosophical practice that are sheltered under the label Philosophy that require evaluation under modern best practices.

Scientific natural philosophy seems to fit nicely

And here you throw in the word 'natural'. And this is a demonstration that it is Philosophy, or rather, those who wish to keep Philosophy separate from Science, do so in an effort to shield all of Philosophy from scientific best practices. Branches of Philosophy founded on nothing more than imagination.

 

[MikeF]

Yes, to win confidence, attention, trust, to impress. And do when I hear a news report about 'Scientists have found, researched, discovered, proved.. I am cautious.
When I hear about a physicist it could be in a documentary, same with a paleontologist.
Nope.... Not the same.

I think every scientist would agree with you that what you hear about science in the media should be evaluated with caution. Obviously in a health crisis, with experts in the field speaking directly on events, one should not dismiss it out-of-hand.

 

[PureX]

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?

 

[PureX]

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

What about untestable evidence? It seems that more and more science is becoming involved with theories about the nature of existence that cannot be tested. Is this still 'science', or has it become philosophy?

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

Except that "reality" is, itself, an ideological abstraction based on logical extrapolation; very much like mathematical equations.

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

But the "real world evidence" that you are referring to, here, is itself an abtracted "equation". So if we hold the latter (logic, mathematics, philosophical debate) in doubt, we should hold the former in doubt, as well (real world evidence). It would simply be 'logical' to do so. And yet that places logic as determining the evidence, not the evidence as determining the logic. .

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

"Verified" by what criteria? I mean by what criteria that is not also logical? Perhaps you can begin to perceive why philosophy supersedes science as an existential investigative methodology.

 

[oldbadger]

I think every scientist would agree with you that what you hear about science in the media should be evaluated with caution. Obviously in a health crisis, with experts in the field speaking directly on events, one should not dismiss it out-of-hand.

Now you've gone and done it again!
Look, I do chew my lip over 'scientists', but I absolutely spit blood over the word 'expert'!

There is Science, I admit that bit there are NO experts. None. Zilch.

Take ten experts on the same subject matter, issue each of them with two feather pillows and lock 'em in a room .... wait a bit ... not long. And when you open up again they will all have choked to death on the feathers caused by the biggest hottest most hateful pillow fight on history.
Ergo.....there are no experts.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I think this is all coming together. We each see the value of what has come before in Philosophy/Science and how it has contributed to where we are today. You take the view that I have things wrong-way-round as to the schism, and I the opposite view. Let's address it.

I think we need to look very carefully at your last paragraph above. One of Scientific Philosophy's (Science ) main premises is that we must acknowledge and address that in trying to answer any question, it is imperfect and fallible human beings that are asking and trying to answer these questions.

I can understand how you might say a particular individual may display "a desire to avoid questioning numerous values, motivations, foundations and assumption" about their particular disciple, but this is the nature of human beings. Surely you agree that this is a trait exhibited in all aspects of life, including Philosophy as practiced today. I have yet to see you acknowledge any issue or concern with the way Philosophy is practiced.

So, if we can agree that this avoidance trait is found in individuals in all endeavors, the next question to ask is, "Is this trait recognized by the discipline in question, and does this discipline take active steps to mitigate this issue?"

You want to imply that Scientific Philosophy is designed or practiced, as a discipline, to actively avoid your referenced list of things avoided. This is simply not true. The whole process of scientific philosophy is about building from what we know, and as we make progress and add to that base of knowledge, new data or information must prompt a reevaluation of old and new information together to ensure our understanding and conclusion remain intact. This was touched on in your second Einstein quote. It is this constant process of reevaluation that allows Scientific Philosophy to make meaningful progress in answering general and fundamental questions.

Let's look at Philosophy in this same light. Is there anything in Philosophy, in a branch of Philosophy that structurally wishes to avoid questioning numerous values, motivations, foundations and assumptions on which their Philosophy rests, or overstates their ability to validate their belief?

I'm not going to spoon feed you. I hope you will carefully consider and be able to come up with examples.



Holy Cow! And case-in-point right back at ya. That Scientific Philosophy, or at least some practitioners, get bogged down in reductionism is not a fundamental flaw of scientific philosophy, it is a flaw of investigators. Scientific Philosophy is self-correcting, as is apparently the case in that we continue to strive to get a handle on complexity. This is the process. This is how it works. Breaking things down and looking at how constituent parts works. Putting things back together and observing the complex system with this new-found knowledge, works. This is how it is done.

Your last paragraph does not make sense to me. Granted it is probably down to ignorance on my part. What is it you mean by 'complex systems' and why is it in single quotes?



To say that science has become increasingly interdisciplinary as a result of philosophical changes I will only agree with if by philosophical you mean the attitudes of the scientific disciplines. If you mean to imply that Philosophy as a discipline influenced science to become interdisciplinary, you are going to have to demonstrate that. I am incredulous.

Biology majors, for example, are required to take Physics, Mathematics, and extensive Chemistry, along with the interdisciplinary field of Biochemistry. Becoming interdisciplinary was necessitated by the work and the level of advancement in the field of Biology, a self-evident requirement.




What I would suggest is that scientists took philosophy with them when the split occurred, that science still kept philosophy. The schism occurred because a portion of the Philosophical community would not adopt the new best practices of Philosophy. This resulted in those using best practices falling under the label Science, and those adhering to traditional outdated practices maintaining the label Philosophy. This is the schism. Two branches with the same goal, one branch using improved guiding principles and standards that incorporate mitigating the effects of the flawed observer, and the branch that continued to do things in an outmoded way, highly vulnerable to human fallibility.

I am by no means saying that nothing of value has come from Philosophy since the schism. What I am saying, however, is that there are aspects of current philosophical practice that are sheltered under the label Philosophy that require evaluation under modern best practices.



And here you throw in the word 'natural'. And this is a demonstration that it is Philosophy, or rather, those who wish to keep Philosophy separate from Science, do so in an effort to shield all of Philosophy from scientific best practices. Branches of Philosophy founded on nothing more than imagination.

A lot of words. But they are meaningless because we can't agree on what the world/reality/everything is. Yet you know, don't you?!! Because you have the correct knowledge, and the rest of us have to doubt our points of views and accept your beliefs, because they can't be doubted, because it is us, who have to doubt. Not you, because you have the best subjective philosophy there is. It is so good, that it is not even subjective at all.

You really don't understand that you are in part subjective, just like the rest of us.

 

[Yazata]

I think that scientific expertise exists and don't want to deny it. (Just think 'chemists'.) But I'm even more impressed by engineering expertise. The thing with engineers is that they stick closer to real life and aren't as wound up in speculation and theorizing. An engineer is less apt than a theoretical physicist to try to tell you what he believes the fundamental nature of physical reality is, and more apt to struggle with all of the unexpected challenges and complexity of making artifacts function as desired in physical reality, and not just on chalk-boards.

I'm not impressed at all by the "social sciences" and doubt whether some of them even qualify as sciences. Certainly not in the same sense as the natural sciences.

I guess that the amount of credence that I give scientists is a function of several variables -- What is their specialty and what do I think about the epistemic status of that specialty? How politicized is that specialty? Does the scientist have something personal riding on the results, such as political allegiances, financial or reputational interests or whatever? And crucially, is what the scientist says just a speculative hypothesis. (Much of the "scientists say..." stories in the popular media consists of scientific speculations.)

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I think that scientific expertise exists and don't want to deny it. (Just think 'chemists'.) But I'm even more impressed by engineering expertise. The thing with engineers is that they stick closer to real life and aren't as wound up in speculation and theorizing. An engineer is less apt than a theoretical physicist to try to tell you what he believes the fundamental nature of physical reality is, and more apt to struggle with all of the unexpected challenges and complexity of making artifacts function as desired in physical reality, and not just on chalk-boards.

I'm not impressed at all by the "social sciences" and doubt whether some of them even qualify as sciences. Certainly not in the same sense as the natural sciences.

I want evidence using science that there is a real world. What is real? What scientific theory is about real? How it is observed and measured?
You are doing yourself a form of social science or even politics/morality/philosophy.

 

[MikeF]

Now you've gone and done it again!
Look, I do chew my lip over 'scientists', but I absolutely spit blood over the word 'expert'!

There is Science, I admit that bit there are NO experts. None. Zilch.

Take ten experts on the same subject matter, issue each of them with two feather pillows and lock 'em in a room .... wait a bit ... not long. And when you open up again they will all have choked to death on the feathers caused by the biggest hottest most hateful pillow fight on history.
Ergo.....there are no experts.

 

[MikeF]

A lot of words. But they are meaningless because we can't agree on what the world/reality/everything is. Yet you know, don't you?!! Because you have the correct knowledge, and the rest of us have to doubt our points of views and accept your beliefs, because they can't be doubted, because it is us, who have to doubt. Not you, because you have the best subjective philosophy there is. It is so good, that it is not even subjective at all.

You really don't understand that you are in part subjective, just like the rest of us.

*** << SIGH >> ***

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

*** << SIGH >> ***

That is not science.
In your post you start with seeing value. You can't see value and as you use it, it is not science. Value is something you imagine exists, but it is not a part of science.

 

[Augustus]

You want to imply that Scientific Philosophy is designed or practiced, as a discipline, to actively avoid your referenced list of things avoided. This is simply not true.

No, I am arguing that scientistic thinkers who reject philosophy as having any value do that

What I see as problematic is not science, but scientism, and I think the fight against scientism would be aided by making people more aware of the philosophical foundations of science.

Let's look at Philosophy in this same light. Is there anything in Philosophy, in a branch of Philosophy that structurally wishes to avoid questioning numerous values, motivations, foundations and assumptions on which their Philosophy rests, or overstates their ability to validate their belief?

Of course there is lots of very bad philosophy. It's not a competition about which is better science or philosophy.

The advancement of knowledge requires both.

I'm happy to criticise scientism, bad science and bad philosophy.

Holy Cow! And case-in-point right back at ya. That Scientific Philosophy, or at least some practitioners, get bogged down in reductionism is not a fundamental flaw of scientific philosophy, it is a flaw of investigators. Scientific Philosophy is self-correcting, as is apparently the case in that we continue to strive to get a handle on complexity. This is the process. This is how it works. Breaking things down and looking at how constituent parts works. Putting things back together and observing the complex system with this new-found knowledge, works. This is how it is done.

It wasn't a criticism but an example for what was mentioned previously:

"overstates the extent to which these can be empirically validated using a scientific method.... Case in point..."

Your last paragraph does not make sense to me. Granted it is probably down to ignorance on my part. What is it you mean by 'complex systems' and why is it in single quotes?

Complex system - Wikipedia

To say that science has become increasingly interdisciplinary as a result of philosophical changes I will only agree with if by philosophical you mean the attitudes of the scientific disciplines. If you mean to imply that Philosophy as a discipline influenced science to become interdisciplinary, you are going to have to demonstrate that. I am incredulous.

If you forget about a hard distinction between the disciplines then there is no need to be incredulous.

Science is dependent on philosophy so practitioners of science may engage in the practical application of philosophy even if they are unaware they are doing so.

What I would suggest is that scientists took philosophy with them when the split occurred, that science still kept philosophy. The schism occurred because a portion of the Philosophical community would not adopt the new best practices of Philosophy. This resulted in those using best practices falling under the label Science, and those adhering to traditional outdated practices maintaining the label Philosophy. This is the schism. Two branches with the same goal, one branch using improved guiding principles and standards that incorporate mitigating the effects of the flawed observer, and the branch that continued to do things in an outmoded way, highly vulnerable to human fallibility.

This appears to be something you have concocted out of a set of preconceived yet mistaken assumptions rather than what actually happened.

It's like you imagine some 'good' scientists pleading with the 'bad' philosopher to just let them apply scientific methods to their philosophy then they could all be friends but the philosopher just put his hands over his ears and pretended he couldn't hear them.

As noted multiple times, philosophy is not just 'bad science', much of it cannot be tested empirically. Not because philosophers are cowering in fear of the noble scientists, but because you simply can't design an experiment to tell me if abortion is immoral or to demarcate science from 'not science'.

As science became increasingly professionalised and specialised the philosophical content of a scientific education declined. This is a consequence of narrow specialisation in tertiary education and professional science. These people didn't actively reject philosophy, they just weren't taught much about it.

On the intellectual side, in the 19th and early 20th C you also had a lot of very scientistic thinkers who basically got carried away with their shiny new toy 'science' and believed it to be a bit more powerful than it actually was. This was the birth of scientism.

So you get scientists who recognise the value of philosophy, scientists who don't really think about it, and scientists who are actively hostile to philosophy

And here you throw in the word 'natural'. And this is a demonstration that it is Philosophy, or rather, those who wish to keep Philosophy separate from Science, do so in an effort to shield all of Philosophy from scientific best practices. Branches of Philosophy founded on nothing more than imagination.

Yes, because natural philosophy was what 'science' used to be called

I'm certainly not going to claim we can have scientific ethics

The idea that I'm trying to 'shield' philosophy from 'scientific best practices' (whatever that means) couldn't be further from the truth.

My point is that 'scientific best practices' aren't really relevant to much of philosophy such as with ethics, etc.

 

[gnostic]

What about untestable evidence?

Testable evidence is evidence that are observed or detected, quantified, measured, investigate other properties, all of which provide data that you compared other observable evidence.

Untestable evidence would have no data, couldn’t be detected, measured or quantified, therefore such evidence wouldn’t exist, as in there are “no evidence” or “absence of evidence”.

I don’t see how you have evidence that are untestable, unless there are no evidence at all.

So I really don’t know what you mean by “untestable evidence”.

Can you give example(s) of untestable evidence?

It seems that more and more science is becoming involved with theories about the nature of existence that cannot be tested. Is this still 'science', or has it become philosophy?

These supposed theories, are not actual scientific theories, because they haven’t been tested and verified, meeting the Scientific Method requirements.

These are just proposed hypotheses that have no observational or experimental evidence, but have “possible” mathematical solutions.

So unless you have testable evidence these proposed theoretical models, they are not science

For instance, for a couple of decades, since the 1990s, the variants of String Theory and Superstring Theory have proposed not to only unite General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics into one single theory, it also proposed that the smallest particles are “strings”, and that one of these variants - the M-theory - also proposed as many 11 dimensions, that lead to alternate reality or alternate universes, where there are many different versions of you and me in each realities.

String Theory and Superstring Theory have complex mathematical equations to prove these possibilities, but last decade experiments at LHC never verify String or Superstring models.

Instead, LHC does support the Standard Model of Particle Physics and 3 of the four fundamental interactions or forces, so instead most theoretical and experimental physicists have been focusing more times on Particle Physics and Quantum Field Theory.

Most people in science communities (except film industries in sci-fi, like Marvel and DC), have ignored both String Theory and Superstring Theory, because while they are theoretically and mathematically “possible”, these models are “improbable” because they are untestable.

And have said that, String Theory and Superstring Theory are not science.

Other highly theoretical concepts that are untestable like the Multiverse concept, which is supposedly alternative to the Big Bang theory, is going in the same direction as Superstring Theory.

They are proposed models, not science...but if you want to call String Theory and Multiverse model, philosophies, be my guest.

 

[rational experiences]

Sciences self teachings in human presence are first medical.

Not occult radiation conversions the destroyer.

Human reality.

Medical science observed first the human life body presence. Human knowledge of self body proven in medical observation of human to human.

First or base one anything and everything.

God is one a science teaching.

Natural in all presence.

Science occult manipulated natural forces a human choice only.

In human presence.

Pretended which is lying that nothing existed. Then coerced stating and I will explain why anything exists.

As if they were the process.

Just as a human. Egotism.

Why the science book said no man was God as God is everything. Basic. No argument allowed.

Science is angered by that human imposition. As man in greed elite trade false imposed states by I want and will do anything I want.

Which is not God. Natural.

Reason why God as a law was imposed. Due to human behaviour.

Reason life was attacked occult sacrificed. As man innocent of evil as the process never knew it all.

Another scientific God relative teaching observed in life conditions of its destruction.

Exactly stated. Phenomena the witness.

Man says my proof of correct science I build invent control cause. Stating his proof.

Egotism only.

As natural existed first not changed by human choice. Why science as a law said first is God which included self human. Not self is separate from God as science had stated.

His invention conversion was proven only. Which is involved in trade conditions only. Now he says it involves machines functioning I want a resource.

Life is status before machine.

Yet stated as a human given status or allowed I speak on behalf of all things.

A sophism maths status was therefore put into the dictionary as proof men reasoned scientists are coercers in a contrivance. To own a word use it is world agreed. By humans.

As we use words to communicate in language human.

Just human.

Babies innocent are indoctrinated by adults does not make the adult information correct.

Humans had to face their ego choice with embarrassment. Some egos don't contend with any status less than believed self intelligence. A human problem.

Reason science said we never died itself. Their claim energy never ends.

Holes disproved that theory.

 

[PureX]

Testable evidence is evidence that are observed or detected, quantified, measured, investigate other properties, all of which provide data that you compared other observable evidence.

By this definition, faith produces "testable evidence". Yet I'm quite sure you aren't equating science with faith. So there must be some essential piece that's missing, here. (Hint: it's material.)

Untestable evidence would have no data, couldn’t be detected, measured or quantified, therefore such evidence wouldn’t exist, as in there are “no evidence” or “absence of evidence”.

That would be the category of nothing. For us to perceive the existence of something/anything there would have to be "data". As that's what's being perceived.

I don’t see how you have evidence that are untestable, unless there are no evidence at all.

Then I don't see how you can use this 'testability' as your criteria for "science". Everything we humans perceive, think, and do involves "testing data". Faith in God is "testing data".
So I really don’t know what you mean by “untestable evidence”.

Can you give example(s) of untestable evidence?

The real question, here, is "testable, how"? Because it's how we generate and test "data" that determined the difference between philosophy, religion, art, and science. They are all generating and testing "data" (evidence). The difference is in how they generate 'evidence', and how they test it.

These supposed theories, are not actual scientific theories, because they haven’t been tested and verified, meeting the Scientific Method requirements.

Why is scientific testing more valid than any other method of testing evidence? (Hint: it's because you are a philosophical materialist. For you, verification requires credible physical functionality.)

These are just proposed hypotheses that have no observational or experimental evidence, but have “possible” mathematical solutions.

They are observed as mathematical solutions, and as such they are evidence. Unfortunately for science, they are evidence that cannot be tested for it's physical functionality.

So unless you have testable evidence these proposed theoretical models, they are not science.

Well, they are not within the scope of science to investigate, I agree.

For instance, for a couple of decades, since the 1990s, the variants of String Theory and Superstring Theory have proposed not to only unite General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics into one single theory, it also proposed that the smallest particles are “strings”, and that one of these variants - the M-theory - also proposed as many 11 dimensions, that lead to alternate reality or alternate universes, where there are many different versions of you and me in each realities.

And have said that, String Theory and Superstring Theory are not science.

Other highly theoretical concepts that are untestable like the Multiverse concept, which is supposedly alternative to the Big Bang theory, is going in the same direction as Superstring Theory.

They are proposed models, not science...but if you want to call String Theory and Multiverse model, philosophies, be my guest.[/QUOTE]Proposing a theory about physical functionality is fundamental part of the scientific process. And that's what these are. It's just the the process is stuck at the proposed theory point because we can't figure out how to test it's functionality.

 

[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

...

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.

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.

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.

In a gesture of being receptive and open, I have watched the first and last videos of Professor Harrison’s lectures titled Science, Religion and Modernity for The Gifford Lectures at the University of Edinburgh.

All I can say is that my prejudgment of the material based on the abstracts has been justified. There is too much to go into to describe how Professor Harrison’s fundamental bias is expressed in his premise and throughout the lecture series, but I want to use a statement in the last lecture as an example.

In his conclusions about Science and Religion, he addresses the concept of Faith in Religion by stating, “ [Of Theology] While it is necessary that the Christian tradition have an epistemological respectability, it's also important that the trust element be reinstated in a conception of Faith.”

We see clearly here, and right from the beginning of the series as he defines the benchmark for the term Religion as that stated by Thomas Aquinas, it is clear that for Professor Harrison, Religion means Western Christian Religion. He is not advocating a return to Faith in any Religion, but rather a specific Faith in a Theology based on the Christian tradition.

That the material presented in this lecture series should feel fundamentally true and unbiased to you, I think speaks to your unawareness of your own bias. The value you see in this series is a result of confirmation bias.

Everyone is susceptible to confirmation bias, and I think it is important to keep the concept of confirmation bias to the forefront of our mind whenever we are critically evaluating material. Here is a quick synopsis of confirmation bias in Wikipedia:

Confirmation bias is the tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that confirms or supports one's prior beliefs or values. People display this bias when they select information that supports their views, ignoring contrary information, or when they interpret ambiguous evidence as supporting their existing attitudes. The effect is strongest for desired outcomes, for emotionally charged issues, and for deeply entrenched beliefs. Confirmation bias cannot be eliminated entirely, but it can be managed, for example, by education and training in critical thinking skills.​

Hopefully my remarks will not be taken as insulting, but rather food for thought. I hope so, anyway.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...

Everyone is susceptible to confirmation bias, and I think it is important to keep the concept of confirmation bias to the forefront of our mind whenever we are critically evaluating material. Here is a quick synopsis of confirmation bias in Wikipedia:

Confirmation bias is the tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that confirms or supports one's prior beliefs or values. People display this bias when they select information that supports their views, ignoring contrary information, or when they interpret ambiguous evidence as supporting their existing attitudes. The effect is strongest for desired outcomes, for emotionally charged issues, and for deeply entrenched beliefs. Confirmation bias cannot be eliminated entirely, but it can be managed, for example, by education and training in critical thinking skills.​

Hopefully my remarks will not be taken as insulting, but rather food for thought. I hope so, anyway.

As long as you understand evaluation is not with only one usage and don't confuse scientific, moral, aestichic, utilitarian or philosophical evaluation? Do you understand that?

Do you understand, that the claim that science is the best way to understand the world and the humans in it, is not science? It is a subjective, personal evolution and it has no scientific evidence.
Your quote also apply to this: "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."

BTW Real and existent is imaginary or myth as it has no scientific evidence. It is at best bad philosophy.

 

[MikeF]

...
What scientific methodologies will 'verify' principles of ethics? (once we have decided on our ethical principles science may be able to help us identify courses of action, but it can't generate the guiding principles)
...

One of your main arguments throughout has been that there are certain topics or questions that cannot be addressed by Scientific Philosophy. One that you often cite are those questions related to Ethics. I wanted to take a moment to address this.

You state in your question above that Scientific Philosophy cannot generate the guiding or founding principles of Ethics. Certainly we both agree that we have to start somewhere, and the question becomes, “Where or how do we start?” If you are going to say that we must nebulously start with Philosophy, it is still begging the question. We are talking about people, whether Philosopher or Scientific Philosopher, having to make some subjective decision on where to start.

From a scientific philosopher’s standpoint, we would look at what is the principle subject of the inquiry, and that subject is human beings, and more specifically how should behavior be regulated when human beings interact in groups of 2 or more persons.

Therefore, the starting point in the investigation would be to develop as complete an understanding of expressions of behavior in all species generally, and then develop a detailed understanding of human behavior, both as an individual and in group behavior. This understanding would be pulled from many fields, to include general biology, neurosciences broadly, anthropology, sociology, and psychology. It would look at comparative expressions of human behavior throughout history.

With that foundational understanding of how human beings ‘work’ we can assess what group behavior mechanisms have developed organically and evolved over time into what we observe today. With that foundation, we can then begin to make subjective assessments and hypothesize on possible optimal principles for regulating human behavior above and beyond the instinctual.

Evaluation of a hypothesis is either supported by demonstrated historical value and efficacy, or through trial and error implementation of new and novel approaches. In all instances, Ethics require intersubjective agreement among members of the social group, or at least the imposition by a minority with enough power to enforce compliance.

The advantage of the scientific philosophical approach is that it is freely open to revision and reevaluation as we garner greater understanding of the subject, namely human beings. Ethical principles are not static and set upon an earlier, more primitive historical state of human society.

I think I have outlined a realistic scientific approach to Ethics. What method are you advocating for the generation of guiding principles?

 

[MikeF]

No, I am arguing that scientistic thinkers who reject philosophy as having any value do that

What I see as problematic is not science, but scientism, and I think the fight against scientism would be aided by making people more aware of the philosophical foundations of science.



Of course there is lots of very bad philosophy. It's not a competition about which is better science or philosophy.

The advancement of knowledge requires both.

I'm happy to criticise scientism, bad science and bad philosophy.



It wasn't a criticism but an example for what was mentioned previously:

"overstates the extent to which these can be empirically validated using a scientific method.... Case in point..."



Complex system - Wikipedia



If you forget about a hard distinction between the disciplines then there is no need to be incredulous.

Science is dependent on philosophy so practitioners of science may engage in the practical application of philosophy even if they are unaware they are doing so.



This appears to be something you have concocted out of a set of preconceived yet mistaken assumptions rather than what actually happened.

It's like you imagine some 'good' scientists pleading with the 'bad' philosopher to just let them apply scientific methods to their philosophy then they could all be friends but the philosopher just put his hands over his ears and pretended he couldn't hear them.

As noted multiple times, philosophy is not just 'bad science', much of it cannot be tested empirically. Not because philosophers are cowering in fear of the noble scientists, but because you simply can't design an experiment to tell me if abortion is immoral or to demarcate science from 'not science'.

As science became increasingly professionalised and specialised the philosophical content of a scientific education declined. This is a consequence of narrow specialisation in tertiary education and professional science. These people didn't actively reject philosophy, they just weren't taught much about it.

On the intellectual side, in the 19th and early 20th C you also had a lot of very scientistic thinkers who basically got carried away with their shiny new toy 'science' and believed it to be a bit more powerful than it actually was. This was the birth of scientism.

So you get scientists who recognise the value of philosophy, scientists who don't really think about it, and scientists who are actively hostile to philosophy



Yes, because natural philosophy was what 'science' used to be called

I'm certainly not going to claim we can have scientific ethics

The idea that I'm trying to 'shield' philosophy from 'scientific best practices' (whatever that means) couldn't be further from the truth.

My point is that 'scientific best practices' aren't really relevant to much of philosophy such as with ethics, etc.

I have posted two previous comments to sort of close out my position. I wanted to take a moment to thank you for investing the time in this discussion. Much appreciated.