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

[MikeF]

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?

 

[Secret Chief]

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?

Started off neutral...became a pejorative...

Scientism - Wikipedia

 

[Jose Fly]

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?

It's mostly just an excuse to wave away a rebuttal that a creationist can't refute. When a creationist is confronted with scientific info and they don't know how to counter it, a common tactic is to say something like "Well you just think science has all the answers" or "You worship science", which eventually becomes "You believe in scientism".

Most of what you see from creationists are little more than defensive mechanisms that help them cope with the fact that their position is directly contradicted by reality. Flat-earthers do the same thing.

 

[MikeF]

Started off neutral...became a pejorative...

Scientism - Wikipedia

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

 

[JoshuaTree]

Funny, but relevant, maybe, bad language warning...

 

[Erebus]

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?

Accusing somebody of scientism is never a compliment. In my opinion, its legitimate usage would refer to somebody who places unrealistic expectations on what science is and what it can do. People who argue something to the effect of, "Science can (or one day will) answer every question" are probably guilty of scientism.

However, the word gets used so liberally that it's lost virtually all meaning.

 

[George-ananda]

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?

(WIkipedia) Scientism is the promotion of science as the best or only objective means by which society should determine normative and epistemological values.

Scientism then as it applies to religion and spirituality rejects spiritual, paranormal, revelatory and psychic insight into the nature of reality that can not be verified through the physical senses and instruments of science.

I for one am pro-science but not a follower of scientism.

It's really personal judgment if 'scientism' is a positive, neutral or pejorative thing.

 

[Windwalker]

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?

It is used to distinguish the difference between using science as a tool of discovery, and the elevation of it to the status of the answer source of all life's mysteries. The former is science. The latter of a matter of faith. Using it calls out the difference between the two. I see Scientism as the same thing as Believerism in religion, taking the Bible as the one and only source of all true knowledge. Those are matters of faith, not science.

 

[exchemist]

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

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

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

 

[cladking]

It's mostly just an excuse to wave away a rebuttal that a creationist can't refute. When a creationist is confronted with scientific info and they don't know how to counter it, a common tactic is to say something like "Well you just think science has all the answers" or "You worship science", which eventually becomes "You believe in scientism".

Most of what you see from creationists are little more than defensive mechanisms that help them cope with the fact that their position is directly contradicted by reality. Flat-earthers do the same thing.

Most people believe in science without have a clue what it is or how it works. This leads them to believe anything said by any scientist must be correct so many of the "scientists" today are charlatans purveying Look and See Science.

Reason and science are the only things we have to understand reality that don't require faith but they are weak tools and are dangerous in the hands or minds of people who think science is some sort of magic that creates technology. We live in an era that all work could be done with a few billion man days per year but more people are working harder and longer hours than ever before as most of the earth's resources are wasted. We have turned the world over to people who are believed to have our best interests in mind and know everything. The reality is they know very little and are not doing anything for the people. So they sell us refrigerators that last a year or two and make tons of profit.

 

[MikeF]

Anyone who thinks the rest of the Humanities have value, too.

For clarity, What falls under this broad category of humanities that would feel pressure from science, or that science devalues in some way?

 

[MikeF]

It is used to distinguish the difference between using science as a tool of discovery, and the elevation of it to the status of the answer source of all life's mysteries. The former is science. The latter of a matter of faith. Using it calls out the difference between the two. I see Scientism as the same thing as Believerism in religion, taking the Bible as the one and only source of all true knowledge. Those are matters of faith, not science.

If we are talking mysteries, then who can lilegitimately say anything about it. It's unknown. I think you are simply illustrating my point.

 

[exchemist]

For clarity, What falls under this broad category of humanities that would feel pressure from science, or that science devalues in some way?

Literature. Art. Music. Much of history, too. You don't get far understanding works of art by applying the methods of science. Whereas, as I understand scientism, it argues that only a scientific approach to anything can have any validity.

It's rather an extreme and absurd position to take, and I don't think many people really do argue this. That's why I say I think scientism is a bit of an Aunt Sally.

 

[Windwalker]

If we are talking mysteries, then who can lilegitimately say anything about it. It's unknown.

Anyone who experiences it. Take what Einstein had to say about it.

“The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and science. He to whom the emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand wrapped in awe, is as good as dead —his eyes are closed. The insight into the mystery of life, coupled though it be with fear, has also given rise to religion. To know what is impenetrable to us really exists, manifesting itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty, which our dull faculties can comprehend only in their most primitive forms—this knowledge, this feeling is at the center of true religiousness.”

- Albert Einstein, Living Philosophies​

I think you are simply illustrating my point.

Thank Einstein for illustrating mine.

 

[gnostic]

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 see scientism more "philosophical" or "ideological" position than "science".

And in this day and age, I have only seen creationists, woo-believers and science-illiterate conspiracy theorists accuse people of following scientism, and these people (creationists and woo-sters) preferred to wallow in ignorance and superstitions than tried to understand science.

 

[exchemist]

It is used to distinguish the difference between using science as a tool of discovery, and the elevation of it to the status of the answer source of all life's mysteries. The former is science. The latter of a matter of faith. Using it calls out the difference between the two. I see Scientism as the same thing as Believerism in religion, taking the Bible as the one and only source of all true knowledge. Those are matters of faith, not science.

I think the phrase that does the work in what you have written is "life's mysteries".

Science is the pre-eminent tool for understanding the mysteries of nature, nature being something that seems to exist objectively, by means of observations of it on which we can agree.

Whereas the idea of life's mysteries indicates an individual human viewpoint: the experience of life that each one of us has over time. This is subjective, personal and emotional.

 

[MikeF]

Anyone who experiences it. Take what Einstein had to say about it.

“The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and science. He to whom the emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand wrapped in awe, is as good as dead —his eyes are closed. The insight into the mystery of life, coupled though it be with fear, has also given rise to religion. To know what is impenetrable to us really exists, manifesting itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty, which our dull faculties can comprehend only in their most primitive forms—this knowledge, this feeling is at the center of true religiousness.”

- Albert Einstein, Living Philosophies​

Thank Einstein for illustrating mine.

If we are speaking of what is know, regardless of how well understood, I too feel awe and wonder. However, magic need not be assumed to do so.

 

[tas8831]

Most people believe in science without have a clue what it is or how it works. .

Says the guy who claims to know how the pyramids were REALLY built despite not having any track record of publication and has done no actual research.

 

[Yazata]

From my experience, the word 'scientism' is used in a pejorative manner

Yes, that's true. The same is true of the word 'wrong'. But that perjorative usage doesn't discredit the concept of scientism any more than it discredits the idea of right and wrong.

as a way to somehow weaken the credibility of arguments based on scientific understanding, or to weaken the image of Science as a whole.

Those who employ the concept of 'scientism' aren't typically doing so to attack science per se. They use it to criticise what they perceive as scientific overreach and authoritarian uses of science.

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

Have you ever seen anyone claiming that what they are proposing is wrong, but continuing to advocate for it anyway? Isn't 'wrong' an idea that's more typically wielded by critics of the proposed idea or action? That doesn't in and of itself discredit the idea that some beliefs and actions are indeed wrong.

Am I missing something?

You seem to me to be inching dangerously close to the idea that science shoud be immune from criticism and that those who speak in the name of science must automatically be believed as society's ultimate authorities in all spheres of human life. That may or may not be what you meant to imply, but I find the idea to be quite authoritarian.

 

[Windwalker]

I think the phrase that does the work in what you have written is "life's mysteries".

Science is the pre-eminent tool for understanding the mysteries of nature, nature being something that seems to exist objectively, by means of observations of it on which we can agree.

Whereas the idea of life's mysteries indicates an individual human viewpoint: the experience of life that each one of us has over time. This is subjective, personal and emotional.

Yes. Science is not the correct tool for understanding the mysteries of life, which includes the subjective. You need other areas such as the arts and humanities, spiritual practices, and the like. The meaning of life is more than just a rational puzzle.

But to those who think the subjective and the personal are just "merely" or "only" and not critical to human existence, those who believe Science with a capital S is the source to answer all life's mysteries, are believing in Scientism as a matter of faith. I embrace science as a tool, not as the end all be all source of all knowledge. It simply is not.