"Scientism" on Wikipedia ...

[Sheldon]

Okay, you are a philosophical naturalism in effect. You just don't seem able to understand the different parts of what makes a claim about the world a claim.

Nope this is one of those unrelated straw men that you love to introduce. I told you I'm not pursuing those anymore, sorry.

Is it an objective fact that the world is not flat? I think you already agreed it is elsewhere anyway.

 

[F1fan]

Well, I am an atheist and on the side of the theists in this case.

You are an anomaly in the data.

 

[Sheldon]

Evidence of bad.

It seemed like an opinion to me, why would you demand evidence? I like plain chocolate, does that need evidence? Are you forgetting the coriander debacle.

 

[Audie]

All subjects doing a test the same way and achieving the same results makes the result "objective" to you in all cases?

If creationistsdid it, I'd say definitely not.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

But someone else will experience that exact same taste and produce the exact opposite result....they're delicious. Further, some folks change their tastes over time. So while science can inform various aspects of the taste of brussel sprouts, it can't tell us whether they "taste good".

Let's not be bogged down with the luggage that the word science implies - the empirical study of the world out there in an effort to discern general rules about the workings of physical reality and successfully apply them in the prediction of outcomes in the physical world.

I want to generalize this to include subjective truth such as Brussels sprouts tasting bad to me. If I can call it an objective fact that there is a difference of opinion about the taste of Brussels sprouts, then is it not also an objective fact to me which of those groups I fall in? I say it is, because it's not a matter of choice or a decision; it's an empiric discovery. I can't know how they taste without trying them. And if it's a repeatable experience, does it really matter to me that the sensory apparatus I'm using isn't my eyes to tell if it's daytime, or my ears to tell if it's thundering, or my skin to tell if it's hot out, but my taste (or smell) sensory apparatus.

I Have chosen the phrase informal science to refer to the data collection, induction of general rules, and testing of them that comprises daily life. When I go out and discover the my home is five blocks north and three blocks east of the pier (the induction derived from walking the streets and collecting information), and then leave my front door, walk five blocks south and three blocks west, and wind up at the pier (confirmation of the rule), I'm calling that informal science. It's exactly what occurs in an observatory, for example, when a scientist looks at the celestial neighborhood, generalizes about the motions of the celestial bodies he sees there, and then successfully predicts an eclipse, he's is doing the same thing, albeit formally. I call that formal science.

And I call them both empirical, recognizing that some empirically gained knowledge applies to everybody (anybody who looks up at the night sky to see an eclipse, or who wants to walk from my home to the pier), but some only applies to some people, such as empirically testing the taste of Brussels sprouts, observing that they reliably create a bad taste every time tested, I'm going to call that just as true for me and any of the other truths I mentioned that are true for us all.

I don't see how whether a painting is "art", or if brussel sprouts taste "good" is determined empirically.

Perhaps the above will help to explain what I mean. Each of us can only know what he finds beautiful or tasty by testing. How do we decide what music we like? Empirically. We listen to it and observe the evoked reaction. If it's pleasant for us, and then is so again and again, we have discovered an empiric truth about ourselves, albeit a private or subjective truth.

I recognize the value of making the distinction between private and public truth if for no other reason, to anticipate outcomes. I can expect you to see that eclipse and hear that thunder, but I cannot predict if you will like the Brussels sprouts. So, if I know these things, and we agree to go out and camp under the stars to witness a predicted eclipse, I expect you to be able to see it, but I won't bring Brussels sprouts along, because I can't expect you to like them if I haven't asked.

Your objective truths are likely to be mine as well if we are both adept at determining what is true about the world. What you call your subjective truths (maybe you like Brussels sprouts) are not truth to me, but your report, which I take at face value, but cannot test empirically more than seeing how you react to them

I can't help but include this clip from a comedy I like. In this scene, the heavy set guy is buying take-out chicken for two, a fact he wants to conceal when an acquaintance comes up to him, suspicious that his purchase isn't just for him, because it contains broccoli, which he is thought to despise. Can we call this empiric testing? I'll bet it's repeatable:

I think 'scientism' is a new needed word as discussed in the OP. I think the atheist-materialist type thinkers don't like the label although it describes the attitudes they present here. Perhaps it would be a better approach by them to accept the term as not something derogatory and defend their thinking.

I already use the term (scientism) in a descriptive, non-judgmental way. As has already been discussed, the word is used in more than one way. Returning to Wiki:

"Scientism is the view that science is the best or only objective means by which society should determine normative and epistemological values. While the term was originally defined to mean "methods and attitudes typical of or attributed to the natural scientist", some religious scholars (and subsequently many others) adopted it as a pejorative with the meaning "an exaggerated trust in the efficacy of the methods of natural science applied to all areas of investigation (as in philosophy, the social sciences, and the humanities)." The term scientism is often used critically, implying an unwarranted application of science in situations considered not amenable to application of the scientific method or similar scientific standards."

Here are three different usages of the word, the last two disparaging, but applying to different groups of people (anybody that elevates science, and those that misapply it). The first definition certainly applies to any skeptical empiricist. They'll tell you that science is the only method that generates truths about the world, although as you might have just read, I extend that to include the empirical determination of personal or subjective truths. What else is there but guessing? Intuition can be a guide, but ideas arrived at intuitively need to be verified empirically, or they're just guesses as well.

I would challenge the use of the phrases "exaggerated trust in the efficacy of the methods of natural science applied to all areas of investigation (as in philosophy, the social sciences, and the humanities)." It reminds me of when I was in clinical practice, and I would be asked what's excessive alcohol? Two drinks a day? Four? My answer was always pragmatic. Does if cause you to slur speech, fall, lose things, or blackout? Are you driving intoxicated, or having problems with your spouse, friends, or work? How do your liver function tests look? Are you gaining or losing weight? If the answers are all no, I can't call that excessive drinking, even if it is more than some would approve of. I see this as the same. I feel the criticism that trust in science as the only arbiter of truth about the world needs to be backed up with some examples of how this attitude is deficient to not just ignore the claim that there is excessive reliance on science.

Since this subject comes up almost exclusively when theists are criticizing skeptics refusal to believe without empiric support, I generally translate the complaint to, "Why do you think we don't also have truth with our holy books. Your method of determining truth is too strict if it doesn't respect our religious beliefs enough to call them truth, and we claim that right, so your method must be excessive and too limiting."

Well, that's not how I define truth. Just because someone else believes it does not make it truth.

As far as others using the term pejoratively, I'd say that most terms theists use to describe skeptical thinkers are pejorative. What did you mean by atheist-materialist? When coming from a theist, I always read that as "person whose vision is too small, too unimaginative, too colorless, too sanitized." I hear Kirk teasing Spock - "What happened to the rest of you? Where's your soul?"

Yeah, you take for granted that this is in effect a fact to the point where it is not only that taken for granted. It is a fact, period:
that there is an objective reality shared by all rational observers.

Nope. I've told you the opposite, in fact. I've told you that I don't care what's "really" out there, and that if I discovered that I was a brain in a vat, nothing changes for me as long as the rules of experience that have worked before I knew that still work.

Would be possible to ask you to quote a few examples of what you are labelling "absurd and arrogant thinking" on here?

That never happens, does it? The theists are happy to create strawmen, and feel no obligation to support their allegations.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Nope this is one of those unrelated straw men that you love to introduce. I told you I'm not pursuing those anymore, sorry.

Is it an objective fact that the world is not flat? I think you already agreed it is elsewhere anyway.

Another context. We are doing metaphysics here.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...

Here are three different usages of the word, the last two disparaging, but applying to different groups of people (anybody that elevates science, and those that misapply it). The first definition certainly applies to any skeptical empiricist. They'll tell you that science is the only method that generates truths about the world, although as you might have just read, I extend that to include the empirical determination of personal or subjective truths. What else is there but guessing? Intuition can be a guide, but ideas arrived at intuitively need to be verified empirically, or they're just guesses as well.

...

I was told by scientific skeptics that science is not about truth. Further you need to explain what you mean by the world and subjective truths versus truth about the world. Are subjective truths not in the world? Is all the world non-subjective. Please clarify.

 

[Windwalker]

Oh I'm familiar with the term, I just don't see it being true of "many atheists here" as the thread author has claimed. At least not in the pejorative sense he's using it.

When someone says they believe in God, do you ever counter with a 'where's your evidence?' type response? Or dismiss it as saying in effect that it just a simple subjective belief or feeling, and doesn't count? Do you rely solely on evidence and scientific scrutiny in order to believe something, and dismiss others who don't?

For instance:

Would be possible to ask you to quote a few examples of what you are labelling "absurd and arrogant thinking" on here?

Only believing the entire universe, and every living thing was all created solely as a vehicle for humans to achieve an eternity of bliss after they die, had always struck me as absurd, and more than a little arrogant. Especially when you consider the fact humans only evolved about 200k years ago.

That would be one example of absurd thinking, that belief in God can be reduced to or understood as prescientific, mythic-literalism. There are many who believe in God, and fully accept evolution as true, and reject such an idea of God. Do you say to them, "where's your evidence", and expect science to be able to verify or affirm their belief in order for it to have truth value to it? Do you acknowledge that maybe there are other ways of knowing truth, that science is unable to penetrate? That's the salient question.

 

[PureX]

Would be possible to ask you to quote a few examples of what you are labelling "absurd and arrogant thinking" on here?

Sure, your own next sentence will do nicely.

Only believing the entire universe, and every living thing was all created solely as a vehicle for humans to achieve an eternity of bliss after they die, had always struck me as absurd, and more than a little arrogant. Especially when you consider the fact humans only evolved about 200k years ago.

So, having no basis whatever for rejecting this belief, held by some others, you have declared it's both "absurd" and "arrogant" of them to hod it. Which is, in itself, quite absurd and arrogant. Absurd, because you can't offer any of the same support for YOUR opinions as you are demanding of the 'believer' in support of his, and then using the lack of to reject. And arrogant because you are declaring his opinions absurd by the standards of your OWN equally absurd and unsupported opinion.

And even as you EXEMPLIFY the very behavior I alluded to in the OP, you continue to jump up and don demanding examples, and declaring that they don't exist.

The level of willful ignorance, arrogance, and absurdity here are so overwhelming that I honestly don't know how else to respond!

 

[Nakosis]

The problem is that reality cannot be objectively limited or defined.

I think we can objectively define reality. We can measure it and quantify it fairly easily.

Subjective experience and cognition are real and are fundamental to our understanding of reality. Perception is, itself, a subjectively conceptual act. So is reasoning. And not even science can escape that fact.

I'll agree we can't use subjective experience to define reality. Not because it is not a physical process but because each brain is a unique process. However our experience is part reality and partly a process that is subjective to our individual brains. It is however possible to identify where reality ends and subjectivity begins.

Any theist or atheist is free to personally choose how they perceive their experience of reality in relation to the God ideal. The problem comes when they choose to believe that their perception of reality IS reality. And therefor anyone else's perception of it must be false. Not all theists do this, nor do all atheists. But a lot more atheists, here, are doing this than are willing to admit it. And they are hiding this obsession within and behind sceintism.

Some theists do this, too, and hide their irrational arrogance behind 'inerrant bibliolatry'. But this thread is for and about the atheists that have fallen into this kind of absurd and arrogantly presumptive thinking.

So I guess there is a derogatory meaning of scientism which I didn't catch in the OP. One of belief in the method of science without verification. IOW taking the claims of science on faith.

Kind of defeats the idea of science but I suppose someone might be guilty of this.
Since I'm usually one to defend materialism I might be perceived as being guilty of this.
However, many of the claims made by science, theories, I don't believe.

I may see science as the only trustworthy way of determining what is real, but I believe any claims made by anyone ought to be verified to the best of one's ability before being accepted.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

When someone says they believe in God, do you ever counter with a 'where's your evidence?' type response?

I don't, because I know that they won't have evidence of a deity. The best they'll do is point to a holy book or the revelation of some messenger, or the world around us, and say that that is their evidence for God. That's not evidence for a deity, since it doesn't make the god hypothesis more likely, nor its alternative, naturalistic explanations, less likely.

And when I see a skeptic asking for evidence, I assume that they now this as well, and are actually saying that there is not sufficient evidence for a deity, and he requires that before believing, so, in effect, a rhetorical question, by which I mean an assertion ending with a question mark requiring no answer.

Do you rely solely on evidence and scientific scrutiny in order to believe something, and dismiss others who don't?

Yes. My definition of truth is anchored in empiricism, which tethers it to physical reality. I don't consider anything truth that can't be demonstrated to be that. So, my truth is, "I believe it, and can demonstrate it to be the case." If what you mean is "I just know it's true, but I can't show it to you," I translate that to mean "I believe it without sufficient evidence," which reduced the belief from justified belief to faith. Faith is not a path to truth. How can it be when it allows belief in wrong things?

Why is the claim, "I just know there's a God" better than, "I just know that there is no God." Presumably, at most one is correct, the other wrong. I can explain why the claim "I just know that the earth is roughly spherical" is correct, and saying it is flat is wrong, because there is evidence that makes one of those beliefs justified and the other wrong. With faith, you sidestep evidence and go right to belief, a logical error called non sequitur.

Or dismiss it as saying in effect that it just a simple subjective belief or feeling, and doesn't count?

What else is it if it can't be demonstrated to be more? You might call it fact or truth, but I wouldn't.

And yes, it doesn't count if by count you mean have persuasive power. It probably counts for you, but not the empiricist.

Do you acknowledge that maybe there are other ways of knowing truth, that science is unable to penetrate?

No, although I would use the word empiricism rather than science, but I probably have a different definition of truth than you do.

So, having no basis whatever for rejecting this belief, held by some others, you have declared it's both "absurd" and "arrogant" of them to hold it. Which is, in itself, quite absurd and arrogant.

Really? I hold the same opinion. It is eminently reasonable to believe that the universe is likely teeming with life, and that a universe of this size devoid of life except on earth is possible, but unreasonable to believe.

And even as you EXEMPLIFY the very behavior I alluded to in the OP, you continue to jump up and don demanding examples, and declaring that they don't exist. The level of willful ignorance, arrogance, and absurdity here are so overwhelming that I honestly don't know how else to respond!

Exactly how I would describe your posting about gods and atheists - willful ignorance, arrogance, and absurdity. You never seem to get it right what atheists believe and claim (willful ignorance), and you argue that one should believe in gods without sufficient evidence (absurd), and decry those that won't as being stubborn, absurd, and worse (arrogant).

 

[Jose Fly]

Ok, I'm more interested in desensitizing the term.
Just not doing a very good job of it I guess.

The term doesn't bother me. Not really sure why it should bother anyone.

For me, it's just that it's not accurate. In fact, I don't know anyone who applies the scientific method to every single aspect of their lives. Seems kinda absurd to me.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Its ok to just say you cant do it.
Nobody else can either.

Okay. I can’t be arsed (bovvered) to do it. Which amounts to much the same thing in effect.

 

[Nakosis]

Scientism

1. thought or expression regarded as characteristic of scientists.
   • excessive belief in the power of scientific knowledge and techniques

And we can add Wiki in here to help clarify this matter:

Scientism is the view that science is the best or only objective means by which society should determine normative and epistemological values. While the term was originally defined to mean "methods and attitudes typical of or attributed to the natural scientist", some religious scholars (and subsequently many others) adopted it as a pejorative with the meaning "an exaggerated trust in the efficacy of the methods of natural science applied to all areas of investigation (as in philosophy, the social sciences, and the humanities)".[1]

The term scientism is often used critically, implying an unwarranted application of science in situations considered not amenable to application of the scientific method or similar scientific standards.​

Sorry, the weight of evidence is against you here. It's associated with Logical Positivism, which is an outdated, silly belief that science will tell us everything there is to know about everything. And aptly applied to those who have traded faith in the Bible with faith in science. It's believerism in another form. Same believersism, different objects of belief. That's all.

Furthermore, to complete what you cited about the natural sciences:

"The belief that the methods of natural science, or the categories and things recognized in natural science, form the only proper elements in any philosophical or other inquiry",[12] or that "science, and only science, describes the world as it is in itself, independent of perspective"
​

That's faith. That's not science. It's belief.

I do think science is the best means.
The rest just seems an attempt to conflate science and faith.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I think we can objectively define reality. We can measure it and quantify it fairly easily.


I'll agree we can't use subjective experience to define reality. Not because it is not a physical process but because each brain is a unique process. However our experience is part reality and partly a process that is subjective to our individual brains. It is however possible to identify where reality ends and subjectivity begins.



So I guess there is a derogatory meaning of scientism which I didn't catch in the OP. One of belief in the method of science without verification. IOW taking the claims of science on faith.

Kind of defeats the idea of science but I suppose someone might be guilty of this.
Since I'm usually one to defend materialism I might be perceived as being guilty of this.
However, many of the claims made by science, theories, I don't believe.

I may see science as the only trustworthy way of determining what is real, but I believe any claims made by anyone ought to be verified to the best of one's ability before being accepted.

No, look here:
Philosophy of science - Wikipedia

 

[lukethethird]

It's only "pejorative" because it's an ideology that can't even stand up by it's own criteria.

OK, fine, no problem, but you accuse many atheists here of adhering to this ideology, but can give no examples. That tells us more about you and your fear of atheists than it does about how this ideology is supposedly adhered to on this forum.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

OK, fine, no problem, but you accuse many atheists here of adhering to this ideology, but can give no examples. That tells us more about you and your fear of atheists than it does about this ideology and how it is supposedly adhered to on this forum.

He has already given one.
Follow the link: "Scientism" on Wikipedia ...

 

[Jose Fly]

Let's not be bogged down with the luggage that the word science implies - the empirical study of the world out there in an effort to discern general rules about the workings of physical reality and successfully apply them in the prediction of outcomes in the physical world.

I want to generalize this to include subjective truth such as Brussels sprouts tasting bad to me. If I can call it an objective fact that there is a difference of opinion about the taste of Brussels sprouts, then is it not also an objective fact to me which of those groups I fall in? I say it is, because it's not a matter of choice or a decision; it's an empiric discovery. I can't know how they taste without trying them. And if it's a repeatable experience, does it really matter to me that the sensory apparatus I'm using isn't my eyes to tell if it's daytime, or my ears to tell if it's thundering, or my skin to tell if it's hot out, but my taste (or smell) sensory apparatus.

I Have chosen the phrase informal science to refer to the data collection, induction of general rules, and testing of them that comprises daily life. When I go out and discover the my home is five blocks north and three blocks east of the pier (the induction derived from walking the streets and collecting information), and then leave my front door, walk five blocks south and three blocks west, and wind up at the pier (confirmation of the rule), I'm calling that informal science. It's exactly what occurs in an observatory, for example, when a scientist looks at the celestial neighborhood, generalizes about the motions of the celestial bodies he sees there, and then successfully predicts an eclipse, he's is doing the same thing, albeit formally. I call that formal science.

And I call them both empirical, recognizing that some empirically gained knowledge applies to everybody (anybody who looks up at the night sky to see an eclipse, or who wants to walk from my home to the pier), but some only applies to some people, such as empirically testing the taste of Brussels sprouts, observing that they reliably create a bad taste every time tested, I'm going to call that just as true for me and any of the other truths I mentioned that are true for us all.



Perhaps the above will help to explain what I mean. Each of us can only know what he finds beautiful or tasty by testing. How do we decide what music we like? Empirically. We listen to it and observe the evoked reaction. If it's pleasant for us, and then is so again and again, we have discovered an empiric truth about ourselves, albeit a private or subjective truth.

I recognize the value of making the distinction between private and public truth if for no other reason, to anticipate outcomes. I can expect you to see that eclipse and hear that thunder, but I cannot predict if you will like the Brussels sprouts. So, if I know these things, and we agree to go out and camp under the stars to witness a predicted eclipse, I expect you to be able to see it, but I won't bring Brussels sprouts along, because I can't expect you to like them if I haven't asked.

Your objective truths are likely to be mine as well if we are both adept at determining what is true about the world. What you call your subjective truths (maybe you like Brussels sprouts) are not truth to me, but your report, which I take at face value, but cannot test empirically more than seeing how you react to them

I can't help but include this clip from a comedy I like. In this scene, the heavy set guy is buying take-out chicken for two, a fact he wants to conceal when an acquaintance comes up to him, suspicious that his purchase isn't just for him, because it contains broccoli, which he is thought to despise. Can we call this empiric testing? I'll bet it's repeatable:

I get what you're saying.....that we do use what can be described as "empirical thinking" in various aspects of life, even when we're not consciously/deliberately saying to ourselves "I need to use science here". To me, that's not "scientism". To me, that term refers to the view that science is the best means to answer every question and resolve every issue there is.

That's what I don't see as at all practical or realistic. I'll give one more example of what I'm talking about and then I think I'm done with this (because I don't really see a point to the debate). Today I've been pondering what to do for lunch....do I want to go into town and get a burger, or do I want to cook something here? I'm still not sure what I'm going to do. Now, I'm sure if we really parsed it down we could identify some empirical steps in my thought process, but IMO the ultimate decision won't be empirical. It's mostly going to come down to how I feel.

And that doesn't strike me as very empirical or scientific, even though there might be empirical/scientific aspects in there somewhere.

Thanks for the thoughtful post though. I'm sorry for not giving it the attention it deserves.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I get what you're saying.....that we do use what can be described as "empirical thinking" in various aspects of life, even when we're not consciously/deliberately saying to ourselves "I need to use science here". To me, that's not "scientism". To me, that term refers to the view that science is the best means to answer every question and resolve every issue there is.

That's what I don't see as at all practical or realistic. I'll give one more example of what I'm talking about and then I think I'm done with this (because I don't really see a point to the debate). Today I've been pondering what to do for lunch....do I want to go into town and get a burger, or do I want to cook something here? I'm still not sure what I'm going to do. Now, I'm sure if we really parsed it down we could identify some empirical steps in my thought process, but IMO the ultimate decision won't be empirical. It's mostly going to come down to how I feel.

And that doesn't strike me as very empirical or scientific, even though there might be empirical/scientific aspects in there somewhere.

Thanks for the thoughtful post though. I'm sorry for not giving it the attention it deserves.

As for empirical there are 2 versions. The uncommon I think is from one of the British skeptics/empiricists and include feeling. But don't treat it as truth. It is just how I remember it.

 

[Sheldon]

When someone says they believe in God, do you ever counter with a 'where's your evidence?' type response?

Usually of course, what else would I do, but not just god claims of course.

Or dismiss it as saying in effect that it just a simple subjective belief or feeling, and doesn't count?

Not sure what you mean by dismiss it, but I am an atheist, so obviously I haven't found theistic apologetics compelling.

Do you rely solely on evidence and scientific scrutiny in order to believe something, and dismiss others who don't?

Well if there no evidence then I would be unlikely to believe the claim. I would also consider science to be demonstrably the most successful method we have at understanding the physical natural world and universe. It can't examine claims or ideas that are unfalsifiable of course, or that provide no data for science to examine.

That would be one example of absurd thinking,

You think asking that a claim be properly evidenced is absurd? I have a bridge to sell you, it's a corker.

that belief in God can be reduced to or understood as prescientific, mythic-literalism.

Well I don't believe in any deity or deities, so I can't say what the claim involves until a theist tells me obviously, as theism is not a single belief, there are thousands of deities, and religions built around them.

There are many who believe in God, and fully accept evolution as true, and reject such an idea of God. Do you say to them, "where's your evidence", and expect science to be able to verify or affirm their belief in order for it to have truth value to it?

I usually ask what objective evidence, if any, they can demonstrate to support the belief. I rarely mention science, as it seems axiomatic if there were scientific evidence to support the existence of a deity we'd likely know about it, I don't see theists keeping that news to themselves. You now theists claim there is scientific evidence for deities on here right?

Do you acknowledge that maybe there are other ways of knowing truth, that science is unable to penetrate? That's the salient question.

Well there is logic, and philosophy, but I don't believe it is possible to argue something into existence. So I'd need some objective evidence to support the claim, obviously specific to the context. You've heard the expression extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. However this sounds like you're asking me to accept that something exists beyond the material physical universe, and whilst I cannot and do not claim it does not exist, as it sounds like an unfalsifiable claim, I would have to disbelieve the claim unless something was offered that was more than a bare subjective assertion. Again not just for god claims, though of course some claims would be of a nature that accepting them wouldn't be particularly significant, if you claimed you owned a dog, I'd be unlikely to dispute it, for example, with or without any evidence.