"Scientism" on Wikipedia ...

[Audie]

Oh I think melodrama isn't going to do here, and since you continue to cite "many examples", I'd need you to produce a few, before I'd accept your claim. The choice is yours as you say, though I shan't indulge the melodramatic metaphors, and no true Scotsman fallacy. Like PureX you seem happy to ingore that my post didn't exist when you and he made your claim, it is of course just one post not many examples, and best of all it clearly isn't scientism. The real irony is neither of addressing the post honestly in the context it was offered.

As for dogma, describing someone as blind, ignorant, arrogant, closed minded and in darkness etc etc etc just because they don't share a belief that no one can demonstrate anything beyond bare subjective claims for, is also pretty ironic.

Noe, dont get greedy.
One example is plenty.

 

[oldbadger]

I was just reading some of the more recent additional information on wiki about "scientism",

The original meaning was an excessive belief in science.... Yes?

Is that such a bad mindset?

I mean to say, some folks think that God looks human and created trillions of star systems and billions of galaxies yet particularly favours us, on this tiny little planet.

Now which would be the daftest of those two?

 

[Audie]

That you had to ask. It's meaningless until it's given a context, by us.
We make the instruments. They are simply extensions of us. We make them based on our subjective experience, so as to enhance that experience.
It's all we have. Reality, for us, is just a conceptual extrapolation derived from our limited personal and collective experiences, using our limited intellectual capacity. We have no other means of 'knowing' reality.
The term "subjective" means 'subject to'. Everything we think we know is subject to who and what we are, both collectively and individually. There is no escaping this through the mythical ideal of "objectivity". It's probably true that reality extends far beyond what we can know of it. But we can only know what we can know of it. So we can never gain access to the "objective reality" beyond our own subjective experience and understanding. Because that exists (if it exists), by definition, beyond the reach of ourselves. Because human cognition is always going to be subject to the human cognating. It's always going to be subjective. Pretending that we have access to "objective reality" through science is much like pretending that we have access to God through religion. All we ever have access to are our own limited experiences and conceptions of those experiences. And labeling them "objective" or "God", doesn't overcome that.
Let's be very clear, here. Faith is trust without surety.
Evidence is subjective. Pretending that it provides some magical pathway to understanding "objective reality" is no different than pretending that religion provides some magical pathway to knowing the mind or will of God.
I am trying to point out the irrationality of believing that we can know what we can't.
All "evidence" is subjective. And so is the imagined "objective reality" that we presume to exist based on it. We cannot escape the innate bias and ignorance that accompanies who and what we are. Not with science, and not with religion, either.
Reality is what it is. What is mythical is what we think reality is based on our very limited and subjective "evidence".
How could there possibly be physical evidence for "the supernatural". And even if there were, how could you possibly verify it as physical evidence of the supernatural? That isn't even a logical expectation. So why are you proposing it, and maintaining it as such?

Ah so! Evidence for the VIce of Scientism is subjective! No wonder you can detect it anywhere!
That we may learn the wisdom, wouldnt you
just give one example.?
Some of us cannot learn from just words, we need to be shown.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

we have a winning post: This man understands the scientism label and embraces it.

You have a winner? I'd say that I do. I not only embraced scientism, I repeated the claim that empiricism is the only path to truth about the world as I defined truth, that is true statements are those that can be empirically demonstrated (to all in the case of public truths, and to oneself in the case of personal truths, such as Brussels sprouts tasting unpleasant) to be true by making accurate predictions of outcomes.

I have said that what others are calling truth, such as the "truth" that God exists, because they have a hunch that what they are experiencing is a deity rather than their own minds, and projecting something that exists entirely within the theater of their personal consciousness onto reality, doesn't rise to this standard.

You ignored all that and went into your victory lap, a phenomenon others call pigeon chess. The statement still stands unrebutted. Unless you can demonstrate otherwise, well. you don't have a winner. You have a loser.

I have also questioned what excessive reliance on empiricism means. Too say that people like me go too far implies a mistake with undesirable consequences. I illustrated what I meant with the analogy of too much alcohol, and why for that to have meaning, one needs to show some harm coming from that degree of drinking, whether physical (blackouts) or social (DUI). Can you or anybody else show the world a second path to truth about it as I have defined truth, or will you just claim like other critics of strict empiricists that others are too small-minded without ever demonstrating that you are right or they are wrong?

Yes I embrace scientism, and proudly as you can see, as I do atheism. It is a correct epistemic position for as long as it has not been successfully rebutted.

You didn't even try, did you? If there was more of a response to my reasoned argument that the response I culled the above quote from, I didn't see it.

Let me share something with you about the values of academia in disputation. Dialectic is the method employed. It is the cooperative effort of two or more people skilled in critical thinking attempting to resolve differences. It is done by addressing the points one another make, and when in disagreement, explaining where and why.

Here's a schematic representation of the different levels of disputation. The four highest levels describe addressing the argument in progressively lesser degrees. The apex is what I am asking for - if you can, refute my central point as just restated here. Less interesting is addressing only peripheral points, as when somebody answers a comment that was in the argument, but wasn't the central point (level 2), doesn't rebut the argument made but does give an argument of his own in contradiction (level 3), or simply contradicts without explanation (level 4).

Below that are the responses that don't address the argument at all, such as yours above.

I'm asking you to join me at the top there. That's where dialectic lives. That's where progress is made in discussion. One we stop addressing one another's objections or answering one another's questions, the dialectic train derails, and the useful part of the discussion is over:

 

[wandering peacefully]

The original meaning was an excessive belief in science.... Yes?

Is that such a bad mindset?

I mean to say, some folks think that God looks human and created trillions of star systems and billions of galaxies yet particularly favours us, on this tiny little planet.

Now which would be the daftest of those two?

I'm with you. I researched the term and most of those adjectives about "scientism" as well as the word itself are created by theists. Just a made up word and beliefs about non-believers by believers.

They act as though science is a noun and entity like their gods. They are so convinced of a God reality they need atheists and asupernaturalists to have something akin to their belief ideas about gods. They don't seem to understand that science isn't a thing. It's a process. They cannot believe we don't need a higher power belief as they do. So they make up terms to describe a group of people whom they themselves do not belong to and certainly do not understand.

So yeah, we believe science is the basis and process to use in order to gain all actual knowledge about the universe and it seems to bother them.

 

[Sheldon]

That you had to ask. It's meaningless until it's given a context, by us.
We make the instruments. They are simply extensions of us. We make them based on our subjective experience, so as to enhance that experience.
It's all we have. Reality, for us, is just a conceptual extrapolation derived from our limited personal and collective experiences, using our limited intellectual capacity. We have no other means of 'knowing' reality.
The term "subjective" means 'subject to'. Everything we think we know is subject to who and what we are, both collectively and individually. There is no escaping this through the mythical ideal of "objectivity". It's probably true that reality extends far beyond what we can know of it. But we can only know what we can know of it. So we can never gain access to the "objective reality" beyond our own subjective experience and understanding. Because that exists (if it exists), by definition, beyond the reach of ourselves. Because human cognition is always going to be subject to the human cognating. It's always going to be subjective. Pretending that we have access to "objective reality" through science is much like pretending that we have access to God through religion. All we ever have access to are our own limited experiences and conceptions of those experiences. And labeling them "objective" or "God", doesn't overcome that.
Let's be very clear, here. Faith is trust without surety.
Evidence is subjective. Pretending that it provides some magical pathway to understanding "objective reality" is no different than pretending that religion provides some magical pathway to knowing the mind or will of God.
I am trying to point out the irrationality of believing that we can know what we can't.
All "evidence" is subjective. And so is the imagined "objective reality" that we presume to exist based on it. We cannot escape the innate bias and ignorance that accompanies who and what we are. Not with science, and not with religion, either.
Reality is what it is. What is mythical is what we think reality is based on our very limited and subjective "evidence".
How could there possibly be physical evidence for "the supernatural". And even if there were, how could you possibly verify it as physical evidence of the supernatural? That isn't even a logical expectation. So why are you proposing it, and maintaining it as such?

I would read that, but since you have already claimed that it is not an objective fact that the earth is not flat, there seems little point. If you have to go as far as denying the objective shape of the earth, in order to justify an unevidenced belief then that says it all really.

The idea that accurate measuring instruments reflect human subjectivity is simply priceless, asinine of course, but priceless. I assume you never ever get one a plane?

 

[Sheldon]

The term "subjective" means 'subject to'.

Well well, and there's me thinking it meant based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions.

So could you claimed that claim the earth is not flat, is subjective, and not an objective fact, which of course we must infer that you think that claim is based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions?

 

[Audie]

Well well, and there's me thinking it meant based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions.

So could you claimed that claim the earth is not flat, is subjective, and not an objective fact, which of course we must infer that you think that claim is based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions?

All is subject to opinion, incl shape of the earth

This shows where " philosophy" will get you.

 

[Audie]

You have a winner? I'd say that I do. I not only embraced scientism, I repeated the claim that empiricism is the only path to truth about the world as I defined truth, that is true statements are those that can be empirically demonstrated (to all in the case of public truths, and to oneself in the case of personal truths, such as Brussels sprouts tasting unpleasant) to be true by making accurate predictions of outcomes.

I have said that what others are calling truth, such as the "truth" that God exists, because they have a hunch that what they are experiencing is a deity rather than their own minds, and projecting something that exists entirely within the theater of their personal consciousness onto reality, doesn't rise to this standard.

You ignored all that and went into your victory lap, a phenomenon others call pigeon chess. The statement still stands unrebutted. Unless you can demonstrate otherwise, well. you don't have a winner. You have a loser.

I have also questioned what excessive reliance on empiricism means. Too say that people like me go too far implies a mistake with undesirable consequences. I illustrated what I meant with the analogy of too much alcohol, and why for that to have meaning, one needs to show some harm coming from that degree of drinking, whether physical (blackouts) or social (DUI). Can you or anybody else show the world a second path to truth about it as I have defined truth, or will you just claim like other critics of strict empiricists that others are too small-minded without ever demonstrating that you are right or they are wrong?

Yes I embrace scientism, and proudly as you can see, as I do atheism. It is a correct epistemic position for as long as it has not been successfully rebutted.

You didn't even try, did you? If there was more of a response to my reasoned argument that the response I culled the above quote from, I didn't see it.

Let me share something with you about the values of academia in disputation. Dialectic is the method employed. It is the cooperative effort of two or more people skilled in critical thinking attempting to resolve differences. It is done by addressing the points one another make, and when in disagreement, explaining where and why.

Here's a schematic representation of the different levels of disputation. The four highest levels describe addressing the argument in progressively lesser degrees. The apex is what I am asking for - if you can, refute my central point as just restated here. Less interesting is addressing only peripheral points, as when somebody answers a comment that was in the argument, but wasn't the central point (level 2), doesn't rebut the argument made but does give an argument of his own in contradiction (level 3), or simply contradicts without explanation (level 4).

Below that are the responses that don't address the argument at all, such as yours above.

I'm asking you to join me at the top there. That's where dialectic lives. That's where progress is made in discussion. One we stop addressing one another's objections or answering one another's questions, the dialectic train derails, and the useful part of the discussion is over:

So, um, are you saying you are an example of the scientismist described in the op?

I need to know.

 

[Yazata]

I was just reading some of the more recent additional information on wiki about "scientism", and could not help but notice the striking resemblance between many of the 'atheists' that participate on this site, and the characterizations being offered on wiki regarding "scientism".

Yes, I've noticed that too. It isn't just this site either, atheists love to snuggle up to science seemingly everywhere in the (false) assurance that not ony does science settle (or provide the means to settle) all of the outstanding questions (particularly the most foundational questions) in every conceivable subject, but more particularly that science somehow proves (or justifies, or something) their own atheism.

And yet whenever I've tried to point out these same characterizations to those atheists on this site who routinely express these exact same characteristics, they deny that they or anyone they know show any resemblance to them.

Atheists (like most people) aren't always paragons of intellectual consistency.

Somehow, they are unable to see themselves as such even as they actively express themselves as such.

It's quite puzzling, and it gives me the impression of there being some sort of cult-like phenomena involved.

Just basic psychology I think. Like most people, when challenged intellectually they get their backs up. They like the feeling of group solidarity they get from belonging to the 'atheist' clan. And many of them absolutely love the feeling that because of their (perhaps specious) association with science, they will just naturally be the smartest people in any room. Science is smart, they are the self-proclaimed party of science, so they must be smart too. Science and defense of science form a big part of their sense of self-identity.

Let me post some of the characteristics of "scientism" from wiki and lets see if any of you self-proclaimed atheists, here, can see yourself in any of them ...

"In the philosophy of science, the term scientism frequently implies a critique of the more extreme expressions of logical positivism[2][3] and has been used by social scientists such as Friedrich Hayek,[4] philosophers of science such as Karl Popper,[5] and philosophers such as Mary Midgley,[6] the later Hilary Putnam,[6][7] and Tzvetan Todorov[8] to describe (for example) the dogmatic endorsement of scientific methodology and the reduction of all knowledge to only that which is measured or confirmatory.[9]"

"It has been defined as "the view that the characteristic inductive methods of the natural sciences are the only source of genuine factual knowledge and, in particular, that they alone can yield true knowledge about man and society"."

(The term "Scientism") It is used to criticize a totalizing view of science as if it were capable of describing all reality and knowledge, or as if it were the only true way to acquire knowledge about reality and the nature of things;"

"E. F. Schumacher, in his A Guide for the Perplexed, criticized scientism as an impoverished world view confined solely to what can be counted, measured and weighed. "The architects of the modern worldview, notably Galileo and Descartes, assumed that those things that could be weighed, measured, and counted were more true than those that could not be quantified. If it couldn't be counted ... it didn't count."[32]"

"Intellectual historian T.J. Jackson Lears argued there has been a recent reemergence of "nineteenth-century positivist faith that a reified 'science' has discovered (or is about to discover) all the important truths about human life. Precise measurement and rigorous calculation, in this view, are the basis for finally settling enduring metaphysical and moral controversies."
​

I have read many of the self-proclaimed atheists on this site paraphrasing many of these same ideals, often, and repeatedly.

Yes. Even some of our RF moderators repeat the same kind of ideas.

"God is not real unless and until God can be proven real by the objective methodology of science".

How can anything be proven without use of logic? And how can logic be "proven" (or justified) without circularity or by appeal to intuition?

I think that most of the fundamental questions in pretty much any intellectual subject are like that. That most definitely includes the many unacknowledged and unjustified assumptions upon which the "objective methodology of science" rests. When one pokes deeply enough, pretty much all of human intellectual life seems to float atop a collection of unjustified (and unjustifiable?) posits, assumptions and 'givens'.

And that kind of 'X is not real unless it can be proven' idea introduces an implicit idealist premise that makes reality a function of what we (or some fantastical ideal intellect) can and can't "prove" or know or something. "To be is to be perceived" (or known or proven).

I'm far more of an ontological realist than that. If something exists objectively out there in reality (however broadly construed, perhaps it needn't be restricted to physical space-time-matter) then it isn't somehow dependent on our minds, on our ability to know or on our ability to physically interact with it in ways that physics accepts. It just exists, in its own right. (There might hypothetically be realities that don't interact with us at all about which we know nothing.)

One might even argue that it's very similar to the error that religious proponents of knowing through faith make. I would argue that our mental state, whether it's the ability to know, to prove, or our level of faith in something, exerts no force on whether something does or doesn't exist.

 

[Kooky]

Yeah, evidence in this case is not your strong side.

I've seen you discuss these things before, so I know you can do better than that.

 

[Secret Chief]

So, um, are you saying you are an example of the scientismist described in the op?

I need to know.

Maybe "Yes I embrace scientism, and proudly" was meant sarcastically?

 

[Audie]

Yes, I've noticed that too. It isn't just this site either, atheists love to snuggle up to science seemingly everywhere in the (false) assurance that not ony does science settle (or provide the means to settle) all of the outstanding questions (particularly the most foundational questions) in every conceivable subject, but more particularly that science somehow proves (or justifies, or something) their own atheism.



Atheists (like most people) aren't always paragons of intellectual consistency.



Just basic psychology I think. Like most people, when challenged intellectually they get their backs up. They like the feeling of group solidarity they get from belonging to the 'atheist' clan. And many of them absolutely love the feeling that because of their (perhaps specious) association with science, they will just naturally be the smartest people in any room. Science is smart, they are the self-proclaimed party of science, so they must be smart too. Science and defense of science form a big part of their sense of self-identity.



Yes. Even some of our RF moderators repeat the same kind of ideas.



How can anything be proven without use of logic? And how can logic be "proven" (or justified) without circularity or by appeal to intuition?

I think that most of the fundamental questions in pretty much any intellectual subject are like that. That most definitely includes the many unacknowledged and unjustified assumptions upon which the "objective methodology of science" rests. When one pokes deeply enough, pretty much all of human intellectual life seems to float atop a collection of unjustified (and unjustifiable?) posits, assumptions and 'givens'.

And that kind 'X is not real unless it can be proven' idea introduces an implicit idealist premise that makes reality a function of what we (or some fantastical ideal intellect) can and can't "prove" or know or something. "To be is to be perceived".

I'm far more of an ontological realist than that. If something exists objectively out there in reality (however broadly construed, it needn't be restricted to physical space-time-matter) then it isn't somehow dependent on our minds, on our ability to know or our ability to justify. It just exists, in its own right. In other words, the contents of objective reality are discovered, not created by our knowing process.

One might even argue that it's a very similar error that religious proponents of knowing through faith make. I would argue that our mental state, whether it's the ability to know, to prove, or our level of faith in something, has no force on whether it does and doesn't objectively exist.

All hat, no cattle.

All "philosophy" no examples.

 

[Audie]

Maybe "Yes I embrace scientism, and proudly" was meant sarcastically?

As eager as some are to invent examples and decry non existent people, think what a literalist could do with your words.

 

[Secret Chief]

As eager as some are to invent examples and decry non existent people, think what a literalist could do with your words.

I'd have to understand what you are saying in order to respond.

 

[Audie]

I'd have to understand what you are saying in order to respond.

Nobody can tell sarcasm from sincere,
esp if they dont want to, thars all

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

The term "subjective" means 'subject to'. Everything we think we know is subject to who and what we are

No. It means from the point of view of the subject, the subject being the observer and interpreter of the phenomena of consciousness, the immediate object of apprehension for the subject, and understood to be a report of a reality outside of the theater of consciousness, which is what most people mean by objective reality. Subject to means something more like affected by or potentially affected by, as in a contract being subject to the approval of a regulatory agency, or San Francisco is subject to earthquakes, or I was subjected to his verbal abuse.

So we can never gain access to the "objective reality" beyond our own subjective experience and understanding.

Agreed. But I'd also add that it is not necessary to understand the reality beyond consciousness. It doesn't matter. What matters is the conscious experience. A map of expected reality that helps one make decisions that result in desired outcomes is not only all that is possible, it's good enough.

I recently offered the analogy of a video racecar game, compared to an actual car race. The virtual driver can make the same assumptions the actual driver makes about what actions will result in what outcomes, and get equally acceptable results. The gamer pushes the joystick right, and the car on the screen turns right, just like in an actual car. The gamer can imagine he's moving the wheels on his vehicle rightward, and that traction on a physical surface will allow him to make that turn.

And if the actual racecar driver were to find out that his map of what is going on outside his mind that has always worked when driving before is all just an illusion, and that he is just a vat in a brain, he can go on driving as before and expect to experience the same results as before he knew the truth. The point is, it doesn't matter that the objective reality of the video game is circuits rather than actual cars and roads if one can still control outcomes (keep the car moving, on the road, and winning races or beating previous best times) just like the guy on the track.

Let's be very clear, here. Faith is trust without surety.

Not to me. Faith in the religious sense is unjustified belief - nothing more, nothing less. I have trust without surety that my car will most likely start if I try to start it now, but it is not unjustified belief. It is the opposite. It is a belief based in experience (evidence) and reason: the car has started much more often than not started in the past, there is no known difference between the conditions under which it started before and now, therefore it is expected to start again next time, but maybe not. No faith there, just trust without surety.

Evidence is subjective. Pretending that it provides some magical pathway to understanding "objective reality" is no different than pretending that religion provides some magical pathway to knowing the mind or will of God.

No. They are very different, as different as justified belief (knowledge) and unjustified belief (faith), as different as expecting my car to start based on the evidence of experience, and getting to heaven based on a guess and a wish. And it doesn't matter that there is a subjective aspect to interpreting evidence. Doing so still provides useful ideas about the world, unlike belief based in faith instead of evidence. The latter is purely the creation of the subject, and likely has no actual correlation to reality, meaning it can't be used like correct ideas abstracted by consulting reality (empiricism) to predict outcomes or manage conscious experience. If it can't do that, the idea is useless, and either wrong or not even wrong.

How could there possibly be physical evidence for "the supernatural"

That which is undetectable even in principle can be treated the same as the nonexistent. These are two indistinguishable ontological categories.

The supernatural as suggested by theists is an incoherent concept. Take God and heaven as examples of the supernatural. What is being proposed is that there is a realm that is causally connected to the natural such that one can get to it after death, and it can affect the natural world as with performing miracles and answering prayer, but somehow, remains undetectable in the natural realm.

This is verbal sleight-of-hand to allow the theist to say that this realm actually exists and can affect the natural world, but you shouldn't expect to find it not because it is difficult to find, but impossible. So, no evidence possible means nonexistence or causal disconnection. Causal disconnection is not one way. It's like saying that the trailer is connected to the car, but the car is disconnected from the trailer. If one is disconnected from the other, they are both disconnected from one another.

As I said, the idea is incoherent, such as the idea of omniscience and free will existing simultaneously. I understand that the faith-based thinker doesn't require that his beliefs be coherent, that he considers them compatible simply because he's been told they're true and generally doesn't know how to evaluate such claims, as the willingness to believe by faith seems to stunt the development of sound critical thinking skills.

But there are others reading along who do possess those skills, and for whom a comment like this one might be thought-provoking, people willing to be convinced that the idea is incoherent if they see this inconsistency in the definition of the supernatural that they hadn't noticed before.

So, um, are you saying you are an example of the scientismist described in the op? I need to know.

You need to know? For what reason?

I don't describe my position as scientism. I use the term strict empiricist, by which I mean, as I said, that empiricism is the only method that can provide useful knowledge about the world, what might be worded, "scientism is the only path to truth." I don't mind my position being called scientism if the definition of scientism is the belief that only empiricism can generate useful knowledge about the world, and that which is called truth but is generated by any other method, all of which would lead to unjustified belief (faith-based beliefs), which is not truth as I defined it.

You don't seem to be interested in discussing ideas, which is what I'm here for. What would be your purpose in asking that, given that you don't participate in discussions more than this? You don't reply responsively to posts, you don't add insights, and you make no arguments. You just make brief quips of value to nobody but you, what I call chat in a discussion forum.

Now you want answers from me. I ask again, why? What is your purpose? It certainly isn't to engage in constructive conversation. It's probably to do with your bets with other posters. But I answered you anyway for reasons of my own. I wanted to make these two points - what the strict empiricist actually believes, and to comment on your posting behavior and my suspicions about your motives. Convince me if you can that this question was asked in good faith to learn the answer to a question in the pursuit of the exchange of information rather that for some other less noble purpose.

I need to know.

 

[Sheldon]

Noe, dont get greedy.
One example is plenty.

Well they said many, and so I'm not going to accept one, especially since it wasn't an example of scientism, and didn't exist when they made the claim. I'm a fair man, but it seems reasonable to me that in a debate forum a claim like the pejorative in the OP is justified by something beyond bare assertions, and post ad hoc examples.

 

[lukethethird]

From the OP:

Somehow, they are unable to see themselves as such even as they actively express themselves as such.

It's quite puzzling, and it gives me the impression of there being some sort of cult-like phenomena involved.

Dang, we've been outed.

 

[Secret Chief]

Nobody can tell sarcasm from sincere,
esp if they dont want to, thars all

Oh, ok.