"Scientism" on Wikipedia ...

[Jose Fly]

All these things depend on your feelings and feelings are becoming measurable.
All we'd have to do is show you a picture of a baby girl or baby boy and measure your feelings.
You'd have your answer. However your amazing brain takes care of that without asking science, but you could.

Seriously? That's not exactly the world I want to live in, where we hook people up to brain scans to figure out if they want a girl or boy.

Like I said, in the examples I listed I don't think science is the only or best means to get an answer. With the sex of a baby, how about just talking it through with your partner? I see that as having immensely more benefits than brain scans, which at best only provide additional information but not the ultimate answer.

 

[Sheldon]

Are you going to tell me you are not prejudiced against supernatural explanations?

That is like claiming someone is prejudiced against black unicorns, what a silly silly question.

"attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature."

I think it might be the other way around, the claim itself is making a massive and unevidenced assumption about the scientific method. All non-existent things are beyond the understanding of science, and anything that offers zero data to examine is beyond the understanding of science.

Where I become dubious is when people make the unevidenced claim this is somehow a limit of the method?

 

[exchemist]

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". 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. 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.

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.

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

I presume the last line is quoting from someone with little understanding of science.

Er, unless you made it up yourself, of course........

 

[Nakosis]

That is hardly comparable to bigotry against people, and normally dodging a question with sly innuendo is not really groovy.
In the event, I expect everyone is dubious of
some supernatural stuff. Horoscopes, tarot,
crydtal healing, etc.
That is not bigotry or prejudice.
Ftm, I had an experience of seeing, interacting with a being not of this world.
Assuming as you do about me, you label that as conscirnce dictates.

To yourself. Id rather not hear from you.

Sorry, you seem sensitive about it. My point was not to offend.
Everyone is someone's bigot.
Bigot was a term you offered, not me.

I guess the terms bigot and prejudice are stuck with their pejorative meanings whether I see them that way or not.
I will be more careful about that.

 

[lukethethird]

For example, I give consideration and respect to paranormal experiences, psychic/clairvoyant, channeled sources, spiritual masters, Spiritualism, Theosophical, Vedic (Hindu) and other wisdom traditions.

So, what fields of alleged direct knowledge or wisdom traditions do you give respect and attention to beyond 'science'? If it's just 'science' then I would refer to that as 'scientism'.

Scientism is an ideology that doesn't exist in most peoples minds, if any, but is some kind of monster under the bed to the fear mongers that need an enemy, real or imagined. Nothing to get exited about.

 

[Nakosis]

That is like claiming someone is prejudiced against black unicorns, what a silly silly question.

"attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature."

I think it might be the other way around, the claim itself is making a massive and unevidenced assumption about the scientific method. All non-existent things are beyond the understanding of science, and anything that offers zero data to examine is beyond the understanding of science.

Where I become dubious is when people make the unevidenced claim this is somehow a limit of the method?

Ok fine, prejudiced is the wrong word. How about biased against supernatural explanations?

 

[Nakosis]

Seriously? That's not exactly the world I want to live in, where we hook people up to brain scans to figure out if they want a girl or boy.

Like I said, in the examples I listed I don't think science is the only or best means to get an answer. With the sex of a baby, how about just talking it through with your partner? I see that as having immensely more benefits than brain scans, which at best only provide additional information but not the ultimate answer.

Of course, not even necessary thanks to our brain. Just possible.
There is no mystery or magic to how our brain works. Knowledge of the physical process does not lessen the experience.
Though I realize some would prefer to keep the mystery.

 

[George-ananda]

Scientism is an ideology that doesn't exist in most peoples minds, if any, but is some kind of monster under the bed to the fear mongers that need an enemy, real or imagined. Nothing to get exited about.

Well then we still need a word for that philosophy that only accepts 'science' as a valid method of learning about reality.

That philosophy exists whatever word you accept or don't accept.

 

[Jose Fly]

Of course, not even necessary thanks to our brain. Just possible.
There is no mystery or magic to how our brain works. Knowledge of the physical process does not lessen the experience.
Though I realize some would prefer to keep the mystery.

And really, it would just tell us which picture the person reacted to the strongest. It wouldn't necessarily tell us which one the person truly wants more. And like I said, that can be useful information (if one is inclined to utilize that sort of info), but it doesn't really answer the ultimate question.

So back to the OP, although I am a scientist and a non-theist (apatheist really), I am most certainly not an adherent to scientism.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

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". 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. 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.

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.

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

At the heart of everything you've written here is a very simple matter: on what basis do you declare anything (anything at all, seen or unseen) to be true or fact?

Claims about gravity? We can (and do) measure that. Claims about God? How many are there, and how could anyone determine which are true or false?

Claims about human life? Even those you call "scientists" can't assert anything absolutely, because although many aspects of human nature can be discerned by careful but wide and comprehensive observation, every human is different, and will never fit any mold we might design for him.

You see, those of us you may like to think of as in thrall of "scientism" can ask many very simple questions of those who disdain "scientism" and then ask, "how do you know?" Just for example, how does the Orthodox Jew know for certain that God wants him to mangle his son's penis?

While at the same time, we know with a good deal of certainty that if an appendix is about to rupture, opening up the patient and cutting it out is just about certain to save his life.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

In my opinion: when the nous is dead in the psyche anything can pass off as reason to a person. Sad days. Hence Psalm 6 (LXX/Vulgate) is given.

And what, precisely, does that mean, "when the nous is dead in the psyche?" It's easy to make such grandiose-sounding pronouncements, but really, you should be able to explain what it is you mean.

 

[Lain]

And what, precisely, does that mean, "when the nous is dead in the psyche?" It's easy to make such grandiose-sounding pronouncements, but really, you should be able to explain what it is you mean.

It doesn't sound very grand at all. I was just saying that some atheists (not all) make claims similar to that in the OP because they are intellectually dead, lacking the wherewithal to see the comedy of it. All my opinion of course.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

just reading some of the more recent additional information on wiki

which of the 'recent additional information on wiki' are you referring to?

Edit: Scientism: Revision history - Wikipedia

You realize, don't you, that just because some information shows up on Wikipedia, that doesn't mean that it is true or reliable information?

 

[Sheldon]

I was just saying that some atheists (not all) make claims similar to that in the OP because they are intellectually dead,

Could you quote a few of these claims by a few atheists?

 

[Lain]

Could you quote a few of these claims by a few atheists?

Probably not. Or maybe I could, doubt it'll happen though.

 

[lukethethird]

Well then we still need a word for that philosophy that only accepts 'science' as a valid method of learning about reality.

That philosophy exists whatever word you accept or don't accept.

If that exists I don't know how that would work. Personally, all my experiences are subjective so I can't speak for those that have nothing but objective experiences.

 

[Windwalker]

"Scientism" is a pejorative term used by believers to misrepresent science, and so it goes.

Karl Popper used the term to describe the overly religious view of science. And yes, it is a pejorative. Do you know who Karl Popper is?

One of the 20th century's most influential philosophers of science,[14][15][16] Popper is known for his rejection of the classical inductivist views on the scientific method in favour of empirical falsification. According to Popper, a theory in the empirical sciences can never be proven, but it can be falsified, meaning that it can (and should) be scrutinised with decisive experiments. Popper was opposed to the classical justificationist account of knowledge, which he replaced with critical rationalism, namely "the first non-justificational philosophy of criticism in the history of philosophy".[17]

Karl Popper - Wikipedia
​

Care to actually defend what you just said? Was Popper a "believer [trying] to misrepresent science"? That's laughable. He gave us the whole criteria for falsification in the scientific method. Face it, scientism is just believerism shifted to science from religion. You even try to dismiss Karl Popper as a "believer misrepresenting science". Utter nonsense.

 

[George-ananda]

If that exists I don't know how that would work. Personally, all my experiences are subjective so I can't speak for those that have nothing but objective experiences.

Subjective experiencing is a mental phenomenon still in the bounds of science. That’s not what we’re talking about.

I gave examples of learning from alternate wisdom traditions (Theosophical, Vedic (Hindu)) and psychic/clairvoyant sources outside the bounds of science.

I’m talking about learning about the truths of the external universe.

 

[lukethethird]

Karl Popper used the term to describe the overly religious view of science. And yes, it is a pejorative. Do you know who Karl Popper is?

One of the 20th century's most influential philosophers of science,[14][15][16] Popper is known for his rejection of the classical inductivist views on the scientific method in favour of empirical falsification. According to Popper, a theory in the empirical sciences can never be proven, but it can be falsified, meaning that it can (and should) be scrutinised with decisive experiments. Popper was opposed to the classical justificationist account of knowledge, which he replaced with critical rationalism, namely "the first non-justificational philosophy of criticism in the history of philosophy".[17]

Karl Popper - Wikipedia
​

Care to actually defend what you just said? Was Popper a "believer [trying] to misrepresent science"? That's laughable. He gave us the whole criteria for falsification in the scientific method. Face it, scientism is just believerism shifted to science from religion. You even try to dismiss Karl Popper as a "believer misrepresenting science". Utter nonsense.

Karl Popper used the term to describe the overly religious view of science. And yes, it is a pejorative. Do you know who Karl Popper is?

One of the 20th century's most influential philosophers of science,[14][15][16] Popper is known for his rejection of the classical inductivist views on the scientific method in favour of empirical falsification. According to Popper, a theory in the empirical sciences can never be proven, but it can be falsified, meaning that it can (and should) be scrutinised with decisive experiments. Popper was opposed to the classical justificationist account of knowledge, which he replaced with critical rationalism, namely "the first non-justificational philosophy of criticism in the history of philosophy".[17]

Karl Popper - Wikipedia
​

Care to actually defend what you just said? Was Popper a "believer [trying] to misrepresent science"? That's laughable. He gave us the whole criteria for falsification in the scientific method. Face it, scientism is just believerism shifted to science from religion. You even try to dismiss Karl Popper as a "believer misrepresenting science". Utter nonsense.

 

[Windwalker]

What is Scientism?
Why do only theists use the term?

Did you read the OP? It's not just theists who say it, or coined the term. Karl Popper used it, long before believers co-opted it. Theism and Scientism, are just flipsides of the same True Believer(tm) coin. Scientism, is not doing science. It's treating science it like true believers treat the Word of God. "Science said it, I believe it, that settles it for me!".

Phooey. That's not science. That's believerism. I embrace science. I reject true beliversim, be that in religion or in science.