"Scientism" on Wikipedia ...

[Nakosis]

I'll take each as as people seem to misunderstand my position.

"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]"[/quote]

Dogmatic- inclined to lay down principles as incontrovertibly true.
Basically the process of testable verification. What I accept as a need to validate a claim.

"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"."

Sure, if we are talking facts. Facts need to be supported by testable evidence. What's wrong with that?

(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;"

It is the only reliable way. I suppose that is the same as true.

"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]"

If it is not measurable it is not measurable? Don't see anything to disagree with here.

"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."

Morals are our evolutionary designed feedback system. Useful for survival not not very accurate. Accurate enough, here we are. Yet we are still in the process of destroying the planet. If we are left to depend on our feelings for right and wrong we will likely succeed in this destruction. I understand you having a preference for your feelings but that doesn't mean it is the best way to go about things.
​

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 believe you are right.

God is not real, God is supernatural unless God can be verified to have physical qualities. As which time, God would no longer be supernatural.

I don't see a problem with this. I certainly don't have a problem with the position stated.
Of course I don't speak for anyone other than myself but I don't really see much that would be objectionable.

 

[Nakosis]

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.

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.

 

[Windwalker]

Ok, I'm more interested in desensitizing the term.

Why? It's sort of like embracing the term irrationality as a good thing.

 

[Nakosis]

So solve this one:
"Naturalism's axiomatic assumptions[edit]
All scientific study inescapably builds on at least some essential assumptions that are untested by scientific processes.[42][43] Kuhn concurs that all science is based on an approved agenda of unprovable assumptions about the character of the universe, rather than merely on empirical facts. These assumptions—a paradigm—comprise a collection of beliefs, values and techniques that are held by a given scientific community, which legitimize their systems and set the limitations to their investigation.[44] For naturalists, nature is the only reality, the only paradigm. There is no such thing as 'supernatural'. The scientific method is to be used to investigate all reality,[45] and Naturalism is the implicit philosophy of working scientists.[46]

The following basic assumptions are needed to justify the scientific method.[47]

1. that there is an objective reality shared by all rational observers.[47][48] "The basis for rationality is acceptance of an external objective reality."[49]. "As an individual we cannot know that the sensory information we perceive is generated artificially or originates from a real world. Any belief that it arises from a real world outside us is actually an assumption. It seems more beneficial to assume that an objective reality exists than to live with solipsism, and so people are quite happy to make this assumption. In fact we made this assumption unconsciously when we began to learn about the world as infants. The world outside ourselves appears to respond in ways which are consistent with it being real. ... The assumption of objectivism is essential if we are to attach the contemporary meanings to our sensations and feelings and make more sense of them."[50] "Without this assumption, there would be only the thoughts and images in our own mind (which would be the only existing mind) and there would be no need of science, or anything else."[51]
2. that this objective reality is governed by natural laws.[47][48] "Science, at least today, assumes that the universe obeys to knoweable principles that don't depend on time or place, nor on subjective parameters such as what we think, know or how we behave."[49] Hugh Gauch argues that science presupposes that "the physical world is orderly and comprehensible."[52]
3. that reality can be discovered by means of systematic observation and experimentation.[47][48] Stanley Sobottka said, "The assumption of external reality is necessary for science to function and to flourish. For the most part, science is the discovering and explaining of the external world."[51] "Science attempts to produce knowledge that is as universal and objective as possible within the realm of human understanding."[49]
4. that Nature has uniformity of laws and most if not all things in nature must have at least a natural cause.[48] Biologist Stephen Jay Gould referred to these two closely related propositions as the constancy of nature's laws and the operation of known processes.[53] Simpson agrees that the axiom of uniformity of law, an unprovable postulate, is necessary in order for scientists to extrapolate inductive inference into the unobservable past in order to meaningfully study it.[54]

..."
Philosophy of science - Wikipedia

So, if I use equipment to detect the presents of light or color which provides a measurable reading which is consistent not only with itself but with my observation is this not validation of my observation of an external reality?

An instrument which relies purely on physics confirming my observation.

 

[Nakosis]

Why? It's sort of like embracing the term irrationality as a good thing.

It can be.
At least you no longer have to waste time arguing against it.

Humans are not always rational are they?

 

[wandering peacefully]

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".

All true. So what? Except the last line of course. Science doesn't deal with the imagination of humans beliefs in gods.

Well not exactly. Science does look into the functions of the brain that deal with belief in gods and beliefs in general.

 

[Windwalker]

It can be.
At least you no longer have to waste time arguing against it.

I do when they claim it's doing science, when it's just believerism calling itself science. Kind of like creationism posing as science. Faith posing as science. Putting lipstick on a pig, in other words.

Humans are not always rational are they?

I have no problem with the nonrational. I have a problem when it claims its not when it is, when it claims its science, when its faith. Scientism, is true believerism. Not science.

 

[lukethethird]

You even try to dismiss Karl Popper as a "believer misrepresenting science". Utter nonsense.

Stop misquoting me, this a violation of forum rules.

 

[Sheldon]

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

Really? Many? Do I need to start another poll which disproved your previous attempt to claim what "most atheists on here believed or disbelieved?"

Why are you so angry that others don't share your beliefs? Aren't those beliefs consolation enough then?

 

[Windwalker]

Stop misquoting me, this a violation of forum rules.

I was "paraphrasing" that last bit, but the exact quote came right before that, which you conveniently omitted here, straining at gnats, but ignore the camel pile you stepped in claiming Karl Popper as a true believer trying to make science look bad, which is ridiculous. I gave the exact quote in the post itself, with a bracket with the meaning of "trying" fit in there. Here's the exact quote, "believer [trying] to misrepresent science". I added 'trying" because that was the context. It's in brackets, by the way, which means it was added for clarity. A common usage.

 

[Audie]

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.

The adherents are without exception communists, morally weak, or simply insane.

We dont have any atheists like that around here.

Even if Im sort of a commie.

 

[Audie]

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

$37.22 to charity sez you cant

 

[lukethethird]

I was "paraphrasing" that last bit, but the exact quote came right before that, which you conveniently omitted here, straining at gnats, but ignore the camel pile you stepped in claiming Karl Popper as a true believer trying to make science look bad, which is ridiculous. I gave the exact quote in the post itself, with a bracket with the meaning of "trying" fit in there. Here's the exact quote, "believer [trying] to misrepresent science". I added 'trying" because that was the context. It's in brackets, by the way, which means it was added for clarity. A common usage.

You're doing it again, you are in violation of the rules.

 

[Lain]

$37.22 to charity sez you cant

Can't do what? Find an atheist claiming anything remotely like in the OP?

 

[Windwalker]

You're doing it again, you are in violation of the rules.

Where's the misquote? Here's your original words. ""Scientism" is a pejorative term used by believers to misrepresent science". So I quoted you as saying scientism is "believers [trying] to misrepresent science". That is accurate. If you think it's not, then go ahead and report it. I can easily defend it. That is the meaning you are saying "trying" to misrepresent science.

Again, you were greatly mistaken. All this about quotes, is a red herring. You erred greatly, and refuse to admit it.

 

[Sheldon]

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?

The problem is the misrepresentation of atheists in general , and of "many atheists here" as endorsing scientism. Karl Popper was surely being honest and open minded, and had every right to do so. PureX's motives seem to lack that objectivity and open minded view.

"In an interview[85] that Popper gave in 1969 with the condition that it should be kept secret until after his death, he summarised his position on God as follows: "I don't know whether God exists or not. ... Some forms of atheism are arrogant and ignorant and should be rejected, but agnosticism—to admit that we don't know and to search—is all right. ... When I look at what I call the gift of life, I feel a gratitude which is in tune with some religious ideas of God. However, the moment I even speak of it, I am embarrassed that I may do something wrong to God in talking about God." He objected to organised religion, saying "it tends to use the name of God in vain", noting the danger of fanaticism because of religious conflicts: "The whole thing goes back to myths which, though they may have a kernel of truth, are untrue. Why then should the Jewish myth be true and the Indian and Egyptian myths not be true?" In a letter unrelated to the interview, he stressed his tolerant attitude: "Although I am not for religion, I do think that we should show respect for anybody who believes honestly.""

Another objection is that it is not always possible to demonstrate falsehood definitively, especially if one is using statistical criteria to evaluate a null hypothesis. More generally it is not always clear, if evidence contradicts a hypothesis, that this is a sign of flaws in the hypothesis rather than of flaws in the evidence. However, this is a misunderstanding of what Popper's philosophy of science sets out to do. Rather than offering a set of instructions that merely need to be followed diligently to achieve science, Popper makes it clear in The Logic of Scientific Discovery that his belief is that the resolution of conflicts between hypotheses and observations can only be a matter of the collective judgment of scientists, in each individual case.

 

[Windwalker]

The problem is the misrepresentation of atheists in general , and of "many atheists here" as endorsing scientism. Karl Popper was surely being honest and open minded, and had every right to do so. PureX's motives seem to lack that objectivity and open minded view.

Not at all. I admire atheism. I don't admire scientism. Not all atheists are guilty of scientism. Scientism is believerism creeping into science, treating science as if it held all the answers for everything being human, like true believers calling the Bible, "God's owner's manual", as if it contained the answers to all life's questions.

I considered myself an atheist for years, but always recognized those atheists would were just believers with a new belief, treating science the same way they did the Bible when they were Christians. It's nothing against atheism, and you are wrong to claim it is. I agree with Popper in what you quoted him saying, "Some forms of atheism are arrogant and ignorant and should be rejected."

It should be rejected because it goes beyond science into faith, and claims it's not. Like wolves in sheeps clothing, saying it's not belief, when it certainly is, like Creationists claiming it's "science" when it's not. Are they are lot of members here like that? I've seen a few.

 

[Audie]

Can't do what? Find an atheist claiming anything remotely like in the OP?

As per the OP.

 

[Lain]

As per the OP.

Does #101 by Nakosis count or is it not strongly worded enough for you?

 

[Audie]

Not at all. I admire atheism. I don't admire scientism. Not all atheists are guilty of scientism. Scientism is believerism creeping into science, treating science as if it held all the answers for everything being human, like true believers calling the Bible, "God's owner manual", as if it contained the answers to all life's questions.

I considered myself an atheist for years, but always recognized those atheists would were just believers with a new belief, treating science the same way they did the Bible when they were Christians. It's nothing against atheism, and you are wrong to claim it is. I agree with Popper in what you quoted him saying, "Some forms of atheism are arrogant and ignorant and should be rejected."

It should be rejected because it goes beyond science into faith, and claims it's not. Like wolves in sheeps clothing, saying it's not belief, when it certainly is, like Creationists claiming it's "science" when it's not.

"Atheist " as believer with new belief. Sure.

Drift away from the church, maybe go back, maybe dont.
Call it atheism if they like but they are seekers,
believers.

IMO, dilettantes, posers, trying on an ism like a new hat or " lifestyle ".

Pooey on that.

You seem like one of the few he sees those
for what they are but its not atheism, its not me,
its not what you would find in China.
Hardly could be wider off the mark, thinking the
experiences of believers dabbling as you describe
ever were, are, atheists.