Scientism

[George-ananda]

A problem with scientism is if there really is anything real beyond our physical senses and physical instruments its proponents can never know about it.

I, not a follower of scientism, consider (neither blindly accept nor blindly dismiss) everything and that includes all experiences of man; spiritual experiences, paranormal experiences teachings of spiritual masters, etc.. After considering these things, I form my own personal opinion of what is the most reasonable position to hold. Can I claim proof of my hypothesis the way science can prove something in chemistry by experimentation; No. But it would impoverish my human intellect if I did not look at everything and form my personal view of what is going on in total.

 

[LuisDantas]

Not at all. My main concern with scientism is the raising of science to an almost divine level.

If and when that happens, they are misrepresenting and betraying science. There is a reason why science is reliable and why it uses the scientific method.

On one side we have tons of evidence showing benefits to religion, meditation, ritual, belief, and so on and on the other people denying this because they religiously dislike religion and believe everything is scientifically understandable.

Examples?

Sorry my friend, but you quite missed the point!

I'm not sure you are paying attention to what science is, myself.

 

[leibowde84]

No, I think scientific methodologies are by far the best methods of inquiry to determine objective truths, where objectivity is really a function of scientific criteria like repeatability of experiments, falsifiability of hypotheses, the parsimoniousness and conceptual clarity of theoretical constructs, and etc. But to reiterate my point, your question presupposes that only that which can be rendered entirely objective is meaningful or valuable. That only insofar as something can be made "objective" can it be "truth". And my question was, is that really so? That's why I asked about beauty, or about goodness. Which certainly can be given objective descriptions, but the descriptions of the objective qualities of aesthetics or morality (based on evolutionary considerations, say) does not capture everything that people have traditionally meant when they described Beauty or Goodness as transcendentals.

But again, the point isn't to reject science. Well, at least that's not my point. The point is to try to situate it within a broader philosophical worldview that finds value and meaning even in that which cannot be given an entirely rational demonstration, made conceptually univocal, proven, verified, or etc. And not just to treat those non-scientific experiences and values as second class citizens, epistemologically. "Mysticism" is primarily concerned with this sort of experience, and that's why I said that to me "mysticism" is irreducibly subjective, by which I don't mean there are no objective descriptions of mystical experience, but that I believe no purely objective description captures everything I'd want to say about mystical experience.

I wouldn't say that subjective discoveries are worthless by any means. I would say that their worth and accuracy seem to be unverifiable though. Thus, I see them as being unreliable and, as a result, they are not as important to human progress.

In other words, we have subjective discoveries which are not verifiable and are based on emotions for the most part. Then we have discoveries based on objective evidence and repeated results. My only point is that we should spend more time on things that can actually be known rather than spending time on

@well named has actually been picking up the ropes there rather well. Understand that I view scientism as not just adhering to the scientific method above all other sources of knowledge, but doing so where it is inappropriate and to the exclusion of other ways of knowing and experiencing reality. It is a transformation of the sciences into rigid, authoritarian dogmatism that refuses to look at or acknowledge that other ways of knowing and experiencing have any merit or worth. It is a rejection of the beauty of storytelling and the visceral, ineffable nature of human experience. Put another way, it's anti-Romantic and enshrines Enlightenment values to (IMHO) an unhealthy extreme. But since you insist -

1) That's not really what I'm getting at. What I'm getting at is the fact that on a day to day basis, we simply do not subject our experiences to empirical methodology. We are fundamentally emotional and experiential creatures, not scientific ones. If we attempted to apply the scientific method to all of our life experiences, well... it gets absurd very quickly. Nobody actually does this, and not even close.

2) I pretty much already addressed this, but the scientific method is supposed to be descriptive and iterative; scientism transforms it into something prescriptive and dogmatic. It transforms it into the be-all and end-all of truth. That's a perversion. The sciences are more humble than that, and someone who knows them well knows that the sciences have limitations given their methodological standards. It knows better than to claim the full experience of, say, a good poem can somehow be reduced to empirical observations.

3) See above; I also pretty much addressed this already too. Scientism is relentlessly reductionistic; instead of appreciating experiential and aesthetic ways of knowing for what they are, it would reduce them to equations and hypotheses. It's the mindset that rejects a beautiful story because it isn't scientific. You know... those people who whine about the Bible not being factual when that's missing the point of the book in the first place. Or that guy in the movie theater who whines about how that action scene violated the laws of physics. They can't shut up and enjoy the damned movie.

My issue lies with the abandonment of the scientific principle that scientific theories/assumptions can be wrong. Science is great because it is always open to change and additional information. So, I'm having trouble getting my mind around the idea that Scientism would be limited in any way. If there is a new source for information, science would have no problem exploring it, as long as it could be objectively substantiated.

 

[Kuzcotopia]

I wouldn't expect non-scientific essays or philosophical reflections to be included in peer reviewed science journals which exist to publish science and not philosophy in any case.

Your question about "second-class" goes back to what I said earlier about the possibility of turning this discussion into a straw-man, accusing all science or every scientist, or all naturalists or atheists or whatever of "scientism". I think that is something to be avoided. Your questions seem to assume a broader criticism than I was trying to make. My comment to leibdowe about "second-class" citizens was in response directly to the assumptions that underlie his question "Can you provide another method of inquiry that has objective truth and objective value?" It wasn't intended to be a general accusation, or to suggest that the problem is that science journals don't include papers that aren't scientific.

Thank you for the clarification.

In any case, it is challenging to consider how to make non-scientific inquiries or conclusions work within the scope of overall academic inquiry without some inherent "separation," as well as figuring out what alternative standards would work.

 

[LuisDantas]

A problem with scientism is if there really is anything real beyond our physical senses and physical instruments its proponents can never know about it.

By definition, such a hypothetical reality is beyond the scope of science, and attempting to link it to science is abusing the concept of science.

Of course, it is also by definition of dubious existence (how can we say that something of indetectable existence is real?) and at least at first glance indistinguishable from fantasy...

Science is not about "encompassing all", but rather about reaching trustworthy conclusions.

 

[George-ananda]

I think this is the problem. If supernatural reasoning is the best explanation available, then the information or evidence is merely lacking. It doesn't prove the supernatural belief in any way, it merely demonstrates that the person is not able to make an educated judgment as of yet.

You seem to want to interpret 'supernatural' as something 'magical', 'God did it', 'end of story', 'doesn't imply further investigation', etc., etc.

I would define the supernatural as just the 'natural' beyond our physical senses (and 21st century instruments). In the future it may be possible to study these things scientifically also.

 

[Quintessence]

My issue lies with the abandonment of the scientific principle that scientific theories/assumptions can be wrong. Science is great because it is always open to change and additional information. So, I'm having trouble getting my mind around the idea that Scientism would be limited in any way. If there is a new source for information, science would have no problem exploring it, as long as it could be objectively substantiated.

Therein lies the problem: sciences are only open to certain kinds of information and certain ways of interpreting said information. That's intrinsically limiting. Extremely limiting. I could never do that to myself, as a scientist, as an artist, or as a human being. I seek knowledge in all of its forms and paths.

To use an example, I forced myself to study astrology at one time because it is a common point of discussion within my religious community. I came into it believe it was total rubbish, because this is what I was taught by the Almighty Gods of Science. And, if I was an adherent of scientism, I would have stopped there and never bothered exploring it at all. I'd wholesale reject it as meaningless rubbish because it isn't scientific. Something has to be scientific to have value and merit to the adherent of scientism. But I'm not, fortunately, an adherent of scientism, and forced myself to be open-minded about it. What I found was that although astrology has no scientific validity, it definitely as aesthetic and personal validity. As a system of symbolism, I found it fascinating; it was so much more intricate and nuanced than I imagined. And although it's really not a form of divination I practice, I could see myself finding deep, personal meaning within it. It represents an alternative way of learning, knowing, and seeing reality.

Information and ways of knowing can and do extend beyond the sciences, and I think there's a terrible loss in limiting oneself only to the sciences. If nothing else, doing that would just be painfully boring to me and lacking in imagination.

 

[leibowde84]

You seem to want to interpret 'supernatural' as something 'magical', 'God did it', 'end of story', 'doesn't imply further investigation', etc., etc.

I would define the supernatural as just the 'natural' beyond our physical senses (and 21st century instruments). In the future it may be possible to study these things scientifically also.

Agreed. But, until we have the ability to study them, why should we treat them as anything more than subjective beliefs?

 

[leibowde84]

Therein lies the problem: sciences are only open to certain kinds of information and certain ways of interpreting said information. That's intrinsically limiting. Extremely limiting. I could never do that to myself, as a scientist, as an artist, or as a human being. I seek knowledge in all of its forms and paths.

To use an example, I forced myself to study astrology at one time because it is a common point of discussion within my religious community. I came into it believe it was total rubbish, because this is what I was taught by the Almighty Gods of Science. And, if I was an adherent of scientism, I would have stopped there and never bothered exploring it at all. I'd wholesale reject it as meaningless rubbish because it isn't scientific. Something has to be scientific to have value and merit to the adherent of scientism. But I'm not, fortunately, an adherent of scientism, and forced myself to be open-minded about it. What I found was that although astrology has no scientific validity, it definitely as aesthetic and personal validity. As a system of symbolism, I found it fascinating; it was so much more intricate and nuanced than I imagined. And although it's really not a form of divination I practice, I could see myself finding deep, personal meaning within it. It represents an alternative way of learning, knowing, and seeing reality.

Information and ways of knowing can and do extend beyond the sciences, and I think there's a terrible loss in limiting oneself only to the sciences. If nothing else, doing that would just be painfully boring to me and lacking in imagination.

Your example goes against scientism though. If science is the search for empirical evidence and truth, then it would demand that you look into astrology scientifically and see whether it actually can do the things (predictions) that it claims to. Under the scientific method, there is no bias. Whatever the data shows would be your belief.

 

[George-ananda]

By definition, such a hypothetical reality is beyond the scope of science, and attempting to link it to science is abusing the concept of science.

Where am I trying to link my views to science? I am saying my views are beyond the reach of science to prove or disprove.

Of course, it is also by definition of dubious existence (how can we say that something of indetectable existence is real?) and at least at first glance indistinguishable from fantasy...

From consideration I can come to the personal conclusion I find most reasonable; that there are things beyond the reach of current science. we all get to look at the evidence and form our own opinion.

Science is not about "encompassing all", but rather about reaching trustworthy conclusions.

I agree with that and 'Science' should move slowly. But I as a curious human being, am concerned with questions science at this time can not address. I consider everything and form my beliefs as to what seems most reasonable.

 

[George-ananda]

Agreed. But, until we have the ability to study them, why should we treat them as anything more than subjective beliefs?

We shouldn't consider them more than subjective beliefs. But I can form my own personal subjective beliefs after objectively studying everything in the human experience. I can then argue I reached the most reasonable conclusion given all the data and argumentation.

 

[leibowde84]

We shouldn't consider them more than subjective beliefs. But I can form my own personal subjective beliefs after objectively studying everything in the human experience. I can then argue I reached the most reasonable conclusion given all the data and argumentation.

You can argue that, in your opinion, you reached the most reasonable conclusion given the data and argumentation. It would always be subjective though, in that you could be wrong in your assumption that you have "objectively studied everything in the human experience".

 

[Windwalker]

Interesting. So, what other method reliably produces actual, verifiable information about reality?

How do you know you're real? Because you have someone perform a scientific test and tell you it's safe to believe you are alive?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

You seem to want to interpret 'supernatural' as something 'magical', 'God did it', 'end of story', 'doesn't imply further investigation', etc., etc.

I would define the supernatural as just the 'natural' beyond our physical senses (and 21st century instruments). In the future it may be possible to study these things scientifically also.

If that's the case, then why did you say this earlier:

A problem with scientism is if there really is anything real beyond our physical senses and physical instruments its proponents can never know about it.

If the supernatural could be studied and understood scientifically, why is that even a concern?

 

[suncowiam]

I’ve been criticized a lot for using the term “scientism”, and I would like to argue that this criticism is unwarranted and mistaken. When I do a quick Google search for the definition of scientism I see that it is “excessive belief in the power of scientific knowledge and techniques”. I do not think this definition does it much justice. More appropriately, scientism is a religious exaltation of science and anti-theism.


I want to give an example of what I am talking about here. Say that you are presenting a research experiment that found mystical meditation benefits one more than secular meditation ((Pargament, K.), A. (2013, March 22). What role do religion and spirituality play in mental health? Retrieved fromhttp://What Role Do Religion and Spirituality Play In Mental Health? What does this mean? Does it imply that mysticism is true? Absolutely not. Does it tell us that god exists? Nope. What it tells us is that mystical meditation is more beneficial than secular. The logical conclusion then, if you are going to meditate, is to engage in mystical meditation, even if you’re simply feigning belief. I, who fall under “scientism”, tell you that you are absolutely wrong that mystical meditation is more beneficial. It is impossible because no benefits can come from religion. Mysticism is pseudo-science and, as such, should be avoided at all costs.


Do you see what happened there? I reject empirical evidence based on experimental research because it contradicts with my belief that there can be no benefits from anything religious of any kind. This is the religious anti-theistic side of scientism. Another example is gnostic atheism, the belief that one knows there is no god. A major problem when it comes to science and spirituality is that the spiritual realm is, by definition, beyond science. The gods exist beyond the dimensions of time and space. We are simply third-dimensional beings on one planet with all information being gathered by a single, rather moronic species. To claim then, based simple on a lack of evidence (which itself is a pseudo-scientific route) that one knows that there is not something beyond detection is a pure – and rather massive – leap of faith. This is scientism, a religious exaltation of science.


Anyways, this is something I tend to see more and more. I have no idea if there are any sort of studies on it or anything, I’m just giving my two cents.

I'm not fond of arguing semantics. If a community wants to define a new word to help their communication then fine.

It boils down to beliefs as always. If you don't believe such medicine is beneficial to you then you don't have to take them. However, if you want to compare processes, wouldn't it be objective to define an input and an output? This would require success and failure rates. Of course, many of these definitions stand on observable and empirical means as that was how I was educated as an engineer. How else, are you going to objectively measure your process? I hope this particular statement didn't trigger an emotional response. I am just asking you a question which I find fundamental to all processes. How do you ensure that a process is valid for yourself, then for your community and then for all of society?

I can tell you the computer you're typing on (because I'm a computer engineer with focus in electrical engineering and computer science) follows some very rigid rules of logic: mechanically, thermally, electrically and mathematically. We observed these rules to be 100%. Otherwise, the product would be worthless to you if say it only worked 10% of the time. There are some cases like when the temperature gets very hot, that the computer performance degrades and could cause irreversible damage to the computer. We build fans to lower the temperature and circuitry to shut down or slow down the computer. With all respect, how would a system or set of processes within religion (theistic views) come to create such a complex machinery if it did not rely on empirical observations? Faith and prayers alone simply will not do this.

 

[George-ananda]

You can argue that, in your opinion, you reached the most reasonable conclusion given the data and argumentation. It would always be subjective though, in that you could be wrong in your assumption that you have "objectively studied everything in the human experience".

I never said it wasn't subjective and possibly wrong. But I as a curious human being am not going to not consider everything and not have an opinion that may be important only to me. I am willing to argue with others that my beliefs are the most reasonable ones out there after everything is considered.

 

[philbo]

As I read this you seem to say one thing and reach a separate conclusion. The very point of scientism is that it is non-scientific. You might not involve mysticism in building a structure, but you wouldn't use biology either. This doesn't make biology automatically useless. Maybe mysticism is a tool of psychology same a hammer is a tool of construction?

Belief is definately a factor in psychology, whether it's belief in mysticism or belief in the sugar pill placebo you've been given (or belief in the bad side-effects: the nocebo "it'll get worse if you think it's going to" effect appears to be equally strong)

But.. should a psychiatrist who didn't believe in mysticism tell a patient who does to try some kind of mystical meditation, with the thought that it might work for them by placebo? I suppose to be consistent, I ought to say "no" because that's the position I'd also take with homoeopathy, reiki etc. It's a bit of an ethical dilemma that makes me glad I'm not a psychiatrist

 

[George-ananda]

If the supernatural could be studied and understood scientifically, why is that even a concern?

I was saying it can be studied scientifically, but early 21st century science is not there yet.

 

[LuisDantas]

Where am I trying to link my views to science?

I don't think you did. Doing so, however, would be scientism, which I am attempting to describe.

I am saying my views are beyond the reach of science to prove or disprove.

Fair enough.

 

[Windwalker]

Feel free to take a single study on mystical meditation at face value if you like, but one of the main goals of scientific questioning is to question the answers to make sure that the answers are the truest and best answers that we can get. It would be anti-scientific to just rest on our laurels and accept that one study as being worth very much.

Can someone please answer for me what the hell "mystical meditation" and "secular meditation" are supposed to mean? I am a meditator, and a mystic, and I have no idea what the hell these mean. I've never heard of them before and they make no sense. These are nonsense terms that seems to be used to make atheists feel comfortable practicing meditation. Thank you Sam Harris.

But as far meditation having a impact on the brains of meditators, there is plenty of substantial data on this to the point it's without a question there is a difference. What exactly is going on in the minds of meditators is of course something you will need to listen to them tell of their own experience. Science can't prove the content of thoughts about experience, but it can and does show that "something" is most definitely happening, and it has an effect on the brains of long-term meditators. Just do a Google search for them, and you'll find they are legitimate research in the neurosciences.

Here, first hit talked about in Forbes magazine 7 Ways Meditation Can Actually Change The Brain - Forbes

Here's another from Harvard Gazette Eight weeks to a better brain | Harvard Gazette

From Psychology Today This Is Your Brain on Meditation | Psychology Today

And so on and so forth. This is science.

Just off the top of my head, there are plenty of studies into the Placebo Affect that would make me question the outcome of the hypothetical study that you used. Given what we know about Placebo's, couldn't the argument be made that your mystical mediation was only more beneficial than secular meditation BECAUSE the belief in mystical meditation was legitimate? And that's just one "out". There are plenty of others.

I'm just still laughing at this made-up "secular meditation" idea. Is this wishful thinking or something? It sounds like saying, "I'm going to go secular jogging today! I used to religious jog, but now I'm a secular jog! It's jogging without God!" It's still meditation! God, get over it people.

And what's more, what is "belief in meditation"??? Do I believe in meditation? Of course I do. I believe in reading books too. I believe in eating, sleeping, and exercising too. But it's ridiculous to try to make it something special or unique. Meditation is an mental practice. It can lead to mystical experiences, to be sure, even if someone is secular or otherwise. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the interpretation of experiences. That's something very different.

The only way that your analogy works is if you decide to stop questioning in pursuit of truth. Once you've stopped questioning, and allowed your biases to take over, then sure... Sure, you can believe that mystical meditation is more beneficial than secular mediation, shallowly implying that there is actually something mystical that happens during meditation; always holding out hope for some sense of validity to your belief that the supernatural is a real thing.

I know none of this was directed at me, but I'm just befuddled by the entire argument itself. Something does in fact happen in meditation. Ask those who are experienced meditators. Ask me. But you are confusing the interpretative frameworks of mystical experience, with the actual experience itself. Of course the experience is happening. Brain scans show something in fact is. It's not just made up bullcrap. Next, it becomes a matter of interviewing the experiencer and looking at their interpretive frameworks. I can have the same mystical experience as another, but my understanding and ways I internalize it may be considerably different than some fundamentalist believer might have. That difference does not, I repeat, does not invalidate the experience itself!