Scientism

[Kuzcotopia]

When speaking mantras and meditation these a technical terms, so yes, they should be defined. This has absolutely nothing to do with mythology and religious symbolism. Those are by their very nature open meant to be open to interpretation. They are not technical language.

Care to try again?


Then they cease to be myth! I very highly suggest you read this wonderful article that should put fine point on this for you. Biblical Literalism: Constricting the Cosmic Dance

Here's a section from it that says very well the problem you seem to be having here between understanding myth versus technical language:

Our situation calls to mind a backstage interview with Anna Pavlova, the dancer. Following an illustrious and moving performance, she was asked the meaning of the dance. She replied, “If I could say it, do you think I should have danced it?” To give dance a literal meaning would be to reduce dancing to something else. It would lose its capacity to involve the whole person. And one would miss all the subtle nuances and delicate shadings and rich polyvalences of the dance itself.

The remark has its parallel in religion. The early ethnologist R. R. Marett is noted for his dictum that “religion is not so much thought out as danced out.” But even when thought out, religion is focused in the verbal equivalent of the dance: myth, symbol and metaphor. To insist on assigning to it a literal, one-dimensional meaning is to shrink and stifle and distort the significance. In the words of E. H. W. Meyer- stein, “Myth is my tongue, which means not that I cheat, but stagger in a light too great to bear.” Religious expression trembles with a sense of inexpressible mystery, a mystery which nevertheless addresses us in the totality of our being.

The literal imagination is univocal. Words mean one thing, and one thing only. They don’t bristle with meanings and possibilities; they are bald, clean-shaven. Literal clarity and simplicity, to be sure, offer a kind of security in a world (or Bible) where otherwise issues seem incorrigibly complex, ambiguous and muddy. But it is a false security, a temporary bastion, maintained by dogmatism and misguided loyalty. Literalism pays a high price for the hope of having firm and unbreakable handles attached to reality. The result is to move in the opposite direction from religious symbolism, emptying symbols of their amplitude of meaning and power, reducing the cosmic dance to a calibrated discussion.
​

All I can say as I read this is, amen! He nails it.


Nope. Please read the article I linked to.

I think a lot of poets would disagree with you about words. They can be quiet beautiful. Technical language is not the only kind of language, and symbology and mythology is also rooted in narrative languages.

I understand your point. But with every admonishment of terms you haughtily deem laughable from the OP, you are limiting the undefinable potential experiences you espouse. But it's inconsistent to define what you consider to be undefinable.

In short, you aren't showing alot of respect for any viewpoint but your own, which is ironic considering your message.

 

[Windwalker]

Um, that's an idea, isn't it?

Why not just let nothing be nothing? Why keep trying to turn it in to a something?

Because we're not talking about knowing the Absolute. Ideas are perfectly fine when understanding the relative. I'm a nondualist, so I have no conflict between the relative and the Absolute.

 

[philbo]

I strongly disagree. I have studied mysticism for quite some time and found it to have been a part of the human condition for millennia. If mysticism, as you say is so unscientific, can you explain its presence in all forms of culture and most faiths or religions since time began?

Because, since time began until very recently there was no such thing as science or scientific method.

Since humans became human, they've believed in all sorts of unscientific rubbish - they still do & can be very stubborn about it even when confronted with cast iron evidence that their beliefs are flawed.

Ideas don't have to be true, or even useful, to be passed on; and they definitely don't have to be scientific

 

[Windwalker]

I think a lot of poets would disagree with you about words.

That's ludicrous. I'm not speaking in poetry. I'm saying in discussions of meditation traditions compared to other forms of religious practice, it is in fact not poetry. It seems absurd to have to try to explain the difference. I'm not pointing to the moon here using metaphors, it's actually signifier and signified with actual referents. This is not myth and symbolic language. Bring your poets on. Would they say, "Here are the keys to me car, go start it and drive it over here," as I'm holding out my keys to him and point to it sitting there, to be meaning I'm talking about cosmic love somehow through poetry? Don't be absurd.

They can be quiet beautiful. Technical language is not the only kind of language, and symbology and mythology is also rooted in narrative languages.

You think I don't understand this? My god, did you read the link I posted and the three paragraphs I quoted from it? It may behoove to read my posts again, rather than skimming over them in your haste to prove me wrong.

I understand your point. But with every admonishment of terms you haughtily deem laughable from the OP, you are limiting the undefinable potential experiences you espouse. But it's inconsistent to define what you consider to be undefinable.

Oh brother. He is speaking of studies about faith belief and meditation. It's technical for god's sake. This isn't poetry at this point. I most certain use it myself all the time, if you've ever read any of my posts, as opposed to whatever it is you're doing when you see them.

In short, you aren't showing alot of respect for any viewpoint but your own, which is ironic considering your message.

That's nonsense. I listen to what he has to say, and the language he is using doesn't fit conventional use of the terms. It's a simple misuse of very specific terminology. I do however hear what his is trying to say! He's just confusing terms, that's all. My goodness, you're just full of assumptions about me.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

This sound strangely like the promissory notes issue by the religious, saying God holds all the answers, and when we die God will reveal all to us which escapes our understanding today. Kind of like God answers all prayers, yes, no, or wait. Ironic when compared this way, isn't it? Makes it sound like just shifting what we are placing our faith in, from God to Science when looked at in this light.

How is it even remotely comparable? I'm not saying "science definitely will have answer", I'm saying "just because science doesn't have an answer doesn't mean it never will". There's no faith required whatsoever. It's no different to saying "just because I don't know how to cook doesn't mean I can never learn how to cook" - it's precisely the same logic.

 

[Typist]

Because we're not talking about knowing the Absolute. Ideas are perfectly fine when understanding the relative. I'm a nondualist, so I have no conflict between the relative and the Absolute.

Right at this moment, both of us could be meditating, or we can be here thinking and typing. Any movement in to philosophy is a movement away from meditation, and vice versa. For me, philosophy is the main thing I have to let go of when I meditate. And so it seems worthwhile to ask...

Which is more important? Food, or a book about food? Sex, or a theory about sex? Sleep, or a photo of someone sleeping? The real thing, or a symbol which points to the real thing? The experience, or the explanation?

Yes, this is dualistic and I agree it shouldn't be taken to extremes. But shouldn't we have some clarity about the source of the value?

To me, silence and love are like food, sex and sleep. They don't really require any explanation. They work fine on their own. As you've commented wisely above, explanations without experience aren't worth much, if anything.

Perhaps philosophy might be seen as a game of tennis. It's fun to bat the ball back and forth across the net. But it's just a game in the end. Seen that way, I have no complaints.

 

[Windwalker]

How is it even remotely comparable? I'm not saying "science definitely will have answer", I'm saying "just because science doesn't have an answer doesn't mean it never will".

Well, you are excluding the possibility that in fact may never, or in fact may be incapable of answering questions, no matter what amount of time passes, aren't you? I thought that's what I read. If so, then you are "believing in" science that is in in fact capable of answering all questions. That sounds like faith in God. God is capable of answering all questions, but not that he actually will. It sounds like the same set of eyes of faith, "I believe in science as the best and only source of finding answers to all questions of life". That, is in fact Scientism. It's faith that Science bring the ultimate truth to light, like God does in our mythologies.

There's no faith required whatsoever. It's no different to saying "just because I don't know how to cook doesn't mean I can never learn how to cook" - it's precisely the same logic.

May you can't learn how to cook. Maybe you are incapable of being a cook because you have no sense of smell or taste.

 

[Windwalker]

Perhaps philosophy might be seen as a game of tennis. It's fun to bat the ball back and forth across the net. But it's just a game in the end. Seen that way, I have no complaints.

I think it's more complicated than that. I think there are practical uses for it that result in creating stable structures upon which we can speak of our experiences. It also allows to to grow and build understanding, one rung at time in the ladder of evolution. Without any structures, we cease to be human. But we are human, and as such we have to have structures upon which we hang the ornaments of Spirit.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Well, you are excluding the possibility that in fact may never, or in fact may be incapable of answering questions, no matter what amount of time passes, aren't you?

No I'm not.

May you can't learn how to cook. Maybe you are incapable of being a cook because you have no sense of smell or taste.

Maybe, but there's no reason to assume I could never regain my sense of smell or taste, or that my lack of taste or smell makes it impossible for me to make good-tasting food. The point is, there's no reason to assume "I cannot do X" means "I will NEVER be able to do X". It's POSSIBLE that I could never do X, there is no reason to ASSUME it on that basis.

 

[Kuzcotopia]

That's ludicrous. I'm not speaking in poetry. I'm saying in discussions of meditation traditions compared to other forms of religious practice, it is in fact not poetry. It seems absurd to have to try to explain the difference. I'm not pointing to the moon here using metaphors, it's actually signifier and signified with actual referents. This is not myth and symbolic language. Bring your poets on. Would they say, "Here are the keys to me car, go start it and drive it over here," as I'm holding out my keys to him and point to it sitting there, to be meaning I'm talking about cosmic love somehow through poetry? Don't be absurd.


You think I don't understand this? My god, did you read the link I posted and the three paragraphs I quoted from it? It may behoove to read my posts again, rather than skimming over them in your haste to prove me wrong.


Oh brother. He is speaking of studies about faith belief and meditation. It's technical for god's sake. This isn't poetry at this point. I most certain use it myself all the time, if you've ever read any of my posts, as opposed to whatever it is you're doing when you see them.


That's nonsense. I listen to what he has to say, and the language he is using doesn't fit conventional use of the terms. It's a simple misuse of very specific terminology. I do however hear what his is trying to say! He's just confusing terms, that's all. My goodness, you're just full of assumptions about me.

No I didn't read the links. That is my bad. Thanks for pointing that out to me. I will look into it and try and understand the difference.

 

[Windwalker]

No I'm not.

Here's my confusion. You originally said, "If science cannot answer a particular question, that doesn't mean it never can or will - it just means it doesn't have an answer yet." [emphasis mine]. Which sounded to me like you are excluding the possibility that it is frankly the wrong tool. I'll ask it this way to clarify. Do you believe there are something science is in the fact incapable at any point of being able to shed light on, that is has it limitations as a tool of knowledge? That should clarify any misunderstanding I may have here.

Maybe, but there's no reason to assume I could never regain my sense of smell or taste, or that my lack of taste or smell makes it impossible for me to make good-tasting food.

What if you had no tongue, and hence no taste buds? Or you could have a neurological disease that you lost your sense of taste and smell, and the disease caused irreparable damage? There is no regaining anything there.

But in your comparison you just added that you might be able to make good-tasting food through other means than using your taste buds, correct? That is a good point. And it makes my point perfectly. You would have to find another set of tools to do what is impossible relying on taste buds. Same thing with the empiric-analytic sciences. It has limits to what it can do. You have to find another tool to cook good tasting food. Same difference.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Here's my confusion. You originally said, "If science cannot answer a particular question, that doesn't mean it never can or will - it just means it doesn't have an answer yet." [emphasis mine]. Which sounded to me like you are excluding the possibility that it is frankly the wrong tool.

Why would you assume that? What I said was extremely clear.

I'll ask it this way to clarify. Do you believe there are something science is in the fact incapable at any point of being able to shed light on, that is has it limitations as a tool of knowledge?

You're essentially asking exactly the exact same question as is addressed above: "are there some questions to which science could never provide an answer?", and my position is "I do not know, but there is currently no reason to assume such questions exist."

What if you had no tongue, and hence no taste buds?

I could still produce food that was tasty.

Or you could have a neurological disease that you lost your sense of taste and smell, and the disease caused irreparable damage? There is no regaining anything there.

See above.

I feel this is veering violently off on a tangent.

But in your comparison you just added that you might be able to make good-tasting food through other means than using your taste buds, correct?

Actually, it was a logical analogy - not a comparison. But yes.

That is a good point. And it makes my point perfectly. You would have to find another set of tools to do what is impossible relying on taste buds.

Again, you're veering off on a tangent. The subject I used in my analogy was "cooking" not "tasting" - the "cooking" part is still the same, I'd just have to utilise different ways of reaching conclusions, but regardless the process of cooking is still the same.

You're taking this analogy much further than was originally intended. It was used to illustrate that the statement "just because science can't answer X doesn't mean it will never answer X" is no different from saying "just because I cannot cook doesn't mean I cannot learn to cook". Do you or do you not agree that these statements are true?

Same thing with the empiric-analytic sciences. It has limits to what it can do. You have to find another tool to cook good tasting food. Same difference.

Not even remotely. Until you can definitively state what science's limits are - which you can't, because science is a progressive methodology which is constantly adjusting, and therefore you cannot definitively state that there are questions that it could NEVER answer - you have no basis on which to assert that science has "limits" and would need "another tool" to answer a particular question.

 

[Kuzcotopia]

When speaking mantras and meditation these a technical terms, so yes, they should be defined. This has absolutely nothing to do with mythology and religious symbolism. Those are by their very nature open meant to be open to interpretation. They are not technical language.

Care to try again?


Then they cease to be myth! I very highly suggest you read this wonderful article that should put fine point on this for you. Biblical Literalism: Constricting the Cosmic Dance

Here's a section from it that says very well the problem you seem to be having here between understanding myth versus technical language:

Our situation calls to mind a backstage interview with Anna Pavlova, the dancer. Following an illustrious and moving performance, she was asked the meaning of the dance. She replied, “If I could say it, do you think I should have danced it?” To give dance a literal meaning would be to reduce dancing to something else. It would lose its capacity to involve the whole person. And one would miss all the subtle nuances and delicate shadings and rich polyvalences of the dance itself.

The remark has its parallel in religion. The early ethnologist R. R. Marett is noted for his dictum that “religion is not so much thought out as danced out.” But even when thought out, religion is focused in the verbal equivalent of the dance: myth, symbol and metaphor. To insist on assigning to it a literal, one-dimensional meaning is to shrink and stifle and distort the significance. In the words of E. H. W. Meyer- stein, “Myth is my tongue, which means not that I cheat, but stagger in a light too great to bear.” Religious expression trembles with a sense of inexpressible mystery, a mystery which nevertheless addresses us in the totality of our being.

The literal imagination is univocal. Words mean one thing, and one thing only. They don’t bristle with meanings and possibilities; they are bald, clean-shaven. Literal clarity and simplicity, to be sure, offer a kind of security in a world (or Bible) where otherwise issues seem incorrigibly complex, ambiguous and muddy. But it is a false security, a temporary bastion, maintained by dogmatism and misguided loyalty. Literalism pays a high price for the hope of having firm and unbreakable handles attached to reality. The result is to move in the opposite direction from religious symbolism, emptying symbols of their amplitude of meaning and power, reducing the cosmic dance to a calibrated discussion.
​

All I can say as I read this is, amen! He nails it.


Nope. Please read the article I linked to.

Okay read it. Thanks for the link. Sorry again for mischaracterizing you personally. Not the m.o. I want for this thread. There is a lot of emotionally charged rhetoric flying around outside the content and I got caught up in that.

Understanding your perspective and what I understand about the OP suggests to me there isn't much of an issue between them.

The article you linked discussed the genesis myth from a numerological perspective, and this does suggest more depth of field for understanding the textual artifact that is not present in a literal or historical reading. I can also see how the general heuristics of these readings can be generally agreed upon.

But I also think the OP has a point as well. For these heuristics to be present in a recognizable way that everyone can use as creative tools, there has to be some embedding of traditional methodology.

On the other hand, it may be more appropriate for these methodologies to remain unsituated and allow them to organically change over time.The individual reader's response requires them to add value to the text instead of only using traditional methodology to decode it. It would essentially change over time?

But on the other hand again, learning and trusting that process of creation might require some training to be able to perform the kind of individualized meaning that is unique to that reader's experience, yet isn't unrecognizable as human experience. It would be like agreeing that there should be a potter's wheel and clay and some basic techniques, but after that you are free to create your own pot.

 

[1137]

I strongly disagree. I have studied mysticism for quite some time and found it to have been a part of the human condition for millennia. If mysticism, as you say is so unscientific, can you explain its presence in all forms of culture and most faiths or religions since time began?

I don't think it being known across cultures suggests anything scientific to be honest. Yes, religious belief does seem to arise naturally in human beings, but it doesn't show that religion is scientific in really any way.

I am not sure I would go that far leibowde. I would say there are some theories and concepts that, of neccisity, have to be studied qualitatively and do not lend themselves to scientific experimentation. There are plenty of ideas from psychology that must be studied in such a fashion as not to breach ethics. Consider the experiments by Watson with the boy Albert. How about work with dreams?

Well it's just like science cannot address questions of ethics or meaning, it can't even interpret information for us. Science is as limited as its creators, which is why it is concerning to see it raised to the level of scientism.

No it is not. It is a means of human expression. The aim of art is not to obtain and objective understanding of reality, but to express thoughts, ideas and experiences.

Actually in therapy you can use art to learn objective things about the individual in question. For example, a girl drawing her step-mom being tortured can generally tell us awfully specific things, like this girl's stress is related to the step mother, the father, the divorce in general, etc.

Again, you're creating a false dichotomy. One can exalt empiricism and reason as the best methods of inquiry while still seeing the importance of, and respecting, artistic expression. No conflict whatsoever exists between these two things.

I think you have completely missed the point. Yes, art is different than science. This is exactly why scientism is opposed to art. Art does not give us cold hard facts about the universe, but rather clues to how we perceive it. Scientism would reject this as non-scientific.

This seems a rather odd question to ask, considering science is a progressive method that is constantly self-improving. There's no reason whatsoever to assume that science could *never* answer a specific question, so there's no reason to assume it could "fail" to answer a particular question. If science cannot answer a particular question, that doesn't mean it never can or will - it just means it doesn't have an answer yet.

This is actually kind of untrue. For example, science could never "improve" enough to detect something non-physical, assuming such a thing exists. So we can never scientifically know (or honestly claim) there are no non-physical "things".

 

[lovemuffin]

Until you can definitively state what science's limits are - which you can't, because science is a progressive methodology which is constantly adjusting, and therefore you cannot definitively state that there are questions that it could NEVER answer - you have no basis on which to assert that science has "limits" and would need "another tool" to answer a particular question.

Insofar as the discussion is about the possible limits of "scientific" methodology over against other possible methods, it seems like question begging to define "science" in such a way as to make it mean "any methodology that proves to be useful". It's a useful point that science is not a fixed and static thing, but at the same time, the demarcation problem exists, there is an idea that there are distinctions between what is science and what is not, such that it is also possible to discuss theoretical limits of science. There's also sort of irony here that the very demarcation problem itself is a philosophical problem that necessitates an inquiry that is not itself scientific. Science itself doesn't really resolve the philosophical issues about the basis of science.

Nevertheless, as far as talking about specific limitations, I would propose at least one to illustrate the point: repeatability of empirical phenomena. I would submit that even taking into consideration the progressive nature of scientific discovery, the foundations of all properly scientific methodologies are objectively empirical, and in practice in order to establish that objectivity, experiments must be repeatable. Mathematical models and statistics can incorporate randomness in sophisticated ways, but only when there is still some underlying pattern to be discerned. The outcome of a particular interaction between a photon and an electron in quantum mechanics may be truly random, but in a stochastic way, the probability distributions are determined. Because of the requirement of repeatability, it seems reasonable to suggest that there cannot be science when there is not repeatability. One theoretical way this problem of repeatability could manifest is in truly singular events. But the other way is in the problem of measurement. Science needs quantitative measures in order to allow for repeatability and objectivity of experiments. Which isn't to say that science can't investigate qualitative differences from a subjective perspective, via various phenomenological methods, but even those methods require some operational quantitative definitions to proceed as science. There can be no science of the ineffable, insofar as the word implies the inadequacy of any such operational quantitization.

Now, maybe truly ineffable or truly singular events don't exist, or may be deemed irrelevant. But that's not in itself a scientific question. The argument against them existing is an abductive one that leaps from the great success of empirical science to an expectation that there is nothing else. It's not an unreasonable supposition, but there are also reasons to doubt it. The so-called "hard" problem of consciousness may be one reason to think more about the problem of ineffability, for example. But in any case, I think your argument that it is impossible to definitively state there are limits to "science" begs the question by using too broad a definition of "science", against what are normally considered reasonable lines of demarcation between science and pseudo-science at best. It is in fact possible to state theoretical limits to science given standard methodological requirements.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Actually in therapy you can use art to learn objective things about the individual in question. For example, a girl drawing her step-mom being tortured can generally tell us awfully specific things, like this girl's stress is related to the step mother, the father, the divorce in general, etc.

That really fits with my definition of it being expressive though, really. Like I said, we use art to express abstract and subjective ideas such as emotions - so its not surprising that these can be communicated by art. However, art itself is not a method of inquiry. We can use art to communicate ideas (or interpret them), but you cannot use art to obtain an objective understanding of reality. It isn't a "method".

I think you have completely missed the point. Yes, art is different than science. This is exactly why scientism is opposed to art. Art does not give us cold hard facts about the universe, but rather clues to how we perceive it. Scientism would reject this as non-scientific.

Again, I haven't seen anything in the definition provided by Quintessence that says that scientism rejects ANYTHING that isn't science - it just rejects anything as a methodology for analysing and understanding facts that isn't science. I am uncertain as to whether this is the definition of scientism you would use, but it is the one I was addressing.

This is actually kind of untrue. For example, science could never "improve" enough to detect something non-physical, assuming such a thing exists. So we can never scientifically know (or honestly claim) there are no non-physical "things".

How do you know that?

 

[leibowde84]

I am not sure I would go that far leibowde. I would say there are some theories and concepts that, of neccisity, have to be studied qualitatively and do not lend themselves to scientific experimentation. There are plenty of ideas from psychology that must be studied in such a fashion as not to breach ethics. Consider the experiments by Watson with the boy Albert. How about work with dreams?

I would say those are hypotheses, not facts per se. Someday (and possibly already as I dont know much about this stuff) it might be physically explained though. No reason to think that it couldn't be.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Insofar as the discussion is about the possible limits of "scientific" methodology over against other possible methods, it seems like question begging to define "science" in such a way as to make it mean "any methodology that proves to be useful".

Not necessarily. Even if we impose any number of limitations on science (such as "science only deals with the physical"), there's no reason to assume that - even within those limitations - science cannot find an answer to any particular question. Even if science truly were limited to the physical, there's still no reason to assume that there are any questions which cannot be answered by physical explanations.

It's a useful point that science is not a fixed and static thing, but at the same time, the demarcation problem exists, there is an idea that there are distinctions between what is science and what is not, such that it is also possible to discuss theoretical limits of science.

I suppose my real issue is less to do specifically with people making claims about science, and more about people making claims that "X methodology could never explain Y", especially when X is extremely broad and constantly changing and finding new avenues of investigation. I see supposed limitations on science as arbitrary distinctions made without any real justification.

Nevertheless, as far as talking about specific limitations, I would propose at least one to illustrate the point: repeatability of empirical phenomena. I would submit that even taking into consideration the progressive nature of scientific discovery, the foundations of all properly scientific methodologies are objectively empirical, and in practice in order to establish that objectivity, experiments must be repeatable. Mathematical models and statistics can incorporate randomness in sophisticated ways, but only when there is still some underlying pattern to be discerned. The outcome of a particular interaction between a photon and an electron in quantum mechanics may be truly random, but in a stochastic way, the probability distributions are determined. Because of the requirement of repeatability, it seems reasonable to suggest that there cannot be science when there is not repeatability. One theoretical way this problem of repeatability could manifest is in truly singular events. But the other way is in the problem of measurement. Science needs quantitative measures in order to allow for repeatability and objectivity of experiments. Which isn't to say that science can't investigate qualitative differences from a subjective perspective, via various phenomenological methods, but even those methods require some operational quantitative definitions to proceed as science. There can be no science of the ineffable, insofar as the word implies the inadequacy of any such operational quantitization.

Again, this seems to be a collection of hypotheticals. I am not against the idea that there may be questions science cannot answer (or limits on science) - I'm sure such things are possible. I'm against people asserting that there most definitely are. All of your examples here make liberal use of the magic 'if'.

But in any case, I think your argument that it is impossible to definitively state there are limits to "science" begs the question by using too broad a definition of "science", against what are normally considered reasonable lines of demarcation between science and pseudo-science at best. It is in fact possible to state theoretical limits to science given standard methodological requirements.

But it is not reasonable to apply those theoretical limits to assert what science could *never* do. Again, there is no reason to state that a current limitation of the scientific method will always remain a limitation, or even that said limitation prevents science from answering any particular question (making that limitation no longer really a limitation, but hopefully you understand what I mean).

 

[leibowde84]

What if the scientific method fails to answer the questions? I know you loathe things that cannot be proven but there are many concepts that have no explanation as yet. And yes, I freely admit there could and easily may be explanations forthcoming. But what of them leibowde?

I have a loose definition when it comes to objective proof in my own exoerience. But science demands more. That is why I believe there is more to life than matter. And I'm willing to take leaps of faith. I just am strongly arguing that the scientific method is a more reliable (better) method than anything else we know about. I'm certainly not in to scientism, but we have to be honest with ourselves about the reliability of evidence. I don't want to risk settling on an illusion when the truth might be attainable.

 

[lovemuffin]

Even if science truly were limited to the physical, there's still no reason to assume that there are any questions which cannot be answered by physical explanations.

And no reason, a priori, to assume that there are no such questions. There are actually reasonable abductive arguments for physicalism of course, but this thread is about "scientism", and basically in this context the word means to imply a somewhat exaggerated certainty in philosophical presumptions such as that there are no questions which cannot be answered by science. There is perhaps no reason either to assume that this proposition is true or false. There may be reasons to believe that it is either more likely to be true or false. But "there is no reason to assume that there are any questions which cannot be answered by physical explanations" misses the point. The criticism of "scientism" is that some people assume that there definitely are no such questions. It is not necessary to suggest that the opposite is true in order to criticize that assumption.

Again, this seems to be a collection of hypotheticals.

Of course. You said that it was impossible even in theory for there to be limitations on science. You didn't say that as of yet no one had proven a limitation, you said that no one could ever definitively state a limitation because there was no definition of science, essentially. You were wrong on both counts. There are definitions of science, and it is possible to state limitations based on those definitions. Those limitations are necessarily theoretical limitations, because we are dealing with theoretical definitions.

But it is not reasonable to apply those theoretical limits to assert what science could *never* do. Again, there is no reason to state that a current limitation of the scientific method will always remain a limitation, or even that said limitation prevents science from answering any particular question

If you agree that repeatability is essential to science, than you agree that there can never be a science of the (scientifically) unrepeatable. I submit that there is no coherent definition of scientific methodology that admits as science what cannot be supported by repeatable experiment.