Scientism

[JoStories]

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.


I'm afraid I can only repeat your own question back at you: "What of them?"

I never said that science couldn't eventfully answer those questions. I said that as of now, there are some that can't be. And those questions still deserve answers. I'm sorry you can't see that. And if you will note, I did say they might be answered by science.

 

[JoStories]

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.

Of course I absolutely agree with you. I look to science myself leibowde. You know that but there are still some questions that defer the scientific method, which you know. I like to keep an open mind and believe that some questions may require a different approach. Admittedly I don't know how but those questions are more difficult and/or ethics prohibits quantitative methods.

 

[JoStories]

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

How can you be so certain that mysticism is 'unscientific rubbish'? I understand that you think that some things are not real according to you, but things that were once thought to be 'rubbish' have since been answered. I prefer to keep an open mind and not live solely in the realm of science.

 

[JoStories]

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


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."


I could still produce food that was tasty.


See above.

I feel this is veering violently off on a tangent.


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


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?


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.

And you are denying the fact that science does, in fact, have limits. Ethics is just one of those limits. One can't, ethically, experiment on human in ways that would breach ethical constraints. As I have already mentioned, the experiments by Watson with Albert is just one example. Can you ethically open a persons brain to study Alzheimer's? No.

 

[philbo]

How can you be so certain that mysticism is 'unscientific rubbish'? I understand that you think that some things are not real according to you, but things that were once thought to be 'rubbish' have since been answered. I prefer to keep an open mind and not live solely in the realm of science.

er.. logic fail.

What I said was that people have believed (and still believe) all kinds of unscientific rubbish; therefore your contention that because mysticism has been "part of the human condition for millennia" means it therefore cannot be unscientific is not a valid conclusion to draw. I haven't said mysticism is unscientific rubbish, simply that what you contend does not prove it not to be. I'm keeping an open mind (because I don't really know enough about what mysticism is to comment)

 

[JoStories]

er.. logic fail.

What I said was that people have believed (and still believe) all kinds of unscientific rubbish; therefore your contention that because mysticism has been "part of the human condition for millennia" means it therefore cannot be unscientific is not a valid conclusion to draw. I haven't said mysticism is unscientific rubbish, simply that what you contend does not prove it not to be. I'm keeping an open mind (because I don't really know enough about what mysticism is to comment)

and again, I have repeatedly stated that it might be found to be rubbish, or not. I cant bring myself to dismiss something that is outside the realm of current science as being "rubbish" just because as of not, it cant be proven. What I find truly fascinating is that mysticism has existed in all types of cultures for ages and has many commonalities. I have never stated that it might not be the mind creating these experiences. Or that it might not be suggestive. But the overt similarites across so many centuries definitely gives me pause.

 

[JoStories]

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 never claimed that it did. I merely am keeping an open mind to the topic.

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.

I agree.

 

[JoStories]

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.

To some degree, yes. But there are still some questions that cant be discovered at the moment. Such as dreams. Why some people who were severely abused become serial killers and others dont. Etc. These questions are outside the realm of ethical experimentation at the moment. But again, I admit that someday, there may be methods discovered that might answer the questions.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

To some degree, yes. But there are still some questions that cant be discovered at the moment. Such as dreams. Why some people who were severely abused become serial killers and others dont. Etc. These questions are outside the realm of ethical experimentation at the moment. But again, I admit that someday, there may be methods discovered that might answer the questions.

Yet 2 more people who have no idea whatsoever about choosing an explanation. If both ugly and beautiful are logically valid conclusions, that you can choose either, then for such an issue science is out of the picture. And no amount of research will ever find evidence that forces the conclusion ugly, or forces the conclusion beautiful.

 

[JoStories]

Yet 2 more people who have no idea whatsoever about choosing an explanation. If both ugly and beautiful are logically valid conclusions, that you can choose either, then for such an issue science is out of the picture. And no amount of research will ever find evidence that forces the conclusion ugly, or forces the conclusion beautiful.

Seriously? I did not propose that ridiculous concepts be examined. I suggested that some answers are outside the realm of science as of NOW. I also stated that there may be a time when they can be answered. Please try to stick to the topic and not suggest silly concepts that defy explanation. I was not talking about concepts that have different meanings in various cultures but ubiquitous questions that affect all peoples, such as dreams, dementia conditions, pain, and more. Much is known about pain but it remains a subjective concept that varies from person to person. Do you think these types of concepts fit within the realm of comparing "ugly" to "beautiful"? If we could explain and treat pain, via the thalamic tract, etc; could be successfuly treated without resorting to narcotics or rhizotomies, dont you think that would be a great thing?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

What I find truly fascinating is that mysticism has existed in all types of cultures for ages and has many commonalities. I have never stated that it might not be the mind creating these experiences. Or that it might not be suggestive. But the overt similarites across so many centuries definitely gives me pause.

I think we're talking about altered states of consciousness here, and yes, they are reproducible. I'd agree they are suggestive, but not that they are conclusive as some like to claim.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Seriously? I did not propose that ridiculous concepts be examined. I suggested that some answers are outside the realm of science as of NOW. I also stated that there may be a time when they can be answered.

The supposed future in which science takes control of a country, and establishes as fact what is beautiful and ugly.

Your idea is simply to exclude all freedom, all choosing, that is how everything is made into a factual issue which science can address.

 

[JoStories]

I think we're talking about altered states of consciousness here, and yes, they are reproducible. I'd agree they are suggestive, but not that they are conclusive as some like to claim.

I agree and pretty much stated that Norman. They are mostly subjective and understanding and ones mindset plays a huge role. If one is raised catholic, for example, then most likely an ASC will be understood in those terms.

 

[JoStories]

The supposed future in which science takes control of a country, and establishes as fact what is beautiful and ugly.

Your idea is simply to exclude all freedom, all choosing, that is how everything is made into a factual issue which science can address.

Where did I say to exclude all freedom? Please don't put words in my mouth.

 

[leibowde84]

Yet 2 more people who have no idea whatsoever about choosing an explanation. If both ugly and beautiful are logically valid conclusions, that you can choose either, then for such an issue science is out of the picture. And no amount of research will ever find evidence that forces the conclusion ugly, or forces the conclusion beautiful.

You have yet to explain why choosing takes science out of the picture. We all make choices every day. They are influenced by our environment, but we still have the ability to choose.

 

[Windwalker]

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.

No worries, I've knee-jerked a few times myself in the past completely misreading what someone was saying. I do tend to post somewhat "packed" posts, so read in a hurry the details can get lost.

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.

To be clear my point of contention with him was his use of terms such as "secular meditation" and "mystical meditation". I feel those incorrect technical terms obscure the actual meaning he is trying to get at, or he himself is simply confused categorically. There is no "secular meditation". These are actual categorical distinctions, and thus they are technical in nature. You can't speak of a giraffe as being type of fish and have a discussion with people who classify them as mammals.

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?

Sure, within reason of course. I hate people who cite dictionaries extremely narrow focus and do not allow for experts to expand meaning and understanding of terms. I welcome re-classifying things when there is greater information that expands our understandings. But they have to actually be meaningful. What I hear instead is not that but a confused understanding, a lack of awareness of what is actually already understood by experts in the field. That's different.

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.

Again, though we are talking classification systems here. Not myth and poetry. If we are to talk about those, oh, I'm all on board with allowing a far more fluid and evolving understanding, like blossoming flowers. But they don't function entirely the same as scientific language, nor should they.

 

[Quintessence]

No it is not.

In your opinion. We seem to disagree. I am quite content to leave things at that. Though, last time I checked "inquiry" simply meant the asking of questions, something that can and is explored through things other than the sciences. Like arts and stories. Or direct, personal experience. If you still value other modes of inquiry - regardless of whether or not you consider it a mode of inquiry - you're not holding to the philosophy of scientism to me.

 

[viole]

What's an interesting thought on this line of reasoning is that if our brains are hardwired to believe, either those who say they don't believe religiously are an aberration on the order of dysfunction, since nature selected it for the species as a whole, or... they actually are still believing religiously because they too are hardwired for it, but they are mistaken that not believing in God as a literal being means they aren't still believing religiously. That would be those who replace God with Science to put their faith into. Hence, science becomes Scientism. It's in the genes. It's still a religious belief. Science is the Answer to our quest for Truth!


I think any developmental studies will show that children with active imaginations are happier and healthier overall.


No, not period. If they feel better, they will be healthier. Period. How we think and how we believe very directly affects our health. This is well known nowadays. If you think dark and negative thoughts all day, you make your body ill through stress and a host of other chemical problems. If you are hopeful and optimistic, it reduces all of those and you have overall better physical health, as well as mental health. So, if it makes them feel better, then everyone should desire some point of view that does that too!

Yes but, again, that does not say anything about the plusibility of the object of the belief, does it? And once you realize how implausible that is, how can you convince yourself to still believe it so that you are happier?

In my case, not statistically relevant, my deconversion did not cause any reduction of happiness whatsoever. It was actually an exhilarating feeling. But I cannot exclude that some people might sense a feeling of loss when they realize that they are not going to play harp in the clouds for all eternity .

It all boils down to priorities. What has priority: happiness or truth (possibly accompanied by lesser happiness)? Do you prefer a comortable lie or an umpleasant truth, in general?

In my experience, the amount of skepticism that must be deployed toward a certain claim, is proportional to the comfort that the claim causes us. This simple rule works wonders if truth is priority. Less so if you have other priorities.

It is your call, really.

Ciao

- viole

 

[leibowde84]

In your opinion. We seem to disagree. I am quite content to leave things at that. Though, last time I checked "inquiry" simply meant the asking of questions, something that can and is explored through things other than the sciences. Like arts and stories. Or direct, personal experience. If you still value other modes of inquiry - regardless of whether or not you consider it a mode of inquiry - you're not holding to the philosophy of scientism to me.

"Inquiry" is an act of asking for information. It is not the process of aquiring information, which would be an "investigation". An investigation is the carrying out of an inquiry, which would better describe your opinion that artistic expression is some kind of exploration of the world around us. I know it's semantic, but it seems that "inquiry" is an innapropriate term in this case.

The supposed future in which science takes control of a country, and establishes as fact what is beautiful and ugly.

Your idea is simply to exclude all freedom, all choosing, that is how everything is made into a factual issue which science can address.

When did she claim this? Is your only method on this forum to put words in people's mouths? Look back at her past comments and then be embarassed.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

And no reason, a priori, to assume that there are no such questions.

I never said otherwise. In fact, I've repeatedly stated that myself.

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.

Well that's what you say, but I've been receiving varied definitions of just what "scientism" is, exactly. I've head people give personal definitions in line with what you have said that I am generally happy to disagree with in concept, and others that gave definitions that seemed to, conversely, fit me perfectly. Some people seem to define scientism as a faith-like belief in science, which I disagree with, while others have defined it as simply the belief that science is the best method we have for understanding reality, which I agree with.

Once a single, coherent definition of what constitutes scientism is established, we can start having meaningful discussions about what we do and do not agree with about it.

Of course. You said that it was impossible even in theory for there to be limitations on science.

I have never said such a thing!

In fact, in the very next sentence after the one you just quoted I made my position extremely clear:-

"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."

How on earth did you miss that?

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.

I said nothing whatsoever about the definition of science.

You were wrong on both counts.

You mean, about those two things that I never actually said - and one of which I made perfectly clear that I did not believe?

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.

Okay. Now all you need to do is demonstrate the existence of phenomena that can never be scientifically repeatable.