Scientism

[Altfish]

.... More appropriately, scientism is a religious exaltation of science and anti-theism....

You can often find me down the Science Museum on a Sunday morning with my gospel, "A-Level Physics by Nelkon & Parker" tucked under my arm, reciting Newton's Third Law of Motion and bowing down to the statue of Copernicus, before waving about my incense of hydraulic acid and partaking of Darwin's body in the form of buttered scone.
We then move onto cast away the devil of the Catholic Church and ridicule the stupidity of Mormonism and Scientology by use of a Van de Graaff Generator.
Finally, we drink the blood of Alan Turing, in the form of a pint of real ale.

Yes, I can see the similarities.

 

[Quintessence]

Why does it "drive you up the wall"? I feel like it is pretty reasonable to rely completely on empirical evidence, refusing to take anyone's word for anything without sufficient evidence. It's not the way that I choose to live my life, but I think it is completely understandable ... especially with all of the harm that religious beliefs seem to be causing these days.

Aside from the fact that not a single human on the planet actually implements that in practice in the vast majority of their day-to-day affairs? It's a perversion of what the sciences are and what they are for, and on top of that, it devalues creativity, imagination, and the arts.

 

[lovemuffin]

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

If something cannot be proved using the scientific method of observation and experimentation, then it most likely shouldn't be considered a fact or truth.

This sort of gets to the heart of the question, but the notion that only verifiable information about physical realities is valuable or meaningful is a philosophical position, and I think that's what 1137 is getting at when he says it raises this mode of inquiry to the pinnacle human endeavor. Hence "scientism". So you might ask, what is the value of Beauty or Goodness as so-called transcendentals? Is there more to human life than processing information and conveying it conceptually? Some people say yes and feel that the apotheosis of capital-R Reason misses something.

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?

I don't really know what the difference is between secular and "mystical" meditation but insofar as we're assuming the difference is that "secular" means going through the motions while "mystical" means a practice that begins from some expectation that the practice is meaningful, a faith in the possibility of a meaningful experience, than I would say yes that could look very much like the placebo effect, but that would kind of be the point. Almost all mystical traditions assert that something like faith is necessary as a starting point. That you have to at least approach a practice with an openness to the possibility of it being meaningful. it doesn't have to mean blind and unquestioning faith as an absolute. Which is already more or less what is demonstrated by the placebo effect in general. "Mysticism" has a subjective element of "experience" to it that I think is irreducible, it's not an objective science of an external phenomenon. The goal isn't to demonstrate a reality that exists entirely independently of one's own experience.

 

[leibowde84]

Aside from the fact that not a single human on the planet actually implements that in practice in the vast majority of their day-to-day affairs? It's a perversion of what the sciences are and what they are for, and on top of that, it devalues creativity, imagination, and the arts.

1. Nobody's perfect, and no one adheres completely to their own world-view or religion. I think it is pretty unreasonable to look down on the fact that they don't practice this philosophy throughout their day-to-day life, assuming they are at least making an attempt of course. I mean, do you adhere to being a Druidic Witch daily without making any mistakes or lapses? I sure don't do this with my world-view/beliefs. And, I wouldn't expect anyone else to perfectly adhere to theirs.

2. In your opinion, how is it a "perversion of what the sciences are and what they are for"? Science is merely adherence to the scientific method of using repeated observation and experimentation to make substantiated theories about why things happen a certain way. In essence, science is a way (the best way that we have found thus far) to understand the physical world around us and, as a result, enabling us to make predictions based on those theories. So, how is limiting yourself to theories substantiated using observation and experimentation a "perversion" of what science was intended for. It seems like it is EXACTLY what science is meant to do ... provide substantiated explanations for the physical world around us.

3. What does creativity, imagination, and the arts have to do with scientism? We know why certain notes sound good together because of scientific discoveries. Because of this understanding, we have been able to revolutionize sound and music. Further, music theory is based on the scientific method. Through observation and experimentation we developed a "sound code" or "guide" on how musical tones work and don't work together. And, it certainly isn't restrictive, as they aren't rules by any stretch of the imagination. They are merely an explanation for what will happen if tones are put together and how they relate to each other in terms of music.

This is only one example, but I fail to see any reasonable argument that adherence to the scientific method devalues creativity, imagination and the arts. It strengthens them, and has strengthened them throughout history. They seem to work hand in hand.

 

[Kuzcotopia]

I'm not certain that the interview I'm reading suggests that we simply accept this at face value at all. Unless, I'm misunderstanding, he is saying that we should not dismiss religious effects as a field of study. Maybe I'm assuming because I haven't read the APA guide, but these studies would seem to follow scientific methodology.

Am I wrong on this?

From the link of the OP:
APA: Given the vastness of the topic with so many differing views, how did you go about editing a two-volume handbook on psychology, religion and spirituality?
Pargament: Times have changed in this field. When I first started out in 1975, I could go to the library once a semester and leisurely review the journals to stay on top of the literature. No more. It is hard to keep up with the explosion of research in the field. Research on religion and spirituality is producing knowledge that is touching every subdiscipline of psychology and other fields as well. Take a sample of the things we are learning: From their earliest years, children demonstrate a strong spiritual capacity; marital partners who pray for each other are less likely to engage in infidelity; people who attend religious services once a week or more live on the average seven years longer (for African-Americans the benefit is 14 years); religiousness has been tied to selective intolerance to those who behave inconsistently with traditional beliefs.

This response seem quite consistent with my understanding of scientific inquiry.

I'm not sure I understand the controversy behind this one on either side. . . . But then again, there seems to be quite a bit of additional arguments on this thread that are making additional assumptions.

Am I reading it wrong?

 

[Quintessence]

@leibowde84 ,

I'm not talking about the scientific method, I'm talking about scientism. They are two very, very different things. Again:

Scientism is a philosophical position that exalts the methods of the natural sciences above all other modes of human inquiry. Scientism embraces only empiricism and reason to explain phenomena of any dimension, whether physical, social, cultural, or psychological.

Since you know a thing or two about sciences, I think the criticisms I'm making will be apparent to you without me needing to clarify.

 

[leibowde84]

This sort of gets to the heart of the question, but the notion that only verifiable information about physical realities is valuable or meaningful is a philosophical position, and I think that's what 1137 is getting at when he says it raises this mode of inquiry to the pinnacle human endeavor. Hence "scientism". So you might ask, what is the value of Beauty or Goodness as so-called transcendentals? Is there more to human life than processing information and conveying it conceptually? Some people say yes and feel that the apotheosis of capital-R Reason misses something.



I don't really know what the difference is between secular and "mystical" meditation but insofar as we're assuming the difference is that "secular" means going through the motions while "mystical" means a practice that begins from some expectation that the practice is meaningful, a faith in the possibility of a meaningful experience, than I would say yes that could look very much like the placebo effect, but that would kind of be the point. Almost all mystical traditions assert that something like faith is necessary as a starting point. That you have to at least approach a practice with an openness to the possibility of it being meaningful. it doesn't have to mean blind and unquestioning faith as an absolute. Which is already more or less what is demonstrated by the placebo effect in general. "Mysticism" has a subjective element of "experience" to it that I think is irreducible, it's not an objective science of an external phenomenon. The goal isn't to demonstrate a reality that exists entirely independently of one's own experience.

The fear I have with not requiring scientific inquiry is this: In the past, many settled on false beliefs because, at that point, supernatural forces provided the best explanation, not because they were correct, but because holders of these beliefs were ignorant of many aspects of reality. Adherence to the scientific method seems safer than allowing supernatural explanations.

 

[leibowde84]

@leibowde84 ,

I'm not talking about the scientific method, I'm talking about scientism. They are two very, very different things. Again:



Since you know a thing or two about sciences, I think the criticisms I'm making will be apparent to you without me needing to clarify.

I understood you. Scientism is adherence to the scientific method above all other sources of inquiry. I still don't understand how this is a perversion of the purpose of science or how it negatively effects creativity.

Can you kindly answer my questions specifically? I am interested in your responses to each. Being general about the idea is not going to provide me with any kind of understanding, as my point is that, imho, your generalization is flawed.

 

[lovemuffin]

The fear I have with not requiring scientific inquiry is this: In the past, many settled on false beliefs because, at that point, supernatural forces provided the best explanation, not because they were correct, but because holders of these beliefs were ignorant of many aspects of reality. Adherence to the scientific method seems safer than allowing supernatural explanations.

I'm not sure what is meant by "requiring" scientific inquiry but I don't think the point is to get rid of it. The question is whether it alone is sufficient, not whether it's necessary. I think science is very necessary, and awesome, and cool and froody and other adjectives besides. And certainly a required corrective to all sorts of supernaturalisms and superstitions and etc. Science has been a nearly unqualified good, imo. But "scientism" is a philosophical topic about what the limits of science (and reason) might be, without suggesting that just because it has limits that it's not still essential.

I think the rhetorical flaw in the topic is not really in suggesting that science is not valuable, it's probably in straw-manning "scientism", it's not as if everyone who recognizes the value of science, or is atheist, or a naturalist, or etc is guilty of promoting an absolute "scientism". But it does seem to me that the way certain questions are asked, like the ones I quoted, demonstrates a sort of myth about science that sees it not just as a primary method of inquiry but as the only possibly valuable one.

 

[Augustus]

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 think that “excessive belief in the power of scientific knowledge and techniques” is the best definition. In some people it could possibly be described as a quasi-religious veneration of science, but I don't think that you could say that this a fundamental qualification for something to be considered 'scientism'. While many accused of scientism are strongly anti-theist, I don't think that this could be said to be true in all cases and is again not a fundamental criterion.

Scientism is simply an overestimation of the accuracy and effectiveness of scientific knowledge, and an underestimation of the value of other sources of knowledge. It is a problematic categorisation though as it is often used as an illegitimate retort to valid scientific arguments to discredit them without actually having to create a proper argument. This doesn't mean that it is not a legitimate term when used correctly.

Scientism tends to be most apparent in [but not limited to] areas where empirical evidence is only of limited value due to the complexity of the system in question hiding potential harms that may be serious (medicine, the environment, economics, etc.). In these situations, things like medical trials, GMO trials, economic models, etc. are only limited in the extent that they replicate 'real world' conditions (simplified) and/or are too short in duration to fully understand the situation.

Aficionados of scientism will often accuse anyone who disagrees with them as being 'anti-science' and irrational, yet they overlook the countless examples of things held to be scientifically valid later being proved incorrect.

The word scientism doesn't imply any criticism of science or scientific inquiry, it simply relates to people who are insufficiently sceptical when it comes to (certain aspects of) scientific knowledge (usually whilst being hyper sceptical of any 'non-scientific' knowledge). It is when people underestimate the chances of them being wrong or the extent of the negative effects that may occur as a result of being wrong.

 

[leibowde84]

I'm not sure what is meant by "requiring" scientific inquiry but I don't think the point is to get rid of it. The question is whether it alone is sufficient, not whether it's necessary. I think science is very necessary, and awesome, and cool and froody and other adjectives besides. And certainly a required corrective to all sorts of supernaturalisms and superstitions and etc. Science has been a nearly unqualified good, imo. But "scientism" is a philosophical topic about what the limits of science (and reason) might be, without suggesting that just because it has limits that it's not still essential.

I think the rhetorical flaw in the topic is not really in suggesting that science is not valuable, it's probably in straw-manning "scientism", it's not as if everyone who recognizes the value of science, or is atheist, or a naturalist, or etc is guilty of promoting an absolute "scientism". But it does seem to me that the way certain questions are asked, like the ones I quoted, demonstrates a sort of myth about science that sees it not just as a primary method of inquiry but as the only possibly valuable one.

Can you provide another method of inquiry that has objective truth and objective value? I feel like science is the only method that is not subjective at its core. But, I guess you do agree that the scientific method is the best method we have at this point, right?

 

[lovemuffin]

Can you provide another method of inquiry that has objective truth and objective value? I feel like science is the only method that is not subjective at its core. But, I guess you do agree that the scientific method is the best method we have at this point, right?

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.

 

[Typist]

Here's a solid blog by a real scientist defending Scientism. Good guy, willing to hear other views.

coelsblog | Defending Scientism

The latest article...

Basics of scientism: the web of knowledge | coelsblog

... appears to have been infected by a challenge from the Fundamentalist Agnostic Liberation Front, a typoholic terrorist group determined to defeat all words in as many words as possible.

 

[Kuzcotopia]

Scientism is simply an overestimation of the accuracy and effectiveness of scientific knowledge, and an underestimation of the value of other sources of knowledge. It is a problematic categorisation though as it is often used as an illegitimate retort to valid scientific arguments to discredit them without actually having to create a proper argument. This doesn't mean that it is not a legitimate term when used correctly.

Scientism tends to be most apparent in [but not limited to] areas where empirical evidence is only of limited value due to the complexity of the system in question hiding potential harms that may be serious (medicine, the environment, economics, etc.). In these situations, things like medical trials, GMO trials, economic models, etc. are only limited in the extent that they replicate 'real world' conditions (simplified) and/or are too short in duration to fully understand the situation.

Aficionados of scientism will often accuse anyone who disagrees with them as being 'anti-science' and irrational, yet they overlook the countless examples of things held to be scientifically valid later being proved incorrect.

The word scientism doesn't imply any criticism of science or scientific inquiry, it simply relates to people who are insufficiently sceptical when it comes to (certain aspects of) scientific knowledge (usually whilst being hyper sceptical of any 'non-scientific' knowledge). It is when people underestimate the chances of them being wrong or the extent of the negative effects that may occur as a result of being wrong.

I'll buy that definition.

However, I think we should have some caution before we automatically label anyone who doesn't disagree with any metaphysical premises as an automatic "belief" in science as some kind of ultimate explanatory authority. Those are assumptions. Not saying you advocating this at all, of course. . . But I can see it happening (have seen it happen).

Correct understand of scientific inquiry suggests that there are limits and qualifications to what we can know, and it often seeks only the best explanation given the evidence. Anyone who says current scientific knowledge can be substituted for some kind of overarching worldview, well. . . I suppose would be this a kind of religious person who doesn't understand what science is to begin with, or someone trying to set up a false dichotomy between opposing "belief" systems to suggest they both have equal consideration.

And yes, I do have ideas about the world that exceed my current empirical understandings, but they are my best understandings at present, and subject to change. That wouldn't make me a believer in science as an ultimate authority.

 

[Stevicus]

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.

In the area of mental health, treatment methods may have to be tailored on an individual basis. What works for some may not work for others, so to suggest that mystical meditation is more beneficial - that may only be true for some, not for all. I don't think it's unscientific to suggest that it's possible for a mentally ill individual to internally rearrange their mindset and way of thinking - and if mystical meditation is their preferred way of doing that, so be it. It could still be argued that they're doing it by themselves, not with the help of any external "higher power."

I'm not sure that it's entirely "logical" to conclude that if someone is going to meditate that they should engage in mystical meditation, even if one is simply feigning belief. Just because something may work for one person, it doesn't necessarily logically follow that it would work for everyone. This might be one of those "your mileage may vary" situations.

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 look at science in much the same way I might look at the weather report. Meteorology is a science of course, and I generally trust that the data they're presenting (temp, wind speed, barometric pressure, etc.) is true and accurate. If they say there's a 50% chance of rain, then I take that at face value - although I can't see that there's much call to bring it to the level of religious exaltation. As the old joke goes, they always talk about the weather, but they never do anything about it.

To bring it into the spiritual realm, one might wonder whether praying for rain or doing a rain dance will actually cause it to rain. To reject those ideas wouldn't automatically mean that one is taking a leap of faith in science or elevating it to religious exaltation. All science can tell us is the weather report, but they can't actually control the weather. They don't claim to be able to do that, and nobody believes that they can. This example may illustrate the difference between religion and science and how they perceive reality.

Perhaps, someday, science might be able to develop technologies which might make it possible for humans to control the weather, if they're given the time and the freedom to do so. That's why religion is seen as a threat, since historically, religion has resisted scientific and academic freedom. That may be why some may be seen as a bit too "overzealous" in their desire to protect scientific freedom.

 

[Kuzcotopia]

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.

Here's a question I don't know the answer to. What percentage of all submitted peer-reviewed research papers are rejected by the academic community?

If the academic community did support such religious-based inquiries that require no empirical observation, what would be the criteria for rejection? What levels of rigor and methodology would be considered acceptable for publication?

I'd also point out there are many journals that publish philosophical inquiries already, so I'm not sure I understand how it's "second class."

 

[lovemuffin]

Here's a question I don't know the answer to. What percentage of all submitted peer-reviewed research papers are rejected by the academic community?

If the academic community did support such religious-based inquiries that require no empirical observation, what would be the criteria for rejection? What levels of rigor and methodology would be considered acceptable for publication?

I'd also point out there are many journals that publish philosophical inquiries already, so I'm not sure I understand how it's "second class."

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.

 

[Augustus]

Here's a question I don't know the answer to. What percentage of all submitted peer-reviewed research papers are rejected by the academic community?

If the academic community did support such inquiries that require no empirical observation, what would be the criteria for rejection? What levels of rigor and methodology would be considered acceptable for publication?

I'd also point out there are many journals that publish philosophical inquiries already, so I'm not sure I understand how it's "second class."

I'm not sure about rejected by the scientific community, but those that fall into the "can't be replicated, based on flawed methodology, conclusions drawn from incorrect interpretation of the evidence [especially statistics], etc." are significant in number.

Of course this depends on the field in question, but for certain fields the answer is 'most of them' (this is based on academic studies I've read, but I can't be bothered to find them. Shouldn't be too hard to find though)

 

[Quintessence]

I understood you. Scientism is adherence to the scientific method above all other sources of inquiry. I still don't understand how this is a perversion of the purpose of science or how it negatively effects creativity.

Can you kindly answer my questions specifically? I am interested in your responses to each. Being general about the idea is not going to provide me with any kind of understanding, as my point is that, imho, your generalization is flawed.

@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.

 

[LuisDantas]

You call something against science scientism?

Yes. Have done so for more than a decade, as a matter of fact. It is one of the major flaws of Spiritism. The use of the word as if it had mystical powers of legitimizing its doctrine, regardless of their actual disrespect for anything resembling the scientific method.

Haha that would be like if Christianity worshiped everyone but Christ or Buddhism hated Buddha! Secular meditation is a pretty straight forward idea. Are you praying in meditation? Opening chakras? Astral traveling? As for the definition of science, those who need a hand holding explanation of what science is tend to give poor responses anyways.

I'd say that fideism is what you're thinking of. The rejection of science/fact in favor of faith. Then again, I guess those who fit under scientism are fideists themselves.

If you say so. I'm still unsure what you are complaining about even exists, so I can't in good faith attempt to comment on it.