Scientism

[jonathan180iq]

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.

With all due respect, just because something is nuanced and intricate doesn't give it any more validity or grounding in objective reality, does it?

A handful of us could sit down one evening with the sole intention of making up some fairy tale story about life and do a pretty darn good job of it. We could invent imagery to represent certain aspects of important coming-of-age moments. We could develop our own jargon and our own explanations of how things work and why they work. We could create music and art to go along with our new worldview in just a few hours and it would be pretty solid. Within just a few weeks, we could tweak and adjust the handful of things that didn't make any sense, and by the end of the month, we would a fairly intricate and nuances belief system ready for the masses. Would it's seemless fit into modern society make it any more "real" though? I mean, if we purposefully and obviously created the mystical after a few nights of drinking and talking, would it actually be grounded in reality? Hell, we could even have some really convinced people come to our gatherings and talk about how our fake belief system has changed their life forever. Would their personal experience with what we created lend any authenticity to the supernatural?

Things can be very well thought out, and intricate, and fascinating, and hit on a few points of the human experience without actually being legitimate. the objective of science (and scienceism, if that's a thing) is to figure out what the truth is by removing subjectivity as much as possible. In the same way that 1+1=2, there is only one reality that is factually correct, regardless of what you and I want to call it or say about it. I don't see anyone arguing or debating mathism... Why not?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

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.

I think you're woefully mischaracterizing here. Scientism isn't about dismissing anything that "the Almighty Gods of Science" say is worth dismissing. It's about utilising science - as the best and most reliable methodology for ascertaining facts - to judge and understand what is true and false.

I consider myself a rationalist, and I aspire to a highly scientific worldview which you would consider scientism. This, however, has not prevented me from exploring and appreciating great art, theatre, literature, music and, yes, mythological symbolism. I developed an interest in the symbolism of Tarot, even though I know that Tarot is not a successful form of divination (nor was it originally intended to be). I have briefly studied (and ever had direct experience with) Wiccan magick in aid of the fantasy stories that I write. I appreciate the history, symbolism and aesthetic value of these artifacts. The only difference is that I acknowledge that the mystical claims that they are centred around have no factual validity. You don't have to believe that there is a pot of gold at the end of a rainbow in order to see it as a beautiful and inspiring thing.

 

[lovemuffin]

Can someone please answer for me what the hell "mystical meditation" and "secular meditation" are supposed to mean?

The article in the OP does seem to give some hint of what is probably meant, from the author of the paper.

"Psychology has begun to encompass and explore a number of exciting new topics — meditation, forgiveness, acceptance, gratitude, hope and love. Each of these phenomena has deep roots in Eastern and Western religious traditions and philosophies. Even so, researchers and practitioners have been careful to treat these processes as secular in nature. “You don’t have to be religious to meditate” has become a mantra in the literature. Research on these aspects of life has begun to yield vitally important psychological and social insights, with powerful implications for human change and growth. And yet something may be lost when these constructs are disconnected from their larger context.

In this vein, some research has shown that mantra-based meditation to a spiritual phrase is more effective in reducing physical pain than meditation to a secular phrase. Similarly, other studies have shown that spiritual forms of support, meaning-making and coping predict health and well-being beyond the effects of secular support, meaning-making and coping. It appears that religion and spirituality cannot be fully reduced to or explained by other psychological and social processes. Belonging to a religious congregation is not equivalent to belonging to the Kiwanis or Rotary Club. What makes religion and spirituality special? Unlike any other dimension of life, religion and spirituality have a unique focus on the domain of the sacred — transcendence, ultimate truth, finitude and deep connectedness. Any psychology that overlooks these parts of life remains incomplete."​

So I think by "secular" Pargament means something like meditative practices presented in a religiously neutral or demythicized way. A "secular" mantra. No example is given but I'm imagining some kind of neutral vaguely new-agey sounding personal affirmation. The interview in the OP doesn't use the word "mystical" but it would seem from that excerpt that what the OP meant is practice that occurs within the larger context of a given religious worldview.

 

[jonathan180iq]

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.


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.


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!

I think you're confusing me with the OP.

Of course the idea of separate mystical and secular mediation is ridiculous. That's one of the points I was trying to make. (Although I will say that my focus was more on simply breaking down the analogy, rather that harping on how silly I thought the terms were.)

The entire point I was trying to make was that meditation, and effects of it, aren't definitive evidences of the supernatural or mystical or whatever, as I'm sure the OP was hinting at.
It's just a thing that happens in our brains. You can call it meditation or prayer or whatever else you want to call it. But that's doesn't change anything about the objective reality of meditation, which is what you're getting at, I think.

The experience of each person can vary, no doubt. No one is questioning that. But the subjective experience held by each person doesn't automatically give any credibly to the interpretation of the meditator on what that experience is, does it? If I thought that my meditations were enhanced by the All-Loving Unicorn of Peace, and I attributed my wonderful meditative experience to the Unicorn, does that make the unicorn anymore real? Or just a helpful figment of my imagination for expressing my experiences?

It certainly doesn't discredit my experience. But it also doesn't validate my unicorn fairy tale.

 

[lovemuffin]

A handful of us could sit down one evening with the sole intention of making up some fairy tale story about life and do a pretty darn good job of it. We could invent imagery to represent certain aspects of important coming-of-age moments. We could develop our own jargon and our own explanations of how things work and why they work. We could create music and art to go along with our new worldview in just a few hours and it would be pretty solid. Within just a few weeks, we could tweak and adjust the handful of things that didn't make any sense, and by the end of the month, we would a fairly intricate and nuances belief system ready for the masses. Would it's seemless fit into modern society make it any more "real" though?

If you took it seriously, it might very well give "real" insight into the point of view of its authors and their culture. How they (you) experience the world. that subjectivity is also part of the world, and has some interest. In a sense that's what religious myth is. At least if it doesn't attempt to make itself absolute in an "objective" way. Your myth would contain some objective facts, presumably (given we're taking this act of myth making seriously), and subjective values and ways of thinking and seeing and experiencing reality. It would tell us a lot about one part of reality, that part being the part inhabited by its authors, in their subjectivity. There is actually quite a lot of value to this in my opinion, although more so when dealing with myth that is not constructed but arises somewhat more organically, although the lines are fuzzy at best.

 

[jonathan180iq]

If you took it seriously, it might very well give "real" insight into the point of view of its authors and their culture. How they (you) experience the world. that subjectivity is also part of the world, and has some interest. In a sense that's what religious myth is. At least if it doesn't attempt to make itself absolute in an "objective" way. Your myth would contain some objective facts, presumably (given we're taking this act of myth making seriously), and subjective values and ways of thinking and seeing and experiencing reality. It would tell us a lot about one part of reality, that part being the part inhabited by its authors, in their subjectivity. There is actually quite a lot of value to this in my opinion, although more so when dealing with myth that is not constructed but arises somewhat more organically, although the lines are fuzzy at best.

Yes, absolutely. That's kind of my point.

I'm not saying that there wouldn't be some truth in Myth. I think the incredible staying power of myths in centered on the fact that they contain some truths about the human condition.
Everyone ever born has the ability to experience this life through a very similar set of receptors. We all experience very similar emotions. We all experience very similar circumstances and hard-ships. As such, it's only natural for our expressions of those experiences to take on very similar projections, regardless of the language which we use to describe those things. This is obviously what makes myth such a huge part of human history.

Still, though, does the myth itself need to taken at face value, assumed to be a realistically accurate portrayal of human history? Did Theseus actually slay the Minotaur? Did Hercules actually endure the labors set upon him? Did Noah actually build a huge ship and fill it with animals?

Of course not. Saying that those things never happened doesn't take away from their impactful human story, or from their moral lesson, or from their call to obedience to a deeper meaning. It just states a fact and evens the playing field when having a conversation about these certain aspects of human experiences.

 

[Kuzcotopia]

@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.

If this is Scientism, I'm not sure it exists.

I know you give an example later about your study of Astrology, but I don't understand how a philosophy of Scientism would create restrictions on what you believe (if Scientism exists)?

What are some examples of other restrictions you have found in your life relating to the existence of Scientism?

BTW, off topic - I'm a Libra, with five other planets with air signs. My moon is in Cancer, but the overwhelming air and total lack of any fire in my chart gives me a tendency to rationalize all of my depth of emotions. Probably why I'm an atheist.

 

[Windwalker]

I think you're confusing me with the OP.

Of course the idea of separate mystical and secular mediation is ridiculous. That's one of the points I was trying to make. (Although I will say that my focus was more on simply breaking down the analogy, rather that harping on how silly I thought the terms were.)

I get it. I was a little slow on the uptake. I thought I heard a reinforcement of those terms. The context escaped me here.

The experience of each person can vary, no doubt. No one is questioning that. But the subjective experience held by each person doesn't automatically give any credibly to the interpretation of the meditator on what that experience is, does it?

No it doesn't. The interpretations are relative in nature, usually influenced by their culture, as well as their own personal developmental stage. It gets too complicated to go much into depth here about that. But people will often take these experiences as a reinforcement of their beliefs. A fundamentalist who has a subtle-level experience will be convinced they encountered Jesus Christ, and therefore Jesus is actually raised from the dead, just like the Bible says. Their experience becomes evidence then for them. The difficulty of course is when they are confronted with the fact that a Hindu having the same experience will encounter the Lord Krishna. So his interpretive frameworks, as well as his developmental frameworks, is currently unable to allow for a relativistic understanding and so therefore the Hindu's experience was a demon! The same thing also holds true for the "secular" skeptic who sees both as experiencing "delusion", or "just the brain". His interpretive frameworks do not make room for understanding larger contexts yet as well. It's just another form of seeing the other's experience as "the devil", a lie, a deception, etc.

If I thought that my meditations were enhanced by the All-Loving Unicorn of Peace, and I attributed my wonderful meditative experience to the Unicorn, does that make the unicorn anymore real? Or just a helpful figment of my imagination for expressing my experiences?

It certainly doesn't discredit my experience. But it also doesn't validate my unicorn fairy tale.

I think of course calling these "fairy tales" is a great injustice to them. They are significantly more powerful than folklore and fantasy. When I hear talk like this, I hear dismissiveness unworthy of the terms reason and rationality. What arises in deeper meditative states of a subtle nature, are often deeply rooted cultural symbols taking and shape and form from the subconscious mind to the conscious mind, and as such they are deeply significant! To call them "la la", or "woo woo" or whatever childish terms betrays their own ignorance. They don't have to be literally true, to be significant and important.

 

[Kuzcotopia]

Yes, absolutely. That's kind of my point.

I'm not saying that there wouldn't be some truth in Myth. I think the incredible staying power of myths in centered on the fact that they contain some truths about the human condition.

Everyone ever born has the ability to experience this life through a very similar set of receptors. We all experience very similar emotions. We all experience very similar circumstances and hard-ships. As such, it's only natural for our expressions of those experiences to take on very similar projections, regardless of the language which we use to describe those things. This is obviously what makes myth such a huge part of human history.

Still, though, does the myth itself need to taken at face value, assumed to be a realistically accurate portrayal of human history? Did Theseus actually slay the Minotaur? Did Hercules actually endure the labors set upon him? Did Noah actually build a huge ship and fill it with animals?
.

Right.

And how do we compare the reasonability of each mythology/symbology to one another in a way that causes us to be accepting of the ones that work asan effective explanatory system and the ones that do not? Do we accept everything or do we accept only the ones we agree with?

Scientific inquiry has standards for all of this. It does not need a political map to account for acceptable belief systems. I think it would be challenging to develop a single set of criteria for acceptance that's inclusive and intellectually satisfying.

 

[Windwalker]

And how do we compare the reasonability of each mythology/symbology to one another in a way that causes us to be accepting of the ones that work asan effective explanatory system and the ones that do not? Do we accept everything or do we accept only the ones we agree with?

If I may inject? Why is mythology/symbolism being reduced to an "explanatory system"? Are you suggesting there is nothing in myth or symbolism other than ways to explain the natural world? Isn't it also a way to express human experience? It's also way to express human aspiration, and spiritual awakening? Is everything under the sun a matter of scientific inquiry, including the nature of human love and relations, spiritual desire and expression, art, poetry, dance, music, etc, all fall under the domain of analytical inquiries?

That seems a very strange religion to me. And I think that's the point about the legitimate use of the term Scientism. It's bloody domain absolutism.

Scientific inquiry has standards for all of this. It does not need a political map to account for acceptable belief systems. I think it would be challenging to develop a single set of criteria for acceptance that's inclusive and intellectually satisfying.

Nonsense. So Richard Dawkins can now judge good art?

 

[lovemuffin]

Still, though, does the myth itself need to taken at face value, assumed to be a realistically accurate portrayal of human history? Did Theseus actually slay the Minotaur? Did Hercules actually endure the labors set upon him? Did Noah actually build a huge ship and fill it with animals?

Of course not. Saying that those things never happened doesn't take away from their impactful human story, or from their moral lesson, or from their call to obedience to a deeper meaning. It just states a fact and evens the playing field when having a conversation about these certain aspects of human experiences.

I don't think myths are ever universally taken at face value. I think the presumption that the literal or historical mode of understanding is primary is itself in part a function of our modern and scientific myth, and by "scientific myth" I mean the set of values and ways of thinking that condition how we view the world, which includes the idea that the literal, historical, objective, scientific angle is the primary angle of approach. But this would be a poor way (for example) of approaching Indian religion. In a sense, I ran with this example of "myth making" because understood through the lens of myth, I think this whole question of scientism becomes a bit clearer. Insofar as there is a criticism, it is that "scientism" describes a worldview which has science at its center that doesn't recognize its own myth-making about the value of science, but takes the rigorous objectivity of scientific methodology as thought it applies equally to this worldview as it does to the contents of a particular theory. But the foundations are not self-justifying in that sense. And it's worthwhile to keep in mind. Not that this invalidates science or even a naturalistic worldview. It just qualifies it.

If this is Scientism, I'm not sure it exists.

I know you give an example later about your study of Astrology, but I don't understand how a philosophy of Scientism would create restrictions on what you believe (if Scientism exists)?

I think it was someone else that mentioned astrology. Probably quintessence? I jumped in to part of the conversation that began with a question from you to him probably. Sorry about the confusion.

What are some examples of restrictions you have found in your life relating to the existence of Scientism?

I'm not sure that "scientism" exists as some exact thing either. What I said to leibdowe is that this assumptions about the value of objectivity conditioned the way in which he approached even the possibility of meaning beyond what is "scientific". You can see how this flows into the original conversation about the article in the OP, where one response is that there might be a distinction between the efficacy of two methods of meditation, and that distinction might be a "placebo effect". That statement could be entirely accurate, in a sense, but its function as a response is to dismiss and devalue meditation. Because a placebo has the connotation of being unreal and non-valuable by virtue of its merely subjective efficacy. But this valuation is already "myth" in the sense I'm using the word. It assumes values that go beyond just the conclusions of a scientific study. Scientism, to whatever extent it exists, is mythological in this sense of being a worldview that makes certain foundational assumptions and forgets at times how they function as assumptions.

What restrictions does this place on me personally? Probably not many. I live in a time and place where the culture is sufficiently pluralistic, and still very religious, so I have no complaints. What I see mainly happening, that I think is unfortunate imo, is that these sorts of "science and religion" discussions end up in what I would consider a false dichotomy. "Religion" must mean fundamentalism, particularly the literal/historical reading of ancient texts with associated absurdities, moralizing, faith as an intellectually unjustifiable assent to unbelievable propositions against reason, and etc. Science becomes the symbol of a particular kind of rationalism, human relationship and communication really only the conveyance of concepts and information, and etc. I've oversimplified these things, and in practice people are complicated and even the most hard-boiled rationalist doesn't really necessarily fully embrace the supposed consequences of that worldview, but these are the categories in which these conversations usually take place, which I find overly restrictive.

 

[Kuzcotopia]

If I may inject? Why is mythology/symbolism being reduced to an "explanatory system"? Are you suggesting there is nothing in myth or symbolism other than ways to explain the natural world? Isn't it also a way to express human experience? It's in also way to express human aspiration, and spiritual awakening? Is everything under the sun a matter of scientific inquiry, including the nature of human love a relations, spiritual desire and expression, art, poetry, dance, music, etc, all fall under the domain of analytical inquiries?

That seems a very strange religion to me. And I think that's the point about the legitimate use of the term Scientism. It's bloody domain absolutism.

No sir. But the OP, and the link, suggests that concepts such as this could be studied in a comprehensive way. My mind's still on that line of thinking, I guess.

 

[jonathan180iq]

I get it. I was a little slow on the uptake. I thought I heard a reinforcement of those terms. The context escaped me here.

Fair enough. You figured it out and owned it. At least you didn't try and debate me on my own meanings...

No it doesn't. The interpretations are relative in nature, usually influenced by their culture, as well as their own personal developmental stage. It gets too complicated to go much into depth here about that. But people will often take these experiences as a reinforcement of their beliefs. A fundamentalist who has a subtle-level experience will be convinced they encountered Jesus Christ, and therefore Jesus is actually raised from the dead, just like the Bible says. Their experience becomes evidence then for them. The difficulty of course is when they are confronted with the fact that a Hindu having the same experience will encounter the Lord Krishna. So his interpretive frameworks, as well as his developmental frameworks, is currently unable to allow for a relativistic understanding and so therefore the Hindu's experience was a demon! The same thing also holds true for the "secular" skeptic who sees both as experiencing "delusion", or "just the brain". His interpretive frameworks do not make room for understanding larger contexts yet as well. It's just another form of seeing the other's experience as "the devil", a lie, a deception, etc.

Sure. I think we can all admit at least a little bit of confirmation bias. It's the basic dividing line of subjective metaphysical experiences. I have an experience and see purple. You have one and see green. We spend our entire lives arguing about the color of experience... It's a shame, really.

I think of course calling these "fairy tales" is a great injustice to them. They are significantly more powerful than folklore and fantasy. When I hear talk like this, I hear dismissiveness unworthy of the terms reason and rationality. What arises in deeper meditative states of a subtle nature, are often deeply rooted cultural symbols taking and shape and form from the subconscious mind to the conscious mind, and as such they are deeply significant! To call them "la la", or "woo woo" or whatever childish terms betrays their own ignorance. They don't have to be literally true, to be significant and important.

I understand the pushback against terms like that, but I honestly don't know where else to put them. Regardless of how profound my experience of purple was, or your experience of green, we are still just arguing hokum and not focusing on the shared experience, right? No matter how sincerely or deeply ingrained my love of purple is, it's still little more than a subjective recognition of something that I already had a bias towards. It's make believe. (Not the experience - the corresponding hokum)

 

[Looncall]

With all due respect, just because something is nuanced and intricate doesn't give it any more validity or grounding in objective reality, does it?

A handful of us could sit down one evening with the sole intention of making up some fairy tale story about life and do a pretty darn good job of it. We could invent imagery to represent certain aspects of important coming-of-age moments. We could develop our own jargon and our own explanations of how things work and why they work. We could create music and art to go along with our new worldview in just a few hours and it would be pretty solid. Within just a few weeks, we could tweak and adjust the handful of things that didn't make any sense, and by the end of the month, we would a fairly intricate and nuances belief system ready for the masses. Would it's seemless fit into modern society make it any more "real" though? I mean, if we purposefully and obviously created the mystical after a few nights of drinking and talking, would it actually be grounded in reality? Hell, we could even have some really convinced people come to our gatherings and talk about how our fake belief system has changed their life forever. Would their personal experience with what we created lend any authenticity to the supernatural?

Things can be very well thought out, and intricate, and fascinating, and hit on a few points of the human experience without actually being legitimate. the objective of science (and scienceism, if that's a thing) is to figure out what the truth is by removing subjectivity as much as possible. In the same way that 1+1=2, there is only one reality that is factually correct, regardless of what you and I want to call it or say about it. I don't see anyone arguing or debating mathism... Why not?

Tolkein's The Lord of the Rings is my favourite example of what you so eloquently describe.

 

[jonathan180iq]

Tolkein's The Lord of the Rings is my favourite example of what you so eloquently describe.

 

[Quintessence]

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.

As was clear to me earlier, you and I are apparently thinking about two very different kinds of scientism. I don't know how to resolve that.

With all due respect, just because something is nuanced and intricate doesn't give it any more validity or grounding in objective reality, does it?

Never said it did.

It's worth nothing, though, that scientism would narrow-mindedly demand something must have grounding in such things to be of any value or merit. I disagree with that completely. Grounding things in "objective reality" is extraordinarily overrated in the philosophy of scientism, to the point that all else is deemed rubbish. It is a destroyer of dreaming, a killer of imagination, and a murderer of the fine arts. No thanks. The narrative you constructed that followed this expert of your post is an example of that. Instead of enjoying the story for what it is, adherents of scientism will fuss on and on about whether or not it is "real" or "authentic." They're missing the damned point of storytelling!

Things can be very well thought out, and intricate, and fascinating, and hit on a few points of the human experience without actually being legitimate. the objective of science (and scienceism, if that's a thing) is to figure out what the truth is by removing subjectivity as much as possible.

That is not at all how I would describe the objective of the sciences. Sciences aim to be descriptive of certain limited facets of reality, not prescriptive; and it has nothing at all to say about aspects of reality that are beyond its methodological constraints. Any scientist worth their degree recognizes that the sciences have methodological limitations. You have to in order to know what is and is not a scientific statement. A statement not being scientific does not invalidate it wholesale. The scientism adherent would say so, though. Instead of actually being objective, they stuff their personal value judgments into the picture and believe anything that isn't science or science-based is rubbish. Which irritates the crap out of me, because that kind of attitude is antithetical to doing good science in the first place.

I consider myself a rationalist, and I aspire to a highly scientific worldview which you would consider scientism.

Based on the rest of your post, I think you're mischaracterizing what I consider scientism. If you were truly an adherent of the philosophy of scientism - which I referenced a couple times earlier - you'd be devaluing that list of things you describe in the rest of this post and not bothering to explore them because they are not science and therefore lack value and merit.

If this is Scientism, I'm not sure it exists.

I know you give an example later about your study of Astrology, but I don't understand how a philosophy of Scientism would create restrictions on what you believe (if Scientism exists)?

Similar to what I just said to ImmortalFlame. If your central axis of meaning is the sciences - if you demand everything be scientific in order to have value and merit in your life - that places enormous restrictions on what you believe. If it isn't grounded in the sciences, you reject it. You consider it worthless, invalid, lacking in value. That's the scientism I'm talking about. An adherent of scientism would never bother with astrology, because it lacks scientific validity. They wouldn't care if it has validity from other points of view, or that it has uses beyond its factual merit (or lack thereof). As far as they're concerned, since it isn't science, it's worthless and not to be used. They can't see the forest for the trees they're so rigidly obsessed about whether something has objective fact behind it or some such. That's the kind of scientism I'm talking about, guys.

 

[suncowiam]

Similar to what I just said to ImmortalFlame. If your central axis of meaning is the sciences - if you demand everything be scientific in order to have value and merit in your life - that places enormous restrictions on what you believe. If it isn't grounded in the sciences, you reject it. You consider it worthless, invalid, lacking in value. That's the scientism I'm talking about. An adherent of scientism would never bother with astrology, because it lacks scientific validity. They wouldn't care if it has validity from other points of view, or that it has uses beyond its factual merit (or lack thereof). As far as they're concerned, since it isn't science, it's worthless and not to be used. They can't see the forest for the trees they're so rigidly obsessed about whether something has objective fact behind it or some such. That's the kind of scientism I'm talking about, guys.

It depends on the topic being discussed but my argument is if it is dangerous to society as opposed to being worthless, invalid or lack of value.

In case of medicine, if one chooses a certain form over another, it's his will to do so. However, if say a 5 year old dependent is suffering from cancer and the legal guardian decides "spiritual meditiation" over chemotherapy, then I think we all know where this is heading.

Is this a case of scientism as how you described it? If so, then would you agree with me that the better choice is to allow the child treatment that has shown empirical success?

If scientism is only isolated to individuals and no one else, even the dependents of those individuals, then I have no problems with it. The problem starts when these individuals want to assert their beliefs on others over what has been proven empirically.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

It's worth nothing, though, that scientism would narrow-mindedly demand something must have grounding in such things to be of any value or merit. I disagree with that completely. Grounding things in "objective reality" is extraordinarily overrated in the philosophy of scientism, to the point that all else is deemed rubbish. It is a destroyer of dreaming, a killer of imagination, and a murderer of the fine arts. No thanks. The narrative you constructed that followed this expert of your post is an example of that. Instead of enjoying the story for what it is, adherents of scientism will fuss on and on about whether or not it is "real" or "authentic." They're missing the damned point of storytelling!

But you're still mischaracterizing here. You're suggesting that scientism is some how about denying imagination or the power of storytelling. It isn't. It is merely about acknowledging the fact that fiction is not fact. You can still have an entirely rational view of reality (that is: what you believe to be actually, demonstrably true vs. that which is not) and still have a great appreciation for fiction and other flights of imagination. The impediment that you so vehemently suggest simply doesn't exist.

Based on the rest of your post, I think you're mischaracterizing what I consider scientism. If you were truly an adherent of the philosophy of scientism - which I referenced a couple times earlier - you'd be devaluing that list of things you describe in the rest of this post and not bothering to explore them because they are not science and therefore lack value and merit.

Where did you say that? Earlier you defined scientism as follows:

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.

That says absolutely nothing about "devaluing" anything, or not considering acts of imagination and art to "lack value and merit". I agree with and fit the above definition perfectly. I DO think that science is the absolute best method we have of examining reality, and empiricism and reason are demonstrably the best ways to provide explanations for any given phenomena. How does that mean I devalue art?

 

[leibowde84]

As was clear to me earlier, you and I are apparently thinking about two very different kinds of scientism. I don't know how to resolve that.



Never said it did.

It's worth nothing, though, that scientism would narrow-mindedly demand something must have grounding in such things to be of any value or merit. I disagree with that completely. Grounding things in "objective reality" is extraordinarily overrated in the philosophy of scientism, to the point that all else is deemed rubbish. It is a destroyer of dreaming, a killer of imagination, and a murderer of the fine arts. No thanks. The narrative you constructed that followed this expert of your post is an example of that. Instead of enjoying the story for what it is, adherents of scientism will fuss on and on about whether or not it is "real" or "authentic." They're missing the damned point of storytelling!



That is not at all how I would describe the objective of the sciences. Sciences aim to be descriptive of certain limited facets of reality, not prescriptive; and it has nothing at all to say about aspects of reality that are beyond its methodological constraints. Any scientist worth their degree recognizes that the sciences have methodological limitations. You have to in order to know what is and is not a scientific statement. A statement not being scientific does not invalidate it wholesale. The scientism adherent would say so, though. Instead of actually being objective, they stuff their personal value judgments into the picture and believe anything that isn't science or science-based is rubbish. Which irritates the crap out of me, because that kind of attitude is antithetical to doing good science in the first place.



Based on the rest of your post, I think you're mischaracterizing what I consider scientism. If you were truly an adherent of the philosophy of scientism - which I referenced a couple times earlier - you'd be devaluing that list of things you describe in the rest of this post and not bothering to explore them because they are not science and therefore lack value and merit.



Similar to what I just said to ImmortalFlame. If your central axis of meaning is the sciences - if you demand everything be scientific in order to have value and merit in your life - that places enormous restrictions on what you believe. If it isn't grounded in the sciences, you reject it. You consider it worthless, invalid, lacking in value. That's the scientism I'm talking about. An adherent of scientism would never bother with astrology, because it lacks scientific validity. They wouldn't care if it has validity from other points of view, or that it has uses beyond its factual merit (or lack thereof). As far as they're concerned, since it isn't science, it's worthless and not to be used. They can't see the forest for the trees they're so rigidly obsessed about whether something has objective fact behind it or some such. That's the kind of scientism I'm talking about, guys.

sorry, you are just losing me when you tthat it completely rational view of the that it completely rational view of the world based on observable evidence would affect creativity in any way?I'm just not getting the connection that would inhibit artistic expression.I mean, a person's religious beliefs did not make up the entirety of that person.

 

[Kuzcotopia]

It's worth nothing, though, that scientism would narrow-mindedly demand something must have grounding in such things to be of any value or merit. I disagree with that completely. Grounding things in "objective reality" is extraordinarily overrated in the philosophy of scientism, to the point that all else is deemed rubbish. It is a destroyer of dreaming, a killer of imagination, and a murderer of the fine arts. No thanks. The narrative you constructed that followed this expert of your post is an example of that. Instead of enjoying the story for what it is, adherents of scientism will fuss on and on about whether or not it is "real" or "authentic." They're missing the damned point of storytelling!

Similar to what I just said to ImmortalFlame. If your central axis of meaning is the sciences - if you demand everything be scientific in order to have value and merit in your life - that places enormous restrictions on what you believe. If it isn't grounded in the sciences, you reject it. You consider it worthless, invalid, lacking in value. That's the scientism I'm talking about. An adherent of scientism would never bother with astrology, because it lacks scientific validity. They wouldn't care if it has validity from other points of view, or that it has uses beyond its factual merit (or lack thereof). As far as they're concerned, since it isn't science, it's worthless and not to be used. They can't see the forest for the trees they're so rigidly obsessed about whether something has objective fact behind it or some such. That's the kind of scientism I'm talking about, guys.

Still not sure that Scientism exists. I do understand your feelings about it. I like art and literature too, but I have friends in RL to discuss those things with.

Here I talk about religion and atheism, and I use words like "empirical" and "scientific inquiry" and "culturally situated," but those words are for this forum specifically, to create the kinds of dialectics that allow me to learn and crystallize aspects of what I think, by "speaking" it through words.

What you see on RF is not the sum of who I am, it's just a simulacrum of semiotic constructions for that specific purpose, not a single minded, one dimensional global purpose. I would assume that what I read here is not the sum of anyone else on these forums either. I have emotions, enjoy narratives, play D&D and video games, fail at pottery, tell jokes, eat sandwiches, and plant flowers in the spring just like anyone else.

This strange boogeyman who believes in Scientism sounds more like a robot, and I'm not sure he exists.