What are some examples of scientism?

[MikeF]

Okay, here is the root problem. It has to do with fallibility, falsifiable and falsification in regards to observation and how that relates to individual worldviews.

You know the concept of a gate or as related a door. It can be open or closed. But you can't observe that, because open and closed are concepts in your mind. They are in the jargon abstracts, because they have no observable property.
But it goes even deeper than that. All positives and negatives are abstracts and have no observable properties.

So that science matters, is not science, because that it matters as matters have no observable property. As long as you understand that as in effect irrelevant, you and I won't be able to agree, because you smuggle subjectivity and non-science into science and that has an effect when we start dealing with humans as humans.

So yes, you are doing scientism, because to you the best way to understand the world is through science, but that it is the best way has no observable property.

May I tag Jose Fly to our exchange?

I hereby grant Mikkel_the_Dane permission to repost any and all of my posts I create on RF, and to repost them anywhere else on RF, regardless of purpose, be it to praise, critique, or ridicule; and this permission shall be granted in perpetuity.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I hereby grant Mikkel_the_Dane permission to repost any and all of my posts I create on RF, and to repost them anywhere else on RF, regardless of purpose, be it to praise, critique, or ridicule; and this permission shall be granted in perpetuity.

Here is what science can't do in regards sociology and psychology. You can't actually observe as per external sensory experience(see) that another human can think, have understanding and feelings.
Do you accept that? If yes, we can go on.

 

[Erebus]

I find this line of thought interesting. If positive soul belief outweighs the negative, and for argument sake there is no soul, what is science supposed to do? Stop seeking to understand how the central nervous system functions?

If a geocentric world view was considered more positive because centuries of culture formed around such a belief, should evidence of a heliocentric system been suppressed to avoid shattering existing cultural identity and any negative consequences?

What, in your view, is the purpose of asking fundamental questions about ourselves and the cosmos if not to get to the actual answers?

Excellent questions! I'll do my best to answer properly.

I'm one of the people the author of the piece disagrees with in that I'm unconvinced that science is equipped to answer the question, "do we have a soul?" in the first place. If a soul doesn't have physical properties, isn't purely a product of the imagination or exists in some ethereal realm that doesn't adhere to the laws and restrictions of our own world, then its existence or non-existence can't be explored by science at all. I'm personally agnostic towards that interpretation of a soul but if you ask the people who firmly believe in them if the soul has physical properties, their answer will usually be "no."

In this case, the author and I are at an impasse. While I certainly see the value in studying the central nervous system, psychology and neurochemistry, I'm unconvinced that by doing so we're studying that particular interpretation of the soul. As such, I feel that this interpretation is better examined via disciplines such as philosophy and ethics. The pragmatic approach (does soul belief cause more harm or good?) would be one way to address that subject. If the actual existence of the soul is unknowable, would we be better off believing in it or not believing in it?

That would be one distinction between studying the soul and studying the planets. Planets certainly do have physical properties and are absolutely within the purview of the sciences. I think that this is the main cause of valid accusations of scientism: a failure to accept the limitations of science.


Now the question of whether or not scientific knowledge should be suppressed if it would cause more harm than good is an interesting one to me. I'm not sure I can give a firm answer to that. As a hypothetical, if a scientist discovered a means of inflicting eternal suffering on somebody, do you feel they have a responsibility to share their findings or destroy them? If they shared their findings, I guarantee that their discovery would be put to use.

As a general rule, I think that the acquisition of knowledge is a worthy endeavour, even if that knowledge is acquired purely for its own sake. In the specific example of geocentrism you provided, I would say that the new knowledge shouldn't be suppressed. If it turned out we could definitively prove there is no such thing as an immortal soul (which again, I'm not convinced we can do) I'm much more 50/50. I would personally love to know the answer to that! However, I'm also aware that it would destroy a lot of people.

I'm sorry I can't give a firm answer to your question there but I'm also not convinced it's even wise to give a firm answer. How do you balance the acquisition of knowledge against the impact that knowledge would have? That's a question for the philosophers.

No matter your answer to that question though, I'll reiterate my main complaint about the line I quoted. The author claims nothing would be lost. I disagree with that statement wholeheartedly and I'm curious to know your thoughts on it.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I hereby grant Mikkel_the_Dane permission to repost any and all of my posts I create on RF, and to repost them anywhere else on RF, regardless of purpose, be it to praise, critique, or ridicule; and this permission shall be granted in perpetuity.

Then I suppose it is time for me to embrace the label then.

A scientific approach simply means we account for the inherent fallibility in a human investigator and try to mitigate that fallibility. Since investigating questions in any of these categories: morals/ethics, metaphysics, and religion, require a human investigator, we must understand how human being think and what factors influence or dictate behavior and thought processes, and these questions require a scientific approach, in my opinion.

Here you go @Jose Fly

And no, MikeF you just have another cognition than me. That is all.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Here is what science can't do in regards sociology and psychology. You can't actually observe as per external sensory experience(see) that another human can think, have understanding and feelings.
Do you accept that? If yes, we can go on.

Think and have feelings = brain activity = visible in MRI and alike
This is how the distinguish the braindead from the not braindead in hospitals.
More then that even... today we have "mindreading" devices. Sure, it's still in baby shoes. But the basic tech is there. It exists. The first commercial companies even already exist which work towards products like chips that enable a paralyzed person to operate a computer purely with his thoughts. This means that we have the basic tech today with which we can literally interface with thoughts that happen in brains.

understanding = demonstrable.

For example, plenty of people here on this very forum demonstrate every day that they have no understanding of how evolution theory works. If someone has understanding of something, is pretty observable based on what they say and do concerning that specific something. And that is observable.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Think and have feelings = brain activity = visible in MRI and alike
This is how the distinguish the braindead from the not braindead in hospitals.
More then that even... today we have "mindreading" devices. Sure, it's still in baby shoes. But the basic tech is there. It exists. The first commercial companies even already exist which work towards products like chips that enable a paralyzed person to operate a computer purely with his thoughts. This means that we have the basic tech today with which we can literally interface with thoughts that happen in brains.

understanding = demonstrable.

For example, plenty of people here on this very forum demonstrate every day that they have no understanding of how evolution theory works. If someone has understanding of something, is pretty observable based on what they say and do concerning that specific something. And that is observable.

Yes, you actual see meaning like you see e.g. a black cat, right? And your cognition is as objective as gravity.

 

[PureX]

Think and have feelings = brain activity = visible in MRI and alike
This is how the distinguish the braindead from the not braindead in hospitals.
More then that even... today we have "mindreading" devices. Sure, it's still in baby shoes. But the basic tech is there. It exists. The first commercial companies even already exist which work towards products like chips that enable a paralyzed person to operate a computer purely with his thoughts. This means that we have the basic tech today with which we can literally interface with thoughts that happen in brains.

understanding = demonstrable.

For example, plenty of people here on this very forum demonstrate every day that they have no understanding of how evolution theory works. If someone has understanding of something, is pretty observable based on what they say and do concerning that specific something. And that is observable.

This post is a classic example of materialistic scientism. As it completely ignores the metaphysical phenomena of cognition by focusing only on the physical mechanism from which it manifests.

Like believing that literature is really just ink splotches on paper.

 

[MikeF]

Here is what science can't do in regards sociology and psychology. You can't actually observe as per external sensory experience(see) that another human can think, have understanding and feelings.
Do you accept that? If yes, we can go on.

Can we create tools that can assist us in observing how the central nervous system functions, or are we simply limited to looking with our eyes and touching with our fingers?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Can we create tools that can assist us in observing how the central nervous system functions, or are we simply limited to looking with our eyes and touching with our fingers?

The problem is e.g. gravity is objective but cognition and feelings are subjective. You can't use an objective methodology on something which is subjective.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

This post is a classic example of materialistic scientism. As it completely ignores the metaphysical phenomena of cognition by focusing only on the physical mechanism from which it manifests.

Like believing that literature is really just ink splotches on paper.

Well, the short version is that they subjectively believe that everything can be done objectively.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yes, you actual see meaning like you see e.g. a black cat, right? And your cognition is as objective as gravity.

You just changed all the language in there as compared to your original post to which I replied. You for example didn't use the word "meaning" in there.

And by doing so, you went into absurdity also

"you see meaning eg a black cat" - this is a meaningless phrase.

 

[PureX]

Well, the short version is that they subjectively believe that everything can be done objectively.

They can't understand that objectivity is a subjective value assessment. That has always been the failure of philosophical materialism.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

This post is a classic example of materialistic scientism. As it completely ignores the metaphysical phenomena of cognition by focusing only on the physical mechanism from which it manifests.

Nonsense.
Read the post I was responding to with a bit of attention.

It literally said that we can't observe a person thinking, having feelings or having understanding.

That is what I responded to. Clearly, we CAN observe such things. And I explained how.
This is not some claim that "we will be able to in the future!"
No.

We are demonstrably able to do exactly such things TODAY.


Instead of just rejecting it at face value with a meaningless accusation of "materialistic scientism" - whatever that is supposed to mean - perhaps point out exactly what you disagree with from my post and EXPLAIN why you think it is not correct.

If you don't, then all you have is just handwaving.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The problem is e.g. gravity is objective but cognition and feelings are subjective. You can't use an objective methodology on something which is subjective.

Again, not what you said in that post.

In that post, you just said that we can't observe a person thinking, having feelings or having understanding.

I explained how you were wrong on all three counts.

If you were talking about something ELSE then those 3 specific things, then write better posts.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Well, the short version is that they subjectively believe that everything can be done objectively.

More meaningless word salad.

My response to your post was perfectly on point.
If you really meant something else then what you wrote in said post, then write better posts.

Don't blame me for your own shortcomings.

 

[blü 2]

And more importantly, dismissing the reality of meta-physicality is scientism.

I I take it by "meta-physicality" you mean "an entirely immaterial form of existence" ─ please correct me if that's wrong).

I also define "real" as existing in the world external to the self, which we know about through our senses.

So unless there's something real in that sense, there isn't anything for the physical sciences to study. And if it's real, the physical sciences can and will study it.

On that basis, I can't agree that proceeding to conduct the physical sciences on the basis that no meta-physicality is involved is "scientism".

Like presuming that art, religion, and philosophy are really just pointless self-indulgent naval-gazing.

I think humans have emotional needs that can be satisfied by art, religion and philosophy, so I don't think they're pointless. I also think that's why we find forms of supernatural belief in virtually all cultures ─ and that the decline in supernatural belief has among its causes the availability of better information about reality.

That only science can tell us the "real truth" of things. I see this sentiment expressed around here quite often.

As we continue to explore, map, and seek to explain the functions of the brain ─ a work in progress of course ─ I think we'll continue to find that it's an extraordinary example of biochemistry and bioelectricity. Why would we expect otherwise?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

They can't understand that objectivity is a subjective value assessment.

What does that mean?

That has always been the failure of philosophical materialism.

How is it a "failure"? In what way does that supposed "failure" manifest in practice?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You just changed all the language in there as compared to your original post to which I replied. You for example didn't use the word "meaning" in there.

And by doing so, you went into absurdity also

"you see meaning eg a black cat" - this is a meaningless phrase.

So you can see a meaningless phrase? Or is that cognition and not observation as objective. I.e. what goes on in a brain is not always objective.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

What does that mean?
...

That objectivity is in a relationship to a subjective brain and to choose to be objective, is a subjective act of cognition, not observation.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So you can see a meaningless phrase? Or is that cognition and not observation as objective. I.e. what goes on in a brain is not always objective.

More word salad that has nothing to do with your original post nor my original reply.
It's not even a proper response to the follow-up post that you are now replying to.

All I can do at this point is shrug my shoulders and walk away.

So unless you plan to take it back on point instead of this meaningless drivel, that's exactly what I'll do.