What are some examples of scientism?

[mikkel_the_dane]

Hmm. Ok. The physical world exists regardless of what we think about it; it objectively exists. ...

Here is the problem from another angle.
You are caused by something else. How do you know that your experiences matches objective reality in itself.
Here is an example from science.
A Boltzmann Brain universe. It comes into existing from a quantum vacuum. Now the probability of that happening is unknown, but it is possible in some sense.

So here is a Boltzmann Brain universe. It consists of enough space for the heat generated by the computer running you and a simulation of a universe and a powersource of the computer. It runs long enough that you are convinced that you are in a real, physical universe.
The 2 possibilities are these:
Real physical universe causes you to read this.
Boltzmann Brain universe causes you to read this.
Which universe are you in?

That is the reason we got this:
Philosophy of science - Wikipedia
"
Naturalism's axiomatic assumptions
All scientific study inescapably builds on at least some essential assumptions that are untested by scientific processes.[43][44] Kuhn concurs that all science is based on an approved agenda of unprovable assumptions about the character of the universe, rather than merely on empirical facts. These assumptions—a paradigm—comprise a collection of beliefs, values and techniques that are held by a given scientific community, which legitimize their systems and set the limitations to their investigation.[45] For naturalists, nature is the only reality, the only paradigm. There is no such thing as 'supernatural'. The scientific method is to be used to investigate all reality,[46] and Naturalism is the implicit philosophy of working scientists.[47]
..."

So before you in effect start doing philosophy, read the <beep> books about knowledge. We have in the Western philosophical tradition been at it for close to 2500 years now, and knowledge is not what you think it is.
You are a product of a culture. Now learn to check that.

How long does this thread have to go on before you realize that all human are fallible and that includes you.
I do it differently than PureX, but we still have faith in God in some senses.
For me it is that objective reality is epistemologically fair, but that makes objective reality a God. I also have other cases of faith.

So MikeF, you are really going to learn to doubt yourself before you can claim you understand knowledge and how you are inside your mind and to get out is an act of faith. Then you can claim knowledge as an axiomatic assumption, which is without truth/proof/evidence.

 

[MikeF]

For anything to exist, to us, requires our recognition of 'it' (an idea set), and of 'existing' (an idea set), and of the logical synergy of these idea sets.

For anything to exist, to us, requires our experience of it (an experience), and existing (an experience), and the reasoned expectations formed from repeated experience.

Your assertion that "it objectively exists" is a philosophical proposition that you cannot possibly prove, because you cannot, not be the biased (subjective) observer. Whatever "apart from you" is, is by definition not within your purview. So any assertion you (me, or anyone) make about it is forever going to be unfounded.

The assertion that there is an external reality to myself that follows certain rules is not philosophical but formed through reasoned expectation based on experience. I have not only my experience, but the reported experiences of others as well. That my expectations remain predictive in future experiences provides sufficient confidence on the validity of the expectations. This is how be build an objective understanding.

Thus, this "objective reality" you are asserting is an unfounded assumption. Which makes it a subjective (you being the subject) assumption, and not an objective fact.
But I have just shown you why it IS a subjective ideal. And you have no way of testing your assertion to prove otherwise because you can't observe anything "apart from you".

Again, no assumption required as we experience objective reality every day. As for testing our reasoned expectations, we do that from birth. Every moment is a confirmation of thousands of reasoned expectations, or new information or data upon which to revise or form new expectations. The testing and proving never stops.

It is not possible to "understand the physical world as it is". Because understanding is a metaphysical phenomenon. It's a huge complex of synergized idea sets which are themselves cognitive abstractions derived from physical 'input'. We humans are both in the game, watching the game, and judging the game all at the same time. We are certainly NOT objective.

We are not wholly objective as an individual for we human beings are imperfect and fallible, though not in exactly the same way. We are each a quite unique product of our physical makeup and our environment. By comparing our experiences, through intersubjective corroboration, we build a composite, and more accurate, understanding of the objective world.

As to "understanding the physical world as it is", I do not disagree that we have our limitations. However, that does not mean we cannot know anything objective about the world. As a matter of fact, I would say that our biological senses are the refined product of billions of years of evolution such that they, statistically across the population, provide accurate information about the surrounding environment within their respective sensory ranges.

Take for example an amphibious creature who's species has evolved in a closed cave system with no access to the earth's surface. They are confined to the cave. They have no eyes or organs for detecting electromagnetic radiation in the light spectrum. All they know is through taste, touch, smell, and sound. Not being able to detect or experience light means that a part of physical reality will always be hidden from their experiences. Does this mean they have no objective information about the physical world? No, of course they still experience their environment. They simply have a rather limited experience of objective reality.

We too have our limits to detect and experience, although we have developed the capability to expand beyond our biological sense in exploring the world. But this limitation does not mean we cannot know anything objective about physical reality. We do know some things and can be confident in that knowledge. Not knowing everything is not the same as knowing nothing.

 

[MikeF]

Here is the problem from another angle.
You are caused by something else. How do you know that your experiences matches objective reality in itself.
Here is an example from science.
A Boltzmann Brain universe. It comes into existing from a quantum vacuum. Now the probability of that happening is unknown, but it is possible in some sense.

So here is a Boltzmann Brain universe. It consists of enough space for the heat generated by the computer running you and a simulation of a universe and a powersource of the computer. It runs long enough that you are convinced that you are in a real, physical universe.
The 2 possibilities are these:
Real physical universe causes you to read this.
Boltzmann Brain universe causes you to read this.
Which universe are you in?

Det er nemt. Et rigtigt fysisk univers.

That is the reason we got this:
Philosophy of science - Wikipedia
"
Naturalism's axiomatic assumptions
All scientific study inescapably builds on at least some essential assumptions that are untested by scientific processes.[43][44] Kuhn concurs that all science is based on an approved agenda of unprovable assumptions about the character of the universe, rather than merely on empirical facts. These assumptions—a paradigm—comprise a collection of beliefs, values and techniques that are held by a given scientific community, which legitimize their systems and set the limitations to their investigation.[45] For naturalists, nature is the only reality, the only paradigm. There is no such thing as 'supernatural'. The scientific method is to be used to investigate all reality,[46] and Naturalism is the implicit philosophy of working scientists.[47]
..."

This passage does not address the views I have been expressing, in my opinion. You seem to want to place me into one of your stereotyped -isms instead of thinking about what I write.

So before you in effect start doing philosophy, read the <beep> books about knowledge. We have in the Western philosophical tradition been at it for close to 2500 years now, and knowledge is not what you think it is.
You are a product of a culture. Now learn to check that.

Mikkel, our base of knowledge is continually growing and improving, building on what came before. As we expand our understanding we reevaluate and revise our conclusions which then supersede the old. Knowledge evolves. I certainly do not want to go back 2,500 years and I certainly do not want to restrict myself to what classical philosophers think about things. There is a valid and critical reason why natural philosophy broke from the classical tradition and became science. Natural philosophy accepted the fallibility of the human investigator and became justifiably skeptical of classical philosophy's reliance on intuition of the philosopher and logic alone.

How long does this thread have to go on before you realize that all human are fallible and that includes you.

Wow. This just goes to show you don't listen to a word I say, or rather, give thoughtful consideration to what I write.

I do it differently than PureX, but we still have faith in God in some senses.
For me it is that objective reality is epistemologically fair, but that makes objective reality a God. I also have other cases of faith.

That's great. I'm happy for you both, if you are happy.

So MikeF, you are really going to learn to doubt yourself before you can claim you understand knowledge and how you are inside your mind and to get out is an act of faith. Then you can claim knowledge as an axiomatic assumption, which is without truth/proof/evidence.

Why would I want to claim knowledge is an axiomatic assumption that is without evidence if I completely disagree with that statement?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Det er nemt. Et rigtigt fysisk univers.
...

Listen, you think there is a real physical universe, but you don't think about that you are think ingthat. You treat it as a fact and you can't understand that it is not a fact, because you don't take into account that you are thinking it.
Here is what you do in the general sense:
You think X is Y, then you act as if that is a fact.
Here are 2 examples:
Someone thinks that God is the creator of the universe, therefore that makes it a fact.
Someone thinks that reality is the real physical universe, therefore that makes it a fact.

All you have been doing is to explain to the rest of us, how that makes sense to you. If something you think makes sense to you it becomes a fact for everything. That is your trick

 

[PureX]

For anything to exist, to us, requires our experience of it (an experience), and existing (an experience), and the reasoned expectations formed from repeated experience.

But keep in mind that 'experience' is perception turned conception: i.e., ideation. Physicality becomes meta-physicality and with a whole new set of possibilities.

The assertion that there is an external reality to myself that follows certain rules is not philosophical but formed through reasoned expectation based on experience.

THAT IS philosophy.

I have not only my experience, but the reported experiences of others as well. That my expectations remain predictive in future experiences provides sufficient confidence on the validity of the expectations. This is how be build an objective understanding.

Beliefs are bias, and they set us up to see what we expect to see. They are self-confirming.

Again, no assumption required as we experience objective reality every day.

If we experience it, it is no longer objective by the definition you materialists proclaim of objectivity. We are the subjects that cause our experiences to be subjective. And we cannot experience anything apart from ourselves. Also, experience is perception turned conception. And conception takes place in out mind. So to experience anything is to render it an idea set in our minds. Which is the epitome of subjective thought.

As to "understanding the physical world as it is", I do not disagree that we have our limitations. However, that does not mean we cannot know anything objective about the world.

The problem is that to "know" is to think we know. Which even by your theory of objective reality is not the same thing. So when we claim we can "know" something, what does that claim even mean beyond "we think we know"? And that's just a bias.

As a matter of fact, I would say that our biological senses are the refined product of billions of years of evolution such that they, statistically across the population, provide accurate information about the surrounding environment within their respective sensory ranges.

Our biological senses are irrelevant by themselves. What matters are the many possibilities offered by the idea sets our brains generate from that sensory input. Because those possibilities transcend the realm of what is physically possible. It's how we can recreate the world to suit own own desires.

We too have our limits to detect and experience, although we have developed the capability to expand beyond our biological sense in exploring the world. But this limitation does not mean we cannot know anything objective about physical reality.

To "know" is just to "think we know". And that's just bias. The fact that our biases might function when applied to the physical realm does not make them any less biased, or any more "truthful". This is where the scientism crowd falls on it's @$$. They think self-centered functionality equals "knowing the truth of reality". And I suspect this is exactly what you are trying to assert and defend, here.

We do know some things and can be confident in that knowledge. Not knowing everything is not the same as knowing nothing.

Thinking we know is not knowing. It's just a bias. And functionality is not truth. It's just functionality.

 

[MikeF]

Listen, you think there is a real physical universe, but you don't think about that you are think ingthat. You treat it as a fact and you can't understand that it is not a fact, because you don't take into account that you are thinking it.
Here is what you do in the general sense:
You think X is Y, then you act as if that is a fact.
Here are 2 examples:
Someone thinks that God is the creator of the universe, therefore that makes it a fact.
Someone thinks that reality is the real physical universe, therefore that makes it a fact.

All you have been doing is to explain to the rest of us, how that makes sense to you. If something you think makes sense to you it becomes a fact for everything. That is your trick

It is not about what makes sense to me personally, or what makes sense to you or anyone else.

Why do you bother asking questions and seeking answers to those questions? Is it to curate a set of beliefs that make you personally happy and content regardless of their veracity? If that is your goal I wish you the best of success in that endeavor. That, however, is not my reason for asking questions and seeking answers to those questions.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

It is not about what makes sense to me personally, or what makes sense to you or anyone else.

Why do you bother asking questions and seeking answers to those questions? Is it to curate a set of beliefs that make you personally happy and content regardless of their veracity? If that is your goal I wish you the best of success in that endeavor. That, however, is not my reason for asking questions and seeking answers to those questions.

Just point to veracity as independent of your brain/mind and I will listen to you. And for you as you stop doing that. You are an objective we indpåedent of all brains. So only answer objectively and not how you think/feel.
Actually do that objectivity and I will listen.
I bet you don't notice when you are subjective as thinking/feeling and point out that I shouldn't be that, because you are really not that.

 

[MikeF]

Just point to veracity as independent of your brain/mind and I will listen to you. And for you as you stop doing that. You are an objective we indpåedent of all brains. So only answer objectively and not how you think/feel.
Actually do that objectivity and I will listen.
I bet you don't notice when you are subjective as thinking/feeling and point out that I shouldn't be that, because you are really not that.

What's your goal Mikkel? What is the purpose of asking questions and seeking answers?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

What's your goal Mikkel? What is the purpose of asking questions and seeking answers?

To give you a chance to do your philosophy differently. Not that you should, shall, can, have to, ought to or will do that. I don't know if you will reconsider.
But as long as you in effect continue do philosophy as you do, I will continue to do skepticism on your claims.

 

[MikeF]

To give you a chance to do your philosophy differently. Not that you should, shall, can, have to, ought to or will do that. I don't know if you will reconsider.
But as long as you in effect continue do philosophy as you do, I will continue to do skepticism on your claims.

I'm sorry, you misunderstood my question. I wasn't asking why you ask questions of me personally, or in this thread.
Instead, I'm asking why do you ask philosophical questions and seek answers to them? Why do you ask questions about existence, reason, knowledge, values, mind?

 

[PureX]

We humans are constantly seeking synergy within and among our many idea sets. Mostly because we are afraid of idea sets that we cannot assimilate into our biased presumption of knowledge. Because that presumption of knowledge is also a presumption of control. And what humans want more than anything else in life is to be in control of our own destiny. We want to be the gods of our own individual universe. Or at least to be able to pretend to ourselves that we are.

This is what scientism is all about. And why it is the mirrored image of the religious superstition that it so loathes.

 

[cladking]

We humans are constantly seeking synergy within and among our many idea sets. Mostly because we are afraid of idea sets that we cannot assimilate into our biased presumption of knowledge. Because that presumption of knowledge is also a presumption of control. And what humans want more than anything else in life is to be in control of our own destiny. We want to be the gods of our own individual universe. Or at least to be able to pretend to ourselves that we are.

This is what scientism is all about. And why it is the mirrored image of the religious superstition that it so loathes.

I would never have said it this way but I am essentially in total agreement.

I would say it differently largely because my perspective is far different. I see things from the perspective of the individual and because there are so few things that apply to all individuals and this goes many times over for humans. But, yes, virtually every human being (homo omnisciencis) wants to believe his models are correct and applicable to understanding his place and helping to control his future. We want to believe we can succeed with or without lots of luck. We want to believe we can predict. Scientismists want to believe that reality in its entirety can be reduced to easily understood models and while these models might require a little calculation they are wholly effective at factoring out chaos, luck, divine intervention, randomness, the unknowable, and everything that works against omniscience and human omnipotence.

Scientismists have learned nothing from 400 years of science and can't conceive of another way to see or format reality. They believe they understand the "laws" of nature despite the fact these break down on the small scale or the long time frames and despite the fact that even on the human scale in the here and now chaos rules as often as these laws.

 

[PureX]

I would never have said it this way but I am essentially in total agreement.

I would say it differently largely because my perspective is far different. I see things from the perspective of the individual and because there are so few things that apply to all individuals and this goes many times over for humans. But, yes, virtually every human being (homo omnisciencis) wants to believe his models are correct and applicable to understanding his place and helping to control his future. We want to believe we can succeed with or without lots of luck. We want to believe we can predict. Scientismists want to believe that reality in its entirety can be reduced to easily understood models and while these models might require a little calculation they are wholly effective at factoring out chaos, luck, divine intervention, randomness, the unknowable, and everything that works against omniscience and human omnipotence.

Scientismists have learned nothing from 400 years of science and can't conceive of another way to see or format reality. They believe they understand the "laws" of nature despite the fact these break down on the small scale or the long time frames and despite the fact that even on the human scale in the here and now chaos rules as often as these laws.

Not unlike the religionist that appeals to a "higher power" to override the fates for them. And thereby create in their own minds a means of gaining control over that which they do not control by their own will.

 

[MikeF]

But keep in mind that 'experience' is perception turned conception: i.e., ideation. Physicality becomes meta-physicality and with a whole new set of possibilities.

Certainly we get to the point where we organize and group our experience in complex abstract relationships as well as create abstract constructs that do not point to physical things, but rather to agreements and conventions. But at the core, a sound is a sound, water quenches thirst, and the colors we see represent actual wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation.

When a baby is born, it has no ideology. Yet it experiences the objective world and draws reasoned conclusions from those experiences.

"Physicality", your term for the objective physical world, does not become cognitive abstraction, it is what it is. What you refer to as "meta-physicality", boundaryless cognitive abstraction, allows us to comprehend, catalog, and reason upon the properties of the physical world. With that ability, we can imagine a "whole new set of possibilities", and implement them within the limits of the physical world, just as you suggest. What can be implemented in the physical world is still limited to the properties of the physical world, something I think you refer to as "functionality".

Your phrase "physicality becomes meta-physicality" suggests to me an implication that the objective physical world can become as unbounded and infinite as the realm of cognitive abstraction. This simply is not so.

THAT IS philosophy.

And I would say, as above, philosophy comes later. On a fundamental level, experience is of the objective world, to whatever limited extent. To say that my stated position is philosophy is fine, but that the physical world exists is not an assumption.

Beliefs are bias, and they set us up to see what we expect to see. They are self-confirming.

Beliefs *may* be bias, and bias does affect our ability to reason clearly.

If we experience it, it is no longer objective by the definition you materialists proclaim of objectivity. We are the subjects that cause our experiences to be subjective. And we cannot experience anything apart from ourselves. Also, experience is perception turned conception. And conception takes place in out mind. So to experience anything is to render it an idea set in our minds. Which is the epitome of subjective thought.
The problem is that to "know" is to think we know. Which even by your theory of objective reality is not the same thing. So when we claim we can "know" something, what does that claim even mean beyond "we think we know"? And that's just a bias.

Yes, we as individuals are subjective. We can, and do, get outside the confines of our singular mind by sharing information with other subjective observers. What we know is reasoned expectation from these shared experiences and the greater the continued confirmation, the greater the confidence we have in what we know. That is the best we can do.

Our biological senses are irrelevant by themselves. What matters are the many possibilities offered by the idea sets our brains generate from that sensory input. Because those possibilities transcend the realm of what is physically possible. It's how we can recreate the world to suit own own desires.

We definitely cannot transcend what is physically possible as we cannot change, and are bound to, physical laws. I agree that what we imagine in cognitive abstraction allows us to imagine possibilities synthetic to our physical world and then implement those possibilities within the limits of physical laws. If I imagine myself levitating and flying through sheer force of will, it is never gonna happen in the physical world unless the properties of the physical world permit it.

To "know" is just to "think we know". And that's just bias.

To know is to experience in some fasion, and that knowledge is held with varying degrees of confidence. We can hold an accurate, incomplete, or false understanding of a particular thing or issue. That is why we must be willing to continually reassess based on new experience and the experience of others.

Bias would be an inability or an unwillingness to reassess.

The fact that our biases might function when applied to the physical realm does not make them any less biased, or any more "truthful".

Oh dear. If our knowledge holds up and is applicable to the physical world, it would be corroborated knowledge that can be held with the appropriate level of confidence. You had to put the word truthful in quotes because you recognize the weakness of your statement.

This is where the scientism crowd falls on it's @$$. They think self-centered functionality equals "knowing the truth of reality". And I suspect this is exactly what you are trying to assert and defend, here.
Thinking we know is not knowing. It's just a bias. And functionality is not truth. It's just functionality.

All I will say here is that your emotional adjectives and swearing speak directly to your bias and lack of impartiality.

 

[MikeF]

We humans are constantly seeking synergy within and among our many idea sets. Mostly because we are afraid of idea sets that we cannot assimilate into our biased presumption of knowledge. Because that presumption of knowledge is also a presumption of control. And what humans want more than anything else in life is to be in control of our own destiny. We want to be the gods of our own individual universe. Or at least to be able to pretend to ourselves that we are.

This is what scientism is all about. And why it is the mirrored image of the religious superstition that it so loathes.

A bit hyperbolic. We do not want to be gods, but human beings definitely seek control over the forces and conditions that affect us, and that's to be expected. We do not want to freeze to death in the winter, we want resources to meet the very real requirements we have to live. If living can be maintained, we certainly will want to limit discomfort and suffering while alive. These are all good and valid reasons to seek control over external circumstances that affect us. This does not seem to be what is referenced when other people use the term scientism.

As to superstition, this is the desperate last resort people fall to when forces and conditions that adversely affect them are out of their control. If it is scientism to accept when things are out of ones control and not resort to superstition, then so be it.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I'm sorry, you misunderstood my question. I wasn't asking why you ask questions of me personally, or in this thread.
Instead, I'm asking why do you ask philosophical questions and seek answers to them? Why do you ask questions about existence, reason, knowledge, values, mind?

To figure out how what matters works. That is it. End of the day, you do it because of how you understand that. The same with me and we can't agree on that.

 

[Samael_Khan]

Inspired by this thread: Who here believes in "Scientism"?

This thread is open to anybody who would like to share examples of comments they consider to display scientism. They could be comments you've encountered personally, comments made by famous figures or even purely hypothetical comments that a proponent of scientism might say.

It would also be helpful if you could explain why you feel your example qualifies as scientism.

Please don't call out specific RF members.

For me, and this is probably out of sheer ignorance, one clear example of scientism is explaining the "why" behind evolution and how social and psychological mannerisms developed through evolution using Evolutionary psychology. This seems to me to be guesswork at best and is the scientism equivalent of the creation story of religions. It is taking what we see today and in the past and coming up with reasons based off their world view. "Evolution did it" is the Scientism equivalent "God did it".

 

[MikeF]

For me, and this is probably out of sheer ignorance, one clear example of scientism is explaining the "why" behind evolution and how social and psychological mannerisms developed through evolution using Evolutionary psychology. This seems to me to be guesswork at best and is the scientism equivalent of the creation story of religions. It is taking what we see today and in the past and coming up with reasons based off their world view. "Evolution did it" is the Scientism equivalent "God did it".

And it is the beauty of science that all you must do is show your work to support your skepticism. Whatever is hypothesized or theorized is open to continual revaluation.

Does the same hold true for the creation story? If you're honest, you will agree they are in no way equivalent.

 

[PureX]

A bit hyperbolic. We do not want to be gods, but human beings definitely seek control over the forces and conditions that affect us, and that's to be expected. We do not want to freeze to death in the winter, we want resources to meet the very real requirements we have to live. If living can be maintained, we certainly will want to limit discomfort and suffering while alive. These are all good and valid reasons to seek control over external circumstances that affect us. This does not seem to be what is referenced when other people use the term scientism.

You are confusing science with scientism. This happens because as the man in the video stated in the first several seconds, if you can't see the difference, it's because you have fallen under the spell of 'scientism'.

Science is a process we use to try and understand the mechanics of the physical realm of existence. And yes, this leads to our gain in terms of physical functionality. We can use this knowledge to manipulate the world around us, and manipulate ourselves in relation to it, to our own advantage. And this gives we humans an increase in control over our own destiny.

Scientism holds to the idea that this increase in control over the mechanisms of the physical realm, and the increased functionality that results, are the sole goal of human knowledge. And that the processes of science are therefor the sole reliable means of humans obtaining knowledge. It is an idea that is intrinsically devoted to philosophical materialism, and to the exclusion of any and all other existential philosophical paradigms.

And it mimics theism in it's desire to gain mastery over fate by gaining mastery over that which controls the otherwise uncontrollable circumstances effecting our lives.

As to superstition, this is the desperate last resort people fall to when forces and conditions that adversely affect them are out of their control. If it is scientism to accept when things are out of ones control and not resort to superstition, then so be it.

But scientism does not accept that things are ever "out of one's control". Only that one has not yet attained the necessary knowledge to effectively control the circumstances. Both scientism and theism are based on the idea that one can gain control over the controller (either gods or physics) and thus gain mastery over their own fate. And it's this determined desire for mastery over one's own fate that drives them as an ideology. And it's why they both exhibit a 'religious fervor' akin to zealotry.

 

[Samael_Khan]

And it is the beauty of science that all you must do is show your work to support your skepticism. Whatever is hypothesized or theorized is open to continual revaluation.

Does the same hold true for the creation story? If you're honest, you will agree they are in no way equivalent.

I am talking about Scientism and not just the practice of science.

Regarding your second point, I would say that they are equivalent specifically in the way I mentioned.