Who here believes in "Scientism"?

[cladking]

I agree. Isn't it our scientific understanding that helps us make that determination? Isn't it our scientific understanding of how the world works that steers us clear of notions of ideal forms and universal standards of beauty?

No.

It's quite impossible to scientifically discover the best ice cream until all the terms are defined and consciousness is understood. Even among the few who know their own mind each has different reasons and standards for selection. Trying to live your life scientifically is nonsense. Trying to understand reality in terms of experiment is nonsense. Yes, science is the best means to understand the processes that apply to reality but not our senses, experience, and choices.

To each his own. But who among has has ever even tried kumquat ice cream?

 

[MikeF]

Almost certainly not, I'd have thought. My guess is the awareness of how pervasive subjectivity is in our appreciation of the world must have been a feature of philosophy for centuries, e.g. Protagoras: Protagoras - Wikipedia

From your link:

"This concept of individual relativity was intended to be provocative; naturally, it drew fire from Plato and other philosophers, contrasting with both popular opinion and other philosophical doctrine that reality and its truth must have an objective grounding."

I have often been amazed at how prescient some of the ancients have been given the relative limitations of their perspective in relation to our own. The atomists and Epicurians come to mind. Here we can include Protagoras among them. However, what is it that gives us confidence to considered certain aspects of ancient philosophy as prescient and to be able to see one philosophical view as more reflective of reality over another other than our modern scientific perspective?

 

[MikeF]

No.

It's quite impossible to scientifically discover the best ice cream until all the terms are defined and consciousness is understood. Even among the few who know their own mind each has different reasons and standards for selection. Trying to live your life scientifically is nonsense. Trying to understand reality in terms of experiment is nonsense. Yes, science is the best means to understand the processes that apply to reality but not our senses, experience, and choices.

To each his own. But who among has has ever even tried kumquat ice cream?

It is not about living your life scientifically, whatever that means. It is about understanding how an why we are the way we are. It is about understanding what forces are at play that affect how we behave and interact with each other. It is using that knowledge to realize the idea of a universally best ice cream flavor, for example, is silly and folks should enjoy what they enjoy. Better understanding shows us that we can also be conditioned to have aversion to something that in another culture is seen as a desirable delicacy. Such understanding can help overcome conditioned aversions and the subsequent limitations associated with conditioned aversions.

Understanding the hows and whys of human behavior helps us be more than instinctually reactive animals, in my opinion. I fail to see the downside to having a more scientific verified understanding of the world and of ourselves.

 

[cladking]

It is not about living your life scientifically, whatever that means. It is about understanding how an why we are the way we are. It is about understanding what forces are at play that affect how we behave and interact with each other. It is using that knowledge to realize the idea of a universally best ice cream flavor, for example, is silly and folks should enjoy what they enjoy. Better understanding shows us that we can also be conditioned to have aversion to something that in another culture is seen as a desirable delicacy. Such understanding can help overcome conditioned aversions and the subsequent limitations associated with conditioned aversions.

Understanding the hows and whys of human behavior helps us be more than instinctually reactive animals, in my opinion. I fail to see the downside to having a more scientific verified understanding of the world and of ourselves.

But all science and all experiment apply to all things equally. Placebo effect can heal the sick and hypnotic suggestion can directly lead to injuries. Certainly anyone can simply choose to enjoy any flavor ice cream. A baby or anyone with no experience of eating ice cream is probably going to enjoy whatever flavor he is given. The very concept of a "best flavor" assumes consciousness can be factored out of an experiment to perform on people. It even assumes things like peanut allergies and lactose intolerance can be factored out. It assumes each individual prefers one specific flavor every time and this selection doesn't evolve over his life and as brands and recipes change. You can even buy the seaweed used to thicken it and sicken many individuals in one metric ton containers from China.

We merely imagine that reality is quantifiable. This is the prevailing scientific belief today but it is not true. A few of the processes that are disclosed through experiment and called "law" can be quantified but reality itself obeys all of these processes and many more that are unknown. We imagine our beliefs are based in bedrock where in actuality they are based in assumptions that have prevailed for centuries and this is what every experiment and observation shows; the assumptions are false.

Jalapeno ice cream is best if that's what you like.

 

[exchemist]

From your link:

"This concept of individual relativity was intended to be provocative; naturally, it drew fire from Plato and other philosophers, contrasting with both popular opinion and other philosophical doctrine that reality and its truth must have an objective grounding."

I have often been amazed at how prescient some of the ancients have been given the relative limitations of their perspective in relation to our own. The atomists and Epicurians come to mind. Here we can include Protagoras among them. However, what is it that gives us confidence to considered certain aspects of ancient philosophy as prescient and to be able to see one philosophical view as more reflective of reality over another other than our modern scientific perspective?

Well it is you that employs the term prescient. I'm not sure about that. It seems to me that any thinking person would realise that different perspectives exist and that it is a bit arrogant, perhaps, to give one's own primacy over all others without careful consideration. One sees the ambiguity of how to interpret human situations, drives etc., in Shakespeare.

But admittedly that's just acknowledgement of rival human perspectives, rather than asserting anything about the nature of reality itself. I would agree that c.20th science has led to a more fundamental grounding of the idea that the way reality expresses itself depends on the frame of reference from which it is observed. Both relativity and quantum mechanics seem to deny the existence of an absolute and exact, single reality. And I'm sure that unmooring from absolutes has fed through into philosophy and thence into other modes of thought, winding up in surprising places, e.g. post-structuralism in literary theory.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Well it is you that employs the term prescient. I'm not sure about that. It seems to me that any thinking person would realise that different perspectives exist and that it is a bit arrogant, perhaps, to give one's own primacy over all others without careful consideration. One sees the ambiguity of how to interpret human situations, drives etc., in Shakespeare.

But admittedly that's just acknowledgement of rival human perspectives, rather than asserting anything about the nature of reality itself. I would agree that c.20th science has led to a more fundamental grounding of the idea that the way reality expresses itself depends on the frame of reference from which it is observed. Both relativity and quantum mechanics seem to deny the existence of an absolute and exact, single reality. And I'm sure that unmooring from absolutes has fed through into other modes of thought, e.g. post-structuralism in literary theory.

Cognitive Relativism | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

iep.utm.edu

Now in practice, it doesn't mean you can't use the term objective, it just means that even that has a limit like any other human behavior.

 

[cladking]

I would agree that c.20th science has led to a more fundamental grounding of the idea that the way reality expresses itself depends on the frame of reference from which it is observed. Both relativity and quantum mechanics seem to deny the existence of an absolute and exact, single reality.

I don't know that this isn't true.

But we certainly know that there is no clockwork universe or reality as postulated by the 19th century scientists. We still seem to be stuck with their beliefs though.

As I interpret experiment from the last century it hardly precludes the existence of a single reality of unknown causation that unfolds in time through harmonic and chaotic processes that we've hardly begun to understand. Our minds impose a structure only on our perception of reality but not reality itself. We simply must experience reality in terms of patterns that are derived from knowledge, models, and beliefs. What we see isn't real but the product of consciousness and thought.

It can be exceedingly difficult to see anything outside our experience even if it bites us on the nose.

 

[RestlessSoul]

I don't know that this isn't true.

But we certainly know that there is no clockwork universe or reality as postulated by the 19th century scientists. We still seem to be stuck with their beliefs though.

As I interpret experiment from the last century it hardly precludes the existence of a single reality of unknown causation that unfolds in time through harmonic and chaotic processes that we've hardly begun to understand. Our minds impose a structure only on our perception of reality but not reality itself. We simply must experience reality in terms of patterns that are derived from knowledge, models, and beliefs. What we see isn't real but the product of consciousness and thought.

It can be exceedingly difficult to see anything outside our experience even if it bites us on the nose.

But reality does bite us on the, er…nose, or whatever. That’s why Kant said in effect, that while objective reality can never be fully known or apprehended, neither can it be avoided. Even if around 80% of our experience of reality happens in the mind, the other 20% is insistent.

 

[MikeF]

We merely imagine that reality is quantifiable. This is the prevailing scientific belief today but it is not true.

Reality does has quantifiable properties and you say just that in your very next statement:

A few of the processes that are disclosed through experiment and called "law" can be quantified but reality itself obeys all of these processes and many more that are unknown.

So no, we do not merely imagine that reality is quantifiable, it is, and you agree that it is. I do not disagree that we do not fully understand all aspects of reality, however, as we have improved our understanding over the millennia it still hasn't changed our basic biological experience of reality. In other words, even if we do figure it all out tomorrow, we will still wake up the next day and have to address the same reality of daily living that we always have.

We imagine our beliefs are based in bedrock where in actuality they are based in assumptions that have prevailed for centuries and this is what every experiment and observation shows; the assumptions are false.

If you are speaking of persistent beliefs in religious mythology then I couldn't agree more.

Jalapeno ice cream is best if that's what you like.

Which is exactly my point.

 

[MikeF]

objective reality can never be fully known or apprehended

What do you imagine will change if objective reality *can* be fully known or apprehended? We will still be ourselves, being born, living our lives, experiencing joys and sorrows, and then to pass away in some manner just as every other human being has done before us for millennia. Reality isn't going to change with our full knowledge of it. I say what you see today is what you will still have despite further increases in understanding.

 

[RestlessSoul]

What do you imagine will change if objective reality *can* be fully known or apprehended? We will still be ourselves, being born, living our lives, experiencing joys and sorrows, and then to pass away in some manner just as every other human being has done before us for millennia. Reality isn't going to change with our full knowledge of it. I say what you see today is what you will still have despite further increases in understanding.

It’s our perception of the world which changes when we recognise the illusory nature of our experience. Recognising what Japanese poets refer to as “the floating world”, we are more easily at peace with it and with ourselves. We stop clinging to transient insubstantial phenomena, and learn to flow in harmony with the processes unfolding within us and without us.

 

[MikeF]

It’s our perception of the world which changes when we recognise the illusory nature of our experience. Recognising what Japanese poets refer to as “the floating world”, we are more easily at peace with it and with ourselves. We stop clinging to transient insubstantial phenomena, and learn to flow in harmony with the processes unfolding within us and without us.

I would say it is our attitude, not perception, that requires change in the face of transient (as in ever changing conditions) reality. I strongly disagree with the characterization of reality as either illusory or insubstantial.

Reality is what it is, and from my perspective, it is better to acknowledge the way it is and work within reality than it is to deny reality or disengage from it entirely in anticipation of some other idealized mythical realm. I like the sentiments expressed in the serenity prayer (absent the god part):

God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference​

What I like about it is that it doesn’t advocate disengagement, rather, it advocates staying engaged, working on problems in an effort to change things for the better, but acknowledging that we sometimes have to accept and deal with unpleasant aspects of reality, aspects that we may be powerless to change. However, instead of relying on a mythical entity to provide acceptance, courage, and wisdom, I see it as requiring a conscious decision to adopt the expressed sentiments, and conscious effort to implement.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Within the last few months or so, it's been claimed that there are "many" here at RF who believe in and/or advocate for "scientism", i.e., the notion that science is the means to answer all questions, or at least is the means to answer all questions worth answering.

I've been a member here for quite some time, but I can't recall seeing anyone advocating such a view. So, to clear this up I'm starting this thread for all of you RF members who do. If you are an advocate for "scientism", please reply to this post with something like "Yes, I am an advocate for scientism as you have described it".

Also, let's keep this focused on the point of the thread, which means no debates about what is or isn't "scientism", whether gods exist, evolution/creationism, or anything else. The thread quite literally has a singular purpose and I'd like to keep it that way.

Science can (potentially) answer questions for which physical evidence can be gathered, subjected to experiment, and tested. Science cannot answer questions of human values. In fact, it is entirely likely that most questions of human values do not have any single "answer" at all, but must always be considered relative to the particular humans involved.

 

[shunyadragon]

I just defined it in the OP: "the notion that science is the means to answer all questions, or at least is the means to answer all questions worth answering."

If you don't believe in or advocate that, then this thread isn't for you.

From my perspective 'scientism' is too vague and ambiguous to be real. I hear the use of 'Scientism' used as an insult to scientists and science from a religious perspective.

The best term is 'Philosophical Naturalism: Naturalism (philosophy) - Wikipedia

According to Steven Schafersman, naturalism is a philosophy that maintains that;

1. "Nature encompasses all that exists throughout space and time;
2. Nature (the universe or cosmos) consists only of natural elements, that is, of spatio-temporal physical substance – mass –energy. Non-physical or quasi-physical substance, such as information, ideas, values, logic, mathematics, intellect, and other emergent phenomena, either supervene upon the physical or can be reduced to a physical account;
3. Nature operates by the laws of physics and in principle, can be explained and understood by science and philosophy;
4. The supernatural does not exist, i.e., only nature is real. Naturalism is therefore a metaphysical philosophy opposed primarily by supernaturalism".[24]

Or, as Carl Sagan succinctly put it: "The Cosmos is all that is or ever was or ever will be."[25]

In addition Arthur C. Danto states that Naturalism, in recent usage, is a species of philosophical monism according to which whatever exists or happens is natural in the sense of being susceptible to explanation through methods which, although paradigmatically exemplified in the natural sciences, are continuous from domain to domain of objects and events. Hence, naturalism is polemically defined as repudiating the view that there exists or could exist any entities which lie, in principle, beyond the scope of scientific explanation.[26][27]

 

[cladking]

Reality does has quantifiable properties and you say just that in your very next statement:



So no, we do not merely imagine that reality is quantifiable, it is, and you agree that it is. I do not disagree that we do not fully understand all aspects of reality, however, as we have improved our understanding over the millennia it still hasn't changed our basic biological experience of reality. In other words, even if we do figure it all out tomorrow, we will still wake up the next day and have to address the same reality of daily living that we always have.



If you are speaking of persistent beliefs in religious mythology then I couldn't agree more.



Which is exactly my point.

If you quantify one force acting on an object but not ten others you can not make accurate prediction.

We merely believe we can understand reality through modelling experiment. The fact is there are an infinite number of forces and processes acting on every thing. Scientismists only imagine they share a reality with others but in actuality even their models and interpretations of experiment vary. Many interpretation are typically in error because they rest on false assumptions.

 

[blü 2]

It's quite impossible to scientifically discover the best ice cream until all the terms are defined and consciousness is understood.

There's your problem right there ─ you have no coherent definition of 'consciousness'.

 

[RestlessSoul]

There's your problem right there ─ you have no coherent definition of 'consciousness'.

Nor does anyone, and until we do no description of reality is complete. I think that was the point.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

There's your problem right there ─ you have no coherent definition of 'consciousness'.

Yeah, and that also applies to the "I" as a word. We as humans have no coherent definition as for what it means to be a human.
Your problem is that for relevant parts of these debates you as you don't notice when you are not using truth and using your individual subjective reason. Not that you are not using reason, but that it is subjective and other humans can do it differently.

Thus humans in toto for what matters are just as unreal as God if we only use objective truth and reason.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I just defined it in the OP: "the notion that science is the means to answer all questions, or at least is the means to answer all questions worth answering."

If you don't believe in or advocate that, then this thread isn't for you.

The problem is that worth is not science. And you in effect gave it away in the next sentence as a belief system: If you don't believe in or advocate that, then this thread isn't for you.

 

[blü 2]

Nor does anyone, and until we do no description of reality is complete. I think that was the point.

Consciousness is simply being awake and able to perceive. It's a portion of a spectrum of mental states, which include sleep, anesthesia, unconsciousness, and at the far end, death.