Who here believes in "Scientism"?

[Subduction Zone]

Scientism has two meanings. The first is the application of scientific method, or belief in the efficacy or scientific method.

The second is as a term of abuse, much as @Subduction Zone said in #3, the accusation that a blind faith in scientific method is a mark of folly ─ as indeed blind faith often proves to be.

Me, I believe reasoned enquiry, of which scientific method and informed common sense form part, is unchallengably the best way to explore, describe and seek to explain objective reality (a notoriously god-free domain).

And some members of RF use the definition "Scientific investigation into topics that I do not want them to investigate. Mainly due to my religious beliefs".

 

[Quintessence]

But you do agree that there are fields of study that are invalid, right?

No. I vehemently disagree.

Poetry is categorically different. The "validity" of poetry doesn't depend on factual accuracy.

The vast majority of fields of study do not depend on the narrow confines of "factual accuracy." The sciences are the only disciplines that do, and even that is misconstruing what the sciences are about.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

No, there is such a thing, though it’s fairly rare. It is when someone tries to treat science as the only legitimate form of enquiry. Dawkins came close, though he has now mellowed somewhat I think.

Where I agree with you is that the term is often bandied around inappropriately, by creationists and others with an animus against science, as a lazy pejorative label.

There are people here that see scientism everywhere, but when you look at the questions being asked, they are the questions that can be answered by science. I'm pretty sure that this is viewed as scientism more often for the fact that those that see it everywhere don't like the answers that are provided using science. They want their personal views to be the only answers. A sort of meism.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No. I vehemently disagree.

So dowsing is valid?

The vast majority of fields of study do not depend on the narrow confines of "factual accuracy." The sciences are the only disciplines that do, and even that is misconstruing what the sciences are about.

I'll let you tell the historians and geographers that their disciplines don't depend on factual accuracy.

Any discipline that is rooted in empirical claims about objective reality depends on factual accuracy. Quite a bit of the material under the umbrella of theology falls into this category.

 

[PureX]

But just too shy to ever identify a
specific person or example.
Being the which of why we call bs.

I don't name-call. And what would be the point. Racists never see themselves as racists, even when you call them out, because they just think they're right. When you believe your own bias is truth, it's not a bias to you, it's just truth. And the same goes for the scientism cultists. They see no difference between what they imagine science to be and what science actually is. So their biased scientism is invisible to them. All they see is their own biased truth.

 

[Audie]

So dowsing is valid?



I'll let you tell the historians and geographers that their disciplines don't depend on factual accuracy.

Any discipline that is rooted in empirical claims about objective reality depends on factual accuracy. Quite a bit of the material under the umbrella of theology falls into this category.

Theology is #1 about study of god,
secondarily the study of the religions
associated, is that not so?
Like ufology, with the only objective
fscts to study being the beliefs and behaviours
of people.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I don't name-call. And what would be the point. Racists never see themselves as racists, even when you call them out, because they just think they're right. When you believe your own bias is truth, it's not a bias to you, it's just truth. And the same goes for the scientism cultists. They see no difference between what they imagine science to be and what science actually is. So their biased scientism is invisible to them. All they see is their own biased truth.

It also applies to the anti-science crowd as well. I guess they don't see it either. Their bias against science must be invisible to them and they see only their own biased truth.

 

[PureX]

It also applies to the anti-science crowd as well. I guess they don't see it either. Their bias against science must be invisible to them and they see only their own biased truth.

Just because someone can acknowledge the limitations of science doesn't make them anti-science. But YOU would have to be able to acknowledge the limitations of science to understand that.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Just because someone can acknowledge the limitations of science doesn't make them anti-science. But YOU would have to be able to acknowledge the limitations of science to understand that.

It is more than acknowledging the limitations of science. I DO acknowledge the limitations of science. But where it is applicable, it is rejected just the same as where it is not by some. I suppose they cannot see the bias that is blocking their view or love it too much.

 

[PureX]

It is more than acknowledging the limitations of science. I DO acknowledge the limitations of science. But where it is applicable, it is rejected just the same as where it is not by some. I suppose they cannot see the bias that is blocking their view or love it too much.

That's why it's a bias. It's invisible to those who succumb to it. They think it's the truth just because it's their truth. Another word for it is 'belief': that self-determination that my truth is the truth. The scientism crowd are true believers in science as the only legitimate avenue of truth. It's why so many of them are also atheists. They can't tolerate any other possible avenues of truth. And it's the same with the true believers of God. They likewise cannot tolerate the idea that science might be an alternative avenue of truth. And neither group can see how similar they actually are because their respective bias is blinding them to any possible alternatives.

It's why you often see me disparaging 'belief' on these threads as opposed to faith. Belief closes our eyes to doubt, and therefor to alternative methods and possibilities.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

There are a lot of people on this site that believe science is the only valid, or by far the most reliable method of determining the truth of reality. And they say so all the time. Which is 'scientism' by definition.

What we say is that empiricism is the ONLY path to knowledge about how the world including our bodies and minds works. That attitude can also be called scientism, which is neutral, nonjudgmental, and descriptive description: "Scientism is the opinion that science and the scientific method are the best or only way to render truth about the world and reality."

But as Blu mentioned, there is another way the word is used - the way you use it - which is meant demean and to disparage empiricism: "excessive belief in the power of scientific knowledge and techniques."

And yet they constantly deny that it's a thing even as they engage in it.

What I deny is that you or anybody else can derive knowledge any other way than empirically, although you might not share my definition of knowledge, which is the collection of demonstrably true ideas that can be successfully deployed in anticipating outcomes. People who use the word scientism disparagingly are people who want other ideas obtained by other methods called knowledge because they like the ideas even though they cannot be used for anything.

They mistake facts for truth and knowledge for wisdom. And that's dangerous.

What's dangerous is considering ideas that aren't demonstrably correct either truth or wisdom. Incidentally, knowledge is facts and wisdom is a subset of truth. The collection of facts one knows is his fund of knowledge, and the facts that help one find happiness are the subset I call wisdom. Thus, knowing how to make money is knowledge, but knowing the limits of what that money can do and the limits one should apply to oneself in obtaining it are wisdom.

The scientism are true believers in science as the only legitimate avenue of truth. It's why so many of them are also atheists. They can't tolerate any other possible avenues of truth.

Empiricists find other avenues in pursuit of truth sterile. You mentioned, "other means of acquiring wisdom, like philosophy, art, and religion." There is no wisdom in either art or religion. There may be beauty in art, or other things of value like community or reassurance in religion, but neither of those deserves to be called knowledge or wisdom. Knowledge in art is limited to knowing how to create it and knowing what the artist intended. After that, only aesthetics remains.

Visual art and music play a large part in my life and add to my pleasure living it. Wisdom is the knowledge that this is true, what art satisfies, and how to create or acquire it. But the art itself is neither knowledge nor wisdom. It's just beautiful or intriguing sights and sounds. Some people want their deeply cherished beliefs to be considered knowledge. They want their creationism, for example, to be viewed as truth and knowledge and want it taught in the institutions that exist to disseminate knowledge.

And those who make the distinction between ideas like that one and empirical knowledge like the theory of biological evolution and who disagree that they are equivalent are disparaged by those who want the same respect for their unfalsifiable and otiose beliefs as ideas that can be used to optimize lives object to ideas being rejected as truth, knowledge, or wisdom, and angrily begin writing and saying the word scientism.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Nah, partly I was short on time, and partly I just have no interest in entertaining naysayers.

I consider theology a perfectly valid and useful field of anthropology, especially given how intertwined religion and culture tend to be. That said, I think most debates largely rely on "entertaining the naysayers" (based on one's perspective of who is a "naysayer") in one way or another, because we put forth our views and expect them to be challenged. I suspect that many people (me included, of course) would end up in echo chambers if they didn't "entertain the naysayers" at least every once in a while.

Anyone can more or less go around and say they think some particular field of study is invalid for any number of reasons. This has no bearing whatsoever on those who take interest in that field of study and pursue it. Obviously, those who deny the reality of the gods aren't going to see validity in studying the gods, just as those who deny the reality of biological evolution aren't going to see the validity in studying evolutionary biology, just as those who decide poetry is more or less made up nonsense aren't going to see the validity in studying poetry. It's a game humans play with themselves. Crapping on other people's fields of study just serves no productive purpose, in my view.

Again, I agree with much of the above, but I disagree with part of the phrasing: "[denying] the reality of the gods" seems to assume that non-theists actively reject ideas or observations that they find factual or convincing, which is not the case for any non-theist I have ever known. They simply find the concepts of gods they have encountered to be unconvincing or unevidenced, or they don't see any reason to call any of the phenomena or aspects of nature that they observe (e.g., the universe, Earth, the wind, etc.) a god.

I'm not sure whether you intended your usage of the word "deny" as a generalized assumption about how non-theists think of god concepts, so if you didn't, what I said above doesn't apply.

 

[MikeF]

That's why it's a bias. It's invisible to those who succumb to it. They think it's the truth just because it's their truth. Another word for it is 'belief': that self-determination that my truth is the truth. The scientism crowd are true believers in science as the only legitimate avenue of truth. It's why so many of them are also atheists. They can't tolerate any other possible avenues of truth. And it's the same with the true believers of God. They likewise cannot tolerate the idea that science might be an alternative avenue of truth. And neither group can see how similar they actually are because their respective bias is blinding them to any possible alternatives.

It's why you often see me disparaging 'belief' on these threads as opposed to faith. Belief closes our eyes to doubt, and therefor to alternative methods and possibilities.

I'm not understanding why an insistence that there are other avenues of seeking unbiased truth isn't a biased position, an expression of bias. If bias is inherent in human beings seeking unbiased, objective truth, then it is imperative that any avenue pursued 1) acknowledges the bias that is inherent in all human beings, and 2) takes active measures to both identify and mitigate bias to the fullest possible extent.

This imperative is certainly embraced in a scientific approach to unbiased truth. Can you demonstrate it's employment in any of the other avenues you claim provide access to unbiased, objective truth?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Just because someone can acknowledge the limitations of science doesn't make them anti-science. But YOU would have to be able to acknowledge the limitations of science to understand that.

IMO, the disagreements generally aren't about the limitations of science, but about what sort of conclusions we can make about stuff beyond the limits of science.

Irrational people take a sort of license from their ideas being unfalsifiable: "you can't prove I'm not right!" Rational people recognize that the unfalsifiable is not even wrong and call out those making unsubstantiated claims... and get criticized as engaging in "scientism" for it.

 

[PureX]

IMO, the disagreements generally aren't about the limitations of science, but about what sort of conclusions we can make about stuff beyond the limits of science.

Irrational people take a sort of license from their ideas being unfalsifiable: "you can't prove I'm not right!" Rational people recognize that the unfalsifiable is not even wrong and call out those making unsubstantiated claims... and get criticized as engaging in "scientism" for it.

So, they just aren't thinking "scientifically", and you find this objectionable. Wrong, even. Because you can tolerate no OTHER methodology being presented as valid.

Isn't this correct?

And yet you can't imagine how the term "scientism" could be applied to this sort of thinking.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

So, they just aren't thinking "scientifically", and you find this objectionable. Wrong, even. Because you can tolerate no OTHER methodology being presented as valid.

Isn't this correct?

And you you can't imagine how the term "scientism" could be applied to this sort of thinking.

I guess it's time for the quote again:

"What do you think science is? There's nothing magical about science. It is simply a systematic way for carefully and thoroughly observing nature and using consistent logic to evaluate results. Which part of that exactly do you disagree with? Do you disagree with being thorough? Using careful observation? Being systematic? Or using consistent logic?" - Dr. Steven Novella


Science is just inference from observation with rigor. If someone is making pronouncements about objective, empirical reality outside a scientific framework (i.e. either without observation or without rigor, or without both), then I think it's worth asking how we would distinguish their conclusion from one they pulled out of their butt.

 

[PureX]

I guess it's time for the quote again:

"What do you think science is? There's nothing magical about science. It is simply a systematic way for carefully and thoroughly observing nature and using consistent logic to evaluate results. Which part of that exactly do you disagree with? Do you disagree with being thorough? Using careful observation? Being systematic? Or using consistent logic?" - Dr. Steven Novella

Except that isn't what science is.

Science is just inference from observation with rigor.

No, it's not. It's a specific process employed to reveal the functional relationships between observed physical phenomena. You have turned it into such a gigagntic totem that you now think it's the sum of human cognition. That's absurd, and it's called "scientism".

If someone is making pronouncements about objective, empirical reality outside a scientific framework (i.e. either without observation or without rigor, or without both), then I think it's worth asking how we would distinguish their conclusion from one they pulled out of their butt.

Because of course, you know that no one could possibly pull the truth "out of their butt". As it can only be arrived at within a "scientific framework".

Yup, that's scientism.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Except that isn't what science is.

What do you think science is?

No, it's not. It's a specific process employed to reveal the functional relationships between observed physical phenomena.

Observed phenomena, generally. The "physical" part is inferred by those "functional relationships."

You have turned it into such a gigagntic totem that you now think it's the sum of human cognition. That's absurd, and it's called "scientism".

You seem to be making bad conclusions. That isn't what I'm doing.

Because of course, you know that no one could possibly pull the truth "out of their butt". As it can only be arrived at within a "scientific framework".

Yup, that's scientism.

On the contrary. People can certainly pull the truth out of their butt. Lucky guesses are a thing; a stopped clock is right twice a day.

... but the fact that a wild guess conclusion might be coincidentally true doesn't make wild guesses a reliable pathway to the truth. It also doesn't give any way to justify the conclusion.

 

[PureX]

What do you think science is?

Observed phenomena, generally.

No, physical phenomena specifically. Science explores physical functionality. Nothing more. When we start drawing conclusions from those observations about the truth of what is we are entering the realm of philosophy. A realm that most scientists know to stay out of. Because they aren't good at it.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No, physical phenomena specifically.

Physicality is descriptive, not prescriptive. Whether something is physical is determined by whether it interacts with other physical things.

Science explores physical functionality. Nothing more. When we start drawing conclusions from those observations about the truth of what is we are entering the realm of philosophy. A realm that most scientists know to stay out of. Because they aren't good at it.

You're desperate to carve out a niche for things that can be real but are exempt from having to be justified rationally, aren't you?