Who here believes in "Scientism"?

[Nakosis]

I actually think we do feel love but is is not just a that dopamine pattern by a far more complex interaction of our conscious and unconscious. This complexity of integrating cortical, subcortical and responses from the body are not adequately accessible to our science method of study. They are real experiences and not mirages. Even our new functional mri are not capable of imaging.

Ok, just wanted to make sure you understand I'm not saying as a mirage it is not a "real" experience. Only that our experience of the physical process is different than what it appears to be.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Okay, but isn’t “scientism” the ideological conviction that if there is nothing to be said from a scientific perspective, there is nothing to be said (because there is nothing to talk about) at all?

You can talk about things. I don't know of any rule against speculating to possibilities among scientists. But concluding and claiming without evidence isn't science and won't find acceptance within science.

See the post directly above yours, for evidence of this kind of thinking.

A tendency isn't absolute.

Which produces results that are most correct and testable? Believing the Earth flat, or the evidence that it is an oblate spheroid?

 

[YoursTrue]

You can talk about things. I don't know of any rule against speculating to possibilities among scientists. But concluding and claiming without evidence isn't science and won't find acceptance within science.

A tendency isn't absolute.

Which produces results that are most correct and testable? Believing the Earth flat, or the evidence that it is an oblate spheroid?

Speaking of absolutes as well as tendencies, when I was a little girl my mother would take me to the beach and I would sit on the sand with my shovel and pail. I would dig and dig, hoping to get from one side of the earth to the other. I never got very far though, and little sand crabs would crawl out of the hole anyway. They were distracting but kind of cute. (yuk) I didn't know if China was on the other side if I kept digging deep enough but I tried. So that proves to me that if I kept digging I could have gotten at least to China. Or maybe not. I'll have to look on a map.

 

[RestlessSoul]

You can talk about things. I don't know of any rule against speculating to possibilities among scientists. But concluding and claiming without evidence isn't science and won't find acceptance within science.

A tendency isn't absolute.

Which produces results that are most correct and testable? Believing the Earth flat, or the evidence that it is an oblate spheroid?

I think you’ve missed the point. Which is that there are aspects of human experience which are best apprehended not through science, nor even through reason; that there is a language of the heart by which the soul of man may achieve communion with his fellows, and with his creator. And that finding acceptance within science for spiritual experiences is as relevant and meaningful as finding acceptance within architecture for a drawing by Escher.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Speaking of absolutes as well as tendencies, when I was a little girl my mother would take me to the beach and I would sit on the sand with my shovel and pail. I would dig and dig, hoping to get from one side of the earth to the other. I never got very far though, and little sand crabs would crawl out of the hole anyway. They were distracting but kind of cute. (yuk) I didn't know if China was on the other side if I kept digging deep enough but I tried. So that proves to me that if I kept digging I could have gotten at least to China. Or maybe not. I'll have to look on a map.

Here; try this:

Interactive Map Shows Where You'd Pop Up If You Dug Straight Through The Earth

Interactive Map Shows Where You'd Pop Up If You Dug Straight Through The Earth

www.iflscience.com

 

[TLK Valentine]

I think you’ve missed the point. Which is that there are aspects of human experience which are best apprehended not through science, nor even through reason; that there is a language of the heart by which the soul of man may achieve communion with his fellows, and with his creator. And that finding acceptance within science for spiritual experiences is as relevant and meaningful as finding acceptance within architecture for a drawing by Escher.

You're claiming that science can't explain the warm fuzzy feelings you're describing.
It can. They're called endorphins.

 

[PureX]

You're claiming that science can't explain the warm fuzzy feelings you're describing.
It can. They're called endorphins.

Understanding the mechanics does not explain the phenomenon. It only explains the mechanics of the phenomenon. Materialists cannot see this. For them, there is nothing but the mechanics.

 

[MikeF]

Understanding the mechanics does not explain the phenomenon. It only explains the mechanics of the phenomenon. Materialists cannot see this. For them, there is nothing but the mechanics.

Well, at least now it is established that you acknowledge there is an objective material mechanism involved, that there is even material.

 

[PureX]

Well, at least now it is established that you acknowledge there is an objective material mechanism involved, that there is even material.

There is an apparent material mechanism involved. And our recognizing it enables us to manipulate it to our own advantage. No one has ever claimed otherwise. But this is not a pathway to truth. It's only a pathway to increased functionality. Science is very good at increasing our manipulative functionality. No one disputes this. But increasing or ability to manipulate physical functionality is not the equivalent of increasing our grasp of truth. Nor does it increase our wisdom.

Scientists understand this. The scientism crowd does not. The scientism crowd thinks that reality and truth are defined and revealed by the physical mechanisms within it, and that therefor science is the only valid pathway to truth.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I think you’ve missed the point. Which is that there are aspects of human experience which are best apprehended not through science, nor even through reason; that there is a language of the heart by which the soul of man may achieve communion with his fellows, and with his creator. And that finding acceptance within science for spiritual experiences is as relevant and meaningful as finding acceptance within architecture for a drawing by Escher.

I'm not sure that I have missed it or that mine has been discovered.

But as a Christian, a poet and a scientist, I feel I may be more uniquely positioned to better understand how it all fits together than some. Or maybe, the part of me that isn't so analytical is blinded by feelings and emotions that keep it afloat. Who knows?

What I do know is that there seems to be a denial of the value of science for reasons of feeling rather than facts. And has been both pointed out and demonstrated, some of that is expressed without the full awareness of those expressing it. It is the spirit of humanity that drives it to find answers and whether some like those answers or not, often they just are what they are. I see nothing wrong with taking that enthusiasm and applying a methodology to learn about the world around us to come to discoveries that we can be very confident about.

Recall that I live in a country where a large portion of the population thinks that some old dude with orange hair is a superhero that will free child sex slaves from a giant secret cabal of doom that uses those children for secret Satanic rights, for pleasure and as a source of longevity.

They don't seem to be interpreting that language of the heart so well.

 

[MikeF]

Nah, your post was clear. And I think your position is good. You have a leg to stand on, at the very least. You may even have the stronger argument than mine. The reason I'm challenging your position is because it's so strong in the first place. I much prefer debating a geologist to a flat earther, y'know? I'm not attacking your position because it's weak. I'm attacking it because it's strong.

I think there's something that art and literature can convey that IS objectively true, yet is not an empirically verifiable fact.

In my view, we are presented with two overarching issues, 1) What is reality, what does it consist of, and how does it work, and 2) How are we human beings to exist in reality. We human beings have no choice regarding the first issue, in terms of reality's fundamental characteristics and the rules which govern. As to the second issue, I would say there has been no real choice available to life on earth until the emergence of abstract thought. On earth at least, with Homo sapiens representing the last Homo standing, this capacity for choice in how to live and exist within reality rests solely with Homo sapiens.

Both issues are equally important to me. It is my personal preference that the choices made regarding the second issue be informed by, and evaluated against, what is learned and established regarding the first issue.

For me to better understand your position, are you saying that art and literature can address the first issue in ways that cannot be addressed by, or are unavailable to, science or a scientific approach?

For instance, what it's like to be a slave. Empirical observation can give you all the brute facts about slavery. But how it is, to have one's freedom taken, the inner turmoil and conflict, the general experience of it all (which IS an objective reality about slavery, just as true as the brute facts) can get us from ignorance to understanding the same way empirical observation can. Experiences may hint at subjectivity. But they are objective things that happen in objective reality. I think we should focus on literature, because I think I have a good case to make there. Art is a messier discussion. And it's more difficult for me to demonstrate my point there, but, ultimately, I think the same thing about art too.

This to me is an entirely different matter. There is no conflict between science and the realities of slavery and you seem to acknowledge that. What you seem to be saying is that literature can simulate some of the experience of slavery in someone who has not actually experienced it personally, or perhaps it would be better to say that it can establish an empathetic connection to the experience of slaves.

Would it be your argument, then, that those who advocate a scientific approach to discovering and establishing objective information about reality categorically deny the value of literature as you have described simply by virtue of their advocacy of science? Can a scientist or science advocate not be moved by a good work of fiction or a piece of art?

I personally agree that art and literature has the capacity that you describe. I would also say that it also has the capacity to resonate with our established biases as well as reinforce or inflame our prejudices. Would you agree?

 

[RestlessSoul]

You're claiming that science can't explain the warm fuzzy feelings you're describing.
It can. They're called endorphins.

Or maybe alcohol, or opiates. But no, I'm not talking about warm fuzzy feelings, and I'm not claiming anything. I'm pointing out that there may be more things in heaven and earth, than are dreamed of in your philosophy.

 

[MikeF]

There is an apparent material mechanism involved. And our recognizing it enables us to manipulate it to our own advantage. No one has ever claimed otherwise. But this is not a pathway to truth. It's only a pathway to increased functionality. Science is very good at increasing our manipulative functionality. No one disputes this. But increasing or ability to manipulate physical functionality is not the equivalent of increasing our grasp of truth. Nor does it increase our wisdom.

What constitutes wisdom requires some set of standards and goals by which to evaluate, with said standards and goals being wholly subjective. We have to choose those standards and goals before we can decide what does or does not constitute wisdom, or increase it.

What is truth other than a statement that is true? What are truths but a set of true statements? If the existence of material is true, and it is true that there is a "mechanism" or rules that govern the interaction of material, how is continuing to understand material and its "mechanisms" not considered a path to truth, or at the very least, adding to the set of what can be said to be true?

The real question then is how do we establish that which is actually true from that which is not true, imaginary, or impossible.

Scientists understand this. The scientism crowd does not. The scientism crowd thinks that reality and truth are defined and revealed by the physical mechanisms within it, and that therefor science is the only valid pathway to truth.

I would say that those who you label scientismists think that reality and truth are defined by what is real and true (as well as to delineate and differentiate regarding the ways something can be said to be true). These so-called scientismist simply say that it is human beings who are pursuing pathways to discover what is real and true, human beings that are inherently imperfect and fallible creatures, and therefore, active steps are required to mitigate that imperfection and fallibility to enable the pathway to discovering what is real and true to be successful.

I would hazard that scientismists would be happy to support any pathway that meaningfully worked to mitigate human imperfection and fallibility in its approach to discovering what is real and true as long as it can be demonstrated to do so.

 

[MikeF]

Okay, but isn’t “scientism” the ideological conviction that if there is nothing to be said from a scientific perspective, there is nothing to be said (because there is nothing to talk about) at all?

See the post directly above yours, for evidence of this kind of thinking.

This is the comment you cite as reflective of scientism:

"Things that don't square with science​

tend not to be true."​

​

Is it your position that a proposed thing that directly contradicts what is well established scientifically can be said to be true?

How do you interpret the phrase "squares with science"?

 

[RestlessSoul]

This is the comment you cite as reflective of scientism:

"Things that don't square with science​

tend not to be true."​

​

Is it your position that a proposed thing that directly contradicts what is well established scientifically can be said to be true?

How do you interpret the phrase "squares with science"?

I’m not talking about contradictions. There are many cases where both philosophy and the arts do not contradict science; sometimes they may even complement scientific enquiry.

An example, to illustrate my point. The Britannica chapter on ancient Greek atomic theory contains the observation that Democritus and Epicurus’ intuitions are ‘significant historically and philosophically, but [have] no scientific value.’ No scientific value clearly does not imply no value of any kind.

The salient point in the context of this thread, is that there are fields of human enquiry outside the natural sciences, which can add value meaning and purpose to our perception of the world, and our ability to function within it. And further, that it’s taken modern physicists two and a half millennia, to catch up with something Ancient Greek, and elsewhere Indian, philosophers were able to intuit with no access to laboratories or complex equipment.

Atom - Development, Theory, Structure | Britannica

Atom - Development, Theory, Structure: The concept of the atom that Western scientists accepted in broad outline from the 1600s until about 1900 originated with Greek philosophers in the 5th century bce. Their speculation about a hard, indivisible fundamental particle of nature was replaced...

www.britannica.com

 

[Bear Wild]

I'm not sure that I have missed it or that mine has been discovered.

But as a Christian, a poet and a scientist, I feel I may be more uniquely positioned to better understand how it all fits together than some. Or maybe, the part of me that isn't so analytical is blinded by feelings and emotions that keep it afloat. Who knows?

What I do know is that there seems to be a denial of the value of science for reasons of feeling rather than facts. And has been both pointed out and demonstrated, some of that is expressed without the full awareness of those expressing it. It is the spirit of humanity that drives it to find answers and whether some like those answers or not, often they just are what they are. I see nothing wrong with taking that enthusiasm and applying a methodology to learn about the world around us to come to discoveries that we can be very confident about.

Recall that I live in a country where a large portion of the population thinks that some old dude with orange hair is a superhero that will free child sex slaves from a giant secret cabal of doom that uses those children for secret Satanic rights, for pleasure and as a source of longevity.

They don't seem to be interpreting that language of the heart so well.

As a pagan I see science or any study of nature as a virtue and completely consistent with any indigenous society who connects with the land around them. But that is the study of nature, scientism is not science but a world view that science and the scientific method is the only way to determine truth and reality. This is where the problem lies for me. There are aspects of our world which are very poorly explained by our current science or even possibly beyond human ability to understand through science. This issue played out between Freud and Jung where Freud disagreed with Jung's mythical perspective which included the collective unconscious. Yet for me Jung's perspective explains the phenomenon of what happening with Trump in the upcoming elections better than Freud. It also allows for a better understanding of the people following than a rational scientific explanation can. The collective wisdom of our ancestors and indigenous wisdom isn't against science but is often portrayed in a negative light from a scientism perspective.

 

[PureX]

What constitutes wisdom requires some set of standards and goals by which to evaluate, with said standards and goals being wholly subjective.

I would say that wisdom IS the establishment of those goals and standards and that they are not wholly subjective at all. They are based on both our subjective desires an our objective experience. With a healthy dose of our philosophical and ethical imperatives thrown in. Our wisdom determines our relationship to ourselves, to each other, and to the world around us. Science can inform this to a limited degree, as can many other disciplines. But clearly science is not the sole pathway to this result. Despite the scientism crowd's assertions to the contrary.

We have to choose those standards and goals before we can decide what does or does not constitute wisdom, or increase it.

Again, those standards, goals, and ethical imperatives ARE what determines our wisdom.

What is truth other than a statement that is true?

A statement that is only relatively true, and only so far as we can ascertain.

What are truths but a set of true statements?

Statements of truth are not truth. They are only statements based on our limited and relative grasp of truth. It's very important that we remember this or we will fall victim to our own blind arrogance.

If the existence of material is true, and it is true that there is a "mechanism" or rules that govern the interaction of material, how is continuing to understand material and its "mechanisms" not considered a path to truth, or at the very least, adding to the set of what can be said to be true?

Again, we do not know that these statements are true. We can only know that they appear to be true from our very limited and relative perspective and understanding of what is.

The real question then is how do we establish that which is actually true from that which is not true, imaginary, or impossible.

We cannot. All truth is imaginary, to us.

I would say that those who you label scientismists think that reality and truth are defined by what is real and true (as well as to delineate and differentiate regarding the ways something can be said to be true).

Yes, the whole appeal of scientism, as it is with some religions, is the self-delusion that one can know the truth. We humans fear what we don't know because we know we cannot control it. So we like to imagine that we are always 'in the know' and therefore are always 'in control'. Bot scientism and religion play on this fear by crearting the delusion that we can feel certain that we know the truth of things. In many ways scientism is just a godless religion.

These so-called scientismist simply say that it is human beings who are pursuing pathways to discover what is real and true, human beings that are inherently imperfect and fallible creatures, and therefore, active steps are required to mitigate that imperfection and fallibility to enable the pathway to discovering what is real and true to be successful.

This is also true of philosophy, art, and religion. But the scientism crowd thinks only science can provide a valid pathway to truth. When in fact there is no valid or invalid pathway to truth. The truth is not available to us. Only ideas of truth are available to us.

I would hazard that scientismists would be happy to support any pathway that meaningfully worked to mitigate human imperfection and fallibility in its approach to discovering what is real and true as long as it can be demonstrated to do so.

Actually, it's quite clear that they are not. As they consider all other possible pathway to be inferior.

 

[MikeF]

I’m not talking about contradictions. There are many cases where both philosophy and the arts do not contradict science; sometimes they may even complement scientific enquiry.

Science *is* philosophy. It is simply philosophy that incorporates human error mitigation. I would say that much of what is called philosophy today consists of: 1) those who seek a refuge from error mitigation, 2) those who simply wish to speculate about things beyond our current ability to meaningfully evaluate or test, which is perfectly fine as long as it regarded as speculation, 3) those who wish to advocate for a particular position within the arena of subjective preference (may or may not incorporate an objective understanding of reality and the species Homo sapiens), and 4) those who wish to focus specifically on purely analytic abstract systems such language, mathematics, and logic.

An example, to illustrate my point. The Britannica chapter on ancient Greek atomic theory contains the observation that Democritus and Epicurus’ intuitions are ‘significant historically and philosophically, but [have] no scientific value.’

The salient point in the context of this thread, is that there are fields of human enquiry outside the natural sciences, which can add value meaning and purpose to our perception of the world, and our ability to function within it.

What reality *is* and how Homo sapiens add value, meaning, purpose, and ability to function in reality are two separate issues. Hopefully the latter is informed by the former.

And further, that it’s taken modern physicists two and a half millennia, to catch up with something Ancient Greek, and elsewhere Indian, philosophers were able to intuit with no access to laboratories or complex equipment.

What a way to spin it!

How about it took two and a half millennia (in the West) to overcome Christian dogma and repression.

 

[MikeF]

This is where the problem lies for me. There are aspects of our world which are very poorly explained by our current science or even possibly beyond human ability to understand through science.

Why are you confident that what is beyond human ability to understand through science is readily understandable through some other means? How do you differentiate between something that realistically describes "that which is beyond human understanding" and that which is simply made up?

This issue played out between Freud and Jung where Freud disagreed with Jung's mythical perspective which included the collective unconscious.

Has our current understanding of human behavior not moved beyond Freud and Jung?

 

[PureX]

Science *is* philosophy.

This is a very common misconception among the scientism crowd. They have elevated science in their minds to such an extent that for them it has become the pinnacle of all human understanding and truth. So that science is mathematics, and science is philosophy, and science is the art of applied reason and logic, and science is ... well ... just EVERYTHING good!

But it's really not. All it really is, and all it ever was, is a means of ascertaining the mechanisms of physical functionality. That's it. It can employ mathematics, and reason, and logic, and even creativity. But in the end all it does is help us determine the mechanisms of physical function.