Who here believes in "Scientism"?

[MikeF]

Yes. And also, badgers feel pain. I just felt like I needed to get those two things off my chest. Thanks for facilitating that.

Perhaps you see it as unnecessary. But the question seems to be whether scientism is a thing, and if so how is it defined. You seem to agree its a thing, yet to some degree, do not place the bar to qualify as scientism in the same place as others based on your comments regarding science.

I am not afraid of being pegged as a scientism sympathizer.

But I always thought proponents of scientism thought that any valid knowledge MUST come from science. I disagree with that nonsense.

But if acknowledging that science is the most reliable discipline epistemologically counts as scientism, then I suppose I need to be welcomed into the fold. I guess I never opposed scientism after all. I was one all along. But doesn't it mean something that I think you can get genuine knowledge outside of science? Doesn't that put me at odds with scientism in some way?

I think it comes down to how we *know* whether or not something is valid and then, if asserted, why something can be considered valid yet science is somehow blind to it.

 

[Augustus]

@Augustus Your argument was perfectly fine and valid. But it focused on science's weaknesses. No need to go that route. Science simply isn't universal. We can say that and end the debate there.

For me, science’s limitations (which are significantly human limitations) are fundamental to the question of scientism.

As I mentioned earlier I think the most useful definition is “excessive belief in the accuracy and scope of scientific methods when applied to all areas of enquiry".

It’s basically about getting closer to the sweet spot where we maximise the benefits of science, while mitigating the harms that come from epistemic arrogance and dismissing non-scientific insights.

Science is the best tool we have to understand the world we live in, but it is also a major source of false information which is often harmful ( especially outside of the natural sciences).

I think we should acknowledge both things are true.

I guess my view is pretty similar to yours overall other than perhaps I’m a bit more pessimistic regarding our collective human capacity for improvement.

 

[PureX]

As I read these posts I can see that the obsession with science that then becomes 'scientism' is really an obsession with the idea of "validity" (and the need for the illusion of control).

In the same way that some people need an inerrant, God-breathed Bible to both explain and validate their understanding of this great existential mystery we're all living in, so too, the scientism crowd seems to need to believe that science can and does provide this same service to them (but without the humbling God-woo). They want and need a way of showing themselves that they can be free from error and KNOW (that is feel certain) that they're free from error.

And I can empathize with this desire. Certainty would be a wonderful gift, we tend to suppose, when viewed from the perspective of beings that can never be certain of anything. But it's just not in the cards for we humans ... at least not without our forfeiting our honesty and our sanity. We have no inerrant validating authority providing us with such certainty: validating our conceptions of what is real or true ... as much as we might want to believe we do.

God did not write the Bible and science cannot reveal the truth behind this great mystery of being. Both can be useful in their own ways, of course, but neither are the arbiters of wisdom or truth.

 

[vulcanlogician]

Perhaps you see it as unnecessary. But the question seems to be whether scientism is a thing, and if so how is it defined. You seem to agree its a thing, yet to some degree, do not place the bar to qualify as scientism in the same place as others based on your comments regarding science.

Scientism isn't a "thing" in my life. It only comes up in specific, highly specialized conversations in my life. And when it does, I call it out for its falsehood. Because it is technically false.

Otherwise I'm fine just saying how true it is. Because it is true for the most part. It's true for the most part. Just not when you get technical. Then it's false.

 

[MikeF]

As I mentioned earlier I think the most useful definition is “excessive belief in the accuracy and scope of scientific methods when applied to all areas of enquiry".

Would you say that this is a problem exhibited within the scientific community, or do you see it as a problem among the lay community? Perhaps both?

Science is the best tool we have to understand the world we live in, but it is also a major source of false information which is often harmful ( especially outside of the natural sciences).

This I find interesting. Of all that contribute to false information within society, it is your view that science is a major contributor. Can you give me some examples that exemplify this problem so I have a better understanding of what you are referring to?

 

[MikeF]

As I read these posts I can see that the obsession with science that then becomes 'scientism' is really an obsession with the idea of "validity" (and the need for the illusion of control).

The control isn't an illusion though, is it. We develop treatments for cancer that help some survive that would not have otherwise. This is true for many other diseases and injuries. We create climate controlled interior spaces, free from wind, rain, sleet, and snow, with temperature set to our preference. We control where and in what quantity useful crops grow, or control the number of livestock. We control the speed and direction of craft that can fly through the sky and carry people across long distances in a relatively short amount of time. We control the flow and direction of rivers. The list of what we control is quite extensive.

I would also ask why seeking valid instead of false answers to the questions we ask regarding the world and ourselves is somehow an obsession or necessarily obsessive? What does it mean to not be obsessed with validating answers or conclusions? Does one check their work only occasionally? Does it mean we should not be worried at all about getting our answers correct?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Perhaps you see it as unnecessary. But the question seems to be whether scientism is a thing, and if so how is it defined. You seem to agree its a thing, yet to some degree, do not place the bar to qualify as scientism in the same place as others based on your comments regarding science.



I think it comes down to how we *know* whether or not something is valid and then, if asserted, why something can be considered valid yet science is somehow blind to it.

I think scientism is a thing. I just don't think that it applies to every position on science and those that keep crying "scientism" are using it as a pejorative to knock science that doesn't agree with their favorite beliefs.

 

[MikeF]

I think scientism is a thing. I just don't think that it applies to every position on science and those that keep crying "scientism" are using it as a pejorative to knock science that doesn't agree with their favorite beliefs.

Do you see this as a problem within the scientific community broadly? What constitutes scientism within the scientific community?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Do you see this as a problem within the scientific community broadly? What constitutes scientism within the scientific community?

I don't know that it has ever come up in classes, seminars, meetings or around the watercooler. Here is where I first learned about it and that seems where mention is most prevalent.

 

[ppp]

Is it "scientism" if I believe that science has
many good answers, but not all? And that
religion has no useful answers...& can't
even get the questions right?

Nope.

 

[Augustus]

My counter-criticism to your last point would be that there are those in other fields who try to pass off opinion as objective truths.

People may do that in many fields, I’m not sure it defines any of them though.

Nothing I have said relates to the promotion of people trying to pass off opinions as objective truths anyway.

My points relate to the idea there are areas where we cannot have objective truths either due to the intrinsic nature of that issue (how do we demarcate science from not science or what ethical systems are best for example), or the current limits of our ability to study these issues scientifically with any degree of accuracy (many of the things that fall within the purview of social sciences).

Michael Oakeshott classifies different types of knowledge and the problems of limiting things to scientific knowledge:

Technical knowledge can be learned from a book; it can be
learned in a correspondence course. Moreover, much of it can be
learned by heart, repeated by rote, and applied mechanically: the
logic of the syllogism is a technique of this kind. Technical knowledge,
in short, can be both taught and learned in the simplest meanings
of these words.

On the other hand, practical knowledge can
neither be taught nor learned, but only imparted and acquired. It
exists only in practice, and the only way to acquire it is by apprenticeship
to a master - not because the master can teach it (he cannot),
but because it can be acquired only by continuous contact with one
who is perpetually practising it. In the arts and in natural science what
normally happens is that the pupil, in being taught and in learning
the technique from his master, discovers himself to have acquired
also another sort of knowledge than merely technical knowledge,
without it ever having been precisely imparted and often without
being able to say precisely what it is. Thus a pianist acquires artistry
as well as technique, a chess-player style and insight into the
game as well as a knowledge of the moves, and a scientist acquires
(among other things) the sort of judgement which tells him when
his technique is leading him astray and the connoisseurship which
enables him to distinguish the profitable from the unprofitable
directions to explore.

Now, as I understand it, Rationalism is the assertion that what I
have called practical knowledge is not knowledge at all, the assertion
that, properly speaking, there is no knowledge which is not technical
knowledge. The Rationalist holds that the only element of
knowledge involved in any human activity is technical knowledge,
and that what I have called practical knowledge is really only a sort
of nescience which would be negligible if it were not positively mischievous.
The sovereignty of 'reason', for the Rationalist, means the
sovereignty of technique.

A ace salesperson may know many things about human psychology, and I’d bet on them to outperform the world’s leading expert on the science of persuasion in persuading someone to buy a car. The scientist can better justify why their knowledge is “true”, but I wouldn’t say the salesperson simply has subjective opinion on human psychology, they have identified something real.

I think you are trying to put science into a box that is not applicable. First, to my mind, science or a scientific approach at its core is about mitigating human fallibility in our pursuit of knowledge and understanding. Second, it is about demarcating between what can be considered in TRUE/FALSE terms and what of the human experience is purely subjective preference and the need to manage conflicting preferences

I wouldn’t say the only way to think of knowledge is a) true false as established by science or b) opinion and subjective preference.

Prior to the Soviet Union collapsing some people predicted it would happen, for reasons that later turned out to be correct. They were not doing science, but they did offer useful and accurate insights into the world.

Many others said incorrect things about the USSR, and at the time no one could prove who was right or wrong. But the people who were proved right with hindsight were correct in the observations at the time they made them. Sometimes this may be the best we can do.

The World is too messy to just have true/false and opinion/preference as categories of information.

Would you say that this is a problem exhibited within the scientific community, or do you see it as a problem among the lay community? Perhaps both?

It can affect individuals from either.

This I find interesting. Of all that contribute to false information within society, it is your view that science is a major contributor. Can you give me some examples that exemplify this problem so I have a better understanding of what you are referring to?

A major contributor in a generic sense rather than quantified, one of many and far from the worst. But certainly something that contributes significantly to the problem (of course it can also help mitigate the problem too).

Look at a field like psychology where by some estimates more than half of published research is false (whatever the percentage is, it’s significantl).

The more research I read, the more misinformed I would become, regardless of any actual knowledge I acquired.

In physics, a leading expert will have vastly better knowledge than a non-scientific but astute observer of the natural world. I’m not sure we can guarantee that someone deemed a leading expert in psychology would necessarily have a more useful understanding of human behaviour than a highly astute observer of human society.

Wisdom requires the acquisition of useful knowledge and the avoidance of anti-knowledge (incorrect information retained as true that can cause problems).

Medical science, eugenics, scientific racialism, flawed economic theories, mental health treatments, dietary advice, etc are some areas where this has caused harm in the past.

(And to be clear, the point is science is a major source of false information, not science is a major source of false information therefore Jesus/tarot cards/moon crystals/etc. )

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

As I read these posts I can see that the obsession with science that then becomes 'scientism' is really an obsession with the idea of "validity" (and the need for the illusion of control).

But it's you with the obsession. Shall we call it religionism, or the belief that there are ways to discern truth apart from empiricism? You keep claiming or implying that there are other ways of deciding these matters, but there aren't, which is why you have yet to provide a single idea that deserves to be called knowledge that was learned through experience. NOT ONE,

God did not write the Bible and science cannot reveal the truth behind this great mystery of being. Both can be useful in their own ways, of course, but neither are the arbiters of wisdom or truth.

Empiricism is the ONLY arbiter of truth, knowledge, and wisdom. Nothing known to be true was learned any other way. If that weren't correct, you could falsify it with a counterexample - a single demonstrably correct idea not acquired through the application of reason and memory to the evidence of the senses. But you can't. All you can do is keep making this empty claim and bemoan others rejecting the fanciful claims of those who claim that they have knowledge acquired by some other process - some special way of knowing apart from empiricism. They don't. They can't.

 

[Quintessence]

Empiricism is the ONLY arbiter of truth, knowledge, and wisdom. Nothing known to be true was learned any other way. If that weren't correct, you could falsify it with a counterexample - a single demonstrably correct idea not acquired through the application of reason and memory to the evidence of the senses.

Here you go:

Mathematics - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Also this:

Philosophy - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

And this:

Logic - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

And this:

Aesthetics - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

And this:

Psychology - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

But perhaps especially this:

Epistemology - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

All of which you'll deny anyway so I'm not going to go into any details with you about any of this. You'll either figure it out on your own or you won't. Have fun.

 

[exchemist]

But it's you with the obsession. Shall we call it religionism, or the belief that there are ways to discern truth apart from empiricism? You keep claiming or implying that there are other ways of deciding these matters, but there aren't, which is why you have yet to provide a single idea that deserves to be called knowledge that was learned through experience. NOT ONE,

Empiricism is the ONLY arbiter of truth, knowledge, and wisdom. Nothing known to be true was learned any other way. If that weren't correct, you could falsify it with a counterexample - a single demonstrably correct idea not acquired through the application of reason and memory to the evidence of the senses. But you can't. All you can do is keep making this empty claim and bemoan others rejecting the fanciful claims of those who claim that they have knowledge acquired by some other process - some special way of knowing apart from empiricism. They don't. They can't.

This smells like scientism to me.

Do you consider a professor of history to have knowledge? If so, how do you think he or she came by it?

 

[Quintessence]

This smells like scientism to me.

Do you consider a professor of history to have knowledge? If so, how do you think he or she came by it?

Obviously, they have time machines and went back in time to directly observe (aka, empiricism - knowledge through sensory observation) the events in question. Duh!

 

[exchemist]

Obviously, they have time machines and went back in time to directly observe (aka, empiricism - knowledge through sensory observation) the events in question. Duh!

Cue the True Scotsman, perhaps?

I'm reminded of the Oxford rhyme:

Here am I, my name is Jowett.
There is no knowledge but I know it.
I am the Master of this college*,
And what I know not.....isn't knowledge.

*Benjamin Jowett, Master of Balliol.

 

[PureX]

Yes, the grandiosity does seem to be increasing.

 

[MikeF]

This smells like scientism to me.

Do you consider a professor of history to have knowledge? If so, how do you think he or she came by it?

They gather information through empiricism, do they not? Through observation or the evaluation of the subjective reports of others, yes? Then, if they are good at their job, don't they try to identify and control for bias, both in themselves and in evaluating the subjective reports of others? That would seem to represent a scientific approach to me.

 

[exchemist]

They gather information through empiricism, do they not? Through observation or the evaluation of the subjective reports of others, yes? Then, if they are good at their job, don't they try to identify and control for bias, both in themselves and in evaluating the subjective reports of others? That would seem to represent a scientific approach to me.

I don’t think so. Many historians see history through various “lenses”, depending on types of available source and their likely biases but without necessarily trying to strive for a single, supposedly “objective” view. My understanding ( I am not a historian, admittedly, though my father was and my son is) is that many would say it is impossible to arrive at one objective view at all.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Do you consider a professor of history to have knowledge? If so, how do you think he or she came by it?

Empirically. Can you think of an example of something that can be called historical knowledge that wasn't ascertained empirically, that is, by the application of reason and memory to experience? And no, that doesn't mean going back in a time machine to witness historical events firsthand. We use the evidence present today. Why do we believe FDR or Alexander lived and did the things we have learned they are said to have done? Why do we say that King David was a historical figure but not Noah or Adam? Evidence or the lack thereof.

I'm not going to go into any details with you about any of this.

Nor need you. I'm already familiar with all of those. But thanks anyway.

Yes, the grandiosity does seem to be increasing.

I notice that you didn't even try to defend your position. You never do. You imply that you have knowledge not ascertained empirically, but never give an example of what that might be. What are the possible explanations for that and which of them is most likely? That's a rhetorical question.