Who here believes in "Scientism"?

[MikeF]

They are NOT arguing from a scientific perspective. They are arguing from a scientism (philosophical materialist) perspective. The problem is that you cannot see the difference. As is also true of many others, here. Because from your perspective, they are the same thing. Though they are not the same thing at all.

By "they" do you mean "New Atheists", whoever they are, or are you referring to those on RF who have been called "scientismists"? Both, maybe?

 

[PureX]

By "they" do you mean "New Atheists", whoever they are, or are you referring to those on RF who have been called "scientismists"? Both, maybe?

There is nothing "new" about athism but the collective willful dishonesty involved in the "unbelief" claim.

The folks I refer to are usually both. Even though real science has nothing at all to say about theism. They're somehow convinced that it does.

 

[Bear Wild]

To be frank, I have no idea what "New Atheism" is, I know who Richard Dawkins is but have never read anything by him or heard him speak. I have seen references to Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, and Daniel Dennett on RF, but know nothing really of them other than an association with whatever "New Atheism" is. Given that, I can't really make an informed analysis or provide an opinion.

Going back to 'scientism', my experience with the term is limited to how it is presented and used here on RF. My view as informed by that experience is that the term is primarily used as a pejorative against those who challenge a strongly held belief or attitude on scientific grounds. The implied charge being that the person arguing from a scientific perspective is doing so in a way that is somehow incorrect or inappropriate.

I guess I do not see it as a pejorative word but a way of seeing the world primarily or solely from the rational mind and the evidence of the scientific viewpoint which is why I posed my definition to understand what we do or do not understand about the term to make for a meaningful discussion. As for pejorative words people in the pagan community basically flip the pejorative meaning and make it a positive word and for many of us a repair of the fracture between us humans and the greater than human and the land.

The use of a word like scientism for me a description of ones relationship or understanding of how you relate to the greater world. There is an impression in western society that only the rational evidence based perception of our world is real and that all else is illusion which I how I took the word scientism to mean and not in a negative or positive context. How do you see your relationship with the rest of the world if I may ask?

 

[shunyadragon]

It is an argument against scientism. Conflating argument against scientism with arguments against science leads you down blind alleys.

Would you say it is therefore possible for individuals to be overconfident in the accuracy of scientific methods in at least some fields of enquiry?

The problem with the nebulous use of scientism is it is a philosophy not science. It is better described specifically as strict Naturalism, Physicalism. Metaphysical, Philosophical or Ontological Naturalism. Scientism is most often used in a negative context against science which is irrelevant to science as science. Actually this philosophy under a general term Physicalism does not have a basis in MEthodological Naturalism.

Metaphysical naturalism (also called ontological naturalism, philosophical naturalism and anti-supernaturalism) is a philosophical worldview which holds that there is nothing but natural elements, principles, and relations of the kind studied by the natural sciences.



It should not be confused with: Methodological Naturalism

Should Methodological Naturalists Commit to Metaphysical Naturalism? - Journal for General Philosophy of Science

It is widely supposed that methodological naturalism, understood as a thesis about the methodology of science, is metaphysically neutral, and that this in turn guarantees the value-neutrality of science. In this paper we argue that methodological naturalism is underpinned by certain ontological...

link.springer.com

. . . methodological naturalism, understood as a thesis about the methodology of science, is metaphysically neutral, and that this in turn guarantees the value-neutrality of science. In this paper we argue that methodological naturalism is underpinned by certain ontological and epistemological assumptions including evidentialism and the causal closure of the physical, adoption of which necessitates commitment to metaphysical naturalism.

If so, would you consider this a problem given some will use this to make very important decisions.

You would have to be more specific to be real. Since in proper context it is a philosophical belief and not science it would not in and of itself effect 'some will use this to make very important decisions.'

 

[PureX]

The problem with the nebulous use of scientism is it is a philosophy not science. It is better described specifically as strict Naturalism, Physicalism. Metaphysical, Philosophical or Ontological Naturalism.

All under the general heading of Philosophical Materialism.

Scientism is most often used in a negative context against science which is irrelevant to science as science.

That is simply untrue. Scientism reveres science, absurdly so, while those who disparage scientism do not disparage science. They simply acknowledge the logical limitations of the process of scientific inquirey that scientism ignores.

Actually this philosophy under a general term Physicalism does not have a basis in MEthodological Naturalism.

Good point. Nor does it stand on a philosophical bases, as it rejects philosophy itself as being nothing more than 'immaterial sophistry' (make believe). And it therefor a logically incoherent position.

Metaphysical naturalism (also called ontological naturalism, philosophical naturalism and anti-supernaturalism) is a philosophical worldview which holds that there is nothing but natural elements, principles, and relations of the kind studied by the natural sciences.

Yes, and anyone holding this philosophical position would quite naturally view science as the only reasonable and valid means of ascertaining true knowledge, because science studies the physical material realm and the physical realm is all they recognize a being truly extant. Philosophical materialism is therefor the engine that fuels scientism. (As well as a lot of atheism.)

 

[shunyadragon]

That is simply untrue. Scientism reveres science, absurdly so, while those who disparage scientism do not disparage science. They simply acknowledge the logical limitations of the process of scientific inquirey that scientism ignores.

Disagree, Scientism is just poor misused terminology. Sometimes used against science in general when considering the basis of science as atheistic.

For example @Augustus has a habit of misrepresenting science by the accusation of 'Scientism.

"Would you say it is therefore possible for individuals to be overconfident in the accuracy of scientific methods in at least some fields of enquiry
If so, would you consider this a problem given some will use this to make very important decisions."

Good point. Nor does it stand on a philosophical bases, as it rejects philosophy itself as being nothing more than 'immaterial sophistry' (make believe). And it therefor a logically incoherent position.

Yes, and anyone holding this philosophical position would quite naturally view science as the only reasonable and valid means of ascertaining true knowledge, because science studies the physical material realm and the physical realm is all they recognize a being truly extant. Philosophical materialism is therefor the engine that fuels scientism. (As well as a lot of atheism.)

I would prefer to leave the word scientism out of the picture, Not just a lot of Atheism. IT is clear that the atheist position is strictly physicalism by any other name.

 

[shunyadragon]

You have defined scientism as an individual having an excessive belief in the accuracy and scope of scientific methods when applied to all areas of inquiry.

I think your comments quoted above pertain primarily to the second aspect of your definition, of one having an excessive belief in the scope of scientific methods when applied to all areas of inquiry. My interpretation here is that you are saying there are areas of inquiry where science should not apply or is inappropriate. Am I correct in that interpretation?

I also infer from your definition and your comments above that science is a distinct and separate activity from philosophy (with a minor concession to there being some small overlap), that they, in essence, are not the same thing. Is this a correct interpretation on my part?

If I am interpreting you correctly, then this is where we fundamentally disagree. We are not in agreement on what science is and to what it can and should be applied to.

My position is that science *is* philosophy. I see philosophy, as envisioned by the ancient Greeks who devised it, as consisting of any and all areas of inquiry into general and fundamental questions about human beings and the world in which they exist. Science, or “The New and Improved Philosophy”, or Philosophy 2.0, is still philosophy, with the same objective of asking and answering general and fundamental questions about human beings and the world in which they exist.

So what has changed between Philosophy 1.0 and Philosophy 2.0? It is not about methods and means, as these vary and are specific to the question at hand. One does not use the same methods and means to study economic markets to also study black holes within distant galaxies or the behavior of Chimpanzees. What is different about Philosophy 2.0 is the understanding that a posture of rational skepticism is required to be maintained toward philosophers themselves, toward the investigators. It is an acknowledgement and acceptance in the inherent fallibility of human beings and that active steps to mitigate that fallibility are required. This is the fundamental and necessary difference, establishing the framework for error mitigation in the inquiry process, the rest falling to the details of identifying and mitigating sources of error throughout this endeavor, an endeavor to answer any and all of the general and fundamental questions that philosophy, now philosophy 2.0, sets before itself.

You said above, “We don't have something called science we just get out of a bottle and place on whatever issue we would like, so when you say "science is XYZ and its goal is to discover ABC" you are explicitly making (non-falsifiable) philosophical arguments.”

This gets to the core of my position. Science is philosophy. Philosophy 2.0 is an abstract system with improvements over Philosophy 1.0, and it is an abstract system or framework that requires demarcation between the falsifiable and the non-falsifiable to which you refer. How else is one aware of whether falsifiability is relevant and applicable if there is not the active intent to establish and keep track of the demarcation between the falsifiable and non-falsifiable? This is all part of the mandate for error mitigation, and hence the necessity to bring all forms of rational inquiry within the error mitigating framework of Philosophy 2.0, incorporating mechanisms with which to establish this demarcation between what is falsifiable and what is not, as well as acknowledging and clearly demarcating subjective preference in order to address and evaluate it as such.

This is why I would argue that there is no limit or restriction on the scope of science, or Philosophy 2.0. It is the overarching framework within which the mechanisms necessary to establish these required demarcations then allow us to keep track of exactly what it is that we are talking about, to which realm of rational inquiry we are engaged, be it the real world, pure abstraction, or subjective preference, or a mixture (as is most often the case surround issues of human behavior).

Let’s take a specific example. It is my recollection that in the past you have said that the Philosophy of Morals and Ethics is outside of the scope of science (and of course, correct me if my recollection is incorrect). If the Philosophy of Morals and Ethics as a discipline acknowledges the inherent fallibility of the moral philosopher and takes active measures to mitigate that fallibility as well as establishes mechanisms with which to clearly demarcate between what can be considered falsifiable and that which cannot, how can this be considered anything other than a scientific approach? If none of that is done, then shouldn’t that affect our confidence in the work product derived from the discipline Philosophy of Morals and Ethics?

Turning back to your definition of ‘scientism’, if there is no line of inquiry outside the scope of science, then your definition of scientism contracts to “an individual having an excessive belief in the accuracy of scientific methods when applied to all areas of inquiry.” Which, of course, we would recognize as such because the belief would be established as being excessive scientifically, yes? If the excessive belief is due to ignorance or lack of fluency in science on the part of the individual, is it really necessary to categorize such folks into an -ism? If we are referring to folks who are highly fluent in the sciences that make excessive claims, then it would seem we are instead talking about a psychological issue, something that might be better described in the DSM?

Perhaps there are areas of inquiry (ie seeking answers determined valid with some degree of confidence to answerable questions, or acknowledging questions as currently unanswerable) where you feel the error mitigation and demarcations of science still do not apply. In such cases where you feel such error mitigation and demarcations of science do not apply, what provides confidence in these answers garnered outside of a scientific framework of inquiry?

I see specific examples of problems here: 1) economic theory is NOT science. It my use math and science at times to develop economic theory over time. 2) Science in and of itself does not make excessive claims as far as science goes. It simply considers the beliefs outside the physical realms are not falsifiable by science.. 3) Science deals with morals and ethics of different cultures and history of humanity based on the sciences of psychology, sociology and anthropology.. You consistently fail to understand the differences between basic and applied sciences. 4} Human behavior is not pure abstraction and subjective preference.

It is a given that you put your 'beliefs' on Philosophy, and often negate the objectivity of science.

There are others, but this is enough . . .

 

[Bear Wild]

Metaphysical naturalism (also called ontological naturalism, philosophical naturalism and anti-supernaturalism) is a philosophical worldview which holds that there is nothing but natural elements, principles, and relations of the kind studied by the natural sciences.

The problem with using Metaphysical naturalism is that it presents the position that only what is in the natural world is what is real. In other words it excludes the supernatural, but what is included in the natural world? My druid religion claims that nature is all and there is no supernatural. Many indigenous religions, when seen from their perspective and not the western interpretation of their perspective, do not believe in a supernatural world since all things are within the imminent world. The gods and goddesses as well as magic and other numinous aspects are within the natural world and are experienced within the natural world. Separating man from nature is primarily modern western invention. A word like scientism is an attempt to subdivide a metaphysical naturalism to a human philosophy that does not accept anything as real if it is not able to be studied with the scientific method.

 

[shunyadragon]

The problem with using Metaphysical naturalism is that it presents the position that only what is in the natural world is what is real. In other words it excludes the supernatural, but what is included in the natural world? My druid religion claims that nature is all and there is no supernatural. Many indigenous religions, when seen from their perspective and not the western interpretation of their perspective, do not believe in a supernatural world since all things are within the imminent world. The gods and goddesses as well as magic and other numinous aspects are within the natural world and are experienced within the natural world. Separating man from nature is primarily modern western invention. A word like scientism is an attempt to subdivide a metaphysical naturalism to a human philosophy that does not accept anything as real if it is not able to be studied with the scientific method.

What you describe above is OK, but you must realize that science in its foundation doe snot falsify the subjective beliefs and philosophies beyond the physical world. Yes your religion and many other believe in other religions in the supernatural, miraculous, Gods and spiritual realms beyond th physical, but no need to go to science to justify your beliefs or perpetuate the negative term 'scientism.' .

The problem as cited by many who misuse the term like @Augustus is that it is a negative name calling term sometimes proposing foggy boundaries that may include science where it does not belong.; The accepted terminology used in philosophy and science is more than adequate

 

[Bear Wild]

Yes your religion and many other believe in other religions in the supernatural, miraculous, Gods and spiritual realms beyond th physical

This is incorrect, there is no supernatural in my religion. The gods, goddess and other spiritual aspects are all within the natural world. There is no supernatural. Just because science cannot measure aspects of my religion does not mean they are supernatural.

 

[MikeF]

I guess I do not see it as a pejorative word but a way of seeing the world primarily or solely from the rational mind and the evidence of the scientific viewpoint which is why I posed my definition to understand what we do or do not understand about the term to make for a meaningful discussion. As for pejorative words people in the pagan community basically flip the pejorative meaning and make it a positive word and for many of us a repair of the fracture between us humans and the greater than human and the land.

Funny you should reference embracing the word used as a pejorative. When I am accused on scientism in a discussion, I will sometimes refer to myself as a scientismist for the remainder of the discussion.

The use of a word like scientism for me a description of ones relationship or understanding of how you relate to the greater world. There is an impression in western society that only the rational evidence based perception of our world is real and that all else is illusion which I how I took the word scientism to mean and not in a negative or positive context. How do you see your relationship with the rest of the world if I may ask?

I see myself as one organism of the species Homo sapiens among many other such organisms. I was born, I will live for a short time, and then I will die. Like I said earlier, I do not think in terms of having relationships with inanimate things. The world and the Cosmos are what they are and I do the best I can within the limits of my potential until I'm gone.

 

[shunyadragon]

This is incorrect, there is no supernatural in my religion. The gods, goddess and other spiritual aspects are all within the natural world. There is no supernatural. Just because science cannot measure aspects of my religion does not mean they are supernatural.

This is a bit confusing. What are the aspects of your religion that cannot objectively verified by science.?

 

[shunyadragon]

Funny you should reference embracing the word used as a pejorative. When I am accused on scientism in a discussion, I will sometimes refer to myself as a scientismist for the remainder of the discussion.

You may, but standard accepted and understood terminology describes what you would describe as Scientism when for example simply describe it as physicalism works., and avoid the prevalent misuse of the word; The word Scientism is poisoned by misuse, It is common for non-scientists to associate Scientism with atheism in the sciences of evolution, neurology as in understanding consciousness, and psychology and sociology when these sciences do not agree with theis religious views.

I see myself as one organism of the species Homo sapiens among many other such organisms. I was born, I will live for a short time, and then I will die. Like I said earlier, I do not think in terms of having relationships with inanimate things. The world and the Cosmos are what they are and I do the best I can within the limits of my potential until I'm gone.

OK

 

[vulcanlogician]

News reporting?

Great example. Especially 30 or so years ago!

 

[Bear Wild]

This is a bit confusing. What are the aspects of your religion that cannot objectively verified by science.?

I have never seen any study that would confirm the Irish pantheon nor Norse. I have never seen a study of any of the numinous beings that I connect with. I have never seen a study of the collective conscious of a forest nor the collective unconscious of humans. These are all natural yet experiential and as of yet not lent themselves to our current scientific methods. That may change in the future but not yet available.

 

[vulcanlogician]

Of that which is meant to represent subjective opinion, what informs, verifies, justifies those opinions? What confidence or trustworthiness can be assigned to the opinion holder?

Very good questions, as always Mike. And, as with all "very good questions" there is no "fortune cookie answer." Some journalism is different than other journalism. I would be prone to say that there is a form of journalism that is evidence-based.

A news story might cover a fire that broke out in an apartment building. A journalist visits the hospital and inquire about the number of injuries and deaths. She also speaks with the fire department about what they think was the cause of the fire. She also visits the site and does some direct observation. That is (arguably) evidence based. And she (arguably) produces reliable (but not perfect) information. Thoughts on that?

Another grey area might be history. Examining records, documents, ancient sales receipts, and written accounts kind of count as evidence don't they? But they are hardly scientifically rigorous observations?

 

[shunyadragon]

I have never seen any study that would confirm the Irish pantheon nor Norse. I have never seen a study of any of the numinous beings that I connect with. I have never seen a study of the collective conscious of a forest nor the collective unconscious of humans. These are all natural yet experiential and as of yet not lent themselves to our current scientific methods. That may change in the future but not yet available.

It is not possible for Metaphysical Naturalism to research, study or falsify the existence or nature of any Gods, or the numerous possible beings such as angels, demons of fairies.

 

[shunyadragon]

Could you elaborate?

Like News reporting there are limits to history that can only be verified by science in a limited as observed today and after the fact in the past. Even direct observation of historical events may have some bias, For example: Religious and other claims of supernatural and miraculous events and persons reported in the past and today, cannot be objectively verified and can only recorded as a religious or other subjective claim. History and news reporting are not science as such, sciences such as archaeology may be used to objectively confirm historical events and persons,

Sciences are tools of historians.

 

[shunyadragon]

News reporting is certainly information, but does it automatically rise to the level of evidence? In my view, the communicated information is more akin to raw data, raw data that requires evaluation using the rational skepticism of scientific inquiry. The information requires sorting into what, of the information presented, is meant to represent facts and what is meant to represent subjective opinion.

Of that which is meant to represent facts, what confidence can we assign to them? Are the facts corroborated in some way? What or who are the sources and do they have known subjective preferences that directly relate to the fact set being presented?

Of that which is meant to represent subjective opinion, what informs, verifies, justifies those opinions? What confidence or trustworthiness can be assigned to the opinion holder?

Of the raw information being presented by a news outlet, is it being corroborated by other news outlets? What are the subjective preferences (biases) of the news outlets and how do those preferences relate to the information being presented?

We may trust a particular news outlet to do all the required science necessary to generate reliable evidence out of the raw data of information, but that means scientific principles and standards are being applied and we only have confidence that the news being presented is evidence because of that.

News reporting of current events and persons, and history are not sciences. They may use science to confirm sone news reporting and history.

 

[MikeF]

I see specific examples of problems here: 1) economic theory is NOT science. It my use math and science at times to develop economic theory over time.

Well, I suppose it depends on how one views science, and what one considers science to be. I am certainly challenging the current paradigm that has been established since the end of the scientific revolution that occurred in the West.

I will agree that social systems in practice are not science, with economics being just one component of a social system. Social systems in practice are political entities.

That being said, I do not see why economics, from an academic perspective, cannot be studied within a scientific framework. I'm not saying it's easy, as it is human behavior that is being studied, and human beings, unlike many other things, are quite dynamic and behaviors can change (sometimes rapidly) as conditions and circumstances change within a social system. If economics is going to be studied at all, why not do it within the principles and standards of science, clearly demarcating what can be deemed objective from analytic construct, clearly delineating when subjective preference is involved and its effects, and provide the necessary error mitigation in the investigative process and over the investigator?

Science in and of itself does not make excessive claims as far as science goes. It simply considers the beliefs outside the physical realms are not falsifiable by science.

If some idea or notion is not falsifiable, then it is an analytic abstraction that cannot be demonstrated to correspond or comport with the real world and therefore must be regarded accordingly.

3) Science deals with morals and ethics of different cultures and history of humanity based on the sciences of psychology, sociology and anthropology.. You consistently fail to understand the differences between basic and applied sciences.

I'm not really understanding your criticism here. We are talking about the behavior of Homo sapiens and whatever scientific sub-specialties that can help shed light on the workings of Homo sapiens central nervous system and the resulting behaviors, both as individuals and in social group interactions, should be utilized. I would also add that comparing and contrasting behaviors across species would also be a necessary part of this process.

4} Human behavior is not pure abstraction and subjective preference.

Exactly. Biology plays a big role, the environment in which these organisms (Homo sapiens) develop into adulthood play a role, but Homo sapiens do create abstract systems and concepts, and those abstract systems and concepts affect behavior. All these factors, biology, environment, social conditioning and indoctrination all come together to create a subjective agent that has their unique set of subjective preferences formed by all those factors and influences.

It is a given that you put your 'beliefs' on Philosophy, and often negate the objectivity of science.

There are others, but this is enough . . .

And here I thought I was trying to reunify Philosophy and spread some objectivity throughout all of it.