Who here believes in "Scientism"?

[Dan From Smithville]

Here you go:
What are some examples of scientism?
What are some examples of scientism?

I don't see that as an example of scientism, since @MikeF is placing his claim in a limiting context and it seems to be a somewhat tongue in cheek response.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I don't see that as an example of scientism, since @MikeF is placing his claim in a limiting context and it seems to be a somewhat tongue in cheek response.

It is the claim that science is the best way to understand the world as such.
I am not going to find all the other posts where MikeF does the same as that science is the best way to understand the world as such.

 

[Nakosis]

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

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

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

Yes, I think science is the only real method to get to the correct answer of a question.
However I don't excessively trust any specific answer given from science. Scientism in the pejorative sense.

Science doesn't give you the final answer to a question. That's what religion does. Science gives you a more accurate answer that has practical applications in our universe.
Science can provide the most practical/useful answer but never remove all doubt about what it claims. IMO.

So if you asking for a someone having a religious faith in the claims made by science, that's not me. But I do believe that the scientific method will provide an answer that is more correct than any other method.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Yes, I think science is the only real method to get to the correct answer of a question.
However I don't excessively trust any specific answer given from science. Scientism in the pejorative sense.

Science doesn't give you the final answer to a question. That's what religion does. Science gives you a more accurate answer that has practical applications in our universe.
Science can provide the most practical/useful answer but never remove all doubt about what it claims. IMO.

So if you asking for a someone having a religious faith in the claims made by science, that's not me. But I do believe that the scientific method will provide an answer that is more correct than any other method.

Yeah, that is scientism in a sense.

 

[Nakosis]

Given this statements below from these site in a similar colour the quotes: Glossary Definition: Scientism

What is scientism, and why is it a mistake?

What is the Difference Between Science and Scientism - Pediaa.Com

I would say that many on this forum are advocates for scientism even if they don't realise it.

Scientism
Unlike the use of the scientific method as only one mode of reaching knowledge, scientism claims that science alone can render truth about the world and reality. Scientism's single-minded adherence to only the empirical, or testable, makes it a strictly scientifc worldview, in much the same way that a Protestant fundamentalism that rejects science can be seen as a strictly religious worldview. Scientism sees it necessary to do away with most, if not all, metaphysical, philosophical, and religious claims, as the truths they proclaim cannot be apprehended by the scientific method. In essence, scientism sees science as the absolute and only justifiable access to the truth.

I'm going to rewrite this to define scientism in what I'd consider the non-pejorative sense:
Scientism
Unlike the use of the scientific method as only one mode of reaching knowledge, scientism claims that science alone can render practical answers about the world and reality. Scientism's single-minded adherence to only the empirical, or testable, makes it a strictly scientific worldview, in much the same way that a Protestant fundamentalism that rejects science can be seen as a strictly religious worldview. Scientism sees it necessary to do away with most, if not all, metaphysical, philosophical, and religious claims, as the truths they proclaim have no practical use in the scientific method. In essence, scientism sees science as the absolute and only justifiable access to the practical answers about the universe.

IMO, science doesn't seek truth. Truth has no practical application. Science seeks practical answers to questions about the universe.
Truth is a metaphysical ideal not a scientific one.

It'd be odd to find someone who combines practical science with metaphysical idealism. I don't know of anyone like that. It is more what someone might accuse someone else of when they have no other means to win an argument.

 

[Nakosis]

Yeah, that is scientism in a sense.

Yes, I think if you start using science to seek the "truth" you've probably have the wrong idea about science.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Yes, I think if you start using science to seek the "truth" you've probably have the wrong idea about science.

Well, evidence, truth, proof, real/correct answer all have in common that they are cognitive models to claim facts. How they work varies, but they have that in common.

 

[Nakosis]

Well, evidence, truth, proof, real/correct answer all have in common that they are cognitive models to claim facts. How they work varies, but they have that in common.

I think when you use the term "truth" it is an attempt to stifle any questions/doubts about what is being said/claimed. Which is the opposite of what science is.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I think when you use the term "truth" it is an attempt to stifle any questions/doubts about what is being said/claimed. Which is the opposite of what science is.

No, there are at least 5 theories of truth and then there is religious truth. We have at least one non-religious member, who uses truth in a non-religious sense.

 

[Nakosis]

No, there are at least 5 theories of truth and then there is religious truth. We have at least one non-religious member, who uses truth in a non-religious sense.

Other than maybe math or logic, I have my doubts but, I'll keep an open mind.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Other than maybe math or logic, I have my doubts but, I'll keep an open mind.

Well, there are 5 in philosophy and they are not about logic or math. And just now in another thread someone used truth and science together in a positive sense.

We are in effect doing the correct definitions for how to understand that we understand the world. And I do get your position.

 

[cladking]

Science is merely a tool for understanding nature and making predictions.

But there are many tools for learning about reality and how to live your life. If you discount all tools but experiment you are limiting your ability to learn. If you discount ANY experiment you are doing it wrong. If you believe only Peers know the answers and you perceive all of reality in terms of "science" you are doing it wrong AND you are a scientismist.

This applies to everybody to a greater or lesser extent. Even the best scientist has a little streak of scientism in him. But half of the science supporters on this forum are full fledged scientismists. As such their ability to see anomalies or make hypothesis, discovery, or invention will be severely limited. If you can see reality only in terms of theory and prevailing beliefs you are seeing the status quo rather than what is really there.

 

[cladking]

This applies to everybody to a greater or lesser extent. Even the best scientist has a little streak of scientism in him.

This is caused by the way we think. We must see everything in terms of our beliefs and it requires conscious effort to do otherwise. Most people are poor at suspending disbelief and even poorer at suspending belief.

Even the best scientist tends to see everything in terms of his beliefs.

 

[Jose Fly]

Yes, I believe only answers from science are worthy.

Worthy of what?

 

[Jose Fly]

I would say that many on this forum are advocates for scientism even if they don't realise it.

That seems to be pretty common among some theists here (accusing people of "scientism").

scientism claims that science alone can render truth about the world and reality

Which doesn't seem to be a very common belief here at RF. So far, I've seen one or two members express that sort of view.

 

[Jose Fly]

As a Christian and a scientist, it would seem somewhat of a paradox for me to adhere to or promote scientism. Yet, while not being directly accused of such, I have been swept up in the dragnet of scientism on many occasions when someone opposed to actual science could not meet the burden of proof of their own claims.

Yup. From what I can tell, it seems "scientism" is mostly an attempted insult leveled by people who have no other rebuttals.

Like you, I don't know of anyone espousing to follow scientism. Merely accepting the existing conclusions of science doesn't count given that informed acceptance includes the condition that those conclusions cannot be seen as absolute.

I don't know that I have seen anyone that follows science as a belief system posting on this forum.

It does look like there may be one or two members here who feel science is the only means to answer all questions. We'll see if that's really the case, but even if it is it certainly doesn't constitute "many".

 

[Jose Fly]

Yes, I think science is the only real method to get to the correct answer of a question.

Every question? For example, do you think science is the only real method to answer the question "Is it art"?

However I don't excessively trust any specific answer given from science. Scientism in the pejorative sense.

Science doesn't give you the final answer to a question. That's what religion does. Science gives you a more accurate answer that has practical applications in our universe.
Science can provide the most practical/useful answer but never remove all doubt about what it claims. IMO.

Thanks for clarifying.

So if you asking for a someone having a religious faith in the claims made by science, that's not me. But I do believe that the scientific method will provide an answer that is more correct than any other method.

The question is whether you think science is the only way to answer all questions, regardless of what those questions are (e.g., Is it art).

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It is the claim that science is the best way to understand the world as such.
I am not going to find all the other posts where MikeF does the same as that science is the best way to understand the world as such.

Is scientism the confidence that science is the best way or is it that science is the only way to understand the world? The best way implies that there are other ways too.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Yup. From what I can tell, it seems "scientism" is mostly an attempted insult leveled by people who have no other rebuttals.

I think it is just another insult hurled by people that don't really know that much about science to offer a reasonable response. Sour grapes.

It does look like there may be one or two members here who feel science is the only means to answer all questions. We'll see if that's really the case, but even if it is it certainly doesn't constitute "many".

@mikkel_the_dane has supplied, at the OK of the person, one example that he thinks represents scientism, but I'm not so sure.

 

[Brian2]

I'm going to rewrite this to define scientism in what I'd consider the non-pejorative sense:
Scientism
Unlike the use of the scientific method as only one mode of reaching knowledge, scientism claims that science alone can render practical answers about the world and reality. Scientism's single-minded adherence to only the empirical, or testable, makes it a strictly scientific worldview, in much the same way that a Protestant fundamentalism that rejects science can be seen as a strictly religious worldview. Scientism sees it necessary to do away with most, if not all, metaphysical, philosophical, and religious claims, as the truths they proclaim have no practical use in the scientific method. In essence, scientism sees science as the absolute and only justifiable access to the practical answers about the universe.

IMO, science doesn't seek truth. Truth has no practical application. Science seeks practical answers to questions about the universe.
Truth is a metaphysical ideal not a scientific one.

It'd be odd to find someone who combines practical science with metaphysical idealism. I don't know of anyone like that. It is more what someone might accuse someone else of when they have no other means to win an argument.

I don't know why that is less pejorative and I don't know why the original was pejorative.
It boils down to the same thing really.