I like the definition for scientism. I don't like the definition of scientism that includes the word "excessive" in the definition, because, by circular reasoning, it would imply that scientism is automatically false. But I would amend the definition to say that "science is the ONLY" way. As I said before, you and I already agree that science is the best (in my view that means the most reliable).
I don't take issue with science being considered the best way to render truth about the world and reality. So, for sake of a substantive argument, I say we focus on the "ONLY" part of the claim. I fully grant you that it's the best and most reliable source of knowledge we have at our disposal.
I'm fine with it. Our working definition of scientism then is: science (broadly) is the only way to render truth about the world and reality.
.
We don't need to bring up the role of philosophy in the formation of the sciences. Sure, it happened that way. But that was historical accident as much as it was anything. "Philosophy is a systematic study of general and fundamental questions concerning topics like existence, reason, knowledge, value, mind, and language. It is a rational and critical inquiry that reflects on its own methods and assumptions."
That seems like a good definition that we can both agree to for purposes of our conversation.
Agreed.
Good here.
I like this definition, but I have some issues with it. There are different kinds of sciences. Some are heavily empirical, and others are not. If we were to accept that definition wholesale, then you'd pretty much win the debate. What many propose when they advance scientism is the ability of the natural sciences to explain the world. Even if the social sciences do a good job of explaining a great many things, a proponent of scientism would say something like "all knowledge is reducible to the kind of statements that the physical sciences make."
I''m not trying to be unfair here. Nor do I want to adjust definitions to give my position an unfair advantage. But there are several philosophical assumptions in that definition that I would want to clarify before agreeing with it. For example, economics understands the world in an entirely different way than physics. And that should be accounted for. It IS relevant to our discussion to discuss those differences. But I DO agree with most of what that definition says. But I would like to iron out some kinks.
Ok, I’m up for some ironing.
One of the things I think needs to be ironed out is this notion of “natural sciences”, why the category was created, what does ‘natural’ really mean in this context and what then is outside of this concept of ‘natural sciences’ and why.
These are the only two definitions that I say are insufficient for the purposes of our debate. They are great as wikipedia definitions. But they are unclear for our specific purposes here. There are several competing theories of knowledge, each with its own strengths and weaknesses.
And truth? Nah. No wikipedia definition is going to cut the mustard. Nor does it need to. We just need to deal with knowledge (and if things like science and philosophy can provide us with such things). I say we can just use our intuitive concepts of truth to work our way through the debate. "Truth describes something that IS the case. Falsities or errors describe things that are NOT the case." That's the definition I propose that we work with for purposes of our debate.
Feel free to amend and or criticize any of my revised definitions. I think we will arrive at agreement on these definitions sooner rather than later.
Ok, we need some work on deciding what we mean by ‘knowledge’. I accept your proposal regarding ‘truth’.
No problem.I would prefer to do this in a separate thread. Or, at least, I think it is too massive of a question... such that it would constantly pull our attention away from the subject we are discussing now: scientism. I AM DOWN to discuss it. But I don't think it will help us clarify any possible problems with scientism... which is what we are trying to do here.
I'm working on your other post now. Gimmie some time. But let's work on agreement of definitions if that's still an issue until I get a response to that completed.