Who here believes in "Scientism"?

[mikkel_the_dane]

This does not make sense. I will have to give it some thought before I respond.

I am saying we have left science and are doing philsophy of science. But that is not science as such. That is different justification of what is considered valid, correct and what not.
The reason Popper came up with his method is not science, it is philosophy.
Now we can contuine with that, but that is not what you apparently believe it to be.

 

[shunyadragon]

I am saying we have left science and are doing philsophy of science. But that is not science as such. That is different justification of what is considered valid, correct and what not.
The reason Popper came up with his method is not science, it is philosophy.
Now we can contuine with that, but that is not what you apparently believe it to be.

I disagree with how you you apparently dismiss and reject Popper, but science at present accepts his work as the basis for falsification of hypotheses and theories based on objective verifiable evidence. Poppers proposals should not be dismissed as simply Philosophy. He proposed a deductive Standard falsification of theories and hypotheses universally accepted by science today as the method of the demarcation of science from that which cannot be falsified by scientific methods.


Do you advocate "Logical Positivism" which is a currently rejected alternate philosophy? IF this is not your proposal for a scientific standard what is?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I disagree with how you you apparently dismiss and reject Popper, but science at present accepts his work as the basis for falsification of hypotheses and theories based on objective verifiable evidence. Poppers proposals should not be dismissed as simply Philosophy. He proposed a deductive Standard falsification of theories and hypotheses universally accepted by science today as the method of the demarcation of science from that which cannot be falsified by scientific methods.


Do you advocate "Logical Positivism" which is a currently rejected alternate philosophy? IF this is not your proposal for a scientific standard what is?

He rejected the bold one in some sense. Now there is more, but that will have to later.

 

[shunyadragon]

He rejected the bold one in some sense. Now there is more, but that will have to later.

I do not believe anywhere in Popper's writings he rejected what is "verifiable," You naed to respond more completely and specifically to my post.

more to follow . . .

 

[shunyadragon]

I do not believe anywhere in Popper's writings he rejected what is "verifiable," You naed to respond more completely and specifically to my post.

more to follow . . .

You need to distinguish what Popper considered "verifiable" and what the problem of being "verified" is. The difference may be appear subtle, but it is a real issue from the perspective Popper's proposals.

 

[shunyadragon]

I am saying we have left science and are doing philsophy of science. But that is not science as such. That is different justification of what is considered valid, correct and what not.
The reason Popper came up with his method is not science, it is philosophy.
Now we can contuine with that, but that is not what you apparently believe it to be.

Bold is false. The purposes of Popper's work is to be the basis for a Deductive Standard for falsification.

You may reject it, but THAT is what his purpose was,

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Bold is false. The purposes of Popper's work is to be the basis for a Deductive Standard for falsification.

You may reject it, but THAT is what his purpose was,

From wiki that you use yourself:
"Sir Karl Raimund Popper CH FRS FBA[4] (28 July 1902 – 17 September 1994) was an Austrian–British[5] philosopher, academic and social commentator.[6][7][8] One of the 20th century's most influential philosophers of science,[9][10][11] ..."

Karl Popper - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Notice this: One of the 20th century's most influential philosophers of science,

 

[PureX]

I've only seen the term used by theists, and always as a criticism of those who say or imply that empiricism is the only path to knowledge about the world.

From Wikipedia:

Scientism is the view that science and the scientific method are the best or only way to render truth about the world and reality.[1][2]
While the term was defined originally to mean "methods and attitudes typical of or attributed to natural scientists", some scholars, as well as political and religious leaders, have also adopted it as a pejorative term with the meaning "an exaggerated trust in the efficacy of the methods of natural science applied to all areas of investigation (as in philosophy, the social sciences, and the humanities)".[2][3]​

Overview​

With respect to the philosophy of science, the term scientism frequently implies a critique of the more extreme expressions of logical positivism[6][7] and has been used by social scientists such as Friedrich Hayek,[8] philosophers of science such as Karl Popper,[9] and philosophers such as Mary Midgley,[10] the later Hilary Putnam,[10][11] and Tzvetan Todorov[12] to describe (for example) the dogmatic endorsement of scientific methods and the reduction of all knowledge to only that which is measured or confirmatory.[13]

More generally, scientism is often interpreted as science applied "in excess". This use of the term scientism has two senses:

• The improper use of science or scientific claims.[14] This usage applies equally in contexts where science might not apply,[15] such as when the topic is perceived as beyond the scope of scientific inquiry, and in contexts where there is insufficient empirical evidence to justify a scientific conclusion. It includes an excessive deference to the claims of scientists or an uncritical eagerness to accept any result described as scientific. This can be a counterargument to appeals to scientific authority. It can also address attempts to apply natural science methods and claims of certainty to the social sciences, which Friedrich Hayek described in The Counter-Revolution of Science (1952) as being impossible, because those methods attempt to eliminate the "human factor", while social sciences (including his own topic of economics) mainly concern the study of human action.
• "The belief that the methods of natural science, or the categories and things recognized in natural science, form the only proper elements in any philosophical or other inquiry",[16] or that "science, and only science, describes the world as it is in itself, independent of perspective"[11] with a concomitant "elimination of the psychological [and spiritual] dimensions of experience".[17][18] Tom Sorell provides this definition: "Scientism is a matter of putting too high a value on natural science in comparison with other branches of learning or culture."[19] Philosophers such as Alexander Rosenberg have also adopted "scientism" as a name for the opinion that science is the only reliable source of knowledge.[20]

It is also sometimes used to describe the universal applicability of the scientific method, and the opinion that empirical science constitutes the most authoritative worldview or the most valuable part of human learning, sometimes to the complete exclusion of other opinions, such as historical, philosophical, economic or cultural opinions. It has been defined as "the view that the characteristic inductive methods of the natural sciences are the only source of genuine factual knowledge and, in particular, that they alone can yield true knowledge about man and society".[21] The term scientism is also used by historians, philosophers, and cultural critics to highlight the possible dangers of lapses towards excessive reductionism with respect to all topics of human knowledge.[22][23][24][25][26]

For social theorists practising the tradition of Max Weber, such as Jürgen Habermas and Max Horkheimer, the concept of scientism relates significantly to the philosophy of positivism, but also to the cultural rationalization for modern Western civilization.[13][27] Ernesto Sabato, physicist and essayist, wrote in his 1951 essay Hombres y engranajes ("Man and mechanism") of the "superstition of science" as the most contradictory of all superstitions,[28] since this would be the "superstition that one should not be superstitious". He wrote: "science had become a new magic and the man in the street believed in it the more the less he understood it".[28]



There, now you've seen it used by a whole array of people for a whole array of reasons. So you can't claim that theists made it up just to insult you, anymore.

I'd call that a belief, not believing in something.

Well, it's believing in the idea that science is the best and only reliable way to determine the truth of reality.

I have been accused of scientism, and it's true that that is my position. That shouldn't make anybody angry, but it does.

What they say is that we are overly reliant on empiricism, as if that were possible. One should always evaluate all evidence and act on whatever conclusions he can soundly draw from it. One simply cannot do this too much, just too little.

But what they really mean is that they want respect for their other, non-empirical ways of knowing, and are offended to have their beliefs rejected for lack of sufficient supporting evidence. So the complaint is not actually that one is relying on empiricism too much but rather that one doesn't respect faith and intuition enough.

Which you have no intention of respecting.

 

[Pogo]

But what they really mean is that they want respect for their other, non-empirical ways of knowing, and are offended to have their beliefs rejected for lack of sufficient supporting evidence. So the complaint is not actually that one is relying on empiricism too much but rather that one doesn't respect faith and intuition enough.

Which you have no intention of respecting.

because as he said, " their beliefs rejected for lack of sufficient supporting evidence. "
How much do you respect beliefs in Leprachauns?

 

[PureX]

because as he said, " their beliefs rejected for lack of sufficient supporting evidence. "
How much do you respect beliefs in Leprachauns?

It's sad that you think this retort makes any sense at all.

 

[shunyadragon]

From wiki that you use yourself:
"Sir Karl Raimund Popper CH FRS FBA[4] (28 July 1902 – 17 September 1994) was an Austrian–British[5] philosopher, academic and social commentator.[6][7][8] One of the 20th century's most influential philosophers of science,[9][10][11] ..."

Karl Popper - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Notice this: One of the 20th century's most influential philosophers of science,

Yes, he was a philosopher, but it is a fact that . . .

Falsifiability - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Falsifiability is a deductive standard of evaluation of scientific theories and hypotheses, introduced by the philosopher of science Karl Popper in his book The Logic of Scientific Discovery (1934).Falsifiability - Wikipedia A theory or hypothesis is falsifiable (or refutable) if it can be logically contradicted by an empirical test.

Popper emphasized the asymmetry created by the relation of a universal law with basic observation statements[C] and contrasted falsifiability to the intuitively similar concept of verifiability that was then current in logical positivism. He argued that the only way to verify a claim such as "All swans are white" would be if one could theoretically observe all swans,[D] which is not possible. On the other hand, the falsifiability requirement for an anomalous instance, such as the observation of a single black swan, is theoretically reasonable and sufficient to logically falsify the claim.

Popper proposed falsifiability as the cornerstone solution to both the problem of induction and the problem of demarcation. He insisted that, as a logical criterion, his falsifiability is distinct from the related concept "capacity to be proven wrong" discussed in Lakatos's falsificationism.[E][F][G] Even being a logical criterion, its purpose is to make the theory predictive and testable, and thus useful in practice.

From Wikipedia:

Scientism is the view that science and the scientific method are the best or only way to render truth about the world and reality.[1][2]​

While the term was defined originally to mean "methods and attitudes typical of or attributed to natural scientists", some scholars, as well as political and religious leaders, have also adopted it as a pejorative term with the meaning "an exaggerated trust in the efficacy of the methods of natural science applied to all areas of investigation (as in philosophy, the social sciences, and the humanities)".[2][3]​

Overview​

With respect to the philosophy of science, the term scientism frequently implies a critique of the more extreme expressions of logical positivism[6][7] and has been used by social scientists such as Friedrich Hayek,[8] philosophers of science such as Karl Popper,[9] and philosophers such as Mary Midgley,[10] the later Hilary Putnam,[10][11] and Tzvetan Todorov[12] to describe (for example) the dogmatic endorsement of scientific methods and the reduction of all knowledge to only that which is measured or confirmatory.[13]

Very important point above are two points. (1) The "Scientism: is "The scientific method are the best or only way to render truth about the world and reality." The problem here is scientists and scientific methods fo not make any claims of "rendering truth." Please cite any and I mean any scientists that claim that they "render truth."

The claim asses to the above is the vague subjective claim of the belief in "an exaggerated trust in the efficacy of the methods of natural science applied to all areas of investigation," Note that this is used as a pejorative accusation by "some scholars, as well as political and religious leaders," The pejorative accusation of Scientism often associates science with atheism.

Problem with the above the above reference which is false. Karl Popper rejected the old philosophy of Logical Positivism. He qualified the positive value of the conclusions of falsifiable hypothesis and theories as falsifiable, and not verified or proven,

Logical positivism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Decline and legacy​

By the late 1960s, logical positivism had become exhausted.[51] In 1976, A. J. Ayer quipped that "the most important" defect of logical positivism "was that nearly all of it was false", though he maintained "it was true in spirit."[52][53] Although logical positivism tends to be recalled as a pillar of scientism,[54] Carl Hempel was key in establishing the philosophy subdiscipline philosophy of science[17] where Thomas Kuhn and Karl Popper brought in the era of postpositivism.[49] John Passmore found logical positivism to be "dead, or as dead as a philosophical movement ever becomes".[52]

Any accusation of Scientism is a strawman big time.

 

[shunyadragon]

From Wikipedia:

Scientism is the view that science and the scientific method are the best or only way to render truth about the world and reality.[1][2]​

While the term was defined originally to mean "methods and attitudes typical of or attributed to natural scientists", some scholars, as well as political and religious leaders, have also adopted it as a pejorative term with the meaning "an exaggerated trust in the efficacy of the methods of natural science applied to all areas of investigation (as in philosophy, the social sciences, and the humanities)".[2][3]​

Very important point above are two points. (1) The "Scientism: is "The scientific method are the best or only way to render truth about the world and reality." The problem here is scientists and scientific methods fo not make any claims of "rendering truth." Please cite any and I mean any scientists that claim that they "render truth."

The claim asses to the above is the vague subjective claim of the belief in "an exaggerated trust in the efficacy of the methods of natural science applied to all areas of investigation," Note that this is used as a pejorative accusation by "some scholars, as well as political and religious leaders," The pejorative accusation of Scientism often associates science with atheism.
Scientism - Wikipedia

​

There, now you've seen it used by a whole array of people for a whole array of reasons. So you can't claim that theists made it up just to insult you, anymore.

Well, it's believing in the idea that science is the best and only reliable way to determine the truth of reality.

Which you have no intention of respecting.

It remains that "Scientism" ia pejorative exaggerated insult of scientists without specific references of what scientist believe concerning science. You cannot cite one reference whare scientists assert that they "render truth."


Any accusation of Scientism is a strawman big time.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Yes, he was a philosopher, but it is a fact that . . .

Falsifiability - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Falsifiability is a deductive standard of evaluation of scientific theories and hypotheses, introduced by the philosopher of science Karl Popper in his book The Logic of Scientific Discovery (1934).Falsifiability - Wikipedia A theory or hypothesis is falsifiable (or refutable) if it can be logically contradicted by an empirical test.

Popper emphasized the asymmetry created by the relation of a universal law with basic observation statements[C] and contrasted falsifiability to the intuitively similar concept of verifiability that was then current in logical positivism. He argued that the only way to verify a claim such as "All swans are white" would be if one could theoretically observe all swans,[D] which is not possible. On the other hand, the falsifiability requirement for an anomalous instance, such as the observation of a single black swan, is theoretically reasonable and sufficient to logically falsify the claim.

Popper proposed falsifiability as the cornerstone solution to both the problem of induction and the problem of demarcation. He insisted that, as a logical criterion, his falsifiability is distinct from the related concept "capacity to be proven wrong" discussed in Lakatos's falsificationism.[E][F][G] Even being a logical criterion, its purpose is to make the theory predictive and testable, and thus useful in practice.


Very important point above are two points. (1) The "Scientism: is "The scientific method are the best or only way to render truth about the world and reality." The problem here is scientists and scientific methods fo not make any claims of "rendering truth." Please cite any and I mean any scientists that claim that they "render truth."

The claim asses to the above is the vague subjective claim of the belief in "an exaggerated trust in the efficacy of the methods of natural science applied to all areas of investigation," Note that this is used as a pejorative accusation by "some scholars, as well as political and religious leaders," The pejorative accusation of Scientism often associates science with atheism.

Problem with the above the above reference which is false. Karl Popper rejected the old philosophy of Logical Positivism. He qualified the positive value of the conclusions of falsifiable hypothesis and theories as falsifiable, and not verified or proven,

Logical positivism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Decline and legacy​

By the late 1960s, logical positivism had become exhausted.[51] In 1976, A. J. Ayer quipped that "the most important" defect of logical positivism "was that nearly all of it was false", though he maintained "it was true in spirit."[52][53] Although logical positivism tends to be recalled as a pillar of scientism,[54] Carl Hempel was key in establishing the philosophy subdiscipline philosophy of science[17] where Thomas Kuhn and Karl Popper brought in the era of postpositivism.[49] John Passmore found logical positivism to be "dead, or as dead as a philosophical movement ever becomes".[52]

Any accusation of Scientism is a strawman big time.

Yeah, let us look closer :
From your qoute:
"... Karl Popper rejected the old philosophy of Logical Positivism. He qualified the positive value of the conclusions of falsifiable hypothesis and theories as falsifiable, and not verified or proven, ..."

So yes, you are right. The end result of that is that it is not verified that the universe is physical. And it is not proven or a fact. It is a model that predicts an outcome next time it is tested as being falsifiable.
So since you are the scientist, what is the falsifiable test for the universe being physical. Can you explain that?

 

[shunyadragon]

He rejected the bold one in some sense. Now there is more, but that will have to later.

Again . . . you need to clarify the above as you claim Popper rejected "verifiable" in some sense, because this is false,

Popper rejected that scientific knowledge can be verified or proven. This belief is closer to Logical Positivism.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Again . . . you need to clarify the above as you claim Popper rejected "verifiable" in some sense, because this is false,

Popper rejected that scientific knowledge can be verified or proven. This belief is closer to Logical Positivism.

You win for this one.
Now do this:
So since you are the scientist, what is the falsifiable test for the universe being physical. Can you explain that?

 

[shunyadragon]

Yeah, let us look closer :
From your qoute:
"... Karl Popper rejected the old philosophy of Logical Positivism. He qualified the positive value of the conclusions of falsifiable hypothesis and theories as falsifiable, and not verified or proven, ..."

So yes, you are right. The end result of that is that it is not verified that the universe is physical. And it is not proven or a fact. It is a model that predicts an outcome next time it is tested as being falsifiable.
So since you are the scientist, what is the falsifiable test for the universe being physical. Can you explain that?

When backed into a corner without a coherent response You are proposing an "Ontological Idealist" or the "Philosophy of Solipsism" belief of 'arguing from ignorance,' which cannot be answered.

Your are not only moving the goal posts, but you are removing them from the field.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

When backed into a corner without a coherent response You are proposing an "Ontological Idealist" or the "Philosophy of Solipsism" belief of 'arguing from ignorance,' which cannot be answered.

Your are not only moving the goal posts, but you are removing them from the field.

So you didn't answer with science and meet the question.
So since you are the scientist, what is the falsifiable test for the universe being physical. Can you explain that?
As for sceintism there is another version:
an exaggerated trust in the efficacy of the methods of natural science applied to all areas of investigation (as in philosophy, the social sciences, and the humanities)

Definition of SCIENTISM

methods and attitudes typical of or attributed to the natural scientist; an exaggerated trust in the efficacy of the methods of natural science applied to all areas of investigation (as in philosophy, the social sciences, and the humanities)… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

You believe it is actually a fact that the universe is physical, don't you? Or am I getting it wrong?

 

[Twilight Hue]

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.

I can't think of anything better, or as practical or beneficial as science.

Can you?

I know I can't think of any method or tool that is better.

I think science has the potential of answering everything, but unfortunately I doubt the entirety of the human race won't survive to realize it.

The Fermi Paradox seems to insure that.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I can't think of anything better, or as practical or beneficial as science.

...

Do you have any evidence of that? Or is it based on how you subjectively think and is nothing more than a belief without evidence, which would make you a believer?

 

[Twilight Hue]

Do you have any evidence of that? Or is it based on how you subjectively think and is nothing more than a belief without evidence, which would make you a believer?

The evidence is that science is the only method by which all advances came into reality.

Obviously you can't recognize what real actual evidence is. Science isn't subjective and is certainly not a belief.

Why not tell everyone what other method is there? I'd be curious as well.