Who here believes in "Scientism"?

[gnostic]

Your philosophy seems to begin with the notion that anybody who might view themselves as a part of nature and part of the physical world must lack a particular cultural understanding that you have, and therefore they are wrong.

Cultures are only relevant to humans, and they are all of “human-construct” of how one live their lives, as individuals or as groups (eg communities) in some societies, who communicate & interact with each others with shared interests or some agreed standard behaviours, hence they followed some specific social norms that are relevance to those regions.

No one are denying that we have all some cultures, that maybe similar or different from each other - respectively “commonality” & “diversity“.

Why would you believe or accuse me of not having any understanding of the importance of culture or of cultural values?

You keep saying that I don’t understand culture, as you spin this strawman of yours about me.

And why would you deny humans are natural beings, born through natural reproduction, and each humans are made of flesh and bones, of tissues that are made of cells?

You seem to have something against nature and the natural processes.

Do you not eat food or drink? Do you not breath air?

Or do air, food or drink just poof out of nothing like magic?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Cultures are only relevant to humans, and they are all of “human-construct” of how one live their lives, as individuals or as groups (eg communities) in some societies, who communicate & interact with each others with shared interests or some agreed standard behaviours, hence they followed some specific social norms that are relevance to those regions.

No one are denying that we have all some cultures, that maybe similar or different from each other - respectively “commonality” & “diversity“.

...

As I understand the problem of culture is that your version of science is a form of culture and not the only one, when it comes to science. The same is true of me or any other humans.
So yes, you have a version of science, but there is not only one other as per religion. That is the point.

 

[Banach-Tarski Paradox]

Cultures are only relevant to humans, and they are all of “human-construct” of how one live their lives, as individuals or as groups (eg communities) in some societies, who communicate & interact with each others with shared interests or some agreed standard behaviours, hence they followed some specific social norms that are relevance to those regions.

No one are denying that we have all some cultures, that maybe similar or different from each other - respectively “commonality” & “diversity“.

Why would you believe or accuse me of not having any understanding of the importance of culture or of cultural values?

You keep saying that I don’t understand culture, as you spin this strawman of yours about me.

And why would you deny humans are natural beings, born through natural reproduction, and each humans are made of flesh and bones, of tissues that are made of cells?

You seem to have something against nature and the natural processes.

Do you not eat food or drink? Do you not breath air?

Or do air, food or drink just poof out of nothing like magic?

Your entire blueprint for separating various disciplines is based on the existence of different academic cultures in the various departments of a university at a single point of time.

But culture evolves, and disciplines change, merge, split, over time.

The academic divisions you see today will not be the same as they are tomorrow.

People do interdisciplinary work.

Richard Feynman understood these cultural aspects better than you.

The cultural differences you describe to separate social sciences off from the rest don’t begin when a mathematician visits a history department.

They already arise when a mathematician visits a physics department.

Richard P. Feynman: The Relation of Mathematics to Physics​

 

[Pogo]

82 years later the point still hasn’t been understood consistently

Great,

and thanks for the link, dense but interesting.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Great,

and thanks for the link, dense but interesting.

There are 2 usage of it. The religious one and the philosophy of science one.

 

[PureX]

People want easy explanations for why we are here and scientism is the worst possible answer for most people.

We humans want very much to believe that we know enough about what's 'really going on' to feel that we are in control of our own fate. Religions created anthropomorphic gods so that people could imagine that by pleasing the gods, they could gain some sense of control over their own fate. The scientism cultists have simply rejected the anthropomorphic gods and replaced them with an idealization of science that allows them to imagine that through science they have gained or can gain control over their own fate.

Science, however, is simply not capable of doing that for we humans. As it's far too limited in the scope of it's investigative ability.

 

[cladking]

We humans want very much to believe that we know enough about what's 'really going on' to feel that we are in control of our own fate. Religions created anthropomorphic gods so that people could imagine that by pleasing the gods, they could gain some sense of control over their own fate. The scientism cultists have simply rejected the anthropomorphic gods and replaced them with an idealization of science that allows them to imagine that through science they have gained or can gain control over their own fate.

Science, however, is simply not capable of doing that for we humans. As it's far too limited in the scope of it's investigative ability.

I don't disagree.

I believe that the concept of "God" arose from an ancient science not dependent on experiment but on logic. This is the same logic that in manifested as reality and incarnate in consciousness. As such religion more closely reflects reality in most questions that involve life than does science.

"Scientism" is rendering unto science what rightfully belongs to holism.

Most all of the assumptions we acquire when we acquire language are wrong.

 

[Banach-Tarski Paradox]

Yeah, as long as we could just agree on what methodological naturalism is and how come we that in regards to epistemology.

Anthropologists talk about transvaluation and creative epistemology.

Is this considered as a part of what you call methodological naturalism?

If not, it’s OK, so long as we all agree on what transvaluation is and how come we that in regards to creative epistemology.

 

[RestlessSoul]

I'm in general agreement but there are numerous problems with determinism. Certainly there appears to be something we call "randomness" but there is also chaos. Even if reality were preordained as scientism often holds we don't know the rules and can't often quantify the variables that are known.

It's entirely possible science can come to predict "random" but it will never be able to understand consciousness and free will through reductionism. Life is consciousness and science is a sort of microcosm of life so understanding reality and science requires an understanding of the nature of consciousness. Any application of science to life at least borders on scientism. Obviously this is not meant to demean the field of medicine.

Yes. Randomness alone is far more than sufficient to toss out determinism.

People want easy explanations for why we are here and scientism is the worst possible answer for most people.

Understanding consciousness may be the key to understanding everything. Philosophers have known this for millennia; science, and not just neuroscience but also cosmology and theoretical physics, is beginning to catch on.

There is, of course, considerable resistance from many quarters even to addressing the concept. Placing consciousness at the centre of everything constitutes a threat to cherished principles of objectivity, and to the conviction that the laws of science accurately describe a mind-independent reality. But the classical paradigm whereby we neutrally observe entities behaving exactly as they would were we not there observing them, is ruled out by quantum contextuality.

Not sure this is the thread to discuss consciousness. Perhaps I’ll get round to starting one; or you could, and I’d willingly participate.

 

[cladking]

Understanding consciousness may be the key to understanding everything. Philosophers have known this for millennia; science, and not just neuroscience but also cosmology and theoretical physics, is beginning to catch on.

There is, of course, considerable resistance from many quarters even to addressing the concept. Placing consciousness at the centre of everything constitutes a threat to cherished principles of objectivity, and to the conviction that the laws of science accurately describe a mind-independent reality. But the classical paradigm whereby we neutrally observe entities behaving exactly as they would were we not there observing them, is ruled out by quantum contextuality.

Not sure this is the thread to discuss consciousness. Perhaps I’ll get round to starting one; or you could, and I’d willingly participate.

This may not be the thread to discuss consciousness but it is certainly relevant that consciousness has not been reduced, may be irreducible, and hasn't even yet been defined. Consciousness probably is central to every subject but scientism often doesn't recognize its existence and disputes free will ascribing "instinct" to its expression in other species!

Scientism is also marked by its refusal to acknowledge that science even has a metaphysical basis.

 

[PureX]

I don't disagree.

I believe that the concept of "God" arose from an ancient science not dependent on experiment but on logic. This is the same logic that in manifested as reality and incarnate in consciousness. As such religion more closely reflects reality in most questions that involve life than does science.

"Scientism" is rendering unto science what rightfully belongs to holism.

Most all of the assumptions we acquire when we acquire language are wrong.

The fact that we have to 'believe' this or that simply underscores the fact that we do not know. Belief is, after all, the presumption of knowledge that we do not actually possess. And this lack of knowledge is a frightening position to be in for a species that survives and thrives by knowing how to anticipate and manipulate it's environment to it's own advantage. Knowledge becomes our doorway to life and prosparity, while ignorance (unknowing) becomes a doorway to disaster. So the big question for humanity is how do we deal with what we do not know? How do we maintain control, or the illusion of control, in the face of all that unknowing?

It is from this predicament, and to address this question, that pretty much all human behavior results.

 

[Pogo]

Scientism, my modern definition:
That which people don't like about the scientific method, as practiced, limiting itself to methodological naturalism.

People wrongly claim that it entails metaphysical naturalism, it does not though some practitioners may be metaphysical naturalists.
People claim that the scientific method ignores alternate explanations, Yes, that is methodological naturalism. Demonstrate a method with repeatable evidence and it becomes scientific just like alternative medicine that is demonstrated to work as claimed becomes just medicine.

Methodological naturalism is the claim that there is no need to invoke the supernatural, including God or gods, in giving scientific explanations. Metaphysical naturalism is the claim that there is no supernatural, including God or gods.

 

[Banach-Tarski Paradox]

Cultures are only relevant to humans

Many of the posters here in this thread are human.

That may help explain why we find anthropology and history and mathematics relevant.

Nanobot (Havana Parody) | A Capella Science ft. Dorothy Andrusiak​

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Scientism, my modern definition:
That which people don't like about the scientific method, as practiced, limiting itself to methodological naturalism.

People wrongly claim that it entails metaphysical naturalism, it does not though some practitioners may be metaphysical naturalists.
People claim that the scientific method ignores alternate explanations, Yes, that is methodological naturalism. Demonstrate a method with repeatable evidence and it becomes scientific just like alternative medicine that is demonstrated to work as claimed becomes just medicine.

Methodological naturalism is the claim that there is no need to invoke the supernatural, including God or gods, in giving scientific explanations. Metaphysical naturalism is the claim that there is no supernatural, including God or gods.

Well, that is one defintion. There are others.

 

[Pogo]

Well, that is one defintion. There are others.

That is the problem, the word has so many meanings that it becomes meaningless.

 

[Banach-Tarski Paradox]

Well, that is one defintion. There are others.

Young folks may feel differently, but at my age, as a life-long atheist, the old-school definition works for me.

In fact, when the newfangled atheism was invented, my attitude was, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

So I started calling myself an old-school atheist, just to distinguish myself from the newfangled atheist culture that I witnessed growing in that petri dish that we call the internet.

Personally, I find that old-school atheism contains more wisdom that the newfangled internet variety that kept telling me that I was a victim whereas my old-school atheism didn't teach that I was a victim just because of my atheism.

I suppose that it is a bit of a generational clash.

Alan Parsons Project - "Old and Wise" - Lyrics on screen​

The Who - My Generation​

 

[Pogo]

Young folks may feel differently, but at my age, as a life-long atheist, the old-school definition works for me.

In fact, when the newfangled atheism was invented, my attitude was, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

So I started calling myself an old-school atheist, just to distinguish myself from the newfangled atheist culture that I witnessed growing in that petri dish that we call the internet.

Personally, I find that old-school atheism contains more wisdom that the newfangled internet variety that kept telling me that I was a victim whereas my old-school atheism didn't teach that I was a victim just because of my atheism.

I suppose that it is a bit of a generational clash.

Alan Parsons Project - "Old and Wise" - Lyrics on screen​

The Who - My Generation​

And in between:

Before, being an atheist you were just considered weird, now it is a whole philosophy unto itself with strengths, flavors etc.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

That is the problem, the word has so many meanings that it becomes meaningless.

No, that is part of the point in a sense. Science as sceince done by humans is cultural relative construct. Science in this sense is not obejctive and depends on what a given person believe science is just as with scientism.

Yes, there is an objective reality, but it is not that simple what that is, because we apparently can't just reduce away human subjectivity.
And there is what we are playing with what scientism and science are. They are as much about what is as what matters.

 

[Banach-Tarski Paradox]

No, that is part of the point in a sense. Science as sceince done by humans is cultural relative construct. Science in this sense is not obejctive and depends on what a given person believe science is just as with scientism.

Yes, there is an objective reality, but it is not that simple what that is, because we apparently can't just reduce away human subjectivity.
And there is what we are playing with what scientism and science are. They are as much about what is as what matters.

Whenever I see a science video produced by animals, I ask myself, "What would this same video look like if it were produced by somebody from the Kingdom of Fungi"?

Animalia Chorus! | A Capella Science​

 

[Banach-Tarski Paradox]

And in between:

Before, being an atheist you were just considered weird, now it is a whole philosophy unto itself with strengths, flavors etc.

That's a great one! Here's a tune from the same group about education, which is very important in many cultures, all over the world.

Education is very important as a means of transmitting culture from generation to generation, as each new generation seeks to define themselves, and take charge of the evolution of their own cultures.

Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young - Teach Your Children (Official Music Video)​

You're watching the official music video for Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young - "Teach Your Children" written by Graham Nash. Originally released on the 1970 CSNY studio album "Deja Vu", "Teach Your Children" is featured on a 2018 Graham Nash career retrospective entitled "Over The Years..." Get a copy here

The video is a collaboration between Graham Nash and celebrated filmmaker and animator Jeff Scher.

The imagery frames the youth-led liberal activism of 2018 against the backdrop of the Civil Rights Movement and Peace demonstrations of the 1960's, providing a powerful visual aid to Graham Nash's relevant-as-ever appeal to teach not only our children but also our parents well.

“I wrote Teach Your Children because we have much to teach them. Conversely, I believe we as parents have much to learn from them as well. I think that Jeff Scher did a wonderful job of animating my lyrics and positioning the song in a contemporary setting." - Graham Nash (2018)