Who here believes in "Scientism"?

[Aupmanyav]

What in the world are you talking about?

Kindly read my post again in answer to your question: Who here believes in "Scientism"?
Your question and my answer are both there. Science is the only way.

 

[Mark Charles Compton]

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 (believe I am) an advocate for this description of "Scientism".

I think of myself as a spiritual person but would like to think most (if not all) things to be describable and possibly even understandable within the lens of science, given enough time for study and evaluation.
That being said... I am a walking-talking contradiction when it comes to this type of thought-exercise and could decide tomorrow that the universe is too mighty and vast to even tease the idea of humanity understanding even a fraction of all there is...

Since "all questions" include things like, "What should I have for lunch?", my answer would be an unequivocal no, science is not required nor the means to answer all questions.

I would argue that what you should have for lunch would be the choice which most optimally promotes a balanced wealth of health. This would be determined by evaluating your current nutritional needs and contrasting that with previously consumed nutrients.

If one accepts that we should eat what makes us feel happiest emotionally, most tend to be happiest when they are their healthiest physically. Wellness is a wealth of health, and the healthiest individuals may not be the wealthiest financially but are closer to a general state of wealth. Health promotes positivity and can motivate an individual towards the material prospects of maintaining a positive level of health and attitude.​

Positive begets positive, negative begets negative. Love and be loved, friends!

 

[Ella S.]

I believe that, at the very least, the logical analysis of empirical data is the only way to form justified beliefs about objective facts. I have chosen the words I used in that sentence very carefully.

However, I do find subjective worth in asking questions about what I value and what I ought to do about those values, and so I suppose that means I do not believe in scientism as you describe it in your OP.

This seems ironic to me because I think most people would consider it "scientism" for me to reject axiology, faith, spiritual experiences, and so on as avenues to knowledge. I don't object to the label, either, but it is your thread.

TL;DR: I do not believe in scientism as you define it in the OP.

 

[cladking]

I believe that, at the very least, the logical analysis of empirical data is the only way to form justified beliefs about objective facts.

Beliefs are never justified. Logical analysis is a great means to form hypothesis, interpret experiment or to state existing theory.

"Scientism" by any definition exists because we must build models/ hold beliefs in order to even think. This is the nature of homo omnisciencis. We don't simply model reality, we model our beliefs founded on "nothing" or the state of the art in science.

 

[Subduction Zone]

S

Beliefs are never justified. Logical analysis is a great means to form hypothesis, interpret experiment or to state existing theory.

"Scientism" by any definition exists because we must build models/ hold beliefs in order to even think. This is the nature of homo omnisciencis. We don't simply model reality, we model our beliefs founded on "nothing" or the state of the art in science.

Sorry, that is not scientism.

Would you care to try again?

 

[MikeF]

we model our beliefs founded on "nothing" or the state of the art in science.

Scientific knowledge founded upon nothing? I don't think so.

 

[Ella S.]

Beliefs are never justified.

I think the belief that beliefs are never justified is unjustified.

 

[cladking]

Scientific knowledge founded upon nothing? I don't think so.

Please go back and read it again without the assumption I am stupid and ignorant. You won't parse a sentence properly when you assume it is wrong.

"We don't simply model reality, we model our beliefs founded on "nothing" or the state of the art in science."

Everybody can only experience reality in terms of his beliefs. These beliefs are sometimes derived from various types of evidence and are called "models" but they are still the same thing as beliefs. Only experiential knowledge isn't "belief". I am defining these terms; you don't get to redefine them when you parse these sentences. It is impossible to understand someone when their words are intentionally parsed wrong as many scientismists do. I put "nothing" in quotes for believers in science most of whom believe religion and all other forms of knowledge are based on nothing at all. I do not share this belief. I believe knowledge can be gleaned from not only experience but also from thought such as "thought experiments" but also through consideration, deduction, and on rare occasion even though induction. Truth can be found in many ways but those who think they've found truth through Peers, paradigms, or prevailing belief are probably scientismists.

For us all "truth" is provisional anyway.

 

[cladking]

I think the belief that beliefs are never justified is unjustified.

I believe Moscow is a city in Russia. It's entirely possible Russia doesn't even exist and all the infinite number of universes are holograms. What the hell do I know. But if I had any interest in going to Moscow I wouldn't study string theory or cosmology I'd consult a travel agency (or the State Department). There is a far higher probability of seeing Red Square in Moscow than in Washington, Peking, or Cal Tech, IMO.

People have beliefs and I don't care. To each his own. But I personally try not to have any beliefs. I believe there is a better than 99% chance Moscow exists and this is sufficient for almost all of my practical needs. I believe there is a 99% chance you'll refuse to parse this as it is intended.

 

[Ella S.]

I believe Moscow is a city in Russia. It's entirely possible Russia doesn't even exist and all the infinite number of universes are holograms. What the hell do I know. But if I had any interest in going to Moscow I wouldn't study string theory or cosmology I'd consult a travel agency (or the State Department). There is a far higher probability of seeing Red Square in Moscow than in Washington, Peking, or Cal Tech, IMO.

People have beliefs and I don't care. To each his own. But I personally try not to have any beliefs. I believe there is a better than 99% chance Moscow exists and this is sufficient for almost all of my practical needs. I believe there is a 99% chance you'll refuse to parse this as it is intended.

I would say that when a certain position is more likely than contradicting ones, then it is justified to believe in it.

Of course, we should always be open to changing our beliefs when those probabilities change.

 

[Ella S.]

Please go back and read it again without the assumption I am stupid and ignorant. You won't parse a sentence properly when you assume it is wrong.

"We don't simply model reality, we model our beliefs founded on "nothing" or the state of the art in science."

Everybody can only experience reality in terms of his beliefs. These beliefs are sometimes derived from various types of evidence and are called "models" but they are still the same thing as beliefs. Only experiential knowledge isn't "belief". I am defining these terms; you don't get to redefine them when you parse these sentences. It is impossible to understand someone when their words are intentionally parsed wrong as many scientismists do. I put "nothing" in quotes for believers in science most of whom believe religion and all other forms of knowledge are based on nothing at all. I do not share this belief. I believe knowledge can be gleaned from not only experience but also from thought such as "thought experiments" but also through consideration, deduction, and on rare occasion even though induction. Truth can be found in many ways but those who think they've found truth through Peers, paradigms, or prevailing belief are probably scientismists.

For us all "truth" is provisional anyway.

Models are used to form hypotheses that can be tested and, when a model's hypotheses are rigorously sustained, it becomes a theory.

They are not a conclusion that is assumed to be true from the start. They are conclusions that are supported by a thoughtful consideration of experiences and are subject to change with new data.

 

[MikeF]

Please go back and read it again without the assumption I am stupid and ignorant. You won't parse a sentence properly when you assume it is wrong.

"We don't simply model reality, we model our beliefs founded on "nothing" or the state of the art in science."

Everybody can only experience reality in terms of his beliefs. These beliefs are sometimes derived from various types of evidence and are called "models" but they are still the same thing as beliefs. Only experiential knowledge isn't "belief". I am defining these terms; you don't get to redefine them when you parse these sentences. It is impossible to understand someone when their words are intentionally parsed wrong as many scientismists do. I put "nothing" in quotes for believers in science most of whom believe religion and all other forms of knowledge are based on nothing at all. I do not share this belief. I believe knowledge can be gleaned from not only experience but also from thought such as "thought experiments" but also through consideration, deduction, and on rare occasion even though induction. Truth can be found in many ways but those who think they've found truth through Peers, paradigms, or prevailing belief are probably scientismists.

For us all "truth" is provisional anyway.

Yes, I certainly did parse your sentence severely, but your post did not really provide enough context to interpret your use of of 'nothing' in quotes to mean "that which the religious consider *something* yet scientismist consider to be nothing."

I would push back somewhat on your assertion that "Everybody can only experience reality in terms of his beliefs". I'm sure you agree that we all start out as infants, and as such we begin the knowledge acquisition process with very little belief if one could even claim that there is any at that stage. As we develop through childhood though, we do not rely solely on our own experiences nor our own beliefs. Many people share their beliefs with us through the years and all that information, personal as well as those related from others, all come together in our formation of beliefs which in turn influences our experience of reality. So much of our beliefs actually are based upon or consist entirely of the beliefs from others.

As to knowledge acquired through means other than experience, such as through thought experiments, consideration, or intuition, great care must be taken and such knowledge, if it can be considered as such, must be held with a lower degree of confidence. Why? Because thought is conducted in abstraction and the realm of abstraction is boundless. If the goal is not fiction or fantasy, but to think about and consider real and existent things, or that can exist, methodologies are required to ensure such considerations remain synthetic, or consistent with the real world. Absent such methodologies one can find themselves drifting away from what is real or what can be possible.

 

[cladking]

Yes, I certainly did parse your sentence severely, but your post did not really provide enough context to interpret your use of of 'nothing' in quotes to mean "that which the religious consider *something* yet scientismist consider to be nothing."

I'm sorry. I was just disappointed that you didn't remember from our previous exchanges.

I'm sure you agree that we all start out as infants, and as such we begin the knowledge acquisition process with very little belief if one could even claim that there is any at that stage.

Yes. we all start as infants but i believe that for every practical purpose babies are born as homo sapiens and must become homo omnisciencis to acquire the accumulated knowledge of man. In other words there is no difference between a baby born today and a baby born 40,000 years ago. Complex language is what sets humans apart from animals since we each can start on the shoulders of giants but complex language has become a unique operating system for the human brain. ie-the acquisition of language takes place in the brocas area and there was no brocas area until modern language arose. Babies are born with no brocas area and this appears in undifferentiated brain tissue as the individual develops. Babies used to converse from birth and their speech was reinforced by their parents. Between two and three billions of brain cells grew that were needed to think without abstractions and analog language. Now these cells mostly fall into disuse because we don't need them. Homo sapiens needed them.

Many people share their beliefs with us through the years and all that information, personal as well as those related from others, all come together in our formation of beliefs which in turn influences our experience of reality. So much of our beliefs actually are based upon or consist entirely of the beliefs from others.

I certainly agree. We each pick our beliefs.

I personally picked very few beliefs and later condensed these into a small handful of things that I take axiomatically and have attempted to expunge other beliefs. Be this as it may though we each interpret all of reality in terms of our models/ beliefs. This is unlike all other consciousness, I believe. All other consciousness directly models reality in the brain. It's really two ways since the brain becomes a reflection of reality as interpreted in terms of its knowledge. We act on beliefs but every other species acts on knowledge. We perceive reality in terms of beliefs but a bird can only see what it understands. Its world is severely limited, not its brain which is as conscious and powerful as ours.

As to knowledge acquired through means other than experience, such as through thought experiments, consideration, or intuition, great care must be taken and such knowledge, if it can be considered as such, must be held with a lower degree of confidence.

You partly missed my point here: all book learning is belief. If it has logical aspects such as being mathematical or scientific then it can be called models but it is still belief.

My confidence is based primarily on how good a model or belief is at making prediction or to fit in with all other knowledge. Everything doesn't have a 99% probability. Much of what I've stated in this thread s based on definitions rather than modeling and is more an attempt at defining "science" in order to differentiate it from "scientism".

Definitions are critically important because usage of abstract, analog, symbolic, and parseable language is as important to results as axioms. This goes a million times over in communication and debate since otherwise we have no idea what anyone is saying. An individual can perform science or anything else with little risk of getting caught up in illogic, confusion, or misunderstanding. Language problems arise principally in communication; two or more individuals.

Why? Because thought is conducted in abstraction and the realm of abstraction is boundless.

I agree, but I mostly just deduce. Abstraction is fine in its place but for me, it's place is mostly in communication rather than thought.

If the goal is not fiction or fantasy, but to think about and consider real and existent things, or that can exist, methodologies are required to ensure such considerations remain synthetic, or consistent with the real world.

There are an infinite number of ways to skin a cat.

We don't always know exactly how we arrived at ideas but there are lots of people and lots of ways.

There are also multiple kinds of science. There are actually individuals around here that believe "Peer review" is part of the scientific method though most are scientismists.

Absent such methodologies one can find themselves drifting away from what is real or what can be possible.

We always run the risk of being wrong. Indeed, being wrong is the natural state of homo omnsciencis. I'm an expert myself.

There are many ways to be wrong.

 

[cladking]

Models are used to form hypotheses that can be tested and, when a model's hypotheses are rigorously sustained, it becomes a theory.

You're not wrong but that's not the definition of "model" I am using.

I am referring to mental models. We each have different models of theory and everything else. We each see reality differently as well because of models and beliefs.

They are conclusions that are supported by a thoughtful consideration of experiences and are subject to change with new data.

Real scientists certainly change their models as new experiment arises. Scientism just like real science changes one funeral at a time.

 

[Brian2]

Which would mean that theists are probably more guilty of scientism than atheists. Countless times I have seen Christians or Muslims claiming scientific evidence for God and utterly failing to provide any. They want that "scientific" label of approval but they do not know how to earn it.

These Christians and Muslims may be guilty of something, but it is not scientism.
And why use the word "guilty" unless you think that "scientism" is an accusation. It's just a description, not an accusation.

 

[Brian2]

That's why I call them greedy. On the one hand they dismiss science as inferior to faith on the other they still want the "scientific" label. They just want it all and leave nothing behind.

I don't see Christians and Muslims as dismissing science as inferior. Science is just a different way to attain knowledge and it attains knowledge about different things and in different ways.

 

[Subduction Zone]

These Christians and Muslims may be guilty of something, but it is not scientism.
And why use the word "guilty" unless you think that "scientism" is an accusation. It's just a description, not an accusation.

The creationists and other science deniers are the ones that tend to use the word as an accusation. And my point was that creationists are far closer to scientism than those that apply the sciences properly.

 

[Brian2]

You just answered your own question. Why would I accept a title that doesn't apply to me?

If it does not apply to you then OK, but imo if someone thinks that the existence of God should be accepted by science before they would believe in God then scientism would be an accurate description.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If it does not apply to you then OK, but imo if someone thinks that the existence of God should be accepted by science before they would believe in God then scientism would be an accurate description.

The evidence for God need not be scientific, though that would be nice. The problem is that there does not appear to be any reliable evidence for any God. I am not limiting the lack of evidence to scientific evidence.

 

[Brian2]

The creationists and other science deniers are the ones that tend to use the word as an accusation. And my point was that creationists are far closer to scientism than those that apply the sciences properly.

Well certainly they would be attributing something to science that they should not, if they think that science can show that God created everything.
Science imo cannot show that God created or that God did not create.
If they think they can show a literal reading of the Bible to be verifiable by science, that would be a different thing however.