Who here believes in "Scientism"?

[vulcanlogician]

What if the comparison was between a Mark Rothko and Raphael? What if the comparison was between a hyperrealist painting and a Raphael?

What about the medium of art? Are oils better than watercolor? What about pastels, are they just fancy crayons? Is sculpture better than paint? Which sculpture medium should be considered the most prestigious and why?

Every work of art has goals. The goal could be "to accurately portray my garage, making sure to capture the church in the field behind it." Or the goal could be: "to show the church in the background to emphasize how much the material is overemphasized over the spiritual."

Science ain't gonna be able to tell you **** about a work of art that emphasizes something through symbols.

But does that officially mean that you are contractually closing your mind to anything art discloses that science can't confirm?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

@9-10ths_Penguin

So, given all that, would you say that you agree with scientism or not?

I don't see it ever used the way you say it's defined, so I can't tell what I'm supposed to be agreeing to.

I think there are certainly empirical, objective facts about the universe beyond the understanding of science. I also think that anyone trying to speak with authority about those empirical, objective facts beyond the understanding of science is a huckster or a charlatan, or has been duped by a huckster or a charlatan.

... so you tell me.

 

[MikeF]

Every work of art has goals. The goal could be "to accurately portray my garage, making sure to capture the church in the field behind it." Or the goal could be: "to show the church in the background to emphasize how much the material is overemphasized over the spiritual."

Science ain't gonna be able to tell you **** about a work of art that emphasizes something through symbols.

But does that officially mean that you are contractually closing your mind to anything art discloses that science can't confirm?

Let's look at it this way. Art is a form of abstract communication, like language and mathematics. The abstractions of language can be used to convey information about objective things in the real world, as well as non-physical abstract constructs like nationality and rules of chess, as well as abstract constructs of physical thing or worlds that do not exist or may be impossible to exist in the real world.

So, as with language or mathematics, if your intent is to convey objective information about the real world through an artistic medium, then great, but it can only be said to represent objective information about the real world if it is confirmed and vetted in some reliable way. We can't simply rely on our personal perceptions as we human beings are fallible creatures, yes?

Art, in my opinion, will be the abstract subjective expression of the artist who creates it. Can we subjectively communicate objective facts about the real world? Sure! Is what we claim to be objectively true true simply because we say it is so, in whatever form we say it? No.

However, the truthfulness of whatever the artist is trying to communicate is a different issue from whether someone finds the art aesthetically pleasing. The way the information is conveyed, be it about objective reality or complete fantasy, is both conveyed subjectively and received subjectively, and to my mind it does not matter if the manner in which the information is conveyed speaks to one person, 100 million, or no one. Aesthetically, it all comes down to subjective preference which, as I said earlier, is heavily influence by one's culture.

It is almost like saying one language is better than another, be it French over Zulu or Chinese over Tongan. If that is so, what is the criteria for deciding and why?

Of course, in any analytic communication system there are rules which are used to standardize and convey meaning in a consistent and decipherable way. So on those grounds I suppose that art could be objectively judged, but then we are not really talking about aesthetics in that case. Aesthetics to me speaks to what is pleasing (or not) or meaningful beyond the literal. Perhaps you disagree.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

What we see in nature and science can be subjective evidence for a God for us. iow it is a matter of faith.
Some people look at the same things and claim that science has shown that God/s are not needed. These people accept only what science can tell them about reality.

If it is a matter of faith, then evidence is unnecessary.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

If it is a matter of faith, then evidence is unnecessary.

True, but even in cases of faith, it is important not to believe something that is CONTRARY to the evidence.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

True, but even in cases of faith, it is important not to believe something that is CONTRARY to the evidence.

I agree, but in the case of a deity, there is no evidence either way for faith to be contrary to.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I agree, but in the case of a deity, there is no evidence either way for faith to be contrary to.

agreed

 

[Brian2]

Pure science says nothing about God at all, neither affirming nor denying his existence.

Yes, true, and that is why those who say that science tells us that God is not needed, are making a statement of faith.
As for the Bible, if science tells us that there was a large local flood then I don't need to dismiss what the Bible says, I can interpret the flood to be a large local flood.
If science says that the universe is 14 billion years old, I can interpret the Bible as not meaning 24 hour days, and I also can interpret the Bible and see the possibility of evolution in it.

 

[exchemist]

Yes, true, and that is why those who say that science tells us that God is not needed, are making a statement of faith.
As for the Bible, if science tells us that there was a large local flood then I don't need to dismiss what the Bible says, I can interpret the flood to be a large local flood.
If science says that the universe is 14 billion years old, I can interpret the Bible as not meaning 24 hour days, and I also can interpret the Bible and see the possibility of evolution in it.

I commend that approach to you. It is what the mainstream denominations of Christianity do. But it does mean dropping the literal interpretation of Genesis in favour of allegory, as has been done for centuries.

 

[Brian2]

If it is a matter of faith, then evidence is unnecessary.

I think most people would have their reasons for believing, iow, their own personal evidence.
It's no good leaving your brain out of your faith.

 

[RestlessSoul]

I agree, but in the case of a deity, there is no evidence either way for faith to be contrary to.

I think that’s a matter of perception. From certain perspectives, the evidence for God is everywhere.

“You are not only in heaven,
I see your footprints
everywhere on earth.”

- Jalalludin Rumi

 

[Audie]

I like where you're coming from. And I feel like I generally know your approach to knowledge, Mike. And I like it. At the very least, I get it. And furthermore I probably 99% agree with it, Mike.

But you are calling things subjective, simply because it doesn't square with science. Objective knowledge is certainly a real thing that exists. And it is, of course, inferior to subjective knowledge. You're correct about all of that.

But what about aesthetics? Let's consider that for a moment.

Let's consider a painting of Raphael as compared to a crayon drawing of a kindergartener.

Of course the parents of the child may like the crayon drawing more. They think, oh I love my child so much. Any art they produce makes me feel pleasure. But does that in any way contribute to the artistic value of the art? I say no. I say, when we get away from bias (like parents of kindergarteners have) then we get into the essence of what makes a piece of art good. And, under those circumstances, Raphael is obviously better that most snot-driveling toddlers. We can see that objectively.

Things that dont square with science
tend not to be true.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I think that’s a matter of perception. From certain perspectives, the evidence for God is everywhere.

“You are not only in heaven,
I see your footprints
everywhere on earth.”

- Jalalludin Rumi

I understand that people do. I may myself. But from a scientific perspective, there is nothing that can be said, since that evidence of individual perspective is unavailable for wider examination.

 

[Audie]

Well let's think about it. In considering a Raphael and Kindergartener's drawing, what is the criteria by which we are making the determination as to which one is better and who gets to decide the criteria? Who is evaluating the choice? Is it a group of Art History professors or a class of Kindergarteners?

What if the comparison was between a Mark Rothko and Raphael? What if the comparison was between a hyperrealist painting and a Raphael?

What about the medium of art? Are oils better than watercolor? What about pastels, are they just fancy crayons? Is sculpture better than paint? Which sculpture medium should be considered the most prestigious and why?

Switching art forms, would I be wrong to prefer Mozart's opera The Magic Flute over the Chinese classic Peking opera Drunken Concubine? Why? What are the criteria by which to judge and who decides the criteria and why do they get to choose?

No, I say all is in the eye of the beholder. There is no standard but one's own heart. It is all subjective, personal, and heavily influenced by cultural conditioning. There is no "better", simply what one likes, for whatever reasons.

You might read "Zen and the art of motorcycle maitensnce".

There is way more to Quality then " just what ya happen to like.

 

[RestlessSoul]

I understand that people do. I may myself. But from a scientific perspective, there is nothing that can be said, since that evidence of individual perspective is unavailable for wider examination.

Okay, but isn’t “scientism” the ideological conviction that if there is nothing to be said from a scientific perspective, there is nothing to be said (because there is nothing to talk about) at all?

See the post directly above yours, for evidence of this kind of thinking.

 

[vijeno]

the notion that science is the means to answer all questions, or at least is the means to answer all questions worth answering.

I appreciate that you tried to be precise. Trouble is, you missed a crucial detail: What is science?

If we define science as "the scientific method", which in turn we define as nothing but 1. make a hypothesis that is falsifiable, 2. try to gather evidence for it, 3. try to gather evidence against it, 4. if there is evidence against it, or there is little to no evidence for it, then change it - well, then there is good reason to believe that this is the only good way - or at least, the best way - to find true beliefs about reality.

If we define science as the whole business and human activity of applying the scientific method... oh dear. Things change A LOT.

Also, let's keep this focused on the point of the thread, which means no debates about what is or isn't "scientism"

Yeah. I have often tried to limit threads to some scope - never to any avail. It's just not how things work on the internet, sorry!

All that said, I asked a similar question on another forum once. I didn't find anybody who professed to believe in scientism. Nor have I ever heard anyone - except christians, and maybe some militant muslims - use the charge of "scientism" in a debate. I'm sure that there are some people like that, but they tend not to be around whereever I have my discussions.

 

[Audie]

Okay, but isn’t “scientism” the ideological conviction that if there is nothing to be said from a scientific perspective, there is nothing to be said (because there is nothing to talk about) at all?

See the post directly above yours, for evidence of this kind of thinking.

Thats a definition unique to you.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Thats a definition unique to you.

As the briefest of precis, I thought it was close enough...

Scientism - Wikipedia

 

[PureX]

The giant elephant that keeps getting ignored here is that scientism is based on philosophical materialism, which is a glaringly illogical premise that asserts that reality is contained within and defined by it's physicality. That the brain is real but the mind is fiction. Objective reality is truth while subjective reality is make-believe. Which is WHY the scientism crowd views science as the only valid means of determining the truth of reality. And they would be right if reality were only it's physicality as they believe. But of course it isn't. Reality is itself one of those "fictional" ideals that materialism dismisses as irrelevant to the truth of what is. And so is truth. So that by it's own admission, philosophical materialism does not exist except as make-believe. It does not recognize the realm of metaphysics that it exists within. And thus it's logically profoundly incoherent.

 

[Audie]

As the briefest of precis, I thought it was close enough...

Scientism - Wikipedia

Fatally flawed isnt real close