Scientism? (reject, protestant, faith, verse, philosophy)

[JerryL]

The OP makes an analogy to the movement called fundamentalism, not the concept, and that is the context that I used:

...a movement in American Protestantism that arose in the early part of the 20th century in reaction to modernism and that stresses the infallibility of the Bible not only in matters of faith and morals but also as a literal historical record, holding as essential to Christian faith belief in such doctrines as the creation of the world, the virgin birth, physical resurrection, atonement by the sacrificial death of Christ, and the Second Coming.

OK. Under the definition you used of "fundamentalism" and the definition the OP used of "Sciencism", it's extremely clear that sciencism is not a form of fundamentalism. It fails basically every part of the defition.

- It is not a movement in American Protestantism that arose in teh earlt 20th
- It does not stress the infallibility of the Bible

[Willamena]

Originally Posted by JerryL

OK. Under the definition you used of "fundamentalism" and the definition the OP used of "Sciencism", it's extremely clear that sciencism is not a form of fundamentalism. It fails basically every part of the defition.

- It is not a movement in American Protestantism that arose in teh earlt 20th
- It does not stress the infallibility of the Bible

I think you are missing the analogy, which is about the strict adherence to the infallibility of an idea.

Scientism, as used by the author referenced in the OP as the most appropriate term to describe what he is talking about, holds that science, and particularly the scientific method, is the only means of discovering knowledge and truth. It dismisses personal opinion, subjective perspective and human faculties as being equivalent to falsehoods (and in fact I have seen people apparently convinced that the world they perceive is all a lie simply because they cannot know "the truth" of objective reality).

In that regard, scientism holds science to the same infallibility that fundamentalism holds the Bible.

[JerryL]

I think you are missing the analogy, which is about the strict adherence to the infallibility of an idea.

I didn't realize it was an analogy. I had asked for and you had cited a definition.

Does "Sciencism" as described have a strict adherence to the infallability of an idea? No. I see no indication that there's a belief in infallability asserted.

Scientism, as used by the author referenced in the OP as the most appropriate term to describe what he is talking about, holds that science, and particularly the scientific method, is the only means of discovering knowledge and truth. It dismisses personal opinion, subjective perspective and human faculties as being equivalent to falsehoods (and in fact I have seen people apparently convinced that the world they perceive is all a lie simply because they cannot know "the truth" of objective reality).

However, it does not assert infallability. It therefore fails the most recent definition of "fundamentalism" you've given me.

In that regard, scientism holds science to the same infallibility that fundamentalism holds the Bible.

I disagree. Where do you see a claim of infallability? Can you point us at an actual adherent, or is this a hypothetical position?

[Willamena]

Originally Posted by JerryL

I didn't realize it was an analogy. I had asked for and you had cited a definition.

Scientism's single-minded adherence to only the empirical, or testable, makes it a strictly scientifc worldview, in much the same way that a Protestant fundamentalism that rejects science can be seen as a strictly religious worldview.

That is the analogy.

Originally Posted by JerryL

Does "Sciencism" as described have a strict adherence to the infallability of an idea? No. I see no indication that there's a belief in infallability asserted.

However, it does not assert infallability. It therefore fails the most recent definition of "fundamentalism" you've given me.

I disagree. Where do you see a claim of infallability? Can you point us at an actual adherent, or is this a hypothetical position?

In essence, scientism sees science as the absolute and only justifiable access to the truth.

That is the infallibility.

[JerryL]

Scientism's single-minded adherence to only the empirical, or testable, makes it a strictly scientifc worldview, in much the same way that a Protestant fundamentalism that rejects science can be seen as a strictly religious worldview.

OK. Then we do seem to have correlation to the UCMJ or any of the other examples I cited. The millitary relies solely on the UCMJ as *the* method to determine when a violation of law has occured and how to punish.

In essence, scientism sees science as the absolute and only justifiable access to the truth.

There's a lot of vocabulary there. Let me try a different one and see if it's close enough for you.

"The only method established as valid in determining fact about reality is emperical study and deduction thereof."

1) Is this a valid paraphrase of what you said above?
2) Is this a true or untrue statement? If "untrue", what is another established valid method?

[Willamena]

Originally Posted by JerryL

OK. Then we do seem to have correlation to the UCMJ or any of the other examples I cited. The millitary relies solely on the UCMJ as *the* method to determine when a violation of law has occured and how to punish.

Alright, if you see that analogy working there I won't dispute it.

Originally Posted by JerryL

In essence, scientism sees science as the absolute and only justifiable access to the truth.

There's a lot of vocabulary there. Let me try a different one and see if it's close enough for you.

"The only method established as valid in determining fact about reality is emperical study and deduction thereof."

1) Is this a valid paraphrase of what you said above?
2) Is this a true or untrue statement? If "untrue", what is another established valid method?

1) Scientism says that what science uncovers is truth (what your paraphrase tries to say, I assume), but it also says that nothing uncovered by other methods can be truth. Other methods can be covered in the loose phrase "empirical study and deduction" --divination, for example. Scientism would reject this method of study and any knowledge gained from it.
2) If the one doing the establishing is Western society, then it is true.

[JerryL]

2) If the one doing the establishing is Western society, then it is true.

It's unclear to me what the society one lived in would have to do with whether you could establish a method other than the one I outlined to be valid.

[Willamena]

Originally Posted by JerryL

It's unclear to me what the society one lived in would have to do with whether you could establish a method other than the one I outlined to be valid.

First, "the one you outlined to be valid" is not science; I point this out in case you were under the impression that it was. As I indicated, divination could readily fall under that definition.

Second, methods such as divination are a valid means of obtaining truth in some non-Western societies.

[JerryL]

First, "the one you outlined to be valid" is not science; I point this out in case you were under the impression that it was. As I indicated, divination could readily fall under that definition.

True or false, this statement is irrellevent.

Second, methods such as divination are a valid means of obtaining truth in some non-Western societies.

So if I try a divination here, it doesn't reliably give me correct information about reality. But if I try a divination while surrounded by people of some other culture, suddenly my conclusions will be accurate?!?

I suspect what you mean is "is considered valid". I'm not asking who considers what valid, I'm asking what can be *established* valid.

Divination falies to yield consistant results. They are not reliably consistant with reality, and they are not reliably consistant with one another.

What culture do you feel would put diviniation on equal footing? If one person devines that there are 10 apples in a basket, and another person looks in the basket and counts that there are 5 apples. Which method is considered reliable? Will we conclude that the basket has 5 apples as determined by empericism, or 10 as determined by divination? Which culture would choose 10? Also, what bearing would the choice to accept 10 have on whether it actually was 10?

[standing_on_one_foot]

Somewhat silly. Science doesn't make claims about absolute truth; it makes claims about what can be observed and empirically measured. So of course that's the only truth it's concerned with.

Beyond that, sure, there are some people who don't believe in anything that can't be proven. People believe all sorts of things. I suppose you could call that fundamentalism if you want. Everyone is a fundamentalist on some level, if you define that as having something you believe in to the exclusion of other things (unless you're really, really agnostic...and at that point you'd probably have a fundamental belief in not being sure of anything, so there you are).

As beliefs go it's not too extreme (or too unreasonable, unless someone starts to get really obnoxious, and that's just down to tact, not beliefs). It's main problem is that really, people never have all the data. More in heaven and earth, Horatio...