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

[Sunstone]

From:

http://more-light.blogspot.com/2006/...ogy.html#links

Unlike the use of the scientific method as only one mode of reaching knowledge, scientism claims that science alone can render truth about the world and reality. 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. Scientism sees it necessary to do away with most, if not all, metaphysical, philosophical, and religious claims, as the truths they proclaim cannot be apprehended by the scientific method. In essence, scientism sees science as the absolute and only justifiable access to the truth.


Is Scientism a sort of fundamentalism?

[Fluffy]

I have never heard of the term before but if this description of it is accurate then I would say that it is certainly a form of fundamentalism.

Religious fundamentalists define what their truth is and the only method upon which it is possible to gain that truth. Simultaneously, they totally disregard any sort of sceptical thought on these two matters (although they may utitlise scepticism in other areas).

Scientism appears to do exactly the same thing... unless of course they have gone through the various sceptical arguments and somehow managed to justify dismissing scepticism in these two areas.

[Willamena]

Originally Posted by Sunstone

Unlike the use of the scientific method as only one mode of reaching knowledge, scientism claims that science alone can render truth about the world and reality. 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. Scientism sees it necessary to do away with most, if not all, metaphysical, philosophical, and religious claims, as the truths they proclaim cannot be apprehended by the scientific method. In essence, scientism sees science as the absolute and only justifiable access to the truth.


Is Scientism a sort of fundamentalism?

I think it certainly is. What's really amazing is how people can ignore themselves (the subjective human condition) in their claims that science can explain everything in the world. People adopting scientism as their ideology express a belief or faith in science that is irrational in its claims. What's really funny is that one need only keep one's peace and not express one's opinions to such people in order to know you have thwarted them.

[JerryL]

Unlike the use of the scientific method as only one mode of reaching knowledge, scientism claims that science alone can render truth about the world and reality. 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. Scientism sees it necessary to do away with most, if not all, metaphysical, philosophical, and religious claims, as the truths they proclaim cannot be apprehended by the scientific method.

This sounds like rhetoric... an attempt by someone to resolve their own issue by accusing the other side of doing so.

Let's look at some of the other examples and see what their value may be for determing "the truth about the world and reality".

Metaphysical. OK. Give me some metaphysical data and tell me what conclusions I can draw from it. How can I determine this metaphysical data accurate?

Philosophical. What does philosophy tell me about the state of reality and the world? It tells me a lot about human nature, but what can I tell about the world with it? Give me an example.

Religious claims. These are just like non-religious claims. What can I learn about the world and reality from the fact that someone claims something?

That last one is particularly interesting... let's see if I follow the logic.

1) Sciencism is a religion that claims that you cannot tell about reality through methods ofther than empericism.

2) You claim that this is wrong because you can learn about the universe through religious claims.

If 2 is true, then 1 must be true (it's a religious claim); but 1 explicitly denies 2, so if 1 is true than 2 cannot be true. Obviosuly this disproves 2.

Is Scientism a sort of fundamentalism?

As you've just defined it, yes. The millitary code of justice is also funamentalist, as is the US legal system, as is Microsoft's standards and practices document.

[Booko]

Originally Posted by Sunstone

Is Scientism a sort of fundamentalism?

In that such a view incorrectly narrows epistemology, it's extreme, and so might be compared to fundamentalism, which also has artificial restrictions at the core.

[Booko]

Originally Posted by JerryL

This sounds like rhetoric... an attempt by someone to resolve their own issue by accusing the other side of doing so.

Very possible.

Let's look at some of the other examples and see what their value may be for determing "the truth about the world and reality".

Metaphysical. OK. Give me some metaphysical data and tell me what conclusions I can draw from it. How can I determine this metaphysical data accurate?

Philosophical. What does philosophy tell me about the state of reality and the world? It tells me a lot about human nature, but what can I tell about the world with it? Give me an example.

Religious claims. These are just like non-religious claims. What can I learn about the world and reality from the fact that someone claims something?

If they claim they have a method to help people get along better and improve themselves, and when implemented properly that is actually the case, then the claim has some merit.

I'm not sure what other religious claims you had in mind.

The fact that some areas of life are more subjective does not, of course, imply that we can know nothing about them. That's an approach a few people take, but I find it to be rather...well...short-sighted.

As you've just defined it, yes. The millitary code of justice is also funamentalist, as is the US legal system, as is Microsoft's standards and practices document.

Oh, does the UCMJ or Microsnot's' S&P artificially restrict modes of thinking about the world, or does it just have a particular purpose, and therefore the scope of the material is more focused?

[Willamena]

Originally Posted by JerryL

As you've just defined it, yes. The millitary code of justice is also funamentalist, as is the US legal system, as is Microsoft's standards and practices document.

No Western legal system is fundamentalist. The distinguishing feature of fundamentalism is in its holding to the infallibility of the founding documents or ideas, and while documented laws are the basis on which judgements are held and maintained, the very fact that amendments and new rulings exist testifies to the written law being a 'living' document.

[JerryL]

No Western legal system is fundamentalist. The distinguishing feature of fundamentalism is in its holding to the infallibility of the founding documents or ideas, and while documented laws are the basis on which judgements are held and maintained

I see no such requirement in the defintion I looked up to determine whether to answer "yes" or "no".

A movement or attitude stressing strict and literal adherence to a set of basic principles - www.m-w.com

A strict adherence to any set of basic ideas or principles - dictionary.com

the very fact that amendments and new rulings exist testifies to the written law being a 'living' document.

The NT was added to the Torah to create the Bible. Even after the standardization under Constantine, books have moved in and out of cannon.

The "rule of law" principle hasn't changed, so people who adhere to that completely are fundamentalist, nor has fundamentalist democracy (well: democratic republicanism). These ideas are far closer to "scientific method" than the laws themselves. The conclusions drawn by scientific method are under constant revision and adjustment. Science is most certainly "living".

If you wish to use a different definition than the one in the disctionary: I have no problem with that. Whether I think what is described meets your definition will depend on what your definition is.