Is eulogizing science out of proportion a symptom of scientism rather than science?

[paarsurrey]

Is faith in science out of its limitations a symptom of scientism rather than science? Please
Regards

 

[Liu]

Sounds like the definition of scientism to me, so yes, why?

It depends on what you define as the limitations of science, though.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I agree with Liu.

Things like cyrptozoology or alien races.

Based loosely off science, but not scientific in its own right.

That's the impression I'm getting.

 

[Skwim]

Paarsurrey, just so everyone is on the same page, perhaps you'd like to point out which of the following definitions of "scientism" you have in mind..

Scientism is a term used to describe the universal applicability of the scientific method and approach, and the view that empirical science constitutes the most authoritative worldview or the most valuable part of human learning—to the exclusion of other viewpoints.

Accordingly, philosopher Tom Sorell provides this definition of scientism: "Scientism is a matter of putting too high a value on natural science in comparison with other branches of learning or culture."

It has been defined as "the view that the characteristic inductive methods of the natural sciences are the only source of genuine factual knowledge and, in particular, that they alone can yield true knowledge about man and society"
source;Wikipedia

.​

 

[siti]

Is faith in science out of its limitations a symptom of scientism rather than science?

Faith in science is warranted on the basis of two things: 1. its astounding success in elucidating the physical reality of which we are part and 2. its continual efforts to debunk its own findings and replace outmoded ideas of what the world might be like with better ideas.

This is nothing to do with 'scientism' - which is really the notion that science is the ONLY arbiter of truth among the various branches of human knowledge. 'Scientism' shares that failing with almost all traditional religions - with the exception that it does at least have much more realistic ideas about what that truth might be.

But the fact is that genuine science (if we keep up to date) always gives us the best picture of the physical reality we are part of. I have no hesitation in saying that I have faith in that.

I do not really know what you mean by "out of its limitations" - if it is "out of its limitations" then it is not science. But that is not 'scientism' either - its either religion, or philosophy, or - not unusually - just wrong - or even worse, "not even wrong" (as Wolfgang Pauli put it) meaning that is not scientifically verifiable/falsifiable. That is usually called pseudo-science and would IMO include things like intelligent design, irreducible complexity, the multiverse and string theory none of which produce testable hypotheses with potentially falsifiable predictions. That is, I suppose, science "out of its limitations" and I have no faith in these at all - but its nothing to do with 'scientism' - its just not science.

FWIW - intelligent design is a purely religious idea pretending to be science, irreducible complexity is a religiously motivated philosophy pretending to be science and the multiverse and string theory are mathematics (a branch of philosophy - more specifically a branch of logic) pretending to be science. All or any of them could be right (for all I know) and could (for all know) provide good explanations of scientifically observable facts, but none of them are science.

 

[columbus]

Is faith in science out of its limitations a symptom of scientism rather than science? Please
Regards

You don't know what science means.
So you wouldn't understand the answer to your question if someone gave it to you.
Tom

 

[paarsurrey]

Faith in science is warranted on the basis of two things: 1. its astounding success in elucidating the physical reality of which we are part and 2. its continual efforts to debunk its own findings and replace outmoded ideas of what the world might be like with better ideas.

This is nothing to do with 'scientism' - which is really the notion that science is the ONLY arbiter of truth among the various branches of human knowledge. 'Scientism' shares that failing with almost all traditional religions - with the exception that it does at least have much more realistic ideas about what that truth might be.

But the fact is that genuine science (if we keep up to date) always gives us the best picture of the physical reality we are part of. I have no hesitation in saying that I have faith in that.

I do not really know what you mean by "out of its limitations" - if it is "out of its limitations" then it is not science. But that is not 'scientism' either - its either religion, or philosophy, or - not unusually - just wrong - or even worse, "not even wrong" (as Wolfgang Pauli put it) meaning that is not scientifically verifiable/falsifiable. That is usually called pseudo-science and would IMO include things like intelligent design, irreducible complexity, the multiverse and string theory none of which produce testable hypotheses with potentially falsifiable predictions. That is, I suppose, science "out of its limitations" and I have no faith in these at all - but its nothing to do with 'scientism' - its just not science.

FWIW - intelligent design is a purely religious idea pretending to be science, irreducible complexity is a religiously motivated philosophy pretending to be science and the multiverse and string theory are mathematics (a branch of philosophy - more specifically a branch of logic) pretending to be science. All or any of them could be right (for all I know) and could (for all know) provide good explanations of scientifically observable facts, but none of them are science.

Is it an acknowledgement that "physical reality" is not the only reality? Whatever reality is not-physical that defines the limitations of science. Please
Regards

 

[LuisDantas]

You don't know what science means.
So you wouldn't understand the answer to your question if someone gave it to you.
Tom

@paarsurrey , I fear that I have to agree with @columbus here, at least for the time being.

 

[siti]

Is it an acknowledgement that "physical reality" is not the only reality? Whatever reality is not-physical that defines the limitations of science. Please

No. Thank you.