Who here believes in "Scientism"?

[Quintessence]

If you want to discuss the rules further, please post in Site Feedback. Thanks.

If for example the person advocating for a "soul" previously asserted that it was a physical, measurable thing, that would be very relevant context.

That's fair, though this feels a strange quibble. To remind, this is my earlier comment (note the boldfaced and underlined edit I made):

What context is necessary? If someone insists that modern research on the human brain definitively proves that the idea of souls is bollocks, that's scientism. It's an utter failure to recognize what sciences can (and can't) tell us about the universe (notably, that it can't comment on souls at all because it's a metaphysical concept).

It's metaphysical concept. Metaphysical. As in precisely not the quibble you raised here, so I find it weird to be spotlighting that I guess.

 

[Audie]

Not me

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Yes, but apparently I'm not allowed to show where you did.


Um, no you didn't give examples of anyone espousing scientism as defined in the OP.

Yeah, okay.

Off topic. Let's keep this thread on topic please.

No. You brought up reality and the world. So what is that to you?

 

[Jose Fly]

If you want to discuss the rules further, please post in Site Feedback. Thanks.

I have, and the reply I got back was literally "Whatever". So I'm not about to tilt at that windmill again. It's obvious to me by now that it's a ridiculous rule that, while well-intentioned, actually stifles debate.

It's metaphysical concept. Metaphysical. As in precisely not the quibble you raised here, so I find it weird to be spotlighting that I guess.

That's how you defined it. If the other person had defined it differently, that would be relevant context.

But sticking with the topic of the OP, saying that scientific tests show that there's no such thing as a soul is not scientism as defined in this thread.

 

[MikeF]

Or, people pretending that empiricism is super important for the majority of social and a lot of medical science, which relies intensively on subjective reporting and unverifiable claims.

And the refusal to accept unverifiable claims leading to a lot of ignoring patients when they report pain without source, or psychiatric care which is administered to too small a sample size to have evidence based results. Ditto things like rejection of gender studies, which you see a disturbing excess of in 'skeptical' communities.

That scientism bothers me a lot more than the scientism going on in Dawkinsian cirlce-jerks where you can't get five posts without someone going 'UH EVIDENCE?!'

I'm curious as to what non-scientific investigative methods are to be used in the cases of social and medical science involving subjective reporting and unverifiable claims? When you say unverifiable claims do you mean idiopathic conditions?

What does scientific inquiry mean to you? For me it simply means any investigation that employs standards and principles that acknowledge the fallibility of the human investigator and actively seeks to identify and mitigate the potential introduction of human error in the investigative process. I would think that would be desirable in any social science or medical investigation, yes? Procedures and methods vary widely and are designed specifically for the specific question at hand, be it in physics or child development. I'm just not sure what non-scientific investigative process you suggest would be better used in social science and medicine.

 

[Quintessence]

But sticking with the topic of the OP, saying that scientific tests show that there's no such thing as a soul is not scientism as defined in this thread.

All right, you've got me! Since you get to decide the be-all and end-all of the terms of this debate, you win! Debate over! Scientism is a myth, to be deposed in the trash bin! We can now sleep soundly! Huzzah!

...

In seriousness, what was it you wanted to get out of this, really? By restricting the playing field in this manner, it feels like you've rigged the debate in your favor so your victory is the only outcome. What's the point of that? What's the take home message I'm supposed to walk away with?

 

[Jose Fly]

Yeah, okay.

Noted.

No. You brought up reality and the world. So what is that to you?

Not interested.

 

[MikeF]

All right, you've got me! Since you get to decide the be-all and end-all of the terms of this debate, you win! Debate over! Scientism is a myth, to be deposed in the trash bin! We can now sleep soundly! Huzzah!

...

In seriousness, what was it you wanted to get out of this, really? By restricting the playing field in this manner, it feels like you've rigged the debate in your favor so your victory is the only outcome. What's the point of that? What's the take home message I'm supposed to walk away with?

Huzzah!

 

[Jose Fly]

All right, you've got me! Since you get to decide the be-all and end-all of the terms of this debate, you win! Debate over! Scientism is a myth, to be deposed in the trash bin! We can now sleep soundly! Huzzah!

Not sure why it bothers you so much that I defined the term I was asking about.
...

In seriousness, what was it you wanted to get out of this, really? By restricting the playing field in this manner, it feels like you've rigged the debate in your favor so your victory is the only outcome. What's the point of that? What's the take home message I'm supposed to walk away with?

That when someone says there are "many at RF who believe in scientism", they aren't talking about "scientism" as it is defined in the OP. So when you see that claim, it would be prudent to ask the person to specify what they mean by the term.

 

[Revoltingest]

No. Read the OP.

I did.
No debating.
But wanted some clarity.
Done now.

 

[cladking]

Not sure why it bothers you so much that I defined the term I was asking about.
...


That when someone says there are "many at RF who believe in scientism", they aren't talking about "scientism" as it is defined in the OP. So when you see that claim, it would be prudent to ask the person to specify what they mean by the term.

"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."

Not only do they believe science is the means to answer all questions but they believe all questions have already been answered. You can see this every time they tell you what's what and can't respond to an argument to the contrary, can't see anomalies, and aren't familiar with the definitions.

 

[Alien826]

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.

Are you really expecting RF folks to stick with that restriction?

 

[idea]

Scientism?

I prefer engineer(ism?) - the difference, engineers apply science. To me, application is the key.

 

[Aupmanyav]

.. 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, ..

Yes, I believe only answers from science are worthy. Though I think the word 'Scienticism' is a mis-nomer. Believing in science is not a religion.

If for example the person advocating for a "soul" previously asserted that it was a physical, measurable thing, that would be very relevant context.

No one would say that, since there is nothing to measure in case of soul or God. Lack of evidence is precisely the reason that the atheists reject them.

 

[rational experiences]

Yes, I believe only answers from science are worthy. Though I think the word 'Scienticism' is a mis-nomer. Believing in science is not a religion.No one would say that, since there is nothing to measure in case of soul or God. Lack of evidence is precisely the reason that the atheists reject them.

No it's the first cult about occult.

Seeing occular but also thinking after loss of self conscious identity. The first man's truth.

How I became a changed unnatural thinker whilst everyone remained the same.

Religious practice was ceremonial healing medical constants...brains entrainment as based on scientific human experienced evidence.

Theme a man as a human father owns sperm.

Topic discussed by man sacrificed included woman's body ova...ovah.

His mother's life body not first man theist of God.

As God the creator states the theist. Entity body for his humans science only practice was earths masses.

The entity God one planet special to humanity only created it's highest state heavens cold clear.

Nothing to do with any sun was the teaching.

 

[Brian2]

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.

Given this statements below from these site in a similar colour the quotes: Glossary Definition: Scientism

What is scientism, and why is it a mistake?

What is the Difference Between Science and Scientism - Pediaa.Com

I would say that many on this forum are advocates for scientism even if they don't realise it.

Scientism
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.

• Science and Scientism are not the same. You can deeply value the former while rejecting the latter.
• Scientism is the view that science is the only objective means by which to determine what is true or is an unwarranted application of science in situations that are not amenable to scientific inquiry.
• Science is a method for asking questions about the world. Scientism is just one philosophy among many about the relationship between human beings and their experiences.

The main difference between science and scientism is that science is the study of nature and behaviour of natural things and knowledge obtained through them while scientism is the view that only science can render truth about the world and reality.

 

[Audie]

"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."

Not only do they believe science is the means to answer all questions but they believe all questions have already been answered. You can see this every time they tell you what's what and can't respond to an argument to the contrary, can't see anomalies, and aren't familiar with the definitions.

Examples or it didn't happen

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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.

As a Christian and a scientist, it would seem somewhat of a paradox for me to adhere to or promote scientism. Yet, while not being directly accused of such, I have been swept up in the dragnet of scientism on many occasions when someone opposed to actual science could not meet the burden of proof of their own claims.

Like you, I don't know of anyone espousing to follow scientism. Merely accepting the existing conclusions of science doesn't count given that informed acceptance includes the condition that those conclusions cannot be seen as absolute.

I don't know that I have seen anyone that follows science as a belief system posting on this forum.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

As a Christian and a scientist, it would seem somewhat of a paradox for me to adhere to or promote scientism. Yet, while not being directly accused of such, I have been swept up in the dragnet of scientism on many occasions when someone opposed to actual science could not meet the burden of proof of their own claims.

Like you, I don't know of anyone espousing to follow scientism. Merely accepting the existing conclusions of science doesn't count given that informed acceptance includes the possibility that those conclusions cannot be seen as absolute.

I don't know that I have seen anyone that follows science as a belief system posting on this forum.

Here you go:
What are some examples of scientism?
What are some examples of scientism?

 

[Brian2]

Examples or it didn't happen

Given this statements below from these site in a similar colour the quotes: Glossary Definition: Scientism

What is scientism, and why is it a mistake?

What is the Difference Between Science and Scientism - Pediaa.Com

I would say that many on this forum are advocates for scientism even if they don't realise it.

Scientism
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.

• Science and Scientism are not the same. You can deeply value the former while rejecting the latter.
• Scientism is the view that science is the only objective means by which to determine what is true or is an unwarranted application of science in situations that are not amenable to scientific inquiry.
• Science is a method for asking questions about the world. Scientism is just one philosophy among many about the relationship between human beings and their experiences.

The main difference between science and scientism is that science is the study of nature and behaviour of natural things and knowledge obtained through them while scientism is the view that only science can render truth about the world and reality.