I don't know about that. I think usually words are defined by their usage. And every time I see the word being used...
But I'll also say that for the purpose of this thread, I didn't look it up in the dictionary yet.
In this thread, it seemed appropriate to have the people who wish to discuss or use this term, to define it.
True. But as I said, it seemed appropriate to at least start engaging in this thread by having the people who wish to discuss and use it, define it.
If I enter this thread with a different definition, it would only be confusing (regardless of which definition is the "correct" one)
Not that I'm denying that this happens, but can you give an example?
Sure. But in that case, I'ld say that you would have to agree that it's probably a good idea to let the people who bring it up, define what it is exactly that they mean by it?
As I said though, I don't remember ever hearing the word "scientism" be used in any other context then as a means to try and undermine valid scientific reasoning.
Okay, actual scientism is rare as per the following definition: Everything can be done in a positive way with science and I can get positive answer using science about what is correct for non-science as per this:
https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/whatisscience_12
So scientism is in effect the claim that science can do, what this link claims it can't.
That is the strict strong version of scientism.
But here is the weak version:
I am rational with evidence and you are not, so what you believe in not useful for anybody and I speak for a we for all humans for all cases of useful for all relevant cases. Further I decide what is relevant, meanningfull, matters and makes sense. You don't and you are not really in reality.
Of course, it is individual as in its a personal belief system, but it does have some common markers. In the end, it is that what is subjectively useful and so on, can be made in effect objective for all humans using evidence and so on in a naturalistic sense.
Of course those who do it, deny it, because they can't catch, hold and examine, that they are subjective in the end. Just as some religious believers don't understand when they are subjective.
So here are the relevant definitions of objective as I use them:
Definition of OBJECTIVE
I use 1 and 2 in the short version.
1a, 2a and 2b for objective as an adjective.
I then compare it with subjective as per this quote:
"Man is the measure of all things: of the things that are, that they are, of the things that are not, that they are not."
Measure is subjective here and scientism is in the end: I don't do that kind of measure, because I am rational and can do it objectively for all measurements including what matters and so on.
