A Recent Axiomatic Observation ...

[Augustus]

I'm wondering who you're referring to. I started a thread specifically asking who at RF adheres to scientism, and three members identified themselves as adherents.

So who are these people who really do practice scientism, but won't admit it?

This is the video if you are interested (fwiw the speaker is himself a scientist)

 

[PureX]

So by "scientism" you're actually talking about metaphysical naturalism?

That's probably why its adherents don't identify with "scientism." There's already a better, more descriptive, and more common term for their position and "scientism" originates from anti-evolution YECs as a slur for people who believe in evolution.

It's common practice now days to spew "alternative terms" to change or obscure any narratives that we don't want to acknowledge. I'm not going to get into a 'term-spitting' contest. The term "scientism" has been around quite a long time, is used and accepted by philosophers as it has been described and can be found in any number of places on line, so it stands as it is.

The only reason people are "confused" by it is because they ARE it, but don't want to see it for what it actually is. As exemplified in the OP. And that's not my problem, nor is it a problem with the term being used.

 

[PureX]

This is the video if you are interested (fwiw the speaker is himself a scientist)

Thank you.

It really is an informative video.

 

[Ella S.]

It's common practice now days to spew "alternative terms" to change or obscure any narratives that we don't want to acknowledge. I'm not going to get into a 'term-spitting' contest. the term "scientism" has been around quite a long time, is used and accepted by philosophers as it has been described ans can be found in any number of places on line, and it stands as it is.

The only reason people are "confused" by it is because they ARE it, but don't want to see it for what it actually is. As exemplified in the OP. And that's not my problem, nor is it a problem with the term being used.

By starting this thread you've started a term-spitting contest. All you're arguing for here are semantics. You want to use a word that's more incendiary than necessary to oversimplify the positions of people you disagree with.

I think it's pretty clear you're the one unaware of your own prejudices.

 

[Koldo]

That truth exists apart from the human mind, in "objective reality". Waiting for us to discover it through the scientific method (an exaggerated idealization of science that includes materialism, objectivism, and empiricism).

Ah! You mean realism.
Materialists are realists indeed. But this is not specific to materialists. The dualists also think similarly.

"God doesn't exist unless and until proven to exist via repeatable objective evidence". That's a very common example of "scientism" thinking.
Perhaps you should be asking yourself why you can't see the connection.

I think someone might have said that but I truly don't remember coming across anyone saying that. I have tried to google that sentence but came up with no results.

"God does not exist unless and until proven to exist via repeatable objective evidence." Why? Because according to the scientism crowd the idea of God is not "real". Our cognitive experience of reality is not accepted as being "real". "Real" has to be validated by convincing/repeatable objective evidence. Because physicality defines reality in the mind of the philosophical materialist. And in the minds of the scientism crowd, too.

I think you are mixing up different concepts.
In ordinary discourse, what is 'imaginary' stands in opposition to what is 'real'. So in this sense, ideas are not real, but this is not materialist thought per se.

The belief that truth exists apart from us, in the mythical realm of "objective reality". Where we can only obtain it through the mighty discerning powers of "science". That, in a nutshell, is "scientism".

Only through science?
As in needing DNA tests to claim that my parents are my biological parents?

 

[Jose Fly]

This is the video if you are interested (fwiw the speaker is himself a scientist)

Thanks!

But it appears the author of this thread isn't interested in my question, which makes me think the thread is just another example of religious folks grousing about science, those who value it, and its habit of showing some beliefs to be wrong.

 

[Alien826]

Would anyone like to use me as an experimental subject? The idea is to determine whether I am a "scientismist" (might as well start with yet another invented buzzword) or not, and in the process maybe shedding more light on how we are to define "scientism". Ooh yes Alien826, I hear you all say.

Here's how I intend to proceed. I'll give a brief description of how I arrive at my world view. I will then answer any questions that arise. Then the forum is open to conclusions.

Though my words don't always reflect this, I see the truth as an assigned probability rather than an absolute. In the examples that follow, 0 means no possibility (therefore completely false) and 100 means absolutely true. I won't be using either value. That there is something apart from images in my mind, 99.999999. That there is a God loosely equivalent to that believed in by a fundamentalist Christian, 0.00000001.

I expand the concept of science to include all investigation of claims, by anyone, so long as the methods make reasonable sense. Is there an elephant in my back yard? I'll have a look. I don't see one, so I ask a few other people to look. They don't see one, so I give the elephant hypothesis a very low probability. Not zero, as there could be things I've missed, but I don't think so.

I have formed an opinion to a fairly high probability that everything is physical, but allow that word to be a bit "fuzzy" in meaning. By that I mean it doesn't have to be restricted to forms of matter and energy that we currently know about. My thinking is that if something is detectable it must have some kind of presence, or putting it another way, it must be "made of" something. So, if we discovered a completely new form of matter, we would simply expand the definition of "physical" to include it.

If something is not (currently) detectable in any way then there is no point discussing it as there is no starting point. How do you discuss something that you cannot describe in any way? I assign a very high level of probability to undetectable things, based on the history of science. It's unlikely that we have discovered everything.

Undetectable things tend to include various gods, ghosts, spirits and so on. I would not be greatly surprised if someone did come up with some hard evidence for one of these things, but I would be very surprised if the reality matched any of our present ideas about them. Why? Because all such ideas are based on very little data. And to repeat, once discovered, they would be quite reasonably included in the "physical" universe.

That will do for a start. Fire away.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Is the image you see in those strokes of paint "real"? Is the song you hear on those sounds "real"? Is the God people wrote of in the Bible "real"? Or are these things "just being imagined". And all that's "real" is the paint, and the sound waves, and the ink on the paper?

You are making a strange use of the word "real" here.

A picture of an apple, is not an actual apple. It's just a depiction of an apple. Sure, the depiction is real - as an abstract, as a mental construct - whatever you wish to call it.

But surely you won't say that a painting of an apple = an actual real apple, right?
So what is your point?

I don't know what else to tell you. Nor do I understand the relevancy of this to the topic.

The philosophical materialist believes that all that's "truly real" is the paint, and the sound waves, and the ink on the paper. Everything else is make-believe.

I think you aren't making any sense here.
Are you saying that "non-philosophical materialists" believe that a picture of an apple = an actual apple?

It's just the 'mind shadows' being created in our brains by thousands of electrochemical reactions. It's not that they see art as valueless. It's that they see "make-believe" (cognition) as not 'real'.

Can you point me to someone who says such weird things?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The belief that truth exists apart from us, in the mythical realm of "objective reality".

"mythical"?



Wouldn't objective reality be the exact opposite of "mythical"?
You make less and less sense as this topic moves forward imo.

Where we can only obtain it through the mighty discerning powers of "science". That, in a nutshell, is "scientism".

Science is just the most reliable method currently at our disposal to reveal what is objectively real.
You disagree with that?

If you do, can you give me an example of a method more reliable then science to unravel objective reality?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The only reason people are "confused" by it is because they ARE it

So you are just going to ignore the many well-argued examples in this thread where it is shown and explained how people are unjustly "accused" of "scientism" due to nothing more or less then anti-scientific ranting in order to defend their anti-scientific religious beliefs?

Especially on this forum, I can confidently say that the VAST majority of such accusations are of that nature.

And as I said, I see that confirmed in the sense that whenever it comes up, it tends to come from people who regularly argue against established science in context of their religious beliefs. Specifically in context of such discussions or arguments.

, but don't want to see it for what it actually is. As exemplified in the OP. And that's not my problem, nor is it a problem with the term being used.

As I already said, I like the reasoning in the OP. It makes sense and it's nicely illustrated with the racism analogy.

But there's another side to this coin. A side that you seem unwilling to acknowledge.
In fact.................. I can easily take that reasoning of the OP and turn it around on YOU.

In the way you write about this, it seems there is a semi-hidden implication in your accusations of scientism where it's done primarily for the purpose of sneaking in "spiritual truths" as if they are on the same level of reliable as empirical truths. And that you "don't see it", because you engage in it.

In fact, I see such often on this forum. Where people hope others to acknowledge that they engage in "scientism" and use wording geared only towards sneaking in religious ideas as if they are just as much a reliable part of reality as empirical truths.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

By starting this thread you've started a term-spitting contest. All you're arguing for here are semantics. You want to use a word that's more incendiary than necessary to oversimplify the positions of people you disagree with.

I think it's pretty clear you're the one unaware of your own prejudices.

Indeed. So ironically, the reverse logic of the OP applies to him also.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Would anyone like to use me as an experimental subject? The idea is to determine whether I am a "scientismist" (might as well start with yet another invented buzzword) or not, and in the process maybe shedding more light on how we are to define "scientism". Ooh yes Alien826, I hear you all say.

Here's how I intend to proceed. I'll give a brief description of how I arrive at my world view. I will then answer any questions that arise. Then the forum is open to conclusions.

Though my words don't always reflect this, I see the truth as an assigned probability rather than an absolute. In the examples that follow, 0 means no possibility (therefore completely false) and 100 means absolutely true. I won't be using either value. That there is something apart from images in my mind, 99.999999. That there is a God loosely equivalent to that believed in by a fundamentalist Christian, 0.00000001.

I expand the concept of science to include all investigation of claims, by anyone, so long as the methods make reasonable sense. Is there an elephant in my back yard? I'll have a look. I don't see one, so I ask a few other people to look. They don't see one, so I give the elephant hypothesis a very low probability. Not zero, as there could be things I've missed, but I don't think so.

I have formed an opinion to a fairly high probability that everything is physical, but allow that word to be a bit "fuzzy" in meaning. By that I mean it doesn't have to be restricted to forms of matter and energy that we currently know about. My thinking is that if something is detectable it must have some kind of presence, or putting it another way, it must be "made of" something. So, if we discovered a completely new form of matter, we would simply expand the definition of "physical" to include it.

If something is not (currently) detectable in any way then there is no point discussing it as there is no starting point. How do you discuss something that you cannot describe in any way? I assign a very high level of probability to undetectable things, based on the history of science. It's unlikely that we have discovered everything.

Undetectable things tend to include various gods, ghosts, spirits and so on. I would not be greatly surprised if someone did come up with some hard evidence for one of these things, but I would be very surprised if the reality matched any of our present ideas about them. Why? Because all such ideas are based on very little data. And to repeat, once discovered, they would be quite reasonably included in the "physical" universe.

That will do for a start. Fire away.

Reading this post, it reminds me of a quote by Bill Nye the Science Guy. It goes like this:

People come up to me and ask me "hey bill... do you believe in ghosts?"
I answer "noooo.... HOWEVER, I would LOVE to meet one."

 

[PureX]

And so the 'scientism' crowd comes a-runnin', all fighting tooth and nail to insist there is no such thing as scientism, or if there is, that there are certainly none of them around here!

Just as the OP would have predicted.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I'm wondering who you're referring to. I started a thread specifically asking who at RF adheres to scientism, and three members identified themselves as adherents.

So who are these people who really do practice scientism, but won't admit it?

Well, here is the psychology as observed as relevant to metacognition:
“...
Do all people have metacognition?
And as Alexander Luria, the Russian psychologist found, not all adults metacogitate. Some adults follow instructions or perform tasks without wondering why they are doing what they are doing. They seldom question themselves about their own learning strategies or evaluate the efficiency of their own performance.
...”
https://www.improvewithmetacognition.com/metacognition-what-makes-humans-unique/

As to following instructions that includes internalizing culture in general and then acting as if it is in effect not to be doubted.
It has nothing to do with any given worldview as such. It has to do with how a person cognite in regards to the person's own worldview.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

On a recent thread about scientism it seemed that people did not like the 'label' of scientism and saw it as an attack or negative instead of just descriptive.

As an aside, "scientism" is a horrible word. Is an adherent to "scientism" a scientist? Maybe "sciencism would be better, with "sciencist" as the noun for the adherent.
Then again maybe just forget the category altogether and just say they are empiricists.

Well, even that is too simple as there in effect are 3 variants of empiricism.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Mostly I was just seeking your perspective, so I'd then be able to respond based on that. I'm happy enough to accept however you want to define it, it's just one of those terms I'm not convinced all people use in the same way. So...first off...thanks for providing what you mean by it, I appreciate it.

I'm not sure how I feel about what you say. At the risk of making this about myself, I reject philosophical materialism. I would instead self-describe as a methodological naturalist. That's a nod to the limitations of science, and in recognition that our ability to see and measure the world around us has always had limits, and so my strong supposition is that our ability to see and measure the world around us STILL has limits.

Having said all that, I don't think I would really see meta-physicality as the 'unseen' item, although (and I swear I'm not trying to be obtuse) it does depend what you mean by metaphysical. I've heard that term used both to describe anything beyond our ken, or alternatively as a more direct description of items supernatural in nature. I'd tend to see us as having a limit to the nature we can see and measure, rather than there being something beyond materiality in the way you may mean.

The intellectual trap I am more wary of, though, is reductionism. It's as much gut feel as anything, but the notion that we can truly understand things by breaking it down to component parts, and understanding each of those appears counterintuitive to me, and does not adequately explain my understanding and experience. Much as some people might suggest an atheist position does not adequately account for their experience of the world (although that doesn't apply to me).

Dunno...these are things I do think about, but would not describe as having much certainty about, so your thoughts are interesting to me.

No. meta-physical is in this context any human behaviour beyond naive realism and empiricism as I understand @PureX

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Do you deny the grim and unnatural
Vice of philosophism even exists?
If so, it reveals you practice philosophism,
right?

Well, I can play that game too.
You are unnatural, because I can see it.

Can you understand the problem with that one? If, yes, apply it to your own text.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

While I agree that philosophical materialism is to be expected in scientism, I am not sure what you mean by: "objective reality" (physicality) = truth.



Can you provide some examples?



I have absolutely no idea what connection you are seeing between demanding objective evidence (which I agree is not always necessary for every single claim) and saying that the realm of cognition is not objectively real. Unless you are talking about a very specific, and odd case, where someone is asking of you to provide evidence that cognition exists.



It is not that the scientism crowd doesn't exist. I am trying to figure what exactly you think that makes one part of the scientism crowd.

From your description, so far, it looks like people that deny the existence of cognition (never came across one) and/or philosophical physicalists.

Example.
I believe in God. That is an unreal fantasy in my mind. It exists as unreal in my mind. But to some physicalists it poses the following problem.
It is unreal, but caused by something real, namely my physical brain in a physical body in a physical reality.

They in effect operate the following unreal fantasy in their mind. Only the objective is real, but that is only real in their mind.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I am genuinely curious on what/who is your source. Can you cite them?

I know of at least one case here on this forum for this game of "unreal" and "real". But I am not allowed to post that.

 

[PureX]

Ah! You mean realism.
Materialists are realists indeed.?

So are those racists, mentioned at the top of the thread, ... in their own minds. That's the point of this thread. When our biases become our 'true reality', we cannot see them as being biased, anymore. They're just our being 'realists'. Nor can we see anyone that holds the same bias as we do as being biased. They're just being 'realists', too.

It's a self-justifying intellectual blind spot.