A Recent Axiomatic Observation ...

[Koldo]

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.

I don't really think this has anything to do with physicalism per se.

 

[Koldo]

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.

Oh gosh.
I don't mean 'realism' and 'realist' in that sense. I am talking about philosophical realism as in: reality is mind independent. This is not specific to any substance monist, dualist or pluralist

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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.

Who are you talking about?
I notice you don't even bother responding to or acknowledging the various valid points raised by several here.

I mean, you ARE aware that while your logic in the OP is reasonable, it is also true that scientism / racism / any-other-ism accusations are done on false grounds also, right?

While your argument in the OP is reasonable, you seem to leave no room at all for those people who posit false or unjustified accusations.

Sometimes, when someone is accused of racism and that person says its a false accusation - it is actually true that it is a false accusation.

Your reasonable OP doesn't mean that all accusations by default are valid.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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.

Sure. But that is a two-way street. It applies to both sides of the argument.
You seem to be insisting it only applies to the side of the accused.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I don't really think this has anything to do with physicalism per se.

Well, only the physical is what exists, but since you think and not observe, what you do is unreal. I only accept observation of the really physical and not your thoughts as they are not real. Only observations of the actually existing objective physical reality are real.
So you are in effect a believer and thus hold unreal thoughts.

So as a joke, unless you only use nothing but actual observation, you are irrational just like me. Only external sensory observations of
the actually existing objective physical reality are real.
That one is around alot.

 

[Augustus]

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.

It's not a buzzword and existed long before it was appropriated by religious apologists.

It just means excessive trust in the methods, accuracy and scope of the sciences. Nothing sinister or "anti-science". Nothing pro-supernatural or pro-religion about it.

It goes back to criticisms of people like Auguste Comte who thought you could create a "science of everything". It could also be applied to Hegelian/Marxist 'scientific' theories of history, or those who think you can create a scientific morality, or those who put too much trust in softer sciences with very high error rates (psychology, economics, medicine, etc), or those who treat the real world practices of scientists as if they are overwhelmingly in accordance to the normative aims of idealised science. People may also try to apply scientific methods beyond their functional scope resulting in incorrect or misleading data or accept oversimplified metrics simply because they are measurable and thus "scientific" .

Any rational sceptic should be concerned about scientism, but the tendency is to pretend it doesn't exist just because some apologists misuse the term.

It's a bit like pretending fascists don't exist, just because the term is abused to score political points.

 

[PureX]

Who are you talking about?
I notice you don't even bother responding to or acknowledging the various valid points raised by several here.

I mean, you ARE aware that while your logic in the OP is reasonable, it is also true that scientism / racism / any-other-ism accusations are done on false grounds also, right?

While your argument in the OP is reasonable, you seem to leave no room at all for those people who posit false or unjustified accusations.

Sometimes, when someone is accused of racism and that person says its a false accusation - it is actually true that it is a false accusation.

Your reasonable OP doesn't mean that all accusations by default are valid.

The question is, if they are true, OF YOU, how would you know?

I have listed and explained some of the intellectual traits that 'scientism' refers to, and yet there are several here that want to argue them tooth and nail. But the argument is already over. It's already an ecknowledged intellectual phenomenon. I'm simply pointing out why some folks can't recognize or accept it.

And then here they are.

 

[PureX]

Sure. But that is a two-way street. It applies to both sides of the argument.
You seem to be insisting it only applies to the side of the accused.

I'm not making an argument or accusing anyone. I am pointing out why some ideological phenomena, like scientism, racism, etc., don't exist from the perspective of those engaging in it.

 

[Koldo]

It's not a buzzword and existed long before it was appropriated by religious apologists.

It just means excessive trust in the methods, accuracy and scope of the sciences. Nothing sinister or "anti-science". Nothing pro-supernatural or pro-religion about it.

It goes back to criticisms of people like Auguste Comte who thought you could create a "science of everything". It could also be applied to Hegelian/Marxist 'scientific' theories of history, or those who think you can create a scientific morality, or those who put too much trust in softer sciences with very high error rates (psychology, economics, medicine, etc), or those who treat the real world practices of scientists as if they are overwhelmingly in accordance to the normative aims of idealised science. People may also try to apply scientific methods beyond their functional scope resulting in incorrect or misleading data or accept oversimplified metrics simply because they are measurable and thus "scientific" .

Any rational sceptic should be concerned about scientism, but the tendency is to pretend it doesn't exist just because some apologists misuse the term.

It's a bit like pretending fascists don't exist, just because the term is abused to score political points.

The only reason I am not giving you this post the 'Winner' tag is because it is quite disconnected from how @PureX defines scientism. It is not just some apologists misusing the term, it is a lot of people doing it.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

The only reason I am not giving you this post the 'Winner' tag is because it is quite disconnected from how @PureX defines scientism. It is not just some apologists misusing the term, it is a lot of people doing it.

It is because it comes in effect folk belief variants versus the more academic variants. And that there are at least 3 variants of it in practice.

Here is one variant you can find on this forum. Science is the best method to understand the world and that it is the best variant, is with scientific* evidence for it being the best.
That one, the * can be varied as to in effect it being objectively so as with objective reason or other such variants.

It is in cognitive terms for understanding objective how that is treated and relates to the idea of reality being objective as that which actually exists is both physical and objective.

In short just as it is absurd if the world is not from God to some people, to other people it is absurd if the world is not objective and physical.
Note - both claims are without evidence.

 

[PureX]

The only reason I am not giving you this post the 'Winner' tag is because it is quite disconnected from how @PureX defines scientism. It is not just some apologists misusing the term, it is a lot of people doing it.

Why are you appointing me the "definer" of scientism? And anyway, I don't disagree with @Augustus characterizations, at all. They are quite similar to those I stated above. (Posts #35 and #40.)

 

[Debater Slayer]

It could also be applied to Hegelian/Marxist 'scientific' theories of history [...]

How so? It seems to me that social dynamics and economics are both "science" insofar as we can study them and test our assumptions about them against observable evidence.

Marx and Engels didn't get everything right, of course, and there's a lot of criticism of their theories. But as a part of social science, Marxism is indispensable—especially in academia.

or those who put too much trust in softer sciences with very high error rates (psychology, economics, medicine, etc) [...]

I suppose this hinges on what one considers "too much trust." To some people, taking vaccines or seeking therapy for mental disorders is "too much trust," and the results that follow are often pernicious as was especially clear during the pandemic.

On the other hand, there are people who fail to recognize that some questions in medicine and psychology are indeed quite open-ended, which is where I agree that taking any one position as gospel truth may qualify as an example of scientism.

 

[Ella S.]

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.

Then the OP is wrong since most of the backlash isn't denying that "scientism" is a thing. Thus, your hypothesis has been falsified.

The fact that you interpret the arguments against your position as denying the reality of scientism does, however, sustain my hypothesis that you're oversimplifying the arguments of those you disagree with.

 

[Ella S.]

It is because it comes in effect folk belief variants versus the more academic variants. And that there are at least 3 variants of it in practice.

Here is one variant you can find on this forum. Science is the best method to understand the world and that it is the best variant, is with scientific* evidence for it being the best.
That one, the * can be varied as to in effect it being objectively so as with objective reason or other such variants.

It is in cognitive terms for understanding objective how that is treated and relates to the idea of reality being objective as that which actually exists is both physical and objective.

In short just as it is absurd if the world is not from God to some people, to other people it is absurd if the world is not objective and physical.
Note - both claims are without evidence.

If you don't think there's ample evidence for the existence of an objective, external, physical world, then you don't know what evidence is. You aren't less biased by denying the existence of reality. That's the ultimate bias.

 

[Ella S.]

It's not a buzzword and existed long before it was appropriated by religious apologists.

It just means excessive trust in the methods, accuracy and scope of the sciences. Nothing sinister or "anti-science". Nothing pro-supernatural or pro-religion about it.

It goes back to criticisms of people like Auguste Comte who thought you could create a "science of everything". It could also be applied to Hegelian/Marxist 'scientific' theories of history, or those who think you can create a scientific morality, or those who put too much trust in softer sciences with very high error rates (psychology, economics, medicine, etc), or those who treat the real world practices of scientists as if they are overwhelmingly in accordance to the normative aims of idealised science. People may also try to apply scientific methods beyond their functional scope resulting in incorrect or misleading data or accept oversimplified metrics simply because they are measurable and thus "scientific" .

Any rational sceptic should be concerned about scientism, but the tendency is to pretend it doesn't exist just because some apologists misuse the term.

It's a bit like pretending fascists don't exist, just because the term is abused to score political points.

Even in many of those contexts, "scientism" was still rampantly used in an attempt to keep science from questioning the claims of other fields. Religious apologists are unfortunately using it accurately.

 

[Augustus]

How so? It seems to me that social dynamics and economics are both "science" insofar as we can study them and test our assumptions about them against observable evidence.

Marx and Engels didn't get everything right, of course, and there's a lot of criticism of their theories. But as a part of social science, Marxism is indispensable—especially in academia.

It's more their a teleological view of history where we can discover "laws" of history and its future direction.

Historical materialism - Wikipedia

I suppose this hinges on what one considers "too much trust." To some people, taking vaccines or seeking therapy for mental disorders is "too much trust," and the results that follow are often pernicious as was especially clear during the pandemic.

On the other hand, there are people who fail to recognize that some questions in medicine and psychology are indeed quite open-ended, which is where I agree that taking any one position as gospel truth may qualify as an example of scientism.

In general, you have an industry that often has a strong incentive to manipulate the scientific process and shape "scientific" understanding of health issues and treatment regimes. As a result you get a lot of treatments that offer negligible benefits (or sometimes even net negative effects on average) yet there is a very high degree of public trust as they are "scientific".

Obviously there are many important treatments, but there is a definite tendency towards overtreatment and overmedication because of the generic public trust in "science".

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

If you don't think there's ample evidence for the existence of an objective, external, physical world, then you don't know what evidence is. You aren't less biased by denying the existence of reality. That's the ultimate bias.

Yeah, we do philosophy differently.

 

[Augustus]

Even in many of those contexts, "scientism" was still rampantly used in an attempt to keep science from questioning the claims of other fields. Religious apologists are unfortunately using it accurately.

Which unfortunately creates a kind of vicious circle where attitude towards "science" becomes a marker of tribal identity and discourages critical thinking on all sides.

 

[Ella S.]

Yeah, we do philosophy differently.

Sensory perception that strongly indicates a conclusion is what we call "evidence."

Most people gain enough of this evidence to conclude that an external, objective, physical world exists by the age of 14 months. In fact, most people who believe in God also believe that the external, objective, physical world exists.

You're the one getting hung up on that. That's your bias, not everyone else's.

 

[Ella S.]

Which unfortunately creates a kind of vicious circle where attitude towards "science" becomes a marker of tribal identity and discourages critical thinking on all sides.

I agree, although I think a lot of what could have been called "scientism" in the more useful sense can still be considered pseudo-science or "cargo cult science." Arguing against that is still in vogue with skeptics.