In Defense of Scientism

[Yerda]

Article: In Defense of Scientism - Quillette

How the authors define scientism:

The version of scientism we will be defending here is the version advocated by Pinker, Harris, Dawkins, and Tyson; the simple contention that we, as a society, should use the principles of science—skepticism, experimentation, falsification, and the search for basic explanatory principles—to determine, however clumsily and slowly, how the world works and what the best and most effective social policies are.
---

Snippet from the conclusion:

To be fair to critics of scientism, we should concede that some people have attempted to use the rigorous methodology of physics as a model for all other disciplines and have traded understanding for a mere illusion of precision. And others have belittled the power and importance of poetry, painting, music, and other non-scientific endeavors. Such errors deserve rebuttal. But many of the arguments forwarded against scientism are misleading and caricature the intellectuals who advocate the spread of science across other disciplines and into the realm of social policy.


None of them believes that if only every field copied the methods of physics and chemistry, then we’d be on the path to paradise or that art is a cheap facsimile of science, a distortion of the Truth, a degraded copy of a copy. What they do believe is that in the vast toolkit for understanding and engaging the material world, no other tool is better or more reliable than science.
---

I'm never too sure what scientism is but I found the article here pretty clear and reasonable.

Thought?

 

[Altfish]

Scientism ????

Never heard of it, that's just made up.

 

[Spirit of Light]

Is scientism a new religion based on science?

 

[Salvador]

Scientism ????

Never heard of it, that's just made up.

I've heard of Scientology, which is a total scam, I hope this Scientism isn't something like that.

 

[Altfish]

I've heard of Scientology, which is a total scam, I hope this Scientism isn't something like that.

Yes, a cult that lot, but Scientism?

 

[Salvador]

Is scientism a new religion based on science?

Ever since I found out what a scam Scientology is, I'm now skeptical about any religion claiming to be based upon science.

 

[sooda]

Scientism ????

Never heard of it, that's just made up.

Scientism
Scientism is belief in 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.
Scientism - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism

 

[sooda]

Ever since I found out what a scam Scientology is, I'm now skeptical about any religion claiming to be based upon science.

Is Scientology based on science?????

 

[sooda]

Is scientism a new religion based on science?

I think I have the best answer....

On Reason and Passion
Kahlil Gibran

Your soul is oftentimes a battlefield, upon which your reason and your judgment wage war against your passion and your appetite.

Would that I could be the peacemaker in your soul, that I might turn the discord and the rivalry of your elements into oneness and melody.

But how shall I, unless you yourselves be also the peacemakers, nay, the lovers of all your elements?

Your reason and your passion are the rudder and the sails of your seafaring soul. If either your sails or your rudder be broken, you can but toss and drift, or else be held at a standstill in mid-seas.

For reason, ruling alone, is a force confining; and passion, unattended, is a flame that burns to its own destruction.

Therefore let your soul exalt your reason to the height of passion, that it may sing;

And let it direct your passion with reason, that your passion may live through its own daily resurrection, and like the phoenix rise above its own ashes.


I would have you consider your judgment and your appetite even as you would two loved guests in your house.

Surely you would not honour one guest above the other; for he who is more mindful of one loses the love and the faith of both.

Among the hills, when you sit in the cool shade of the white poplars, sharing the peace and serenity of distant fields and meadows -- then let your heart say in silence, "God rests in reason."

And when the storm comes, and the mighty wind shakes the forest, and thunder and lightning proclaim the majesty of the sky -- then let your heart say in awe, "God moves in passion."

And since you are a breath in God's sphere, and a leaf in God's forest, you too should rest in reason and move in passion.

 

[Altfish]

Scientism - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism

It appears to be a term coined by critics of the likes of Dawkins and is certainly not used by anyone called a scientism follower.

 

[Salvador]

Is Scientology based on science?????

No, I believe Scientology beliefs are based on some writings from science fiction writer Ron L. Hubbard. I suppose Scientologists might think their beliefs are science-based rather than based upon pseudo-science.

 

[Willamena]

Article: In Defense of Scientism - Quillette

How the authors define scientism:

The version of scientism we will be defending here is the version advocated by Pinker, Harris, Dawkins, and Tyson; the simple contention that we, as a society, should use the principles of science—skepticism, experimentation, falsification, and the search for basic explanatory principles—to determine, however clumsily and slowly, how the world works and what the best and most effective social policies are.
---

Snippet from the conclusion:

To be fair to critics of scientism, we should concede that some people have attempted to use the rigorous methodology of physics as a model for all other disciplines and have traded understanding for a mere illusion of precision. And others have belittled the power and importance of poetry, painting, music, and other non-scientific endeavors. Such errors deserve rebuttal. But many of the arguments forwarded against scientism are misleading and caricature the intellectuals who advocate the spread of science across other disciplines and into the realm of social policy.


None of them believes that if only every field copied the methods of physics and chemistry, then we’d be on the path to paradise or that art is a cheap facsimile of science, a distortion of the Truth, a degraded copy of a copy. What they do believe is that in the vast toolkit for understanding and engaging the material world, no other tool is better or more reliable than science.
---

I'm never too sure what scientism is but I found the article here pretty clear and reasonable.

Thought?

What the author is suggesting is that a shot in the dark using science is worth two religious theories shot in the barrel.

 

[bobhikes]

Article: In Defense of Scientism - Quillette

How the authors define scientism:

The version of scientism we will be defending here is the version advocated by Pinker, Harris, Dawkins, and Tyson; the simple contention that we, as a society, should use the principles of science—skepticism, experimentation, falsification, and the search for basic explanatory principles—to determine, however clumsily and slowly, how the world works and what the best and most effective social policies are.
---

Snippet from the conclusion:

To be fair to critics of scientism, we should concede that some people have attempted to use the rigorous methodology of physics as a model for all other disciplines and have traded understanding for a mere illusion of precision. And others have belittled the power and importance of poetry, painting, music, and other non-scientific endeavors. Such errors deserve rebuttal. But many of the arguments forwarded against scientism are misleading and caricature the intellectuals who advocate the spread of science across other disciplines and into the realm of social policy.


None of them believes that if only every field copied the methods of physics and chemistry, then we’d be on the path to paradise or that art is a cheap facsimile of science, a distortion of the Truth, a degraded copy of a copy. What they do believe is that in the vast toolkit for understanding and engaging the material world, no other tool is better or more reliable than science.
---

I'm never too sure what scientism is but I found the article here pretty clear and reasonable.

Thought?

Scientism and Skepticism treat the world as our only purpose is discovery. It eliminates the human need for emotion. It is based that knowledge is far better than happiness or happiness can only come from knowledge.

 

[sooda]

Scientism and Skepticism treat the world as our only purpose is discovery. It eliminates the human need for emotion. It is based that knowledge is far better than happiness or happiness can only come from knowledge.

For reason, ruling alone, is a force confining; and passion, unattended, is a flame that burns to its own destruction.

As the poem says, Rest in reason and move in passion.

 

[Willamena]

It appears to be a term coined by critics of the likes of Dawkins and is certainly not used by anyone called a scientism follower.

Scientism, ordinarily, is a logical fallacy. It is blind faith in science to produce good results. It is seen in media promotions, mostly, such as "studies have shown..." or "five out of six doctors recommend..."

It can be seen in the definition in the OP, albeit cloaked, to suggest that it is right that we should rely on science whether we are skilled and educated about it or not. In fact, blind reliance is never a good thing.

However, I agree with the sentiment.

 

[PureX]

Article: In Defense of Scientism - Quillette

How the authors define scientism:

The version of scientism we will be defending here is the version advocated by Pinker, Harris, Dawkins, and Tyson; the simple contention that we, as a society, should use the principles of science—skepticism, experimentation, falsification, and the search for basic explanatory principles—to determine, however clumsily and slowly, how the world works and what the best and most effective social policies are.
---

Snippet from the conclusion:

To be fair to critics of scientism, we should concede that some people have attempted to use the rigorous methodology of physics as a model for all other disciplines and have traded understanding for a mere illusion of precision. And others have belittled the power and importance of poetry, painting, music, and other non-scientific endeavors. Such errors deserve rebuttal. But many of the arguments forwarded against scientism are misleading and caricature the intellectuals who advocate the spread of science across other disciplines and into the realm of social policy.


None of them believes that if only every field copied the methods of physics and chemistry, then we’d be on the path to paradise or that art is a cheap facsimile of science, a distortion of the Truth, a degraded copy of a copy. What they do believe is that in the vast toolkit for understanding and engaging the material world, no other tool is better or more reliable than science.
---

I'm never too sure what scientism is but I found the article here pretty clear and reasonable.

Thought?

"...to determine ... how the world works and what the best and most effective social policies are." This seems worded to avoid scientism as a philosophical perspective, in favor of a practical one. And this is not the scientism I am encountering, mostly from atheists, here on RF. The scientism I am encountering is proposing that the truth of reality can and should be determined by the process of science. And they mean this truth to be far more universal, and even to subjugate, practical function. In fact, whenever I try to point out that the scientific process is not able to explore the truth of reality beyond the realm of physical functionality, and that we humans use philosophy, art, and religion to do that, they fight tooth and nail to deny it, because their goal is to dismiss philosophy, art, and religion is 'mere endeavors in fantasy' because they view human consciousness as not being a part of reality or truth. "Objectivity" has become their new "god", and through it they presume to find and verify all reality and truth. Which is an ideal that no scientist would ever assert, or accede to.

Note to those atheists here that have succumbed to scientism: "To be fair to critics of scientism, we should concede that some people have attempted to use the rigorous methodology of physics as a model for all other disciplines and have traded understanding for a mere illusion of precision. And others have belittled the power and importance of poetry, painting, music, and other non-scientific endeavors (such as philosophy and religion). Such errors deserve rebuttal."

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I'm never too sure what scientism is but I found the article here pretty clear and reasonable.

"Scientism" is generally an epithet used by theists and other afficionados of dubious claims. They apply it to their opponents to suggest that their standards of evidence are unreasonably high.

It's typically used as a Plan B when making their argument on the basis of shoddy evidence fails to convince. It's a way of trying to pin the blame for an unconvincing argument on the person who is unconvinced, as if to say "of course my argument is fine and would convince any reasonable person. The fact that it was unconvincing shows that the other person is being unreasonable."

IOW, it's a cover for motivated reasoning or lazy debating.

 

[joe1776]

Unfortunately, science has to be done by scientists who are human and, as such, they are extremely proud of their ability to reason. Like the rest of us, scientists like to pretend to know more than they really do. The word invented to describe this phenomenon is "scientism." If we back off the unreasonable claims that scientists make, then it's no longer scientism. So, employing a common usage definition, scientism can't be defended. If the scientists' claims are reasonable, it's not scientism.

 

[Sky Rivers]

While science is a useful tool, I don’t accept it as an absolute authority on any matter.

 

[Audie]

Scientism and Skepticism treat the world as our only purpose is discovery. It eliminates the human need for emotion. It is based that knowledge is far better than happiness or happiness can only come from knowledge.

As "scientism" is a word whose specific and only function is
to be used by goddists to show their moral, ethical,
aesthetic, etc superiority, it of course does as you say.

It is all very brainless and silly, as no individual
suffering from the grim and unnatural vice of
scientism has ever been identified.

"Skepticism" is not a proper noun, btw. Nor
is "scientism".