In Defense of Scientism

[Augustus]

That is pretty much the reason to avoid using the word.

It's not a particularly good reason though.

If we stopped using words simply because someone else used them in a way we didn't approve of, we'd end up with very small vocabularies.

 

[Revoltingest]

"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.

Epithets be damned.
This evolutionist likes scientism.
But there's one awkward aspect to it...
Not every adherent of scientism would be a "scientist".

Btw, I'm also a gravitationalist.

 

[osgart]

There are aspects of being and reality that exist outside the bounds of science.

Logic isnt foolproof either. Nothing has to follow conclusively from a given x.

Any experience is going to draw an interpretation of that experience. And common people have valid experiences that cant be explained in terms of extensive research. Nevertheless the experience itself is reality worth the as is, and interpretation that is non scientific.

Scientism leads to two forms of materialism. Excessive and obsessive material pursuit. And that all things are effectively reduced to matter. Explain the matter and you explain the phenomenon. However concepts are ideas that motivate people, and have no physical basis for the motivation.

 

[LuisDantas]

Is scientism a new religion based on science?

Nope. It is something far inferior to either religion or science, and unfortunately nevertheless very widespread indeed.

But what the OP defends, while still unadvisable, is not really very similar to that poison. Scientism is AFAIK generally defined as the use of the superficial appearance of science in order to validate pseudo-science or worse.

 

[atanu]

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...

Thought?

I think that it would be okay, except that there is no way to study the hard problem of consciousness. And all these guys, as far as I know (shown in red) do not even acknowledge that. The subjective experience is not equal to third party measurements. I am not sure how a social policy can even be drafted without incorporating the truth of the conscious beings.

 

[Spirit of Light]

Nope. It is something far inferior to either religion or science, and unfortunately nevertheless very widespread indeed.

But what the OP defends, while still unadvisable, is not really very similar to that poison. Scientism is AFAIK generally defined as the use of the superficial appearance of science in order to validate pseudo-science or worse.

I have very little knowledge about the science, but i can not dismiss it either So i am kind of in deep water when it comes to discussions like this

 

[shunyadragon]

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?

I do not like the word 'scientism,' because it is a much misused term, and science can do very well without it. It is often used as a 'club word' by those who are antagonist to science.

 

[shunyadragon]

I think that it would be okay, except that there is no way to study the hard problem of consciousness. And all these guys, as far as I know (shown in red) do not even acknowledge that. The subjective experience is not equal to third party measurements. I am not sure how a social policy can even be drafted without incorporating the truth of the conscious beings.

I personally do not consider the supposed 'hard problem of mind/consciousness' is in reality a hard problem at all. Most like Chalmers who present it as a 'hard problem' do so with a shell game of 'arguing for ignorance' and do so from a philosophical perspective and not science.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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

"What do you think science is? There's nothing magical about science. It is simply a systematic way for carefully and thoroughly observing nature and using consistent logic to evaluate results. Which part of that exactly do you disagree with? Do you disagree with being thorough? Using careful observation? Being systematic? Or using consistent logic?" - Dr. Steven Novella

 

[Willamena]

So it is sportsism if one is influenced to
buy jordan shoes, celebism to get a dress
like some actress has, preacherism if,
politicianism if.

How btw can faith be a logical fallacy...?
No logic in it at all.

Is faith (always blind) in "god" godism, and
a logical fallacy?

Prease exprain.

An appeal to blind faith is a fallacy simply because it abandons reason.

 

[Willamena]

So the modt common use is not the primary one?

No. The primary one is the most commonly used.

Before this year, I'd never head it as allegedly exclusively used by religious folk.

 

[LuisDantas]

I have very little knowledge about the science, but i can not dismiss it either So i am kind of in deep water when it comes to discussions like this

You should be ok if you just don't allow claims of scientific support go without any question.

 

[Terry Sampson]

At https://arxiv.org/pdf/1902.05080.pdf, I read the first two sentences of the abstract:

"The scientific method relies on facts, established through repeated measurements and agreed upon universally, independently of who observed them. In quantum mechanics, the objectivity of observations is not so clear, most dramatically exposed in Eugene Wigner’s eponymous thought experiment where two observers can experience fundamentally different realities."

and wonder: Is the scientific method now less scientifically sound than quantum mechanics? or more scientifically sound than quantum mechanics? Or is scientific soundness irrelevant, in which case, IMHO, scientism would seem to have a "flat tire."

 

[Yerda]

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

That's a snappy sentence. What does it mean?

 

[shunyadragon]

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

Scientology is a cruel scam. Scientism is not science.

 

[shunyadragon]

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

I have been a scientist for over fifty years, geologist and soil scientist, and very fortunately science does not claim to be an 'absolute authority on anything.'

Scientism is not science, it is not a useful word in respect to describing science and most often used to insult science, by its detractors.

 

[Erebus]

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

Thought?

The thing with words like "scientism" is that there really is no universally accepted definition of it. As has been pointed out elsewhere, some people will level the accusation of scientism at any bit of data that conflicts with their own views. Another definition I've seen is that scientism is the view that scientific knowledge is the only worthwhile knowledge. That's a view that very few actual scientists support but sometimes crops up from laymen.

So it's one of those words that needs clarification whenever it's used.

Going by the definition provided by the article... it seems reasonable enough to me. Personal beliefs are fine but when it comes to decisions that affect a wide number of people, it's certainly best to have facts and data on your side.

 

[shunyadragon]

Btw, I'm also a gravitationalist.

Don't unbolt those gravitational grappling hooks

 

[shunyadragon]

That's a snappy sentence. What does it mean?

Willamena said: ↑
"What the author is suggesting is that a shot in the dark using science is worth two religious theories shot in the barrel."

Sounds like a Carnival game.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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?

My introduction to the term was in its use by a creationist to dismiss valid science that did not agree with his belief. Since then, it has been a term I have seen creationists and pseudo-science supporters use regularly and repeatedly in the negative to dismiss any science that they are uncomfortable with or that contradicts the claims they make based on their beliefs.

My view of scientism, as it has developed over time, is the embrace and adherence to ideas and propositions that are often unscientific, but where they are scientific, they tend to be misunderstood. This embrace is without understanding and seems like an acceptance based on belief rather than arrived at through learning, questioning and critical review. Sort of the opposite of how the author of the piece is trying to use the term.

Clearly, my understanding of the term is much different and my experience with it has been under different circumstances.