1. Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Is eulogizing science out of proportion a symptom of scientism rather than science?

Discussion in 'General Religious Debates' started by paarsurrey, Apr 4, 2017.

  1. paarsurrey

    paarsurrey Veteran Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2012
    Messages:
    13,063
    Ratings:
    +1,013
    Is faith in science out of its limitations a symptom of scientism rather than science? Please
    Regards
     
  2. Liu

    Liu Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2015
    Messages:
    603
    Ratings:
    +246
    Religion:
    Satanist / Pantheist
    Sounds like the definition of scientism to me, so yes, why?

    It depends on what you define as the limitations of science, though.
     
  3. Nowhere Man

    Nowhere Man Bompu Zen Man.

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2009
    Messages:
    12,371
    Ratings:
    +3,336
    Religion:
    Zen Buddhism
    I agree with Liu.

    Things like cyrptozoology or alien races.

    Based loosely off science, but not scientific in its own right.

    That's the impression I'm getting.
     
  4. Skwim

    Skwim Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2010
    Messages:
    18,778
    Ratings:
    +5,109
    Religion:
    Agnostic
    Paarsurrey, just so everyone is on the same page, perhaps you'd like to point out which of the following definitions of "scientism" you have in mind..

    Scientism is a term used to describe 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.

    Accordingly, philosopher Tom Sorell provides this definition of scientism: "Scientism is a matter of putting too high a value on natural science in comparison with other branches of learning or culture."

    It has been defined as "the view that the characteristic inductive methods of the natural sciences are the only source of genuine factual knowledge and, in particular, that they alone can yield true knowledge about man and society"
    source;Wikipedia

    .
     
  5. siti

    siti Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2017
    Messages:
    1,026
    Ratings:
    +555
    Faith in science is warranted on the basis of two things: 1. its astounding success in elucidating the physical reality of which we are part and 2. its continual efforts to debunk its own findings and replace outmoded ideas of what the world might be like with better ideas.

    This is nothing to do with 'scientism' - which is really the notion that science is the ONLY arbiter of truth among the various branches of human knowledge. 'Scientism' shares that failing with almost all traditional religions - with the exception that it does at least have much more realistic ideas about what that truth might be.

    But the fact is that genuine science (if we keep up to date) always gives us the best picture of the physical reality we are part of. I have no hesitation in saying that I have faith in that.

    I do not really know what you mean by "out of its limitations" - if it is "out of its limitations" then it is not science. But that is not 'scientism' either - its either religion, or philosophy, or - not unusually - just wrong - or even worse, "not even wrong" (as Wolfgang Pauli put it) meaning that is not scientifically verifiable/falsifiable. That is usually called pseudo-science and would IMO include things like intelligent design, irreducible complexity, the multiverse and string theory none of which produce testable hypotheses with potentially falsifiable predictions. That is, I suppose, science "out of its limitations" and I have no faith in these at all - but its nothing to do with 'scientism' - its just not science.

    FWIW - intelligent design is a purely religious idea pretending to be science, irreducible complexity is a religiously motivated philosophy pretending to be science and the multiverse and string theory are mathematics (a branch of philosophy - more specifically a branch of logic) pretending to be science. All or any of them could be right (for all I know) and could (for all know) provide good explanations of scientifically observable facts, but none of them are science.
     
    #5 siti, Apr 4, 2017
    Last edited: Apr 4, 2017
  6. columbus

    columbus Conservative Catholic from Hell

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2014
    Messages:
    12,620
    Ratings:
    +7,120
    Religion:
    None
    You don't know what science means.
    So you wouldn't understand the answer to your question if someone gave it to you.
    Tom
     
  7. paarsurrey

    paarsurrey Veteran Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2012
    Messages:
    13,063
    Ratings:
    +1,013
    Is it an acknowledgement that "physical reality" is not the only reality? Whatever reality is not-physical that defines the limitations of science. Please
    Regards
     
  8. LuisDantas

    LuisDantas Aura of atheification
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2008
    Messages:
    39,472
    Ratings:
    +9,818
    Religion:
    Advocate of letting go of theism. Buddhist with an emphasis on personal understanding.
    @paarsurrey , I fear that I have to agree with @columbus here, at least for the time being.
     
  9. siti

    siti Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2017
    Messages:
    1,026
    Ratings:
    +555
    No. Thank you.
     
    #9 siti, Apr 5, 2017
    Last edited: Apr 5, 2017
Loading...