Is 'scientism' a thing, or just a slur?

[MikeF]

Therefore you agree that philosophy is important as the majority of these things cannot be done using any method that can be considered remotely scientific.

If you think philosophy should be thrown in the bin, then you think science can answer these questions, but it can't because it's not simply 'philosophy 2.0'.

All I can say is that I think you have a very narrow view of what science is, what science means.
Science is not merely test tubes, lab work, and rote data collection. Science is both quantitative and qualitative in its approach. Science is Philosophy, but practiced in a way that starts with the current scientific understanding of the world upon which to build understanding from, and makes a concerted effort to mitigate the shortcomings of the observer/philosopher.

I do not think Philosophy should be thrown in the bin, I simply think we must ensure that Philosophy is practiced in a way that meets current standards of best practices. That science and philosophy are not two separate endeavors, but rather, the same endeavor with the same simple goal, to answer general and fundamental questions.

The steps at the beginning of this process are meta-ethical, and so we can't simply say 'we will improve the process by using science' no matter how much we want to avoid human imperfection and fallibility.

Other than that myth should be ignored in the meta-ethical process and the variables associated with the meta-ethicist are factored into the process.

You have basically just described the contemporary approach in most of Western Europe, there is nothing new about it.

Which means that my concerns are being resolved and modern Philosophy is conforming to best practices. The schism between Philosophy and Science is resolving and both are again, coming under the same tent.

It is also can't be described as 'scientific ethics' as its foundations have nothing to do with science. This is scientism, an exaggerated belief in the scope and efficacy of the methods of science.

The only reason I see to claim there can be an exaggerated scope and efficacy to Science is to shield myth and raw intuition from the principles and standards of science. Really, it comes down to protecting the established bias of individuals. It is myth and individual bias that is threatened by science, and it is from these quarters that we hear the cry of scientism.

Ultimately, you have favoured the rights of the mother. For example, if the father, or family wanted to raise the child then it can't be described as unwanted. You mention the emotional impact on the mother, but not on the father or family. You mention a burden on the state, but not the negative impact of declining birth rates in an ageing society. Also that because some pregnancies result in miscarriage, then that is analogous to abortion, which is questionable at least. You have also defined life as starting when the foetus has developed to the stage that it can be 'self-sustaining' (and is this actually self-sustaining or can be saved by significant medical intervention?).

I'm not saying your view is wrong, or advocating the opposite, just noting the subjectivities involved in the process.

Certainly you will grant me some latitude and accept that this is a mere sketch to outline the point, certainly not a full treatment of the issue.

The goal was simply to show that myth would not factor into the process (at least not at the beginning) and to also express acknowledgement that we are still talking about people, warts and all, and there will have to be compromise in the end.

While you utilise scientific information in the decision making process (as we already do in practice, and as many moral philosophers have done for as long as we have had science), the principles you use to choose between options are not scientific. This is the fudge in claiming we can have scientific ethics.

For example, science can tell us when a foetus becomes a viable human, but it can't tell you if the point where it becomes a viable human is the point we ought give it the right to life. Even then do we give it the right to life, or do we allow late term abortions in certain situations? If so, what situations? What level of risk to the mother justifies termination after this point?

Ultimately, the answers to these questions are philosophical, not scientific.

Again, all I can say is without consensus between us on what is meant by science, you will continue to make distinctions where I see none.

These processes must be done, under whatever label we choose. What is important in these decisions is in what we allow to influence these decisions. Are we going to permit myths to influence these decisions? Are we going to let raw intuition influence these decisions? How often do we hear the phrase “counter-intuitive solution”, a solution that contradicts raw intuition and is yet the optimal solution.

To narrowly constrain the term Science only to what occurs on a lab bench is to not understand what Science is and why the schism occurred between Philosophy and Science. For the ancient Greeks there were no limits to the questions Philosophy could address, no boundaries of scope. The same holds true today for Science today. There is no boundary, there is no limitation of scope. Whatever label you chose, be it Philosophy, Science, Scientific Philosophy, or a new label, the modern approach to addressing and answering these general and fundamental questions is, essentially, Philosophy 2.0.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

All I can say is that I think you have a very narrow view of what science is, what science means.
...

So does these scientists responsible for this educational site:
https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/whatisscience_12

I conclude that you are a believer in Scientism as as science and not science as science.

 

[MikeF]

So does these scientists responsible for this educational site:
https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/whatisscience_12

I conclude that you are a believer in Scientism as as science and not science as science.

Cool. Thanks!

 

[Augustus]

All I can say is that I think you have a very narrow view of what science is, what science means. .. Science is Philosophy, but practiced in a way that starts with the current scientific understanding of the world upon which to build understanding from, and makes a concerted effort to mitigate the shortcomings of the observer/philosopher.

Mine reflects the standard usage of the term though. The definition you presented earlier was somewhat idiosyncratic.

What are rights? What rights should we have? Who should have them? Under what circumstances can rights be violated?

Science, in the standard usage of the term, can't answer these (and many other) ethical questions. You have just rebranded philosophy as it has been done for centuries as science and claim this is an innovation.

That science and philosophy are not two separate endeavors, but rather, the same endeavor with the same simple goal, to answer general and fundamental questions.

They often have overlapping goals, but it still makes sense to differentiate the things which are scientific and those that are philosophical even if done by the same person.

Other than that myth should be ignored in the meta-ethical process and the variables associated with the meta-ethicist are factored into the process.

If that is all science can contribute, then you agree it is basically an area of enquiry that cannot be solved using any scientific methodologies.

Which means that my concerns are being resolved and modern Philosophy is conforming to best practices. The schism between Philosophy and Science is resolving and both are again, coming under the same tent.

This general approach to philosophy predates the modern concept of science.

The only reason I see to claim there can be an exaggerated scope and efficacy to Science is to shield myth and raw intuition from the principles and standards of science. Really, it comes down to protecting the established bias of individuals. It is myth and individual bias that is threatened by science, and it is from these quarters that we hear the cry of scientism.

This couldn't be further from the truth. It is simply intellectual humility: an acknowledgement of the limitations of scientific methodologies in particular areas of human enquiry.

Nothing you have proposed is new or reduces the 'established bias of individuals'. You have just simply rebranded parts of philosophy while changing nothing other than the name.

Certainly you will grant me some latitude and accept that this is a mere sketch to outline the point, certainly not a full treatment of the issue.

The goal was simply to show that myth would not factor into the process (at least not at the beginning) and to also express acknowledgement that we are still talking about people, warts and all, and there will have to be compromise in the end.

Your sketch reached the limits of what can be done scientifically in such a situation and what I said previously were the limits: once you have decided on certain subjective principles you can utilise scientific information to help achieve the goals of applied ethics, but you can't get these principles scientifically.

Science can't solve questions of competing rights.

Again, all I can say is without consensus between us on what is meant by science, you will continue to make distinctions where I see none.

These processes must be done, under whatever label we choose. What is important in these decisions is in what we allow to influence these decisions. Are we going to permit myths to influence these decisions? Are we going to let raw intuition influence these decisions? How often do we hear the phrase “counter-intuitive solution”, a solution that contradicts raw intuition and is yet the optimal solution.

To narrowly constrain the term Science only to what occurs on a lab bench is to not understand what Science is and why the schism occurred between Philosophy and Science. For the ancient Greeks there were no limits to the questions Philosophy could address, no boundaries of scope. The same holds true today for Science today. There is no boundary, there is no limitation of scope. Whatever label you chose, be it Philosophy, Science, Scientific Philosophy, or a new label, the modern approach to addressing and answering these general and fundamental questions is, essentially, Philosophy 2.0.

As noted before, you are the one redefining the term, the schism didn't come from the side of philosophy, and nothing you are proposing would be innovative within the field of philosophy as currently exists.

And there are always boundaries and limitations because these activities are carried out by fallible humans with limited cognitive abilities. Rebranding everything as science and then repeating some platitudes about how science 'mitigates the shortcomings of the philosopher' while changing nothing tangible doesn't make any difference other than to perhaps reduce people's epistemic humility. If subjective philosophical judgements are rebranded as 'science' simply so they can borrow credibility from the hard sciences, it is hard to see this as a good thing imo.

One thing we can take from ancient myth is that humans are prone to hubris and that this will always be their downfall.

 

[MikeF]

Mine reflects the standard usage of the term though. The definition you presented earlier was somewhat idiosyncratic.
What are rights? What rights should we have? Who should have them? Under what circumstances can rights be violated?
Science, in the standard usage of the term, can't answer these (and many other) ethical questions. You have just rebranded philosophy as it has been done for centuries as science and claim this is an innovation.
They often have overlapping goals, but it still makes sense to differentiate the things which are scientific and those that are philosophical even if done by the same person.
If that is all science can contribute, then you agree it is basically an area of enquiry that cannot be solved using any scientific methodologies.
This general approach to philosophy predates the modern concept of science.
This couldn't be further from the truth. It is simply intellectual humility: an acknowledgement of the limitations of scientific methodologies in particular areas of human enquiry.
Nothing you have proposed is new or reduces the 'established bias of individuals'. You have just simply rebranded parts of philosophy while changing nothing other than the name.
Your sketch reached the limits of what can be done scientifically in such a situation and what I said previously were the limits: once you have decided on certain subjective principles you can utilise scientific information to help achieve the goals of applied ethics, but you can't get these principles scientifically.
Science can't solve questions of competing rights.
As noted before, you are the one redefining the term, the schism didn't come from the side of philosophy, and nothing you are proposing would be innovative within the field of philosophy as currently exists.
And there are always boundaries and limitations because these activities are carried out by fallible humans with limited cognitive abilities. Rebranding everything as science and then repeating some platitudes about how science 'mitigates the shortcomings of the philosopher' while changing nothing tangible doesn't make any difference other than to perhaps reduce people's epistemic humility. If subjective philosophical judgements are rebranded as 'science' simply so they can borrow credibility from the hard sciences, it is hard to see this as a good thing imo.
One thing we can take from ancient myth is that humans are prone to hubris and that this will always be their downfall.

I thought I would check the online dictionary to see how idiosyncratic I've become.

Definition of SCIENCE

sci·ence | \ ˈsī-ən(t)s \
Definition of science
1: the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding
2a: a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study
the science of theology
b: something (such as a sport or technique) that may be studied or learned like systematized knowledge
have it down to a science
3a: knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method
b: such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena : NATURAL SCIENCE
4: a system or method reconciling practical ends with scientific laws
cooking is both a science and an art​

I do not see my descriptions of what science is clashing with what is shown here. I know, it is down to my hubris.

When talking about assigning rights, we must make the decision somehow. You are arguing quite strongly that these decisions should be kept away from the realm of Science, whatever that realm entails for you. Doesn't it all boil down to people thinking carefully about the subject and making some compromise between competing interests? Why should these matters only be addressed under the label Philosophy as you have described Philosophy? Is it simply to preserve the historical history or tradition of Philosophy? What is the value in a label other than what it represents? Clearly, for you, something would be lost if all general and fundamental questions were to fall under the label 'Science', and it is not clear to me what exactly would be lost that necessarily shouldn't be lost.

 

[gnostic]

I thought I would check the online dictionary to see how idiosyncratic I've become.

Definition of SCIENCE

sci·ence | \ ˈsī-ən(t)s \
Definition of science
1: the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding
2a: a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study
the science of theology
b: something (such as a sport or technique) that may be studied or learned like systematized knowledge
have it down to a science
3a: knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method
b: such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena : NATURAL SCIENCE
4: a system or method reconciling practical ends with scientific laws
cooking is both a science and an art​

I do not see my descriptions of what science is clashing with what is shown here. I know, it is down to my hubris.

When talking about assigning rights, we must make the decision somehow. You are arguing quite strongly that these decisions should be kept away from the realm of Science, whatever that realm entails for you. Doesn't it all boil down to people thinking carefully about the subject and making some compromise between competing interests? Why should these matters only be addressed under the label Philosophy as you have described Philosophy? Is it simply to preserve the historical history or tradition of Philosophy? What is the value in a label other than what it represents? Clearly, for you, something would be lost if all general and fundamental questions were to fall under the label 'Science', and it is not clear to me what exactly would be lost that necessarily shouldn't be lost.

The problem with your take of philosophy is that you don’t know what philosophy is at all.

You’re also ignoring the fact, there is no capitalized “Philosophy” as in one single philosophy that cover everything. There are literally THOUSANDS of them, focusing on different areas, most of them have absolutely nothing to do with science.

Many of them conflict with each other, like they are contesting other schools, so they are factional and biased.

So as there are numerous philosophies or schools, can you be more specific of which one you are talking about that better than science at “doing science”?

 

[MikeF]

The problem with your take of philosophy is that you don’t know what philosophy is at all.

You’re also ignoring the fact, there is no capitalized “Philosophy” as in one single philosophy that cover everything. There are literally THOUSANDS of them, focusing on different areas, most of them have absolutely nothing to do with science.

Many of them conflict with each other, like they are contesting other schools, so they are factional and biased.

So as there are numerous philosophies or schools, can you be more specific of which one you are talking about that better than science at “doing science”?

We create labels (words) to represent something, an idea, a particular thing, a category of things, a property or characteristic, etc.

In common usage the same label can be used to represent more than one thing or idea, or multiple labels can all point to the same thing.

Is there, or has there ever been, a capitalized label "Philosophy" used in English or an equivalent in any other language? Is there no such word? Is this word not defined in any way?

 

[gnostic]

We create labels (words) to represent something, an idea, a particular thing, a category of things, a property or characteristic, etc.

In common usage the same label can be used to represent more than one thing or idea, or multiple labels can all point to the same thing.

Is there, or has there ever been, a capitalized label "Philosophy" used in English or an equivalent in any other language? Is there no such word? Is this word not defined in any way?

I am saying there are numerous philosophies, and you have been claiming that “Philosophy” is better than science...

...so I will again - which philosophy are you talking about?

Which philosophy you believe to have all the answers?

You are evading my question from my previous reply.

 

[MikeF]

I am saying there are numerous philosophies, and you have been claiming that “Philosophy” is better than science...

...so I will again - which philosophy are you talking about?

Which philosophy you believe to have all the answers?

You are evading my question from my previous reply.

No, simply seeking clarification.

You stated, "You’re also ignoring the fact, there is no capitalized 'Philosophy' as in one single philosophy that cover everything."

You have stated something as fact and I am trying to ascertain if what you have stated is actually a fact. You're answering my questions will help us reach some common understanding as to what we are actually talking about.

 

[gnostic]

No, simply seeking clarification.

You stated, "You’re also ignoring the fact, there is no capitalized 'Philosophy' as in one single philosophy that cover everything."

You have stated something as fact and I am trying to ascertain if what you have stated is actually a fact. You're answering my questions will help us reach some common understanding as to what we are actually talking about.

You are missing my points, that there are many philosophies, so I am trying to find out which philosophy do things better than science.

You have never disclose which philosophy you are talking about. You only referred to as “Philosophy”, which is rather vague, since there are many more than one.

 

[MikeF]

You are missing my points, that there are many philosophies, so I am trying to find out which philosophy do things better than science.

You have never disclose which philosophy you are talking about. You only referred to as “Philosophy”, which is rather vague, since there are many more than one.

That we have created subcategories of Philosophy, I am fully aware. But to use this word [P/p]hilosophy at all we must have some common understanding of what we are talking about. Are we talking about category labels? You state that the word 'Philosophy' does not exist and is undefined. I would disagree. I think the term has been used since the ancient Greeks. Do you not agree?

 

[Augustus]

I thought I would check the online dictionary to see how idiosyncratic I've become.

Definition of SCIENCE
sci·ence | \ ˈsī-ən(t)s \
Definition of science
1: the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding
2a: a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study
the science of theology
b: something (such as a sport or technique) that may be studied or learned like systematized knowledge
have it down to a science
3a: knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method
b: such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena : NATURAL SCIENCE
4: a system or method reconciling practical ends with scientific laws
cooking is both a science and an art
I do not see my descriptions of what science is clashing with what is shown here. I know, it is down to my hubris.

Which definition do you believe yours matches? 3a is the standard usage in the context we are discussing.

When talking about assigning rights, we must make the decision somehow. You are arguing quite strongly that these decisions should be kept away from the realm of Science, whatever that realm entails for you. Doesn't it all boil down to people thinking carefully about the subject and making some compromise between competing interests? Why should these matters only be addressed under the label Philosophy as you have described Philosophy? Is it simply to preserve the historical history or tradition of Philosophy? What is the value in a label other than what it represents? Clearly, for you, something would be lost if all general and fundamental questions were to fall under the label 'Science', and it is not clear to me what exactly would be lost that necessarily shouldn't be lost.

As I've said before, it's not 'keeping it away from the realms of science' as you are proposing nothing new at all. What you are proposing is keeping things the same, yet just calling it science. It is purely rebranding, not adding 'quality control' or improving the methodology.

So we could rebrand it as 'science', natural philosophy, philosophy, moon-catching or whatever, it doesn't change the basic processes we are talking about.

One problem with labelling things which are controversial subjective value judgements as 'science' is that you end up turning science into an increasingly politicised activity, and there are times when we don't want that (such as now with vaccines). It is bad enough at the moment, but when you start labelling your personal moral and political values as being 'scientific' it turns into a **** show.

"Rights" are an abstract concept entirely created by humans. They cannot be deduced empirically so why should we claim that we are being 'scientific' when we decide what we mean by rights, or who should have them?

Also, seeing as humans are not very rational (all of us), rebranding things as 'scientific' will make some people think that their views have greater foundation than they actually do as they get the 'halo effect' from the natural sciences. We also end up divorcing things from their historical development, similar to how you described philosophy as being somewhat obsolete, simply because you had rebranded it as science and believe this had somehow made it more rigorous.

Why do you think rebranding philosophy as science would be better than rebranding science as natural philosophy? That way you could distinguish it from moral philosophy, philosophy of language, etc. and other branches of philosophy that use different processes and methods?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

That we have created subcategories of Philosophy, I am fully aware. But to use this word [P/p]hilosophy at all we must have some common understanding of what we are talking about. Are we talking about category labels? You state that the word 'Philosophy' does not exist and is undefined. I would disagree. I think the term has been used since the ancient Greeks. Do you not agree?

Here is not a definition as correct, but an account of 2 different and in a sense contradictory usages of philosophy as a word.
"Philosophy, (from Greek, by way of Latin, philosophia, “love of wisdom”) the rational, abstract, and methodical consideration of reality as a whole or of fundamental dimensions of human existence and experience. ..."
philosophy | Definition, Systems, Fields, Schools, & Biographies

Now the joke is that this is not limited to the word philosophy. The same can in fact to "lesser" degree happen with rational, abstract, methodical, reality, existence and experience.
So just as with science it varies. In Danish I can differentiate between science in the everyday sense, science overall, natural science, social science and human science.
So when you are talking about science, you are to me not talking about science, you are talking about that natural science can do social and human science.

 

[MikeF]

Here is not a definition as correct, but an account of 2 different and in a sense contradictory usages of philosophy as a word.
"Philosophy, (from Greek, by way of Latin, philosophia, “love of wisdom”) the rational, abstract, and methodical consideration of reality as a whole or of fundamental dimensions of human existence and experience. ..."
philosophy | Definition, Systems, Fields, Schools, & Biographies

Now the joke is that this is not limited to the word philosophy. The same can in fact to "lesser" degree happen with rational, abstract, methodical, reality, existence and experience.
So just as with science it varies. In Danish I can differentiate between science in the everyday sense, science overall, natural science, social science and human science.
So when you are talking about science, you are to me not talking about science, you are talking about that natural science can do social and human science.

Pardon my obtuseness, but I did not perceive two different and contradictory definitions of Philosophy in your post.

You have certainly elaborated on my point that whatever words we use, we have to come to some common agreement as to what they mean. If they mean the same thing to all in the conversation, then there can be meaningful communication.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Pardon my obtuseness, but I did not perceive two different and contradictory definitions of Philosophy in your post.

Well, since I know nothing about reality as whole, I can not do philosophy in that sense. I can do it about the human existence and experience as in the end a variant of phenomenology.

You have certainly elaborated on my point that whatever words we use, we have to come to some common agreement as to what they mean. If they mean the same thing to all in the conversation, then there can be meaningful communication.

Yeah, words can be meaningful but that doesn't mean that they have the referent(s) they claim to be about.
And further we can talk about different meanings of words to learn more and we don't have to agree.

 

[gnostic]

I find it to be very predictable when the people who use the word "scientism" or accuse people of being scientism, are those people who have either political, social or religion agendas (or even combination of the 3), who weren't good in science or just science illiterates.

They are actually the ones who would ignore physical evidence and ignore the law of nature.

 

[PureX]

I find it to be very predictable when the people who use the word "scientism" or accuse people of being scientism, are those people who have either political, social or religion agendas (or even combination of the 3), who weren't good in science or just science illiterates.

They are actually the ones who would ignore physical evidence and ignore the law of nature.

Well, it WOULD be predictable, though, wouldn't it. That the people who are most able to recognize this scientism cult are the people are aren't succumbed to it. Seems to me that would be quite logical, and expected ... unless one was trying hard not to acknowledge it's existence, and instead just looking for any excuse to dismiss them.

 

[PureX]

The problem with your take of philosophy is that you don’t know what philosophy is at all.

You’re also ignoring the fact, there is no capitalized “Philosophy” as in one single philosophy that cover everything. There are literally THOUSANDS of them, focusing on different areas, most of them have absolutely nothing to do with science.

Many of them conflict with each other, like they are contesting other schools, so they are factional and biased.

So as there are numerous philosophies or schools, can you be more specific of which one you are talking about that better than science at “doing science”?

The term "philosophy" applies to both the overall endeavor, and the specific ideological propositions the endeavor has produced. Just as the term "religion" applies to both the overall endeavor of practicing a theological ideal, and the specific collections of dictum and practices based on a specific theological ideal.

 

[tas8831]

Well, it WOULD be predictable, though, wouldn't it. That the people who are most able to recognize this scientism cult are the people are aren't succumbed to it.

Does this logic extend to those who see the 'ism that YOU belong to?
Or do you pretend to be in possession of some kind of uber-logic?

In reality, every person I have ever encountered that uses the term 'scientism' as a pejorative do not, in fact, know what science is and are also, in fact, 100% likely to be followers of some religious cult or another (e.g., Trumpism, creationism, religionism, conservatism, woo-ism, QAnonism, etc.).

 

[Augustus]

In reality, every person I have ever encountered that uses the term 'scientism' as a pejorative do not, in fact, know what science is and are also, in fact, 100% likely to be followers of some religious cult or another (e.g., Trumpism, creationism, religionism, conservatism, woo-ism, QAnonism, etc.).

Not sure if you mean "in real life" or are also including media-based usage. If it's the former then you can disregard this.

If it's the latter, that would basically be an acknowledgement that you've never made any kind of good-faith effort to understand what scientism or why it occurs and simply have dismissed it out of hand based on prejudice.

The term obviously has a wide scholarly usage, see: Scientism - Google scholar