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

[cladking]

Scientism is a belief by people who think science is a religion.

Are you reading what I write? I said "scientism" is a belief in science. I don't have any "belief" in science". I believe that using the actual scientific method can yield insights into the nature of reality if it is seen in conjunction with definitions, axioms, and experiment. Without experiment there is no science and without metaphysics there is no understanding of science. It is this lack of understanding that is "scientism". It is a belief in the "law of gravity" holding us to the planet. It is a belief that methodology is irrelevant to scientific knowledge. It is the belief that scientific knowledge is held as series of absolutes rather than as models.

Yes. Absolutely. Many people believe in science because they don't understand it. But this hardly means science and proper science don't exist at all. Science is real and is a useful tool when used properly. But it is not some kind of magic wielded by those with "intelligence" to discover the "laws of nature" as agreed upon by "peers". All the agreement in the world has never had the least effect on reality or nature.

Such idiots don’t know squat about science, so they used it as insults.

I don't much like the word because I don't like words that represent things I love as a root for a pejorative. But I try never to get wrapped up in semantics like most people who practice scientism. They use semantics as a weapon and an argument. It is the go to response to obfuscate and to make themselves believe they've won a point. Semantics are the only lower form of "argument" lower than ad hominin.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Are you reading what I write? I said "scientism" is a belief in science. I don't have any "belief" in science". I believe that using the actual scientific method can yield insights into the nature of reality if it is seen in conjunction with definitions, axioms, and experiment. Without experiment there is no science and without metaphysics there is no understanding of science. It is this lack of understanding that is "scientism". It is a belief in the "law of gravity" holding us to the planet. It is a belief that methodology is irrelevant to scientific knowledge. It is the belief that scientific knowledge is held as series of absolutes rather than as models.

Yes. Absolutely. Many people believe in science because they don't understand it. But this hardly means science and proper science don't exist at all. Science is real and is a useful tool when used properly. But it is not some kind of magic wielded by those with "intelligence" to discover the "laws of nature" as agreed upon by "peers". All the agreement in the world has never had the least effect on reality or nature.



I don't much like the word because I don't like words that represent things I love as a root for a pejorative. But I try never to get wrapped up in semantics like most people who practice scientism. They use semantics as a weapon and an argument. It is the go to response to obfuscate and to make themselves believe they've won a point. Semantics are the only lower form of "argument" lower than ad hominin.

I don't use metaphysics and science together. How do you do that?

 

[cladking]

Only ignorant people think sciences are rigid dogmas, like religions or philosophies.

"Science" isn't rigid dogma but many scientists are. Dogma changes one funeral at a time.

They've remade google so it returns only dogma but this doesn't seem to bother most people and few are switching to other search engines.

Dogma is being enshrined in our world because science has become about politics. Science is invented and then government argues about the best way to funnel all the money to rich people who then rent more government and buy more science. It is all dependent on the "science" and whatever is "soup of the day". Meanwhile the real problems are being ignored because there's no profit in them. We have schools that have failed and every year a new crop of "scientists".

You have a remarkably low opinion of philosophy. You might consider that even the worst philosophies have very important concepts that are necessary to understanding some point or process. Maybe if you remember that you can't step into the same river twice and read philosophy as the beliefs of the author at specific point in time you'd get more value from it. People and philosophies change like rivers. Despite this change people still hold onto many core beliefs that are as rigid and inflexible as any dogma. Religion and religious thought evolves as well. Individually and collectively; it is usually a philosophy that accepts the existence of a Creator as a given.

To understand science it might be beneficial to try to reason out the nature of reality with other sets of axioms. What would things be like if...

 

[cladking]

I don't use metaphysics and science together. How do you do that?

You are using a different definition of "metaphysics". I am using the definition that is similar to "epistemology". "Metaphysics" is the set of definitions, axioms, and experiment that is "science". It is not our models and beliefs about science, its nature, or its product.

 

[Augustus]

Old theories - “bad science” or even “outdated” science - are often replaced by current scientific theories because the alternative often better explanatory modeling and predictive modeling, supported by observational evidence.

Today’s observation techniques and current devices, offer better ways to obtain information (data) from evidence, better detection and better measuring, due to advancing technology.

It’s called PROGRESS.

You seem to be missing the point.

My point was regarding using current scientific knowledge as a basis for decision making.

Just as past scientific theories and hypotheses have been replaced by better understanding, so will current theories and hypotheses.

So saying "I always trust the science" is not a rational approach to avoiding harm.

Why do you keep on dancing around racialism as “not science”?

You are sugarcoating racialism. For what purpose? To score a point, to win an argument?

Don't be silly, if anyone is 'sugarcoating racialism' it is you.

My point is that well intentioned, moral people can end up believing in harmful nonsense because it is deemed scientific.

To illustrate this I need to give examples of well intentioned, moral people believing in harmful nonsense because it was deemed scientific.

You don’t think I have been skeptical?

You don’t know me, so why are you pretending that you do?

You seem to be misreading.

What I said was "It should help people to think more sceptically (and scientifically) about science. If you think we can learn from past mistakes then this should be clear to you."

My problem is with Augustus thinking I should accept Scientific Racialism as “science” because it was accepted as science by scientists in the past.

But the past is the past. It have no relevancy, today.

This is stupid.

And since it isn’t science, so it is illogical (to be more blunt, it is stupid) to accept some things when we know are not science.

By Augustus’ logic, then I must accept geocentric model, flat earth, astrology, paranormal phenomena, creationism, Intelligent Design, etc, since one time or another, they have been studied.

But not all studies are scientific.

Aside from learning from history, and. I loved history, but there are scientific reasonings to reject pseudoscience and bad science.

I don’t reject because they don’t exist, I rejected them because the evidence don’t support these concepts.

And again you are arguing against a figment of your own imagination rather than what I said.

We don't get the benefit of hindsight when we use contemporary science to make contemporary decisions.

We know that some of that contemporary science will later be found to be harmful nonsense. So instead of dealing in platitudes, it is better to think of in what situations science is reliable, in what situations it is less reliable and what harms can come from being wrong by "trusting the science" in these less reliable situations.

As I've said repeatedly, the point is that racialism was considered science when it was used as a basis for decision making leading to great harm. What we need to be account for are the modern equivalents of this.

Scientism is an excessive faith in the scope and accuracy of scientific methods. Much of the harmful nonsense currently deemed scientific will be the result of this.

 

[Augustus]

Whilst it is true they were offered as scientific, they were not, and science overturned those erroneous ideas, because science follows wherever the evidence leads, and has never claimed ideas are immutable absolute truths, unlike religions of course.

It's one of the scientific method's greatest strengths, that all ideas remain tentative, no matter how well evidenced. Even scientific facts like species evolution, that are now evidenced beyond any reasonable doubt, must still remain tentative, and open to revision in the light of new evidence, that is the very antithesis of religions claiming to possess immutable absolute truths, some of which have been demonstrated to be errant nonsense in just a few hundred years, but because religious claims are closed minded they still cling to them even in the light of new and overwhelming evidence.

Science has never done this....as the method is objective...being wrong is not a flaw, being unable to admit you are wrong is a great and egregious flaw, if religions ever do learn this, then humans may one day see their penchant for superstition as the source of that flaw. Like religions scientists are anachronistic, unlike religions the scientific method is not, as it has evolved, and transcended the era from which it originated.

One problem is that people tend to treat science as an idealised normative concept, rather than a real world human activity subject to all of the flaws and failings of any other human activity.

For all of their benefits, the sciences are also a major source of false information, some of which is harmful. This false and harmful information is used as the basis for decisions in society.

"Science", as a whole, is also not conducted by noble, truth seeking individuals but is conducted by people and institutions who have their own interests, biases, and agendas.

Rather than deal in scientistic platitudes, it is more useful to examine how ideas deemed scientific are utilised in society, and how we can maximise the benefits while avoiding the harms caused by science as it actually exists as a human activity in the real world.

 

[gnostic]

So saying "I always trust the science" is not a rational approach to avoiding harm.

Excuse me but when did I ever say that "I always trust the science"?

I rarely use the word “trust”, especially when it concern me, so I don’t say “I trust...” in my post.

And as I’ve said in the past, science is knowledge that can be challenged, corrected, changed, modified, expanded, and even be replaced by alternative model - all depending on the EVIDENCE discovered and the information (data) that come with the observations.

Do you understand that it is the evidence is (physically) real?

The explanatory & predictive models of hypothesis or theory that can be accepted or rejected, depending on the evidence, not the other way around.

The evidence is the physical phenomena.

Science - especially the accepted scientific theories - are our attempt to “understand” and to “explain” this physical phenomena.

Granted, the scientists “may” or “may not” understand the evidence they have discovered, and that often lead to flawed or incorrect or poorly explained theories.

Often it will take times to get the theory, right, and that depends on if they understand the phenomena or its evidence. And often it required to wait for advanced technology to provide the best observations of the time.

Take for instance, the development of the theory of gravity. No one before Isaac Newton have attempted to explain why objects fall, or the forces behind it. His theory and his equations were quite accurate for his times, and many scientists and engineers found applications in applying his theory to reality.

However, it wasn’t as complete or as accurate as others knew, until Einstein explore gravity even further with General Relativity, expanding the theory of gravity.

However General Relativity didn’t make Newtonian gravity obsolete, as it still valid and useful today, in today’s application, particularly to engineering.

General Relativity have greater impacts, in space, especially galactic level, outside of the Solar System.

It is called progress.

Progress not only appeared in Relativity but also in other fields of physics, as well as in other branches of Natural Sciences (physics, chemistry, Earth science, astronomy and biology), where progress allowed for changes and updates of scientific theories. Changes are all dependent upon understanding of the EVIDENCE.

 

[Augustus]

Excuse me but when did I ever say that "I always trust the science"?

You didn't. You replied to my reply to someone who did, while completely missing the point of what I was saying.

Consequently, you have been barking up the wrong tree ever since.

Which is what I've been trying to tell you.