mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
@shunyadragon
First off, here:
That one "The object is something that presumably exists independent of the subject’s perception of it." comes in many variants.
Here it is for the definition of 2 versions of objective:
: of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers : having reality independent of the mind
I am not talking about science as done by scientists. I am in effect talk about a folk understanding of science.
Now to spot in practice scientism for what the everything/reality/the world/the universe is, it comes in some connected variants of everything/reality/the world/the universe is objective or physical/material/natural. Of course it then connects to evidence, logic, proof, truth and knowledge. I.e. e.g. science including logic is the only form of knowledge and the only way to understand how everything/reality/the world/the universe works.
Now if you hold that scientism is not in practice an actual intellectual school of thought and rather it is a loose combination of folk understanding you can learn to spot it.
The main element is the different versions of how from here not anymore everything/reality/the world/the universe, but simply the world. Namely that the world is objective. It is connected to real sometimes as only the objective is real, the world is real, the world is physical and only the physical is the real.
In other words it ends here with variation:
Evidence, truth, proof, logic, rationality, objectivity, the material/physical/natural is all rolled in to one as to the effect of: Science is the only way to understand how the world works.
Now let me show you in practice where it goes wrong. To know something, you have to test it. The only way you can test something and figure out how it works is by using science.
The answer is no. If you want to test how something works objectively you have to use science and/or logic. If you want to test how you get a better life you have to use in part subjectivity. It is not that you can't be informed by science in the broad sense, but it is that a good life for you is subjective in part, because it is for you. That is what makes it subjective.
So folk science as scientism in the idea that everything can be figured out using science and in practice it usually connects to strong metaphysical naturalism.
It is hard to spot at first, because it is not an actual school of thought. It is a connected web of claims with variations, which centers around a group of words in different combination.
Do actual scientists do scientism? Well, yes and no. You could properly find a few, who do it.
Here is one example:
Science and Morals: Can morality be deduced from the facts of science? – The New Behaviorism
So that is the core: "...belief in anything that cannot be scientifically proved, i.e., faith, “is one of the world’s great evils, comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to eradicate…""
If you learn to spot that one in all its variants, it always ends here. You only need to do science, because it is possible to only hold beliefs, which are scientifically proven.
That is scientism.
Regards
Mikkel
First off, here:
Objectivity
The terms “objectivity” and “subjectivity,” in their modern usage, generally relate to a perceiving subject (normally a person) and a perceived or unperceived object. The object is something that presumably exists independent of the subject’s perception of it. In other words, the object would be there, as it is, even if no subject perceived it. Hence, objectivity is typically associated with ideas such as reality, truth and reliability.
Objectivity | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
That one "The object is something that presumably exists independent of the subject’s perception of it." comes in many variants.
Here it is for the definition of 2 versions of objective:
: of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers : having reality independent of the mind
I am not talking about science as done by scientists. I am in effect talk about a folk understanding of science.
Now to spot in practice scientism for what the everything/reality/the world/the universe is, it comes in some connected variants of everything/reality/the world/the universe is objective or physical/material/natural. Of course it then connects to evidence, logic, proof, truth and knowledge. I.e. e.g. science including logic is the only form of knowledge and the only way to understand how everything/reality/the world/the universe works.
Now if you hold that scientism is not in practice an actual intellectual school of thought and rather it is a loose combination of folk understanding you can learn to spot it.
The main element is the different versions of how from here not anymore everything/reality/the world/the universe, but simply the world. Namely that the world is objective. It is connected to real sometimes as only the objective is real, the world is real, the world is physical and only the physical is the real.
In other words it ends here with variation:
Evidence, truth, proof, logic, rationality, objectivity, the material/physical/natural is all rolled in to one as to the effect of: Science is the only way to understand how the world works.
Now let me show you in practice where it goes wrong. To know something, you have to test it. The only way you can test something and figure out how it works is by using science.
The answer is no. If you want to test how something works objectively you have to use science and/or logic. If you want to test how you get a better life you have to use in part subjectivity. It is not that you can't be informed by science in the broad sense, but it is that a good life for you is subjective in part, because it is for you. That is what makes it subjective.
So folk science as scientism in the idea that everything can be figured out using science and in practice it usually connects to strong metaphysical naturalism.
It is hard to spot at first, because it is not an actual school of thought. It is a connected web of claims with variations, which centers around a group of words in different combination.
Do actual scientists do scientism? Well, yes and no. You could properly find a few, who do it.
Here is one example:
Science and Morals: Can morality be deduced from the facts of science? – The New Behaviorism
"You can’t beat science. “One by one, the great questions of philosophy, including ‘Who are we?’ and ‘Where did we come from?’ are being answered to different degrees of solidity. So, gradually, science is simply taking over the big questions created by philosophy. Philosophy consists largely of the history of failed models of the brain.” So much for philosophy! Thus spake eminent biologist and chronicler of sociobiology E. O. Wilson, in a 2009 interview[1] where he also said “If the empiricist world view is correct, ought is just shorthand for one kind of factual statement, a word that denotes what society first chose (or was coerced) to do, and then codified.” So, morality can be deduced from science, according to Wilson.
Wilson’s confidence in the omnipotence of science, his belief in scientific imperialism, is shared by vocal members of the so-called New Atheists. Richard Dawkins, another well-known biologist, has notoriously said that belief in anything that cannot be scientifically proved, i.e., faith, “is one of the world’s great evils, comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to eradicate…”
..."
So that is the core: "...belief in anything that cannot be scientifically proved, i.e., faith, “is one of the world’s great evils, comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to eradicate…""
If you learn to spot that one in all its variants, it always ends here. You only need to do science, because it is possible to only hold beliefs, which are scientifically proven.
That is scientism.
Regards
Mikkel