• 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!

Objectivity and scientism

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
@shunyadragon

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
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member


Wack! Wack! Wackity Wack!

First wack the rambling verbiage, and get to some basics of your ignorance. Science does not prove anything. There is a scientific method process based objective verifiable evidence.

[URL]https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-objectivity/[/URL]

[SIZE=6][B]Scientific Objectivity[/B][/SIZE]
[I]First published Mon Aug 25, 2014[/I]
Scientific objectivity is a characteristic of scientific claims, methods and results. It expresses the idea that the claims, methods and results of science are not, or should not be influenced by particular perspectives, value commitments, community bias or personal interests, to name a few relevant factors. Objectivity is often considered as an ideal for scientific inquiry, as a good reason for valuing scientific knowledge, and as the basis of the authority of science in society.

Many central debates in the philosophy of science have, in one way or another, to do with objectivity: confirmation and the problem of induction; theory choice and scientific change; realism; scientific explanation; experimentation; measurement and quantification; evidence and the foundations of statistics; evidence-based science; feminism and values in science. Understanding the role of objectivity in science is therefore integral to a full appreciation of these debates. As this article testifies, the reverse is true too: it is impossible to fully appreciate the notion of scientific objectivity without touching upon many of these debates.

The ideal of objectivity has been criticized repeatedly in philosophy of science, questioning both its value and its attainability. This article focuses on the question of how scientific objectivity should be defined, whether the ideal of objectivity is desirable, and to what extent scientists can achieve it. In line with the idea that the epistemic authority of science relies primarily on the objectivity of scientific reasoning, we focus on the role of objectivity in scientific experimentation, inference and theory choice.

[URL="https://www.vocabulary.com/articles/chooseyourwords/objective-subjective/#:~:text=Anything%20objective%20sticks%20to%20the,Subjective%3A%20I%20love%20the%20rain"]objective vs. subjective on Vocabulary.com[/URL]!

Anything [I]objective[/I] sticks to the facts, but anything [I]subjective[/I] has feelings. [I]Objective[/I] and [I]subjective[/I] are opposites. [I]Objective[/I]: It is raining. [I]Subjective[/I]: I love the rain!

[I]Objective [/I]is a busy word and that's a fact. An [I]objective[/I] is a goal, but to be [I]objective[/I] is to be unbiased. If you're [I]objective[/I] about something, you have no personal feelings about it. In grammar land, [I]objective [/I]relates to the object of a sentence. Anyway, people often try to be [I]objective[/I], but it's easier for robots. Here are examples:

"DNA testing and fingerprint analysis and all that technology stuff is [I]objective[/I], they declare confidently. The machine cannot be fooled." ([I]Salon[/I])

"Consider checking in with a third party, to get an [I]objective[/I] opinion." ([I]Wall Street Journal[/I])

[I]Subjective[/I] , on the other hand, has feelings. Anything [I]subjective [/I]is subject to interpretation. In grammar land, this word relates to the subject of the sentence. Usually, [I]subjective [/I]means influenced by emotions or opinions. Humans are a [I]subjective [/I]bunch and we like it that way! Here's [I]subjective [/I]in the wild:

"Because many of the decisions we made are [I]subjective[/I], there is the possibility of human error in our data set." ([I]Slate[/I])

"Now, I realize that is totally [I]subjective[/I] because there is no standard unit of measurement for fun." ([I]New York Times[/I])

It's true that opposites attract. Here are some examples of both words cozying up in the same sentence:

"But now we, as a pathologists, need more [I]objective[/I] measures because symptoms, to a certain degree, are [I]subjective[/I]." ( [I]Time[/I])

"We take our unruly, [I]subjective[/I] feelings about a year of television and groom them into something that looks mathematical and [I]objective[/I]." ([I]Slate[/I])

Be [I]objective[/I] when writing things like summaries or news articles, but feel free to be [I]subjective [/I]for arguments and opinions.
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion


[URL]https://dukespace.lib.duke.edu/dspace/bitstream/handle/10161/3389/Staddon2004.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y[/URL]
[QUOTE]...
A particularly clear statement of this view was provided recently by the eminent biologist E.O. Wilson, the Aristotle of sociobiology, a lucid and persuasive writer and masterful chronicler of the behavior and taxonomy of ants. In a book that “proposes. . .a grand, coherent conception encompassing the sciences, the arts, ethics, and religion” that is breathlessly reviewed as “a work to be held in awe” and “a book of immense importance” (from the dustjacket), Wilson argues that science can indeed solve all problems, including ethical ones. He writes, “If the empiricist world view is correct, ought is just shorthand for one kind of factual statement. . .” (Wilson, 1998, p. 251). ...[/QUOTE]

For this one:
[QUOTE]Richard Dawkins, another well-known biologist, has notoriously said that belief in anything that cannot be [URL='http://www.thehumanist.org/humanist/articles/dawkins.html']scientifically proved,[/URL] i.e., [I]faith[/I], “is one of the world’s great evils, comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to eradicate…”[/QUOTE]
The link in the article from where the quote is, is dead. Here is the result:
[URL]https://thehumanist.com/humanist/articles/dawkins.html[/URL]

Now I get it - you are defending science. So you latch on to a technicality.
Here is the sum of those two science and what they are saying.
You can for all of the world use scientific evidence to back up any belief. You don't have to have any belief without evidence.
That is it.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
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.

I don't count opinions (subjective) as knowledge (objective). So your example doesn't give an example of anything 'going wrong' that I can see.
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
I don't count opinions (subjective) as knowledge (objective). So your example doesn't give an example of anything 'going wrong' that I can see.

No, you don't. If I recall correct you think science can do metaphysics and ontology, Now if you don't, I apologize. If you do, you are one of those who confuse methodological naturalism with metaphysical naturalism.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
No, you don't. If I recall correct you think science can do metaphysics and ontology, Now if you don't, I apologize. If you do, you are one of those who confuse methodological naturalism with metaphysical naturalism.

it isn't so much that I think that science can do metaphysics and ontology, as that I think that metaphysics (and ontology) have to be modified to take into account what we have learned from science. The consequence is that vast stretches of metaphysics are simply wrong.

I also don't think that pure philosophy gives us knowledge. At most, it gives us logical possibilities based on whatever assumptions were being made at the time. Knowledge comes only when we actually do observations to test our ideas.

I don't 'confuse' methodological naturalism and metaphysical naturalism. I don't think the notion of 'natural' is well-defined enough in most philosophy to be meaningful. And, when the term is made more precise, the concept of 'non-natural' or 'supernatural' is seen to be meaningless.
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
it isn't so much that I think that science can do metaphysics and ontology, as that I think that metaphysics (and ontology) have to be modified to take into account what we have learned from science. The consequence is that vast stretches of metaphysics are simply wrong.

I also don't think that pure philosophy gives us knowledge. At most, it gives us logical possibilities based on whatever assumptions were being made at the time. Knowledge comes only when we actually do observations to test our ideas.

I don't 'confuse' methodological naturalism and metaphysical naturalism. I don't think the notion of 'natural' is well-defined enough in most philosophy to be meaningful. And, when the term is made more precise, the concept of 'non-natural' or 'supernatural' is seen to be meaningless.

Oh yeah. It is coming back. The definition of words and the connection to the rest of the world.
I define Polymath257 to mean non-existence and if you do it differently, it is meaningless. This has nothing to do with the fact the act of defining words are subjective and so is meaningless, it is subjective.
Now I would like the scientific physical measurement standard for meaningless.
You are playing philosophy and playing with words. Have you checked if all positive metaphysics is indeed subjective and not objective?
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
Failure to respond to my references defining objectivity and science, and your bogus use of proof in science. An out of context quote of Dawkins does not support your case.

Still waiting for a coherent response to my post.

Okay, what about this:
https://dukespace.lib.duke.edu/dspa...1/3389/Staddon2004.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
A particularly clear statement of this view was provided recently by the eminent biologist E.O. Wilson, the Aristotle of sociobiology, a lucid and persuasive writer and masterful chronicler of the behavior and taxonomy of ants. In a book that “proposes. . .a grand, coherent conception encompassing the sciences, the arts, ethics, and religion” that is breathlessly reviewed as “a work to be held in awe” and “a book of immense importance” (from the dustjacket), Wilson argues that science can indeed solve all problems, including ethical ones. He writes, “If the empiricist world view is correct, ought is just shorthand for one kind of factual statement. . .” (Wilson, 1998, p. 251). ...

Edit - You were right. The quote from Dawkins was taken out of context.

PS - we don't have to do this anymore.
Polymath257 is doing just fie.
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
@shunyadragon

I think the effect of all religious faith is negative... I think that faith teaches you to believe something without evidence, and that shuts your mind off... As a scientist and as an educator, I'm against the idea of faith -- the idea that you believe something simply because you believe it.
Richard Dawkins Is Wrong About Religion

Now let us play again. The metaphysical belief that the world is natural is without evidence and requires in the end faith.
Faith is not unique to religion. Faith as firm belief in something for which there is no proof or evidence.
 

PureX

Veteran Member
I don't count opinions (subjective) as knowledge (objective). So your example doesn't give an example of anything 'going wrong' that I can see.
Except that knowledge is an opinion (of what is true) based on limited human (subjective) experience.
 

rational experiences

Veteran Member
2 human conditions exist. The subject of owning a natural life and are origin to your own human self, objectivity......or
the subject of contending that you know everything and already have all the answers, human self not the object of the discussion.

The non humanism statement is the belief that space created. Yet science says that it will subject thought to the gain of the creation, as the power for his own human inventions.

Therefore in that condition he is not inferring to the subject that he discusses, that space created.

Instead he says that he can create through space, in relativity of his formed formula, to own a position of the attack, to irradiate a space to pass the changing body of energy/mass through that space, hot dense state, to own a conversion.

So he says I am creating destruction to gain creation from a hot dense state.

Yet what is objective, is that he lives in a cold fused state.

Natural humans call that condition lying.

Science however only owns one subjective reasoning. To own the powers obtained through space. So in his relative ideal, holes, which he subjects Earth mass to gain his relativity, science powers is his owned Creator self belief.

When you are only a human and claim that the subject of your thoughts is not human, then you already claim that a knowledge of an answer is the given answer, yet you said it yourself.
 

Nimos

Well-Known Member
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.
I think you have to be a bit more clear here in regards to what you mean. Because if I understand what you are saying correctly, you are referring to the "here and now" and/or in the future of what would improve a person's life to the better.

But what exactly do you mean? Because do you mean that, "Me ordering a pizza, because it tastes good" is subjectively a way for me to improve my life, because I desire a pizza? So what you mean with subjectivity in regards to the good life is simply a person fulfilling their desires, whatever they might be?

Because objectively, depending on my current condition, which could be that im about to starve to death, a pizza is objectively good for me as it contains nutrients, which we as biological lifeforms need to survive.

You are correct that science can't tell me, that exactly pizza is without a doubt the best food for me at this very moment. But then again, I don't really think that is purpose of science anyway, even though it would be cool :D


So can you give an example of something that you can test, which is subjective and that you as a result of this test, can conclude gives you a better life, without it having any relationship to natural science/life science?
 

rational experiences

Veteran Member
I think you have to be a bit more clear here in regards to what you mean. Because if I understand what you are saying correctly, you are referring to the "here and now" and/or in the future of what would improve a person's life to the better.

But what exactly do you mean? Because do you mean that, "Me ordering a pizza, because it tastes good" is subjectively a way for me to improve my life, because I desire a pizza? So what you mean with subjectivity in regards to the good life is simply a person fulfilling their desires, whatever they might be?

Because objectively, depending on my current condition, which could be that im about to starve to death, so the pizza is objectively good for me as it contains nutrients, which we as biological lifeforms need to survive.

You are correct that science can't tell me, that exactly pizza is without a doubt the best food for me at this very moment. But then again, I don't really think that is purpose of science anyway, even though it would be cool :D


So can you give an example of something that you can test, which is is subjective and that you as a result of this test, can conclude gives you a better life, without it having any relationship to natural science/life science?
Once on the website forum of Graham Hancock I was in a strange mind state, and a photo image of some form of stone I said looked like a pizza.

Is that the euphemism you are using to quote to me today about humans knowing it all, in the study of other humans in drugged mind states?
 

Nimos

Well-Known Member
Is that the euphemism you are using to quote to me today about humans knowing it all, in the study of other humans in drugged mind states?
Im not really sure what you are asking?

I used the example to get some clarifications in regards to what was meant with subjectivity in relationship to a "good life". The term or saying "good life" is itself subjective, unless we are talking about objective biological things. Like you need to eat to survive, you need to sleep, drink etc. These are not subjective, but objective. But what you choose to eat, where you choose to sleep or what to drink (as long as it contains water) is subjective.
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
I think you have to be a bit more clear here in regards to what you mean. Because if I understand what you are saying correctly, you are referring to the "here and now" and/or in the future of what would improve a person's life to the better.

But what exactly do you mean? Because do you mean that, "Me ordering a pizza, because it tastes good" is subjectively a way for me to improve my life, because I desire a pizza? So what you mean with subjectivity in regards to the good life is simply a person fulfilling their desires, whatever they might be?

Because objectively, depending on my current condition, which could be that im about to starve to death, so the pizza is objectively good for me as it contains nutrients, which we as biological life need to survive.

You are correct that science can't tell me, that exactly pizza is without a doubt the best food for me at this very moment. But then again, I don't really think that is purpose of science anyway, even though it would be cool :D


So can you give an example of something that you can test, which is is subjective and that you as a result of this test, can conclude gives you a better life, without it having any relationship to natural science/life science?

You smuggled morality in there.
Premise: There are objective factors in what makes a life a life.
Conclusion. Therefore it is good to have a live in an objective sense.
That is what you in effect tried to achieve.
But that I want to live, is subjective. It is a bias in favor of me living. We have hit the is-ought problem. Let me show you:
I am a life, objective fact. Therefore I ought to live. From the fact that I live, doesn't not follow that I ought to live on or have a good life.
If I want to live, subjective desire, then there are in part objective things I have to do, but also subjective things I have to do.

Part 2: How I test subjectively, what works for me in the psychological sense? I use psychology and some of the methods in there and change my behavior if I have to feel better. What works for me, might not work for you. The point is, it is not objective, because what works for me, might not work for you and so in reverse.
Of course it is connected to the life sciences in some sense, but part of what makes me happy is subjective and thus strong objective evidence doesn't apply.
Check out some psychology and if you look for it, you will find subjectivity there. We are all equal in some sense as humans and different as individuals in some senses. The latter part science can't solve. It can study it, but it can't do it for you, because there is for some aspects of a good life no objective evidence.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
You smuggled morality in there.DNA Linked to Covid-19 Was Inherited From Neanderthals, Study Finds
Premise: There are objective factors in what makes a life a life.
Conclusion. Therefore it is good to have a live in an objective sense.
That is what you in effect tried to achieve.

No yu are bringing it up, not me.

No I tried nothing of the sort.

But that I want to live, is subjective. It is a bias in favor of me living. We have hit the is-ought problem. Let me show you:
I am a life, objective fact. Therefore I ought to live. From the fact that I live, doesn't not follow that I ought to live on or have a good life.
If I want to live, subjective desire, then there are in part objective things I have to do, but also subjective things I have to do.

These are indeed subjective issues and not science.

Part 2: How I test subjectively, what works for me in the psychological sense? I use psychology and some of the methods in there and change my behavior if I have to feel better. What works for me, might not work for you. The point is, it is not objective, because what works for me, might not work for you and so in reverse.
Of course it is connected to the life sciences in some sense, but part of what makes me happy is subjective and thus strong objective evidence doesn't apply.
Check out some psychology and if you look for it, you will find subjectivity there. We are all equal in some sense as humans and different as individuals in some senses. The latter part science can't solve. It can study it, but it can't do it for you, because there is for some aspects of a good life no objective evidence.

Your again dredging the bottom of the internet with nothing relevant to basic foundation of the objective nature of science.. I am citing standard scientific definitions and sources that define the objective nature of science, and you are not responding to them.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member

Right or wrong it is Dawkins view, and nothing beyond that. Well, ah . . . incomplete selective citation. This is Dawkins opinion on religion.

Now let us play again. The metaphysical belief that the world is natural is without evidence and requires in the end faith.
Faith is not unique to religion. Faith as firm belief in something for which there is no proof or evidence.

Science nor I play with metaphysics. Nothing to do with science.
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
...

Science nor I play with metaphysics. Nothing to do with science.

You know what?

Scientific realism, it is.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-realism/#ThreDimeRealComm
The Three Dimensions of Realist Commitment(Realist as scientific realism)
...
Traditionally, realism more generally is associated with any position that endorses belief in the reality of something. Thus, one might be a realist about one’s perceptions of tables and chairs (sense datum realism), or about tables and chairs themselves (external world realism), or about mathematical entities such as numbers and sets (mathematical realism), and so on. Scientific realism is a realism about whatever is described by our best scientific theories—from this point on, “realism” here denotes scientific realism. But what, more precisely, is that? In order to be clear about what realism in the context of the sciences amounts to, and to differentiate it from some important antirealist alternatives, it is useful to understand it in terms of three dimensions: a metaphysical (or ontological) dimension; a semantic dimension; and an epistemological dimension.
...

Now it gets old. There is at least one human, in a site you have used, who connects science and metaphysics.

...
Metaphysically, realism is committed to the mind-independent existence of the world investigated by the sciences. This idea is best clarified in contrast with positions that deny it. For instance, it is denied by any position that falls under the traditional heading of “idealism”, including some forms of phenomenology, according to which there is no world external to and thus independent of the mind. This sort of idealism, however, though historically important, is rarely encountered in contemporary philosophy of science. More common rejections of mind-independence stem from neo-Kantian views of the nature of scientific knowledge, which deny that the world of our experience is mind-independent, even if (in some cases) these positions accept that the world in itself does not depend on the existence of minds. The contention here is that the world investigated by the sciences—as distinct from “the world in itself” (assuming this to be a coherent distinction)—is in some sense dependent on the ideas one brings to scientific investigation, which may include, for example, theoretical assumptions and perceptual training; this proposal is detailed further in section 4. It is important to note in this connection that human convention in scientific taxonomy is compatible with mind-independence. For example, though Psillos (1999: xix) ties realism to a “mind-independent natural-kind structure” of the world, Chakravartty (2007a: ch. 6) argues that mind-independent properties are often conventionally grouped into kinds (see also Boyd 1999; Humphreys 2004: 22–25, 35–36, and cf. the “promiscuous realism” of Dupré 1993).
...

So you lost. On a site you used as authoritative there is a entry about scientific realism and how that is connected to metaphysics.
Science is a human cultural and social construct in part and not everybody understand science like you do.

What science is as science, is not objective. It is inter-subjective and thus a social, cultural construct.
There is no scientific theory, which gives evidence for science. What science is, belongs in philosophy.
That is why the site you used to argue from is this:
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

You have left science and entered philosophy. Your idea of science is a subset of philosophy. But it is not the only version of science around.
In practice it is even more wide than these 3, but they are always interconnected as how a given human including me and you "weighs" the importance of religion, philosophy and science and how a given human combines them as "positives" and "negatives".
 
Top