Science, scientism and a missing word.

[mikkel_the_dane]

Short, I get how some theists don't get methodological naturalism and science and then use scientism.
But there is a 3rd version.

Someone (as an example): I use evidence, have no beliefs without evidence and religion is wrong.
That one there is no word and scientism doesn't rely cover it, because those who do so, use a folk version of evidence.
Atheism doesn't cover it, non-religion doesn't cover it and objectivism only partially do so.

 

[cladking]

Short, I get how some theists don't get methodological naturalism and science and then use scientism.
But there is a 3rd version.

Someone (as an example): I use evidence, have no beliefs without evidence and religion is wrong.
That one there is no word and scientism doesn't rely cover it, because those who do so, use a folk version of evidence.
Atheism doesn't cover it, non-religion doesn't cover it and objectivism only partially do so.

Belief is superstition. Belief in science is scientism.

Of course you'll balk at this but the reality is that science can't prove anything and good scientists don't reach conclusions. A good scientist compares observations to his models of previous experimental results and to theory to make guesses as to the process involved. If any of these guesses are testable they might be called "hypotheses" but real life is much more a series of guesses than it is hypotheses.

Those who regard any guesses as science or find only their beliefs in observation are scientismists. Holding any scientific knowledge as belief is scientism. It is extremely difficult for most individuals to avoid this because we each see what we believe. We each see reality through a lens of our models and beliefs. This is the human condition. This is the reason that science changes only at funerals rather than at experiment. This is the reason so many believe in empirical evidence and Peers. This is the reason that when all peers agree they are probably wrong.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Belief is superstition. Belief in science is scientism.

Of course you'll balk at this but the reality is that science can't prove anything and good scientists don't reach conclusions. A good scientist compares observations to his models of previous experimental results and to theory to make guesses as to the process involved. If any of these guesses are testable they might be called "hypotheses" but real life is much more a series of guesses than it is hypotheses.

Those who regard any guesses as science or find only their beliefs in observation are scientismists. Holding any scientific knowledge as belief is scientism. It is extremely difficult for most individuals to avoid this because we reach see what we believe. We each see reality through a lens of our models and beliefs. This is the human condition. This is the reason that science changes only at funerals rather than at experiment. This is the reason so many believe in empirical evidence and Peers. This is the reason that when all peers agree they are probably wrong.

Yeah, but science is not about proof. It is about evidence. That is another cognitive model.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Yeah, but science is not about proof. It is about evidence. That is another cognitive model.

Science is about reliance upon intersubjectively verifiable theorems.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Science is about reliance upon intersubjectively verifiable theorems.

Yeah, but even the bold is only one version of how to do it as per science.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Science is about reliance upon intersubjectively verifiable theorems.

Yeah, but even the bold is only one version of how to do it as per science.

I'm sorry, but I do not understand what you're claiming.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I'm sorry, but I do not understand what you're claiming.

Verification is just one claim of how to do science.

 

[HonestJoe]

Someone (as an example): I use evidence, have no beliefs without evidence and religion is wrong.

Curiously, I just learned a new word from another thread here that kind of fits that definition; apistevism

That said, I'm generally not a fan of any of these singular labels and groupings, and find they generally cause more trouble that they're worth. If you can describe your beliefs on a topic with a single word, you probably haven't thought about it enough.

But maybe that's just because I'm a cynic.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Curiously, I just learned a new word from another thread here that kind of fits that definition; apistevism

That said, I'm generally not a fan of any of these singular labels and groupings, and find they generally cause more trouble that they're worth. If you can describe your beliefs on a topic with a single word, you probably haven't thought about it enough.

But maybe that's just because I'm a cynic.

Yeah, even the word "word" requires many words to get an idea of what a word is.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Verification is just one claim of how to do science.

You've simply repeated yourself. What are some of the other ways to "do" science?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You've simply repeated yourself. What are some of the other ways to "do" science?

Falsification as one. Coherence as another. The sociological model. Even some version of pragmatism.