Scientism: A Muddled Idea that Even the Gods Themselves Pee on

[Augustus]

A few years back a TED talk introduced me to the idea that science has values. I'd heard the "is/ought" claim before, but the notion of science having values was novel to me and mind blowing.

I find concepts like this problematic, and contributory towards scientism.

When someone says 'science has values' it is really making a positive claim, rather than the normative 'in theory, good science ought to have values'.

One of the preeminent causes of scientism is the failure to distinguish between the normative aims of science, and the real-world human activity of science with all the issues that go along with being a real-world human activity rather than a textbook concept.

The practice of science is significantly affected by irrationality, egotism, ambition, jealousy, careerism, greed, bias, ignorance, malpractice, fabrication, overconfidence, adherence to flawed methodologies, systemic distortions, etc. etc. simply because it is a human activity and these are human flaws.

Science is often discussed normatively in the manner a religious apologist discusses their faith normatively so as to absolve it of any connection to the problems it may cause in reality.

Treating science hagiographic manner does no one any favours, and this often happens when people ascribe values to science (and thus scientists and their output).

 

[Nous]

So what? It is a definition. Definitions are conventions we use for communication. They don't need to be 'real'. They are also not 'knowledge'.

Your definition renders the thesis of scientism vacuous.

 

[Polymath257]

Your definition renders the thesis of scientism vacuous.

I disagree. It establishes the difference between knowledge and opinion. That is an important difference. Science addresses knowledge. Opinions, on the other hand, are found in non-knowlege arenas like morality and aesthetics.

 

[PureX]

I disagree with your usage of the term 'truth'. Knowledge is knowledge of the truth.

The essence of 'scientism' is the belief that physical function = reality/truth. And therefor, science is the only means of determining reality/truth. But knowing the how, without knowing the why, in not knowing either reality or truth. And presuming that it does will not end well for we monkeys.

 

[PureX]

It establishes the difference between knowledge and opinion.

There is no difference, but the demands of ego.

That is an important difference. Science addresses knowledge. Opinions, on the other hand, are found in non-knowlege arenas like morality and aesthetics.

Science filters our opinions through functionality. That's all. Labeling an opinion functional does not stop it from being an opinion, which is why theories, in science, remain theories. And why scientist do not claim to be in pursuit of, nor in possession of truth. You are trying to make a distinction between what we think we know, and what we "really" know. But there is no difference, because functionality doesn't ameliorate opinion. It does not negate our lack of omniscience.

 

[Polymath257]

The essence of 'scientism' is the belief that physical function = reality/truth. And therefor, science is the only means of determining reality/truth. But knowing the how, without knowing the why, in not knowing either reality or truth. And presuming that it does will not end well for we monkeys.

You are assumingthere is a 'why' that is separate from the 'how'. Outside of this planet, I find that quite questionable.

 

[Revoltingest]

The essence of 'scientism' is the belief that physical function = reality/truth. And therefor, science is the only means of determining reality/truth.

For all practical purposes, I agree with those statements.
Sure, sure...it's possible that some over-arching other thing
is going on...something detectable. And people ascribe that
possibility to gods, computer programmers, or who knows what.
But that's idle speculation which doesn't really serve us in our reality.
And hey....if ever something previously hidden from us is ever found,
it would then become part of scientism's weltanschauung.

Note:
Scientism as a philosophy beats other things beginning with "sci"....
- Scientology
- Sciatica
- Scissoring

 

[Nous]

I disagree. It establishes the difference between knowledge and opinion.

The distinction between 'knowledge' and 'opinion' is your own creation. It isn't testable. It isn't part of reality that you defined in your first post here.

 

[Polymath257]

The distinction between 'knowledge' and 'opinion' is your own creation. It isn't testable. It isn't part of reality that you defined in your first post here.

Definitions don't have a truth value.

 

[PureX]

For all practical purposes, I agree with those statements.
Sure, sure...it's possible that some over-arching other thing is going on...something detectable.

Isn't this statement, itself, something "overarching"? I mean; the fact that we are able to perceive existence as if we were not a part of it, and thereby decide for ourselves what exists and what does not. And then moreover, the fact that we can DISAGREE about it! Isn't our conscious awareness, itself, that "overarching" phenomena that is going on? And that is fully detectable by direct experience?

 

[PureX]

You are assuming there is a 'why' that is separate from the 'how'. Outside of this planet, I find that quite questionable.

I think you've answered yourself in the asking. The fact that matter and energy can combine in such as way as to ask itself "why" pretty much legitimizes the question.

 

[Revoltingest]

Isn't this statement, itself, something "overarching"?

No.

I mean; the fact that we are able to perceive existence as if we were not a part of it, and thereby decide for ourselves what exists and what does not. And then moreover, the fact that we can DISAGREE about it! Isn't our conscious awareness, itself, that "overarching" phenomena that is going on? And that is fully detectable by direct experience?

Consciousness is a physical phenomenon.

 

[PureX]

No.

Consciousness is a physical phenomenon.

If consciousness were merely "physical phenomena", then how could the concept of non-existence have occurred?

 

[Revoltingest]

If consciousness were merely "physical phenomena", then how could the concept of non-existence have occurred?

I cannot give a "how to" description of the origination of basic concepts.
But the biological circuitry basis for consciousness looks good to me.

 

[Polymath257]

I think you've answered yourself in the asking. The fact that matter and energy can combine in such as way as to ask itself "why" pretty much legitimizes the question.

I don't see how.

 

[Polymath257]

If consciousness were merely "physical phenomena", then how could the concept of non-existence have occurred?

Why would it not? I don't see any connection between consciousness being physical and the concept of non-existence arising.

 

[Nous]

Definitions don't have a truth value.

So in your world, it's acceptable to abide by propositions that do not have truth value, and are not testable?

 

[PureX]

So in your world, it's acceptable to abide by propositions that do not have truth value, and are not testable?

If they are not testable, how do you know what truth value a proposition has? It seems to me that simply by adopting a proposition as being true, provisionally, there will be some result. Even no discernible effect is a result, and would tell us something about the "truth value" of the proposition.

 

[PureX]

Why would it not? I don't see any connection between consciousness being physical and the concept of non-existence arising.

I know you don't, and I think that is very unfortunate for you. You are unable to recognize the metaphysical significance of your own cognitive gifts.

 

[Nous]

If they are not testable, how do you know what truth value a proposition has? It seems to me that simply by adopting a proposition as being true, provisionally, there will be some result. Even no discernible effect is a result, and would tell us something about the "truth value" of the proposition.

You'll have to ask @Polymath257 . It's his metaphysics that he's describing. Frankly it sounds all quite inconsistent to me.