"Scientism" on Wikipedia ...

[Audie]

No bovvered

Bowered. New word for me.

"Shaded or envlosed"

Provides example of as per my request and for
you i will up my donation to $23.67.

 

[lukethethird]

Bowered. New word for me.

"Shaded or envlosed"

Provides example of as per my request and for
you i will up my donation to $23.67.

Bovvered
A word made famous by Catherine Tate as the character Lauren Cooper in The Catherine Tate Show. Used as part of her catchphrases when she was angry or embarrassed.
"Am I bovvered? Am I bovvered though? Look at my face. Is it bovvered? Arks me If I'm bovvered! Look, face, bovvered? I ain't bovvered!"

 

[Leahpolitan_icecream]

I was just reading some of the more recent additional information on wiki about "scientism", and could not help but notice the striking resemblance between many of the 'atheists' that participate on this site, and the characterizations being offered on wiki regarding "scientism". And yet whenever I've tried to point out these same characterizations to those atheists on this site who routinely express these exact same characteristics, they deny that they or anyone they know show any resemblance to them. Somehow, they are unable to see themselves as such even as they actively express themselves as such.

It's quite puzzling, and it gives me the impression of there being some sort of cult-like phenomena involved.

Let me post some of the characteristics of "scientism" from wiki and lets see if any of you self-proclaimed atheists, here, can see yourself in any of them ...

"In the philosophy of science, the term scientism frequently implies a critique of the more extreme expressions of logical positivism[2][3] and has been used by social scientists such as Friedrich Hayek,[4] philosophers of science such as Karl Popper,[5] and philosophers such as Mary Midgley,[6] the later Hilary Putnam,[6][7] and Tzvetan Todorov[8] to describe (for example) the dogmatic endorsement of scientific methodology and the reduction of all knowledge to only that which is measured or confirmatory.[9]"

"It has been defined as "the view that the characteristic inductive methods of the natural sciences are the only source of genuine factual knowledge and, in particular, that they alone can yield true knowledge about man and society"."

(The term "Scientism") It is used to criticize a totalizing view of science as if it were capable of describing all reality and knowledge, or as if it were the only true way to acquire knowledge about reality and the nature of things;"

"E. F. Schumacher, in his A Guide for the Perplexed, criticized scientism as an impoverished world view confined solely to what can be counted, measured and weighed. "The architects of the modern worldview, notably Galileo and Descartes, assumed that those things that could be weighed, measured, and counted were more true than those that could not be quantified. If it couldn't be counted ... it didn't count."[32]"

"Intellectual historian T.J. Jackson Lears argued there has been a recent reemergence of "nineteenth-century positivist faith that a reified 'science' has discovered (or is about to discover) all the important truths about human life. Precise measurement and rigorous calculation, in this view, are the basis for finally settling enduring metaphysical and moral controversies."
​

I have read many of the self-proclaimed atheists on this site paraphrasing many of these same ideals, often, and repeatedly.

"God is not real unless and until God can be proven real by the objective methodology of science".

I guess if I see God then I'll know they are real, and if everyone can see God using the same road again and again it is science

 

[George-ananda]

I think 'scientism' is a new needed word as discussed in the OP.

I think the atheist-materialist type thinkers don't like the label although it describes the attitudes they present here.

Perhaps it would be a better approach by them to accept the term as not something derogatory and defend their thinking.

 

[Audie]

Bovvered
A word made famous by Catherine Tate as the character Lauren Cooper in The Catherine Tate Show. Used as part of her catchphrases when she was angry or embarrassed.
"Am I bovvered? Am I bovvered though? Look at my face. Is it bovvered? Arks me If I'm bovvered! Look, face, bovvered? I ain't bovvered!"

Ok...no idea about any of that, nor yet why you
said it.

Seems quite dissociated from the topic of
no examples.

Are you holding out for $23.79?

 

[lukethethird]

Ok...no idea about any of that, nor yet why you
said it.

Seems quite dissociated from the topic of
no examples.

I didn't say it.

 

[Audie]

I didn't say it.

Ah so desu ka.

 

[Secret Chief]

Perhaps it would be a better approach by them to accept the term as not something derogatory and defend their thinking.

I see it as neutral, not a pejorative.

 

[Sheldon]

I have read many of the self-proclaimed atheists on this site paraphrasing many of these same ideals, often, and repeatedly.

"God is not real unless and until God can be proven real by the objective methodology of science".

If you quote a dozen atheists on here using that specific claim, then I'll leave for a month.

Let's not forget you were very wrong as my poll showed, about the atheists on here holding a belief that no deity existed. Have you had the good grace to stop speaking for "many atheists on here" since then, apparently not.

For the record I have never made that claim. So that's 1 atheist you are misrepresenting again.

Why don't you try asking atheists what they think, or even reading their posts, instead of these straw man hobby horses you seem to love?

 

[Clara Tea]

I was just reading some of the more recent additional information on wiki about "scientism", and could not help but notice the striking resemblance between many of the 'atheists' that participate on this site, and the characterizations being offered on wiki regarding "scientism". And yet whenever I've tried to point out these same characterizations to those atheists on this site who routinely express these exact same characteristics, they deny that they or anyone they know show any resemblance to them. Somehow, they are unable to see themselves as such even as they actively express themselves as such.

It's quite puzzling, and it gives me the impression of there being some sort of cult-like phenomena involved.

Let me post some of the characteristics of "scientism" from wiki and lets see if any of you self-proclaimed atheists, here, can see yourself in any of them ...

"In the philosophy of science, the term scientism frequently implies a critique of the more extreme expressions of logical positivism[2][3] and has been used by social scientists such as Friedrich Hayek,[4] philosophers of science such as Karl Popper,[5] and philosophers such as Mary Midgley,[6] the later Hilary Putnam,[6][7] and Tzvetan Todorov[8] to describe (for example) the dogmatic endorsement of scientific methodology and the reduction of all knowledge to only that which is measured or confirmatory.[9]"

"It has been defined as "the view that the characteristic inductive methods of the natural sciences are the only source of genuine factual knowledge and, in particular, that they alone can yield true knowledge about man and society"."

(The term "Scientism") It is used to criticize a totalizing view of science as if it were capable of describing all reality and knowledge, or as if it were the only true way to acquire knowledge about reality and the nature of things;"

"E. F. Schumacher, in his A Guide for the Perplexed, criticized scientism as an impoverished world view confined solely to what can be counted, measured and weighed. "The architects of the modern worldview, notably Galileo and Descartes, assumed that those things that could be weighed, measured, and counted were more true than those that could not be quantified. If it couldn't be counted ... it didn't count."[32]"

"Intellectual historian T.J. Jackson Lears argued there has been a recent reemergence of "nineteenth-century positivist faith that a reified 'science' has discovered (or is about to discover) all the important truths about human life. Precise measurement and rigorous calculation, in this view, are the basis for finally settling enduring metaphysical and moral controversies."
​

I have read many of the self-proclaimed atheists on this site paraphrasing many of these same ideals, often, and repeatedly.

"God is not real unless and until God can be proven real by the objective methodology of science".

I deny that I deny.

 

[Clara Tea]

It is not that God's "realness" depends on being proven by the sciencies. I have never heard such a claim before.

It is just that people create their gods in their minds and insist that others must buy into that. I don't need nor ask for an actual scientific research to believe in anybody's god, but I am most certainly going to ask for objective evidence.

I feel it in my heart, I had a miraculous experience, my priest said so, the bible says so.... that I own a bridge in London. And I am willing to sell it to you for a bargain. But I am not going to show any objective evidence that I own it. You have to trust me, otherwise you are guilty of scientism. You most certainly are going to buy it, right?

I guess this is what President Bill Clinton meant about "building bridges." But the problem is....how do we get them to collapse on our enemies?

 

[Sheldon]

I can live with the slight.
I'm starting to like it.
Without it, they might say worse.

Well they can't burn us at the stake in most parts of the world now, and even stoning people is frowned upon in may parts of the world, as is homophobia, enslaving women to their reproductive system, so making up dishonest pejorative terms about science and assigning it to atheists, the two pet hates for so many theists, is pretty harmless all things considered.

At least it keeps them busy I suppose. If all the Pope had done was accuse Galileo of scientism, I'm guessing Galileo would have shrugged it off, rather than being submitted to the Inquisition, and shown the methods of his torture if he dared continue in his factual destruction of religious dogma.

 

[AlexanderG]

I think 'scientism' is a new needed word as discussed in the OP.

I think the atheist-materialist type thinkers don't like the label although it describes the attitudes they present here.

Perhaps it would be a better approach by them to accept the term as not something derogatory and defend their thinking.

Perhaps it would be a better approach to believe us at face value when we tell theists that "scientism" does not describe our attitudes or what we present here, and then to stop strawmanning us?

 

[Lain]

(So far, humans don't appear to have access to metaphysical evidence. Other than "I think therefore I am," which is only abosolute justification to oneself, I don't see how any other metaphysical claims can be justified.)

Would you consider "some things are and some things can be" and all that follows that kind of thought to be a metaphysical claim or something else? Just asking to clarify (for I had considered those sorts of things metaphysical claims which are justifiable).

 

[Clara Tea]

I think you're also trying to foist the logical positivist position on atheists, which seems to be a popular tactic. Yes, science cannot provide evidence that the scientific method is "true." That's because the scientific method is a conceptual, analytic proposition. The scientific method provides empirical evidence, however, and can never be used to justify things like how we feel about objects and events, why we prefer the things we do, or how we define words or conceptual frameworks. It was never designed to do so, and modern atheists accept this. We do not embrace "scientism" if you're equating it with logical positivism. Analytic claims are not produced or justified by science. We have other tools for that.

Granted, evolutionary biology as a theory can explain a lot of human psychology, but it can't tell us why we should value thinking or behaving in a certain way. It doesn't try to. I don't think theism can tell us why we should behave in a certain way, either, even though it tries to, but that's a whole other topic.

Edit: Oof, @sun rise beat me to it, with a much better explanation too!

"Scientific method ...can never be used to justify.....how we feel about objects and events."

But what about MRI scans of the brain when shown pictures of objects and events? I think that physiological changes in the brain can show how we feel.

 

[Lain]

Perhaps it would be a better approach to believe us at face value when we tell theists that "scientism" does not describe our attitudes or what we present here, and then to stop strawmanning us?

Not all atheists are the same though, perhaps when someone uses the term they are not applying it to every atheist?

 

[Lain]

I guess if I see God then I'll know they are real, and if everyone can see God using the same road again and again it is science

Tried 'n' true.

 

[lukethethird]

I was just reading some of the more recent additional information on wiki about "scientism", and could not help but notice the striking resemblance between many of the 'atheists' that participate on this site, and the characterizations being offered on wiki regarding "scientism". And yet whenever I've tried to point out these same characterizations to those atheists on this site who routinely express these exact same characteristics, they deny that they or anyone they know show any resemblance to them. Somehow, they are unable to see themselves as such even as they actively express themselves as such.

It's quite puzzling, and it gives me the impression of there being some sort of cult-like phenomena involved.

Let me post some of the characteristics of "scientism" from wiki and lets see if any of you self-proclaimed atheists, here, can see yourself in any of them ...

"In the philosophy of science, the term scientism frequently implies a critique of the more extreme expressions of logical positivism[2][3] and has been used by social scientists such as Friedrich Hayek,[4] philosophers of science such as Karl Popper,[5] and philosophers such as Mary Midgley,[6] the later Hilary Putnam,[6][7] and Tzvetan Todorov[8] to describe (for example) the dogmatic endorsement of scientific methodology and the reduction of all knowledge to only that which is measured or confirmatory.[9]"

"It has been defined as "the view that the characteristic inductive methods of the natural sciences are the only source of genuine factual knowledge and, in particular, that they alone can yield true knowledge about man and society"."

(The term "Scientism") It is used to criticize a totalizing view of science as if it were capable of describing all reality and knowledge, or as if it were the only true way to acquire knowledge about reality and the nature of things;"

"E. F. Schumacher, in his A Guide for the Perplexed, criticized scientism as an impoverished world view confined solely to what can be counted, measured and weighed. "The architects of the modern worldview, notably Galileo and Descartes, assumed that those things that could be weighed, measured, and counted were more true than those that could not be quantified. If it couldn't be counted ... it didn't count."[32]"

"Intellectual historian T.J. Jackson Lears argued there has been a recent reemergence of "nineteenth-century positivist faith that a reified 'science' has discovered (or is about to discover) all the important truths about human life. Precise measurement and rigorous calculation, in this view, are the basis for finally settling enduring metaphysical and moral controversies."
​

I have read many of the self-proclaimed atheists on this site paraphrasing many of these same ideals, often, and repeatedly.

"God is not real unless and until God can be proven real by the objective methodology of science".

Perhaps if believers stopped stepping into the realm of science with their God claims about creation they wouldn't have to be continuously reminded as to how science works.

 

[AlexanderG]

"Scientific method ...can never be used to justify.....how we feel about objects and events."

But what about MRI scans of the brain when shown pictures of objects and events? I think that physiological changes in the brain can show how we feel.

When I say "how we feel" I mean whether we should enjoy a piece of art versus disliking it. Or whether we should value walks in nature. Or whether we should prefer less economic regulation instead of more. Or whether we should define an unmarried man as a "bachelor" or a "fumblescump."

So yes, science is learning more and more about neurology and the physical processes by which we create preferences and opinions, but it can't tell us which subjective preference is "better" or more "worthwhile." It doesn't care about those things. Subjective preferences are not topics relevant to the scientific method and we use other conceptual tools to explore, study, and rationalize them.

 

[Nakosis]

Bowered. New word for me.

"Shaded or envlosed"

Provides example of as per my request and for
you i will up my donation to $23.67.

If I offer up myself as an example do I win?

Kidding but I find very little to object to in the OP.
What do you find objectionable?
Silly label but I don't see much to be bothered by.
IOW it is kind of how I see things.