What are some examples of scientism?

[Erebus]

Inspired by this thread: Who here believes in "Scientism"?

This thread is open to anybody who would like to share examples of comments they consider to display scientism. They could be comments you've encountered personally, comments made by famous figures or even purely hypothetical comments that a proponent of scientism might say.

It would also be helpful if you could explain why you feel your example qualifies as scientism.

Please don't call out specific RF members.

 

[Quintessence]

Articles like this one are one example that came to mind of scientism: You don't have a soul: The real science that debunks superstitious charlatans

It's actually a really interesting article, right up until the point where things get majorly cringe. Like this bit right here:

"Here lies the dilemma that one finds at the heart of the scientific enterprise. On the one hand, the advancement of knowledge and understanding is a mission of critical importance in any society, and consequently, it is an endeavor that should be undertaken with earnest conviction and zeal. On the other hand, science has the singular property of revealing to us nature’s ways without the kind of sugarcoating that might sometimes be helpful. Reality, for better or worse, happens to be the way it is and not the way we would like it to be. Inevitably, certain conclusions are bound to rub us the wrong way, which is the price we need to pay for looking behind nature’s curtain to take a peek at its true face."​

Or you could just... you know... grasp that science doesn't have a monopoly on understanding reality and doesn't have the last word on everything. "True face" my eye... this guy sounds neigh indistinguishable from a Bible-thumping preacher except they've substituted the Holy Book of Science in place of the Bible.

 

[osgart]

Trying to answer, moral, metaphysical and religious questions with science is scientism.

 

[Erebus]

Articles like this one are one example that came to mind of scientism: You don't have a soul: The real science that debunks superstitious charlatans

It's actually a really interesting article, right up until the point where things get majorly cringe. Like this bit right here:

"Here lies the dilemma that one finds at the heart of the scientific enterprise. On the one hand, the advancement of knowledge and understanding is a mission of critical importance in any society, and consequently, it is an endeavor that should be undertaken with earnest conviction and zeal. On the other hand, science has the singular property of revealing to us nature’s ways without the kind of sugarcoating that might sometimes be helpful. Reality, for better or worse, happens to be the way it is and not the way we would like it to be. Inevitably, certain conclusions are bound to rub us the wrong way, which is the price we need to pay for looking behind nature’s curtain to take a peek at its true face."​

Or you could just... you know... grasp that science doesn't have a monopoly on understanding reality and doesn't have the last word on everything. "True face" my eye... this guy sounds neigh indistinguishable from a Bible-thumping preacher except they've substituted the Holy Book of Science in place of the Bible.

I did enjoy the fact that the author stresses the importance of tone later in the piece:

Since then, I have become much more sensitive to the issue of tone, and I have made a conscious effort to bear this in mind whenever I discuss the issue of the soul publicly or write about it. Tone, therefore, is something I will be sensitive to in this book. In doing so, I am reminded of Spinoza’s motto, a dictum named after the seventeenth-century Dutch philosopher Baruch Spinoza and expressed in these words: “I have made a ceaseless effort not to ridicule, not to bewail, not to scorn human actions, but to understand them.”

That's a cute thing to say in an article titled, "You don't have a soul: The real science that debunks superstitious charlatans."

I'd also like to pick on this bit:

Nothing gets lost, morally, spiritually, or aesthetically by giving up our soul beliefs. In fact, we even have something to gain.

I'm not sure that qualifies as scientism in and of itself. However, I have found this kind of thinking common among those who I would consider to endorse scientism. My immediate thought when reading this line was to ponder the impact ridding ourselves of soul beliefs could have on art and literature. The idea of continued existence after death has proven itself to be fertile ground for artistic expression.

You could certainly argue that the positives of soul belief are outweighed by the negatives. You could also argue that people can write fiction or paint otherworldly landscapes without having to believe in the literal existence of the things they depict. To say that nothing would be lost strikes me as incredibly brazen and short-sighted though. Did the author not consider that perhaps soul belief can inspire people? That its elimination could rob us of the next Dante?

It certainly appears to me that because the author has no use for soul belief himself, he concludes that nobody else should either.

 

[MikeF]

Trying to answer, moral, metaphysical and religious questions with science is scientism.

Then I suppose it is time for me to embrace the label then.

A scientific approach simply means we account for the inherent fallibility in a human investigator and try to mitigate that fallibility. Since investigating questions in any of these categories: morals/ethics, metaphysics, and religion, require a human investigator, we must understand how human being think and what factors influence or dictate behavior and thought processes, and these questions require a scientific approach, in my opinion.

 

[Quintessence]

That's a cute thing to say in an article titled, "You don't have a soul: The real science that debunks superstitious charlatans."

In a realm of clickbait titles to farm ad revenue and user's personal information, I had a hard time faulting this, but it is pretty funny.

I'm not sure that qualifies as scientism in and of itself. However, I have found this kind of thinking common among those who I would consider to endorse scientism. My immediate thought when reading this line was to ponder the impact ridding ourselves of soul beliefs could have on art and literature. The idea of continued existence after death has proven itself to be fertile ground for artistic expression.

Yeah, -isms in general will create a filter whereby accepted lore (in this case, knowledge derived by methodological naturalism) is put in a place of privilege and increased value over sources of unaccepted lore. That's to be expected as it is part of the process of building an ideological framework that can function and do work. Gotta set limits and rules to operate by, yeah? So this isn't inherently an issue, but it can become an issue when using an ill-suited framework for the type of work being done (or insisting there is only One True Framework or failing to recognize the framework has limitations).

When doing art, think like an artist.

When doing theism, think like a theist.

When doing science, think like a scientist.

Ideological purists (e.g., scientism) prefer to apply one way of thinking to all situations. Each to their own, but as a paradigm shifter that is just weird to me on some fundamental level.

 

[MikeF]

I did enjoy the fact that the author stresses the importance of tone later in the piece:
That's a cute thing to say in an article titled, "You don't have a soul: The real science that debunks superstitious charlatans."

I wonder if the title of the article is more in the hands of the editor as opposed to the author. I can see how this title would be considered more dramatic and eye-catching than say: Concepts Of A Soul Loose Ground To Science.

My immediate thought when reading this line was to ponder the impact ridding ourselves of soul beliefs could have on art and literature. The idea of continued existence after death has proven itself to be fertile ground for artistic expression.

You could certainly argue that the positives of soul belief are outweighed by the negatives.

I find this line of thought interesting. If positive soul belief outweighs the negative, and for argument sake there is no soul, what is science supposed to do? Stop seeking to understand how the central nervous system functions?

If a geocentric world view was considered more positive because centuries of culture formed around such a belief, should evidence of a heliocentric system been suppressed to avoid shattering existing cultural identity and any negative consequences?

What, in your view, is the purpose of asking fundamental questions about ourselves and the cosmos if not to get to the actual answers?

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Then I suppose it is time for me to embrace the label then.

A scientific approach simply means we account for the inherent fallibility in a human investigator and try to mitigate that fallibility. Since investigating questions in any of these categories: morals/ethics, metaphysics, and religion, require a human investigator, we must understand how human being think and what factors influence or dictate behavior and thought processes, and these questions require a scientific approach, in my opinion.

The issue is that all of these things are very subjective. No one culture has the same view on these things, and in fact no one person has the same view on these things (unless you're in a cult that tells you what color socks to wear). Science is useful for making suggestions about what is healthy, what benefits your mental health, how much of a 'person' a child is inside of the womb - but it can't tell you what is right or wrong because there is no objective right or wrong.

Same with metaphysics. It's the philosophical study of abstract concepts; what it means to exist, what life is, why there is existence at all (as in a meaningful 'why' not the scientific 'why'), etc. Science has no way to approach these concepts and there likely isn't even an objective answer to such abstract concepts, and if there is why does that objective answer matter since these things are unknowable through science?

 

[rational experiences]

A human who makes lists first is the term I believe in ist.

The ist meaning your thinking hadn't invented by thought any created presence. Why you listed form.

As list is first observation only by a human inferred ism.

The ism.

Man said I'm a satanist as my list is of non present form alight already removed....ist.

Satanist.
Scientist. Same label.

Satanist said I applied created invention I caused as man of god. Change by choice of man. Theism.

Scientist said I only invent as I knew I hadn't created as I learnt from my brother.

Brother however is human first and always natural man. He had not learnt science from natural man.

He'd learnt science from sacrificed man which isn't learning. It was copying inventive causes.

Sacrificed man however was not inventive sacrificed. He was sacrificed destroyed.

Reasoned the star mass returned his theism. Heard voice of old man's life destruction as sciences beginnings.

Ism terms....Cloud earths began as smoking gas plus space womb no image.

Clouds reformed presence heavens burnt by sun. No images.

Man of time time shift to planetoid carbon mass direct line from sun no orbit. As infinity. To get eternal...formed all life's destruction as he tried to time shift earths mass to suns straight line trajectory no orbit.

Satan's man cloud image emerged after....the ism. The clouds history of known cloud only changes.

Man's mind Sacrificed hears same origin man's science time machine shift theories by our earth mass only. Saved image man saved voice man. All life decimated.

The ist.
The ism.

Human men in natural life were conscious first.

Human men brain changed to become the ist of the ism. By choice only perusal.

Were taught why no man is God the substances of creation.

All substance presence he taught was owner the same form ion. Create ion.

Hence three lettered symbols as thought by man the thinker he said taught the truth why you don't name created substances nor change them as the man.

Ist.
Ism.
Ion.

Reasoned III as stated self status reasoning "I" and from 1ST as first first first. What I thought about.

Why man said I'm not Satan nor am I GOD. Three in creation.

My three are a baby son man...a father son man and holy spirit man water....holy life.

Conscious versus changed mind into con science. Scientism once Satanism.

 

[osgart]

Then I suppose it is time for me to embrace the label then.

A scientific approach simply means we account for the inherent fallibility in a human investigator and try to mitigate that fallibility. Since investigating questions in any of these categories: morals/ethics, metaphysics, and religion, require a human investigator, we must understand how human being think and what factors influence or dictate behavior and thought processes, and these questions require a scientific approach, in my opinion.

Science investigates physical phenomenon solely. Physical processes don't reveal how or why a person thinks as they do. Physical processes can alter behaviours, but getting at the root causes of behaviour isn't going to be solved by science IMO. People have unique inner lives.
People go about finding meaning and understanding differently. To understand people this way you would have to know their life history and experiences from their perspective. There may be general commonalities physiologically, but I don't think there is enough there to solve a person's inner life with science.

How would you measure emotion, desires, conscience, etc. without being philosophical?

As of yet the inner life is not accessible by scientific means.

 

[MikeF]

The issue is that all of these things are very subjective. No one culture has the same view on these things, and in fact no one person has the same view on these things (unless you're in a cult that tells you what color socks to wear). Science is useful for making suggestions about what is healthy, what benefits your mental health, how much of a 'person' a child is inside of the womb - but it can't tell you what is right or wrong because there is no objective right or wrong.

Same with metaphysics. It's the philosophical study of abstract concepts; what it means to exist, what life is, why there is existence at all (as in a meaningful 'why' not the scientific 'why'), etc. Science has no way to approach these concepts and there likely isn't even an objective answer to such abstract concepts, and if there is why does that objective answer matter since these things are unknowable through science?

In all these instances, be it you, me, a philosopher, a physicist, it is a human being thinking about these things and trying to come up with answers, right? So, is it not important to understand what makes us tick? If our instinctual behaviors are evolutionarily optimized for being in small hunter/gatherer groups, yet we live in very large complex societies today, our subjective choices, our gut instincts may work against us in such a dramatically different environment. If we don't recognize that an initial twinge of displeasure towards people of a different look and culture is an instinctual in-group vs other response that should be acknowledge as such and set aside, we can succumb to developing racist attitudes.

In my view, taking a scientific approach simply means to take into account all the factors that influence our behaviors and actions, from hard wiring to socialization and education, and not submit to those influences blindly, but evaluate and challenge them in order to make the best possible decisions.

As to the metaphysical questions, if there is no meaning to life, no meaningful 'why', are we to be left only with the meaning and why handed down by our primitive ancestors, or do we take a more dynamic approach that grows as our understanding of ourselves and the cosmos grows. Most importantly, can we allow ourselves to be content not knowing what cannot yet be known.

 

[MikeF]

Science investigates physical phenomenon solely. Physical processes don't reveal how or why a person thinks as they do. Physical processes can alter behaviours, but getting at the root causes of behaviour isn't going to be solved by science IMO. People have unique inner lives.
People go about finding meaning and understanding differently. To understand people this way you would have to know their life history and experiences from their perspective. There may be general commonalities physiologically, but I don't think there is enough there to solve a person's inner life with science.

How would you measure emotion, desires, conscience, etc. without being philosophical?

As of yet the inner life is not accessible by scientific means.

People certainly do have unique personal lives, and there are a lot of factors that contribute to that uniqueness.

You seem quite confident that human behavior does not have physical causes or the result of physical processes. I am surprised in your confidence given our incomplete understanding of how the central nervous system functions. Yet, scientific inquiry into brain function and behavior continue to improve our understanding decade after decade. I, personally, think it is way too early to throw in the towel and say there is nothing more to be learned.

I am curious as to how being philosophical is more effective at measuring emotion, desire, consciousness than a scientific approach? Presumably we have human investigators in both circumstances, one a philosopher, one a scientist. The philosopher is presumably forming his/her opinions on these issues using something other than biology, chemistry, physics, neuroscience, psychology/psychiatry etc. What informs the philosopher that is unavailable to the scientist, both being human beings after all. How does the philosopher mitigate human error in the investigative process, human beings being imperfect and fallible?

 

[The Sum of Awe]

In all these instances, be it you, me, a philosopher, a physicist, it is a human being thinking about these things and trying to come up with answers, right? So, is it not important to understand what makes us tick? If our instinctual behaviors are evolutionarily optimized for being in small hunter/gatherer groups, yet we live in very large complex societies today, our subjective choices, our gut instincts may work against us in such a dramatically different environment. If we don't recognize that an initial twinge of displeasure towards people of a different look and culture is an instinctual in-group vs other response that should be acknowledge as such and set aside, we can succumb to developing racist attitudes.

In my view, taking a scientific approach simply means to take into account all the factors that influence our behaviors and actions, from hard wiring to socialization and education, and not submit to those influences blindly, but evaluate and challenge them in order to make the best possible decisions.

So what you're talking about is essentially sociology and psychology? These sciences determine how to structure society which is, in my opinion, different from determining how to structure morality. To create a scientific based morality you'd never come to any conclusions or agreements, you'd just have Law 2.0 - based on another group of people's opinions, this group of people happen to be more knowledgeable in certain scientific fields but their opinions are just opinions nonetheless. There is nothing scientific about saying "The best way to run a country is through democracy" or "There is nothing morally wrong with abortion" - The only thing that science can tell us is "Democracy is useful for X but it also has flaws in Y" and "Babies in display glimmers of consciousness and memory at roughly 5 months old".

As to the metaphysical questions, if there is no meaning to life, no meaningful 'why', are we to be left only with the meaning and why handed down by our primitive ancestors, or do we take a more dynamic approach that grows as our understanding of ourselves and the cosmos grows.

People do both these days, and every individual should have the ability to choose what feels right for themselves. There's nothing wrong with perceiving the world through the conclusions of ancient metaphysical philosophers, and there's nothing wrong with perceiving the world through the conclusions of one's own spiritual/skeptical logic/experiences.

Most importantly, can we allow ourselves to be content not knowing what cannot yet be known.

I don't believe abstract concepts like these can ever be 'known', any more than "Pumpkin Pie is the best Thanksgiving desert" can ever be known. (okay, that one might be objective...)

 

[MikeF]

So what you're talking about is essentially sociology and psychology? These sciences determine how to structure society which is, in my opinion, different from determining how to structure morality. To create a scientific based morality you'd never come to any conclusions or agreements, you'd just have Law 2.0 - based on another group of people's opinions, this group of people happen to be more knowledgeable in certain scientific fields but their opinions are just opinions nonetheless. There is nothing scientific about saying "The best way to run a country is through democracy" or "There is nothing morally wrong with abortion" - The only thing that science can tell us is "Democracy is useful for X but it also has flaws in Y" and "Babies in display glimmers of consciousness and memory at roughly 5 months old".

Ethics is subjective. There is no external or universal morality, in my opinion. Therefore, we have to come to agreement on the rules we adopt to govern society and enable us to live together in large groups. I'm not suggesting a science based ethical system, rather a science informed one. Understanding how we work, what influences our behavior will allow us to create better social systems to reach our desired goals and outcomes.

People do both these days, and every individual should have the ability to choose what feels right for themselves. There's nothing wrong with perceiving the world through the conclusions of ancient metaphysical philosophers, and there's nothing wrong with perceiving the world through the conclusions of one's own spiritual/skeptical logic/experiences.

Except that what one believes affects their values and the decisions they make. These include political decisions that affect everyone. People are going to believe what they are going to believe for a variety of reasons. My only argument is that an approach that is informed by our growing scientific understanding resists stagnation and fosters continual social improvement.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Articles like this one are one example that came to mind of scientism: You don't have a soul: The real science that debunks superstitious charlatans

It's actually a really interesting article, right up until the point where things get majorly cringe. Like this bit right here:

"Here lies the dilemma that one finds at the heart of the scientific enterprise. On the one hand, the advancement of knowledge and understanding is a mission of critical importance in any society, and consequently, it is an endeavor that should be undertaken with earnest conviction and zeal. On the other hand, science has the singular property of revealing to us nature’s ways without the kind of sugarcoating that might sometimes be helpful. Reality, for better or worse, happens to be the way it is and not the way we would like it to be. Inevitably, certain conclusions are bound to rub us the wrong way, which is the price we need to pay for looking behind nature’s curtain to take a peek at its true face."​

Or you could just... you know... grasp that science doesn't have a monopoly on understanding reality and doesn't have the last word on everything. "True face" my eye... this guy sounds neigh indistinguishable from a Bible-thumping preacher except they've substituted the Holy Book of Science in place of the Bible.

I'm not sure I would classify that specific part as "scientism," although the title of the article taps into the false dichotomy that one has to choose to believe either religion or science and not both.

The way I take the "true face of nature" in this instance is as a reference to how natural laws function and which models we can reliably use to predict various natural phenomena. In that sense, science does have a monopoly on accuracy in most practical situations. No other model can consistently and accurately model the behavior of various chemical substances in different temperatures or the behavior of semiconductor physics, for example.

Personally, I subscribe to methodological naturalism, so what I regard as "scientism" is the notion that science is concerned with the metaphysical or has anything to say about purely philosophical questions such as moral dilemmas. Sure, it can inform one's stance on some of those questions by providing knowledge that may be relevant in a subset of philosophical discourse, but not everyone's answers to said questions are informed by scientific knowledge (e.g., about which actions are most likely to be conducive to pain or pleasure), nor is there any objective reason for them to be.

On the other hand, I also find it fundamentally erroneous when someone makes a religiously based claim that contradicts established science, such as saying that the Earth is 6,000 years old or that evolution is false, and dismisses scientific answers to these claims as "scientism." The term is sometimes used as a scare word to downplay the importance of scientific consensus and open the door to all manner of incorrect claims as if we had no way of distinguishing between accurate and inaccurate statements about nature and its laws.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Then I suppose it is time for me to embrace the label then.

A scientific approach simply means we account for the inherent fallibility in a human investigator and try to mitigate that fallibility. Since investigating questions in any of these categories: morals/ethics, metaphysics, and religion, require a human investigator, we must understand how human being think and what factors influence or dictate behavior and thought processes, and these questions require a scientific approach, in my opinion.

Okay, here is the root problem. It has to do with fallibility, falsifiable and falsification in regards to observation and how that relates to individual worldviews.

You know the concept of a gate or as related a door. It can be open or closed. But you can't observe that, because open and closed are concepts in your mind. They are in the jargon abstracts, because they have no observable property.
But it goes even deeper than that. All positives and negatives are abstracts and have no observable properties.

So that science matters, is not science, because that it matters as matters have no observable property. As long as you understand that as in effect irrelevant, you and I won't be able to agree, because you smuggle subjectivity and non-science into science and that has an effect when we start dealing with humans as humans.

So yes, you are doing scientism, because to you the best way to understand the world is through science, but that it is the best way has no observable property.

May I tag Jose Fly to our exchange?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Trying to answer, moral, metaphysical and religious questions with science is scientism.

That's pretty vague.
I'ld submit that in all three there would be area's / questions that most definitely cross into the scientific domain.

Take morality for example... We determine primarily what is and isn't moral by how it impacts well-being.
And how certain actions impact well-being, more often then not, is most definitely a scientific question.

For example: why is it immoral to dump toxic waste in rivers?
How is the answer to that question not a scientific answer which deals with pollution and how it negatively affects fauna and flora?

Take religious questions about the biblical flood for example. Floods are geological events. How is the question "did this flood happen?" not a question for science?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Science investigates physical phenomenon solely. Physical processes don't reveal how or why a person thinks as they do. Physical processes can alter behaviours, but getting at the root causes of behaviour isn't going to be solved by science IMO. People have unique inner lives.

Psychologists, psychiatrists, neurologists,... even experts in behavioral evolution, would disagree with such a sweeping statement.

How would you measure emotion, desires, conscience, etc. without being philosophical?

What makes you think that "philosophy" is able to unravel emotions?

As of yet the inner life is not accessible by scientific means.

So all psychologists are just quacks?

 

[exchemist]

Inspired by this thread: Who here believes in "Scientism"?

This thread is open to anybody who would like to share examples of comments they consider to display scientism. They could be comments you've encountered personally, comments made by famous figures or even purely hypothetical comments that a proponent of scientism might say.

It would also be helpful if you could explain why you feel your example qualifies as scientism.

Please don't call out specific RF members.

Here is my example of it from @Jose Fly 's thread:

As I said in that thread, this looks to me like scientism: a video by Dawkins, designed with emotive music and dreamy shots to encourage a sense of mystery, awe and wonder, in an attempt to get science to push the buttons in the human psyche that religion is commonly thought to push.

This strikes me as example of overreach, whereby science is elevated to another job, beyond understanding of nature, by offering it as an alternative to religion. It's clumsy, inappropriate and ridiculous. I think Dawkins has given up on this nonsense nowadays.

 

[PureX]

Trying to answer, moral, metaphysical and religious questions with science is scientism.

And more importantly, dismissing the reality of meta-physicality is scientism. Like presuming that art, religion, and philosophy are really just pointless self-indulgent naval-gazing. That only science can tell us the "real truth" of things. I see this sentiment expressed around here quite often.