Who here believes in "Scientism"?

[Audie]

Scientism is, I find, an ambiguous term. It begins as a word for those who favor scientific method ahead of faith. It then gets to be used as an insult meaning anyone whose beliefs in science are seen by the speaker as simplistic or excessive.

I'm a materialist ─ I stand ready to be persuaded otherwise by reasoned argument and satisfactory demonstration, but nothing happens ─ and in my view, scientific method is the best way to explore, describe and seek to explain the world external to the self.

But it doesn't work very well, often not all, in assessing certain kinds of human judgment. For instance, it's not the best way to determine whether Tennyson's "Ulysses" is a better or worse poem that Whitman's Leaves of Grass or whether either is esthetically superior to the Shelby Mustang or the Noh play I may write about the Fox's Wedding. Or whether Coke is better than Pepsi (as distinct from, say, Is Coke healthier than Pepsi?).

Ambiguous?
Try " invidious"

 

[Audie]

That's very simple. None of the gases of which the air is composed absorbs light in the visible region of the spectrum.

Things have colour when they absorb, reflect or scatter one or more colours of the visible light spectrum. For instance leaves are green because the chlorophyll they contain absorbs in the red and the blue, and reflects green.

And the sun appears yellowish when low in the sky, and the sky itself is blue, because dust particles scatter some of the incoming blue light, while letting the rest through unscattered.

Glass doesn't absorb in the visible region either, so it too looks transparent. (But chemists have to use rock salt sample cells in infra-red spectrometers, because glass does absorb in the IR. It also absorbs in the UV.)

I can see it just fine ifn it's frozen

 

[Audie]

You probably know that Jesus spoke of living water, don't you? Interesting, thanks for that. Yes, nature is wondrous. John 4: "In answer Jesus said to her: “Everyone drinking from this water will get thirsty again. 14 Whoever drinks from the water that I will give him will never get thirsty at all, but the water that I will give him will become in him a spring of water bubbling up to impart everlasting life.”

I've read that g Washington threw a dollar across the Potomac. Books lie.
And water isnt alive.

Wonderous is being gifted with a brain but refusing to use it.

 

[cladking]

You probably know that Jesus spoke of living water, don't you? Interesting, thanks for that. Yes, nature is wondrous. John 4: "In answer Jesus said to her: “Everyone drinking from this water will get thirsty again. 14 Whoever drinks from the water that I will give him will never get thirsty at all, but the water that I will give him will become in him a spring of water bubbling up to impart everlasting life.”

Thanks very much for this. I was not familiar with this passage and it is of particular importance to me. I think I did hear it many years ago but had forgotten it.

 

[cladking]

So let me try a weak analogy. We are debating 2+2= the following results: 4, 11, 5 and infinite.

Believers don't understand that everything is perspective and everything is both true and false.

2 + 2 most assuredly does equal 11 in base 3.

2 + 2 also equals five if a couple gets on the elevator on the third floor and by the time they get to their destination the couple who got on at the first floor have a baby.

2 + 2 can equal anything at all which is odd since there are no two identical things in a digital reality. Everything by definition must equal 0 or 1.

But if you believe in science then 2 + 2 can only equal 4.

 

[Misunderstood]

Scientism is, I find, an ambiguous term. It begins as a word for those who favor scientific method ahead of faith. It then gets to be used as an insult meaning anyone whose beliefs in science are seen by the speaker as simplistic or excessive.

I'm a materialist ─ I stand ready to be persuaded otherwise by reasoned argument and satisfactory demonstration, but nothing happens ─ and in my view, scientific method is the best way to explore, describe and seek to explain the world external to the self.

But it doesn't work very well, often not all, in assessing certain kinds of human judgment. For instance, it's not the best way to determine whether Tennyson's "Ulysses" is a better or worse poem that Whitman's Leaves of Grass or whether either is esthetically superior to the Shelby Mustang or the Noh play I may write about the Fox's Wedding. Or whether Coke is better than Pepsi (as distinct from, say, Is Coke healthier than Pepsi?).

From what I got from Jose Fly; was all he wanted was to know, yes, or no, if anyone considered themselves someone who agrees with Scientism. Because he has seen people being dismissed for that view. He wasn't looking for a discussion on Scientism. But it has become that and an place to insult anyone with that view or any other.

I think Jose Fly has left the conversation because of that. Your answer is very good and on point as to what you believe about Scientism. Thanks for that.

 

[vulcanlogician]

Believers don't understand that everything is perspective and everything is both true and false.

2 + 2 most assuredly does equal 11 in base 3.

2 + 2 also equals five if a couple gets on the elevator on the third floor and by the time they get to their destination the couple who got on at the first floor have a baby.

2 + 2 can equal anything at all which is odd since there are no two identical things in a digital reality. Everything by definition must equal 0 or 1.

But if you believe in science then 2 + 2 can only equal 4.

If you're such a staunch relativist, why do you assert anything?

Even from your point of view, there is nothing wrong with the way that believers see the world.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Metaphysics o the gap?
If the riddles of thought are ever worked out
it sure wont be via philosophy or metaphysics.

Nor will how,to find oil or fix the toaster.

Other than providing amusement, or, annoyance
there seems no utility at all, or,,worse if it
has one thinking thar 2+2=11, or that they're dead.

You are aware that 2+2=11 is true in base 3, right?

 

[exchemist]

Again, I don't think these things came about naturally by physics, etc. Without a mastermind behind it. Too too amazing. But that's me. Some things are there but we can't see it. Thanks for offering explanation which I don't deny. Amazing.

I find this sort of thing interesting rather than amazing. But then I'm not trying to find everything amazing to justify a belief in supernatural intervention everywhere.

We understand these phenomena precisely because intellectually curious people over the centuries have set aside wide-eyed amazement and got to work making observations, correlating them and developing models to explain how nature can bring all these things to pass without invoking supernatural intervention. Invoking supernatural intervention is a science-stopper.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I find this sort of thing interesting rather than amazing. But then I'm not trying to find everything amazing to justify a belief in supernatural intervention everywhere.

We understand these phenomena precisely because intellectually curious people over the centuries have set aside wide-eyed amazement and got to work making observations, correlating them and developing models to explain how nature can bring all these things to pass without invoking supernatural intervention. Invoking supernatural intervention is a science-stopper.

Let me try to stay on topic as for the OP.

I claim that you can find at least one religious person that doesn't understand science as a method.
Now I will assume that we agree.

But the fun starts with this one, I claim that you can find at least one non-religious person that doesn't understand science as a method.
Further I claim that in some cases that involves for at least one non-religious person that this person don't use science as a method. That person does scientism.

In other words as reduced for 3 positions.
Some persons claim in effect a religious version of knowledge and thus science.
Some persons claim in effect a methodological and limited version of knowledge and thus science.
Some persons claim in effect a metaphysical and universal version of knowledge and thus science.

What happens sometimes is that the first one position conflate scientism for the other 2.
Where as I understand that there are 3 positions, but in effect for the last one, these persons don't understand the limits of science.

 

[Audie]

You are aware that 2+2=11 is true in base 3, right?

You are aware that's an example of being too clever by one half?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You are aware that's an example of being too clever by one half?

Yes, you are the universal correct version of understanding evidence and all that.

Over 2000 years of learning what knowledge is, stops with you.
All the different versions and problems are mute now. The problems with not just all other versions but also yours are irrelevant, because you decide for all humans between all understandings of the world, which one is correct.
That is how clever and special you are.

 

[Audie]

Yes, you are the universal correct version of understanding evidence and all that.

Over 2000 years of learning what knowledge is, stops with you.
All the different versions and problems are mute now. The problems with not just all other versions but also yours are irrelevant, because you decide for all humans between all understandings of the world, which one is correct.
That is how clever and special you are.

Making things up isn't clever, at all
It's really rather pathetic for all that
it reveals a paucity of thought, an
incapacity to do better than " one half".

Good reminder of why I've kept you on ig
for so long.

Check your dictionary for the meaning of
" mute", and " moot". : D

Bye bye

 

[cladking]

If you're such a staunch relativist, why do you assert anything?

Even from your point of view, there is nothing wrong with the way that believers see the world.

I'm not a relativist. I believe there is a single reality and everyone's job is to discover it by any means possible. Obviously science and reason are the most direct routes at this time. The problem is very simple; few people understand science and "reason" doesn't really exist in any of our languages. I am trying to address both of these problems simultaneously because they are deeply intertwined.

Until people can see for themselves the limitations of reductionistic science and the confusion inherent in language there will be more scientism than science.

 

[cladking]

Even from your point of view, there is nothing wrong with the way that believers see the world.

Years ago I was working in a dark room in the late afternoon when something strange started vying for my attention; the room was slowly turning orange. I opened the blinds and was astounded. The sky was full of enormous low hanging mammatus clouds and the sun was shining on them from below. The entire world had turned bright orange in varying shades. There simply were no other colors anywhere under the sun.

Of course I went outside to get a better look.

As incredible as this sight was perhaps the more incredible thing was that despite being in a mid-sized city I was gawking alone. There weren't people standing at their windows! The few people I saw seemed to be going about their business normally.

I've seen many such things. Neither reality nor people are consistent with our beliefs. People simply don't seek truth or recognize it when they look directly at it unless it's wholly consistent with what they already believe. What doesn't match our models and beliefs isn't even seen. We know skies are blue so orange ones don't even register.

Every year people seem to be increasingly trapped within their beliefs and their beliefs increasingly come from pseudo-science, scientism, computer modeling, and statistics presented as snapshot of reality without even clear definitions of any terms.

 

[cladking]

Even from your point of view, there is nothing wrong with the way that believers see the world.

Indeed!

In order to be trained in most specialties many individuals must "follow the curricula". Even these individuals can be trained more in metaphysics but "generalism" and "specialization" are not compatible in many individuals, if any. But the retardation of science and the inefficiency of our economy is caused by the massive specialization that modern knowledge and education have created. Each department in every large company is working against every other department. There are no overseers because even the big bosses are simply specialists in what science to buy or government to rent. So we get remarkably poor products at higher prices than necessary with more CO2 production as the profits are absorbed by the the top and funneled to those who created the problems and inefficiency. The economy slugs along at about a 3% efficiency.

Meanwhile cosmology is stuck in the 1920's, archaeology in the 1880's, and philosophy has become fossilized since about the time of St Thomas Aquinas.

If everyone were merely aware that we see what we believe scientism would become less problematical. There are numerous steps that can be taken to fix all these things but it all starts with education and our schools have simply failed.

 

[Jose Fly]

My question to those who claim to not subscribe to 'Scientism' is what other means do you believe in to answer questions worth answering?

Intuition, feelings, emotions....for questions like "Is this a great work of art?"

 

[George-ananda]

Intuition, feelings, emotions....for questions like "Is this a great work of art?"

Right, I guess I never heard anyone say 'Science' can determine what is a great work of art. So, I think that definition 'the notion that science is the means to answer all questions, or at least is the means to answer all questions worth answering.' is not getting at the heart of the matter.

The Wikipedia definition is;

Scientism is the opinion that science and the scientific method are the best or only way to render truth about the world and reality.

The 'work of art' example you gave is an example of subjective analysis. I think the term as more intending to mean objective reality and things like the existence of God or the existence of a real spiritual plane of reality. In that sense I think many here are indeed followers of Scientism in their objective view of reality.

What you mentioned 'Intuition, feelings, emotions" are still things understandable as brain functioning and not any extension on objective science.

 

[Jose Fly]

Right, I guess I never heard anyone say 'Science' can determine what is a great work of art.

I'm not going to dig through the thread, but a few people have said they believe it can.

So, I think that definition 'the notion that science is the means to answer all questions, or at least is the means to answer all questions worth answering.' is not getting at the heart of the matter.

The Wikipedia definition is;

Scientism is the opinion that science and the scientific method are the best or only way to render truth about the world and reality.

The 'work of art' example you gave is an example of subjective analysis. I think the term as more intending to mean objective reality

Which was exactly the point.

and things like the existence of God or the existence of a real spiritual plane of reality.

Depends on how they're defined.

In that sense I think many here are indeed followers of Scientism in their objective view of reality.

What you mentioned 'Intuition, feelings, emotions" are still things understandable as brain functioning and not any extension on objective science.

To those who do adhere to scientism, studying those brain functions and their effects are objective science.

 

[cladking]

Scientism is the opinion that science and the scientific method are the best or only way to render truth about the world and reality.

I could nit pick this but am in some agreement with the thought. The big problem is that science has no meaning outside of "reason" and its metaphysics. "Science and reason" are the best means to understand reality. "Reason" incorporates all logical avenues even if they begin outside of "science".

But science has very severe limitations on what it can tell us right now today and most people seem to think all the questions have already been answered. The important questions will never be answered and those it can address have barely begun to yield answers.

If you try to live your life by scientific precepts or run a country according to soup of the day science you are harming yourself and practicing scientism.