Blinded by Scientism

reply to post by Wertdagf


Please try to stop being so stupid. It doesn't have to be stuff like that. Suppose for a moment that the mind is in fact more than just physical. The scientific system won't be able to explain that. But maybe even that's too oogie-boogie for you. In which case, fine, maybe logic and the scientific system as-is can explain everything.

I suppose I mis-stated the case a little earlier; properly expanded, science will be able to explain every single thing in the universe. That might be an infinite expansion, but it's capable. But scientism -- as well as, I would suspect, you -- works purely in terms of physical science. It ignores the metaphysics -- which I'm defining properly as that which is beyond physics, not "that section of the bookstore that has all the new age books." That's the real problem; modern science has difficulty with the idea of the immaterial.

Please note:

What I am most definantly NOT doing is attacking science as invalid or an incorrect approach for what it does, as far as trying to how the physical world works, it's great. What I am arguing against is the over emphasis put upon science by those who fall into the catagory of "scientism" by attempting to marginalize and ignore the minds that engage in science as irrevelant. Who declare and at times try to force others to hold as preeminent and inviolate scientific theory and scientists as above any other idea and pretend it's the only possible truth.

In a nutshell, you cannot ignore the limitations, bounds and eccentricities of the mind. And to attempt to do otherwise is problematic at best. But that does not stop some from trying and pretending that one of it's constructs transcends all bounds.
And, if you view a acknowledgement of limitations as an attack, you just might want to step back and "check yourself".

[edit on 31-3-2010 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]

reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows


So you have confirmed there "might" be limits to our understanding and ther "might" not be. Information that will only be used as a unprovable premise of a magical deity.

Is there any more unproveable thoughts youd like to give religious people so they can spiral away from intelligence and self-destruct?

[edit on 1-4-2010 by Wertdagf]

reply to post by Wertdagf


Allow me to add to my last statement. If a acknowledgement of limitations is viewed as an attack or support for the other "side" in what I view as a silly debate, then you really need to "check yourself". Just because I am not a rabid antireligious rhetoric machine like yourself does not mean I am one of those you picked to be your enemies. Your and their silly crusades are not mine.

[edit on 1-4-2010 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]

More information.

Scientism
Scientism is a philosophical position that exalts the methods of the natural sciences above all other modes of human inquiry. Scientism embraces only empiricism and reason to explain phenomena of any dimension, whether physical, social, cultural, or psychological. Drawing from the general empiricism of The Enlightenment, scientism is most closely associated with the positivism of August Comte (1798-1857) who held an extreme view of empiricism, insisting that true knowledge of the world arises only from perceptual experience. Comte criticized ungrounded speculations about phenomena that cannot be directly encountered by proper observation, analysis and experiment. Such a doctrinaire stance associated with science leads to an abuse of reason that transforms a rational philosophy of science into an irrational dogma (Hayek, 1952). It is this ideological dimension that we associate with the term scientism. Today the term is used with pejorative intent to dismiss substantive arguments that appeal to scientific authority in contexts where science might not apply. This over commitment to science can be seen in epistemological distortions and abuse of public policy.

Epistemological scientism lays claim to an exclusive approach to knowledge. Human inquiry is reduced to matters of material reality. We can know only those things that are ascertained by experimentation through application of the scientific method. And since the method is emphasized with such great importance, the scientistic tendency is to privilege the expertise of a scientific elite who can properly implement the method. But science philosopher Susan Haack (2003) contends that the so-called scientific method is largely a myth propped up by scientistic culture. There is no single method of scientific inquiry. Instead, Haack explains that scientific inquiry is contiguous with everyday empirical inquiry (p. 94). Everyday knowledge is supplemented by evolving aids that emerge throughout the process of honest inquiry. These include the cognitive tools of analogy and metaphor that help to frame the object of inquiry into familiar terms. They include mathematical models that enable the possibility of prediction and simulation. Such aids include crude, impromptu instruments that develop increasing sophistication with each iteration of a problem-solving activity. And everyday aids include social and institutional helps that extend to lay practitioners the distributed knowledge of the larger community. According to Haack, these everyday modes of inquiry open the scientific process to ordinary people and they demystify the epistemological claims of the scientistic gate keepers. (p. 98)

The abuse of scientism is most pronounced when it finds its way into public policy. A scientistic culture privileges scientific knowledge over all other ways of knowing. It uses jargon, technical language, and technical evidence in public debate as a means to exclude the laity from participation in policy formation. Despite such obvious transgressions of democracy, common citizens yield to the dictates of scientism without a fight. The norms of science abound in popular culture and the naturalized authority of scientific reasoning can lead unchecked to a malignancy of cultural norms. The most notorious example of this was seen in Nazi Germany where a noxious combination of scientism and utopianism led to the eugenics excesses of the Third Reich (Arendt, 1951). Policy can be informed by science, and the best policies take into account the best available scientific reasoning. Law makers are prudent to keep an ear open to science while resisting the rhetoric of the science industry in formulating policy. It is the role of science to serve the primary interests of the polity. But government in a free society is not obliged to serve the interests of science. Jurgen Habermas (1978, Ch 3) warns that positivism and scientism move in where the discourse of science lacks self-reflection and where the spokesmen of science exempt themselves from public scrutiny.

Martin Ryder University of Colorado at Denver

And more.......

Scientism as the New Fundamentalism

The term ‘fundamentalism’ is today taken as a term of derision. It is used in a pejorative sense. It is now used to refer to those who are bigoted, closed-minded, not open to reason and evidence, and pushing a narrow agenda. Unfortunately, many in the scientific community today can be described as fundamentalists.

Real science is about following the evidence where it leads. It does not have pre-determined agendas, and it does not engage in witch-hunts against those who do not buy the reigning orthodoxy. Scientism, on the other hand, is guilty of such things. Much of what passes for science these days is nothing more than scientism.

Among other things, scientism is about making basic philosophical claims, such as the claim that truth and knowledge are only to be found by means of the scientific method, and what science cannot deal with cannot be really known or shown to be true.

Examples of scientism are easily found. Writing in 1970, Bertrand Russell said this: “Whatever knowledge is attainable, must be attained by scientific methods; and what science cannot discover, mankind cannot know.”

Chemist and science writer Peter Atkins put it this way: “There is no reason to suppose that science cannot deal with every aspect of existence.” The late Carl Sagan made this bold – and unscientific – claim: “The Cosmos is all that is or ever was or ever will be.”

Or as Harvard biologist E. O. Wilson remarked, “All tangible phenomena, from the birth of the stars to the workings of social institutions, are based on material processes that are ultimately reducible, however long and torturous the sequences, to the laws of physics.”

These are all philosophical claims of course. They cannot be proved by the scientific method, but must be held as faith commitments. Thus we have scientists making claims about issues which science itself cannot properly comment on. They have an a priori commitment to philosophical naturalism, and will not allow any fact or evidence to get in the way of their pre-existing faith in materialism.

Scientism, then, rules out ahead of time anything which is not natural or physical. There is no supernatural or metaphysical reality in its view. Thus there can be no creator of the universe. Evolution must be held to, despite any evidence to the contrary, because belief in God is just not allowed by those who embrace scientism.

Harvard geneticist Richard Lewontin is perfectly candid about all this: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”

Thus scientists who are committed to scientism have become the new fundamentalists, and they will not allow any competing views to be heard. Indeed, they will hound dissenters out of the public square. Many examples of this come to mind, but the most recent concerns a scientist who has just resigned from his position as director of education at the Royal Society in the UK because of pressure – indeed persecution – from those committed to scientism.

Michael Reiss, a biologist and Church of England minister, made the modest proposal to have all sides of the debate discussed in science classes: both evolution and creation. He said in classrooms it was more effective to discuss both sides of the issue instead of simply telling students they are wrong to believe in creation.

There was of course an immediate uproar about this, so much so that Reiss was forced to resign. According to press accounts, “The Royal Society reiterated that its position was that creationism had no scientific basis and should not be part of the science curriculum.”

So much for real science being allowed to run its course. What we have here is the intolerance and narrow-mindedness of scientism. It is all about running any dissenters out of town. Some would undoubtedly rather burn people like Reiss at the stake, but that may a bit too radical at this point. But the result is just the same: Reiss has been silenced by his critics, and proper scientific debate has been stifled.

It seems that scientism and ideology have won here, while genuine science is the real loser. As Lord Robert Winston, professor of science and society at Imperial College London, said: “I fear that in this action the Royal Society may have only diminished itself. This is not a good day for the reputation of science or scientists. This individual was arguing that we should engage with and address public misconceptions about science – something that the Royal Society should applaud.”

It is clear that the new fundamentalists today are the atheists and secular humanists within the scientific community who have managed to hijack scientific debate, and turn legitimate science into illegitimate scientism.

SOURCE

And more...

In their book The Privileged Planet, astronomer Guillermo Gonzalez and philosopher of science Jay Richards point out that rather than adopting the original definition of ’science’ as a search for knowledge (literal translation from Latin), some opinion makers in science have taken it to mean “applied naturalism” defined as, “the conviction that the material world is all there is, and that chance and impersonal natural law alone explain, indeed must explain, its existence” (1).

Outspoken neo-atheist Peter Atkins has actively pushed such a view through his espousal of the ’scientism’ movement, unwaveringly maintaining that science is “the only reliable way we have of discovering anything about the workings of nature and fabric of the world” (2). Countering such a position is philosopher Eddie Colanter who described scientism as “the worldview [that] asserts that the only type of truth or knowledge that exists or that is important is that which can be known or verified through the scientific method” (3).
Notable in Atkins’s collective ‘house of horrors’ is the ontological reductionist notion that metabolic processes alone organize the “random electrical and chemical currents in our brains” that then shape our personalities and creative drive (2). Brain biologist John Eccles revolted against the demeaning undercurrent of such reductionism “with its claim [that] promissory materialism accounts for all the spiritual world in terms of patterns of neuronal activity” (4). In his Challenges From Science theologian John Lennox maintains that if Atkins’s assertion were true, it would at once render philosophy, ethics, literature, poetry, art, and music irrelevant for our understanding of reality (5).

Besides throwing these and other disciplines into the intellectual trash heap, Atkins’s position better reflects his atheist tendencies than any truly unbiased approach to discussion. His own ‘cosmic bootstrap’, the idea that cosmic spacetime brought about its own existence and today “generates its own dust in the process of its own self assembly” (5), is laughable precisely because, as theologian Keith Ward notes , “it is logically impossible for a cause to bring about some effect without already being in existence” (5).

Theologian J.P Moreland brilliantly counters the axioms that Atkins holds dear, by demonstrating their self-refuting nature. “A proposition”, writes Moreland “is self-refuting if it refers to and falsifies itself. For example, “There are no English sentences” and “There are no truths” are self-refuting” (6). He later adds that “scientism is not itself a proposition of science, but a second-order proposition about science to the effect that only scientific propositions are true or rational to believe” (6).

Atkins’s condemnation of cosmic purpose and design is all too evident in his own rhetoric. “Our universe” he assures us, “hangs there in all its glory, wholly and completely useless. To project onto it our human-inspired notion of purpose would, to my mind, sully and diminish it” (2). Side-stepping the extraordinary nature of the cosmic Big Bang (5), Atkins then contents himself with speculation over the existence of infinite universes (2), and clearly unveils to his audience that his acceptance of the facts is dependent on his own pet peeves and preferences. In short his conclusions are not those of an unsullied objectivist.

Years ago astrophysicist Kenell Touryan warned us of the ‘trap of scientism’ that, in the realm of biology at least, has become the philosophical foundation of many an evolutionist. “No reputable physicist or chemist” Touryan noted “would be presumptuous enough to characterize scientific discoveries, at least in the hard sciences, as “truth that will make us free”" (7). Laying out the reality of his own experiences he wrote:

“I and many of my physicist colleagues see intelligent design everywhere in nature and, compelled by the weight of such evidence, choose to believe that we are made “a little lower than the angels”… We should all take seriously the principle that “the confidence expressed in any scientific conclusion should be directly proportional to the quantity and quality of evidence for the conclusion”" (7).

Last year’s scathing allegation from Atkins and his ilk- that you cannot be a true scientist in the ‘deepest sense of the word’ and still have religious beliefs (8) – was not one grounded upon scientific insights but on a pervasive atheistic brand of religion. It is high time that we recognized this and tossed the ‘addled eggs’ of scientism out of the frying pan.

Literature Cited
1. Guillermo Gonzalez and Jay Richards (2004) The Privileged Planet, How Our Place In The Cosmos Is Designed For Discovery, Regnery Publishing Inc, Washington D.C, New York, p.224

2. The Joy Of Science, The Existence Of God And Galileo’s Finger, Roger Bingham Interviews Chemist Peter Atkins, 2007, See thesciencenetwork.org...

3. Michael Behe, Eddie N. Colanter, Logan Gage, and Phillip Johnson (2008) Intelligent Design 101: Leading Experts Explain The Key Issues, Kregel Publications, Grand Rapids, Michigan, p.161

4. John C. Eccles (1991) Evolution of the Brain, Creation of Self, Published by Routledge, New York, p.241

5. John Lennox (2007) Challenges From Science, Beyond Opinion, Living The Faith We Defend (Ed. Ravi Zacharias), pp. 112-118

6. Ibid, p.204

7. Kenell J. Touryan (1999) Science and “Truth”, Science, 30 July 1999, Volume 285. p. 663

8. Gene Russo (2009) Balancing Belief And Bioscience, Nature Volume 460, p. 654

SOURCE

"Science, at its core, is simply a method of practical logic that tests hypotheses against experience. Scientism, by contrast, is the worldview and value system that insists that the questions the scientific method can answer are the most important questions human beings can ask, and that the picture of the world yielded by science is a better approximation to reality than any other."
— John Michael Greer

"The quest for absolute certainty is an immature, if not infantile, trait of thinking."
— Herbert Feigl (Inquiries and Provocations : Selected Writings, 1929-1974)

"Insofar as he makes use of his healthy senses, man himself is the best and most exact scientific instrument possible. The greatest misfortune of modern physics is that its experiments have been set apart from man, as it were, physics refuses to recognize nature in anything not shown by artificial instruments, and even uses this as a measure of its accomplishments."
— Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

"An enlightened trust in the sovereignty of human reason can be every bit as magical as the exploits of Merlin, and a faith in our capacity for limitless self-improvement just as much a wide-eyed superstition as a faith in leprechauns."
— Terry Eagleton (Reason, Faith, and Revolution: Reflections on the God Debate)

"There are, then, a great many telescopes up which science is churlishly reluctant to peer. Science has its high priests, sacred cows, revered scriptures, ideological exclusions, and rituals for suppressing dissent. To this extent, it is ridiculous to see it as the polar opposite of religion."
— Terry Eagleton (Reason, Faith, and Revolution: Reflections on the God Debate)

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
More information.

Scientism
Scientism is a philosophical position that exalts the methods of the natural sciences above all other modes of human inquiry. Scientism embraces only empiricism and reason to explain phenomena of any dimension, whether physical, social, cultural, or psychological.

What is wrong with that?
I would think it would be natural to set up a dichotomy of the modes of human inquiry so as to make our inquiry more economical and beneficial by finding out which modes are above others.
So far, I would bet that, we have observed that the natural sciences have explained phenomena far better than most, if not all other modes of inquiry.
This, naturally, would lead to a philosophy exalting that mode of inquiry.
What is wrong with that?

I would say that the Natural Sciences have been the most beneficial modes of inquiry to date.

To date, the natural sciences and those that subscribe to Scientism have not stopped people from using any other mode of inquiry and appear to be far more involved in endorsing and proliferating a mode of inquiry that has given many of us greater knowledge and understanding.
That appears to be logical to me, to endorse and proliferate a mode of inquiry that delivers results.

As one poster put it, by what other modes of inquiry have we or will we garner so many answers to so many of our questions.

An interesting problem to contemplate, though, is how any consistent, working model of reality is to be established on the basis of unfalsifiable premises. Any takers?

You can try and deflate the mode by attacking the philosophical stance inspired by that mode, sure.
But offer an alternative, otherwise this is just another veiled attack on science by proxy.



[edit on 1-4-2010 by Derised Emanresu]

reply to post by Derised Emanresu

What is wrong with that?

A great deal actually. But that is explained in the article in the OP and the addition information I provided.. I guess I could rehash it for you but if you did not pay attention to it once I see reason to believe that my actions will be anything but futile to post it a second time.

You can try and deflate the mode by attacking the philosophical stance inspired by that mode, sure.
But offer an alternative, otherwise this is just another veiled attack on science by proxy.

Um, no. Like I said,

And, if you view a acknowledgement of limitations as an attack, you just might want to step back and "check yourself".

[edit on 1-4-2010 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]

reply to post by Derised Emanresu


I think the language of "placed above" has confused you. The position of scientism places these methods so far above the others that it completely disregards the others. This is what is problematic. I hope no one is attacking the position of simply giving preference to empiricism and such.

reply to post by Solasis

I hope no one is attacking the position of simply giving preference to empiricism and such.

Not attacking anything really, arguing against scientism, yes. And I merely state that empiricism is good when dealing with material things. Scientific method is great when dealing with things that are within it it's limitations. Others want to conflate it beyond all reasonable bounds and I take issue with that.
Like I said, you cannot ignore the mind for the brain just yet, perhaps ever.

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
reply to post by Derised Emanresu

 

What is wrong with that?

A great deal actually.

Your OP is philosophical.
So if aspects scientism are wrong given its philosophical nature, all philosophy derived or inspired by any mode of inquiry and thus used pertaining to scientism or an inquiry of scientism, is to be treated the same. So any philosophy that makes an inquiry into scientism cannot prove itself regardless of the mode that inspires it as it is limited.
So step back and check yourself.
There is nothing wrong with scientism.
Its just a veiled attack by proxy.

But there is nothing wrong with that is there? Forming a philosophy from an inspiration derived from a mode of discovery is natural.

So there really is nothing wrong with scientism is there? It is just a bias based on a mode of inquiry which may inspire a philosophy.

But that is explained in the article in the OP and the addition information I provided.. I guess I could rehash it for you but if you did not pay attention to it once I see reason to believe that my actions will be anything but futile to post it a second time.

Supposing much!
I doubt you can rehash the OP, you pretty much just cut and paste.
I read the OP. I read the whole thread.
I decided to comment on a particular post on this page, but I actually use a quote from another poster from page 2 in my original reply. Scientifically speaking, this points to a level of evidence relating to my familiarity with your thread.

Um, no. Like I said,

And, if you view a acknowledgement of limitations as an attack, you just might want to step back and "check yourself".

Your saying that does not mean that the veil or the attack is not evident. Nor does it mean that I will reframe from calling a spade a spade.

No philosophy or inquiry can really prove itself when it comes to these subjects. Which is why we still have many philosophies and religions.

Scientific findings can shed light on such metaphysical questions, but can never fully answer them. Yet if science must depend upon philosophy both to justify its presuppositions and to interpret its results, the falsity of scientism seems doubly assured.

This just about sums up all modes of inquiry and the philosophy inspired by them.
Science nor scientism claim that they can answer such metaphysical questions, it is merely a philosophy preferring the inquiry of science over others to answer them. So far it has been pretty successful at answering questions.

Scientism is a philosophical position that exalts the methods of the natural sciences above all other modes of human inquiry. Scientism embraces only empiricism and reason to explain phenomena of any dimension, whether physical, social, cultural, or psychological.

It is a philosophy. Inspired by science.

What is problematic is that it conflicts with other philosophies, and their modes of inquiry. All have limits just as Science and the philosophies derived from the natural sciences. But what I think is different is that science is moving forward in explaining questions.
This really makes it about the dominance of just one mode of enquiry and the philosophies it has inspired.
Hence the need for a veil and a proxy.

Feser once wrote:"How do you know that you really picked up this book and didn't just dream that you did? Is the mind nothing more than the brain?"
Science could answer that but the question would arise, but how do we know science actually exists? Philosophy itself is submerged in presupposing that it actually exists.

[edit on 1-4-2010 by Derised Emanresu]

S&F times infinity. Awesome thread, and it's funny how many people don't seem to understand what is being said here.

Scientism asserts certain claims about rationality than in and of itself is irrational by the very definition of what it claims to be rational.

That's what this is about in a nutshell. Science is a FIELD of philosophy. It chooses to make certain presumptions to explore reality, like most philosophies do. The problem with scientism is that by asserting science as the only rational form of inquiry one is being irrational.

Science is not god. Science is not infallible. Science can not prove that science is right or wrong. But people who choose to solely rally behind science and laugh off any others forms of philosophy are living in a self-defeating worldview.

Furthermore I found something funny, how "You should always think scientifically".

Did you know there are actually people who can not think emotionally? At first you think it means they can't cry or be angry, and this sounds like a decent thing, but consider this. There are two different pens on the table for an individual like this to use. Which one does he choose? Scientifically, there is not right or wrong answer especially if the two pens are by all means essentially identical. And yet these people can not choose between the two pens. They can only think rationally and logically, without any emotion, and that makes it so they need to sit there for a few hours deciding which pen to use.

What's interesting even further is that scientism has killed science and academia. It really has. At least until now, where it's started to recede. Reductionists are having a hard time, as their studies slow down to a snails pace as people exploring Quantum Mechanics and other fringe sciences are becoming more mainstream, are moving forward at a completely spectacular rate, and anyone who knows anything about Quantum Mechanics will tell you how retarded scientism is.

Science is awesome. Scientism is #tarded.

reply to post by Derised Emanresu

Your OP is philosophical.
So if aspects scientism are wrong given its philosophical nature, all philosophy derived or inspired by any mode of inquiry and thus used pertaining to scientism or an inquiry of scientism, is to be treated the same. So any philosophy that makes an inquiry into scientism cannot prove itself regardless of the mode that inspires it as it is limited.
So step back and check yourself.
There is nothing wrong with scientism.
Its just a veiled attack by proxy.

How exactly pray tell is it an veiled attack by proxy or are you taking the classic chant of "Yous jus attacking science!!!"? I have heard once or twice now. Scientism is not science sorry to inform you.

Supposing much!
I doubt you can rehash the OP, you pretty much just cut and paste.
I read the OP. I read the whole thread.
I decided to comment on a particular post on this page, but I actually use a quote from another poster from page 2 in my original reply. Scientifically speaking, this points to a level of evidence relating to my familiarity with your thread.

No. It proves that you are paying attention to certain posters in this thread. Not that you are paying attention to the whole thread, invoke science all you may wish.. And if you bring up the opening parts of some of the information I posted. I would like to point out it's the first part and the rest explains it's self rather well. Your comments are evidence you stopped there reading or paying attention. And as for you silly ad hom I will just ignore the that ignorant comment.

Your saying that does not mean that the veil or the attack is not evident. Nor does it mean that I will reframe from calling a spade a spade.

No, speaking your opinion. An incorrect one. I am not attacking anything except scientism.

No philosophy or inquiry can really prove itself when it comes to these subjects. Which is why we still have many philosophies and religions.

Um, empiricism, fundamental to the scientific method, is a philosophy I am sorry to inform you. Here, I won't just make you take my word on it:

In philosophy, empiricism is a theory of knowledge that asserts that knowledge arises from sense experience. Empiricism is one of several competing views that predominate in the study of human knowledge, known as epistemology. Empiricism emphasizes the role of experience and evidence, especially sensory perception, in the formation of ideas, while discounting the notion of innate ideas (except in so far as these might be inferred from empirical reasoning, as in the case of genetic predisposition).

SOURCE

This just about sums up all modes of inquiry and the philosophy inspired by them.
Science nor scientism claim that they can answer such metaphysical questions, it is merely a philosophy preferring the inquiry of science over others to answer them. So far it has been pretty successful at answering questions.

Answer to questions within it's limitations, otherwords, physical ones that can be answered with data from our senses.. And scientism does claim they can answer them, by ignoring they exist.

It is a philosophy. Inspired by science.

That would be the problem hinted at, elevating science beyond all philosophy. Or as I view it, ignoring the mind for the brain.

What is problematic is that it conflicts with other philosophies, and their modes of inquiry. All have limits just as Science and the philosophies derived from the natural sciences. But what I think is different is that science is moving forward in explaining questions.
This really makes it about the dominance of just one mode of enquiry and the philosophies it has inspired.
Hence the need for a veil and a proxy.

No, actually there need not be a conflict. Science is based in the physical and is damn good at that, I am most certainly not arguing that. The foolish pretension to believe that science can transcend all possible questions or the questions in question are just silly is scientism.

Feser once wrote:"How do you know that you really picked up this book and didn't just dream that you did? Is the mind nothing more than the brain?"
Science could answer that but the question would arise, but how do we know science actually exists? Philosophy itself is submerged in presupposing that it actually exists.

How do you get that, presupposing that it actually exists? You are familar with Socrates contributions to philosophy are you not? And I am sure you have heard of Solipsism. No, your generalization is incorrect. And I assume you are doing as most of those that give themselves over to scientism and confusing the natural world with that which we use to study it?

[edit on 3-4-2010 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]

reply to post by SpectreDC

I agree. I would say adherents to scientism are damn near trying to make a religion of it *Dawkins and Harris*. With scientists instead of priests and some rather thick dogmas that are pretended not to be.

This is not the thread for it but... Could you U2U with more information about this?

Did you know there are actually people who can not think emotionally? At first you think it means they can't cry or be angry, and this sounds like a decent thing, but consider this. There are two different pens on the table for an individual like this to use. Which one does he choose? Scientifically, there is not right or wrong answer especially if the two pens are by all means essentially identical. And yet these people can not choose between the two pens. They can only think rationally and logically, without any emotion, and that makes it so they need to sit there for a few hours deciding which pen to use.

Never heard of that before and it sounds interesting.

[edit on 3-4-2010 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]

reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows

No. It proves that you are paying attention to certain posters in this thread.

'And not to me, waaah...'

Instead of putting people down who try to engage with the ideas you're presenting, why don't you try considering their arguments seriously and offer a thought-out response of your own? You've still to prove that you even understand those thousands of words you quoted.

Is everyone who disagrees with you so stupid that they don't deserve your courtesy? Forget about me; you already know where I stand. But the others? Or are you so unsure of your own debating skills that you don't dare engage with any other poster on this thread point for point? Is your response limited to name-calling and formulaic propaganda?

Perhaps some people on this thread actually believe that there's a conversation to be had with you about 'scientism' (though I certainly don't). Shouldn't you be trying to promote that conversation with them - the precious few who are prepared to take you seriously - instead of savaging with bloody fangs everyone who presents, however diffidently, a viewpoint differnt from yours?

I mean, why are you acting so obviously contrary to your own interest? Is there some obscure romantic vindication at the end of it all to look forward to?

We all have a philosophy. Scientist do, they just don't always admit to it. Our environment shapes our philosophy and we try to support it.

If a scientist is relying on grant money to fund his research, his philosophy, as well as the university or corporation funding it, may play a role in the outcome of the research.

Your philosophy is the most important thing on this planet. Humans absolutely need it, as it shapes everything that has ever been done.

Truth is we could live without science.

A group of humans could live on a deserted island and do just fine, if they were guided by a philosophy that benefited them as a whole.

Don't get me wrong I love technology, but it isn't necessary for survival.

The problem is along with every good thing science produces there are often unintended consequences. Pollution, side effects, accidents, and the militarization of scientific discoveries have produced some negative results.



Science is an arrow, aimed by philosophy.

It's not clear to me why this conversation has gone from, "there is something wrong with scientism" to "well, science is really just like religion, so all you scientists who think you have found something better than religion are really just hypocrites."

Science is not like religion; it is undoubtedly better. Trivially, bad science often invloves a "religious" sort of faith in certain entrenched beliefs despite evidence which is inconsistent with those beliefs. Religion is often characterized entirely by a similar inability to account for evidence. The acknowledgement of this superficial similarity exhausts the set of useful comparisons to be drawn between religion and science.

Religious explanations for history and extant phenomena are almost always based on an unjustifiable faith in specific texts. This leads to a system of beliefs which are almost always wrong, untestable, useless for making predictions, useless for building technology, have no correspondence with anything in physical reality, and do not and cannot progress. There is a reason that religion is one thing and science is another. They are not different brands of the same thing, all found within the "general philosophy" aisle. Religion and mysticism dominated human belief systems, particularily explanatory belief systems, for a hundred thousand years. During this time successful predictions were not made, sophisticated technology was not built, and even the belief systems themselves failed to progress. Occasionally, one story was replaced with another through violence and oppression.

Then science came along and everything changed. I agree that the argument that says, "We have all this technology so we must be in touch with fundamental reality" is a little bit naive. I think the best metric of how science is different from other belief systems is that it is capable of progress. Physics today is not the same as it was two hundred years ago, but it's still physics. It has progressed in a non-arbitrary way. Religion and mysticism cannot progress in non-arbitrary ways. Certain texts can be suppressed and other reinterpreted, but it's all arbitrary replacement of one story with another.

In science, progress is real. In methodology, science is rational. In success, science is unparalleled, and we have the gadgets and predictive power to prove it. Religion is not the same in any important respects. Is the attempt to force this comparison so that no one has to admit that science beats religion on all counts? Or is it just a hard headed, antiquated, hang up on epistemology? If it's the latter, what is even the point? Astyanax already addressed the fact that there is no way of understanding the world which does not have at its base premises which must be accepted without proof. The fact that science is also based on unproven premises does not mean we should group it in with religion any more than we should get hung up on the fact that we cannot know for sure that we are not dreaming.

reply to post by OnceReturned


No, I never said that. What I did say is that those that adhere to scientism seem to treat science as something akin to a religion. Which is not saying science is a religion. What I mean by that is simple, repeatedly assert, often by smug condescention, that a scientist's word and motivation is not to be questioned, rather like priests. Unless of course you want to be presumptoraly lumped into a stereotype of "madperson who is against all science for whatever crazy reason".

Scientism is no more science than alcohol is alcoholism. And no I am not calling science bad like some say alcohol is.