Scientism

[Perspicuo]

It's been a while since debates where accusations of "scientism" would fly around. Lots of us would argue that our POV was not scientistic.

One of these days I was thinking: "What's so bad about scientism? If there were a scientistic religion, what would be so horrible about it?

There are religions based on meditation, for example. Meditation as the summum bonum, the great liberator of the mind. As much as I esteem (and practice) meditation, this is a gross exaggeration.

Then there's religion based on God. God in your life will fix everything. There are many studies about the advantages of prayer and transcendental meaning and all that, but religious people grossly exaggerate any benefits that may come from prayer and so forth.

Now: science. If there were a religion or sectarian view that science is exaggeratedly worshiped as the solution to everything, the summum bonum, our/their "all", and so forth... of all the possible things you could trust and venerate, the production and application of science to most things in life is the most beneficial, compared to meditation or yoga, or sacrifices, fasting, prayer marathons, spiritual exercises, and so on.

Even if it were true that atheists commit the "horror" of scientism, that sure would beat the rest of isms, hands down.


(And as I say, I do not fall for scientism, I consider many other things complete my life in addition to realistic thought enlightened by logic and evidence: poetry, fiction, fantasy, play, daydreaming, love, friendship, giving, writing, and so forth.)

 

[The AntiChris]

It's been a while since debates where accusations of "scientism" would fly around. Lots of us would argue that our POV was not scientistic.

One of these days I was thinking: "What's so bad about scientism? If there were a scientistic religion, what would be so horrible about it?

There are religions based on meditation, for example. Meditation as the summum bonum, the great liberator of the mind. As much as I esteem (and practice) meditation, this is a gross exaggeration.

Then there's religion based on God. God in your life will fix everything. There are many studies about the advantages of prayer and transcendental meaning and all that, but religious people grossly exaggerate any benefits that may come from prayer and so forth.

Now: science. If there were a religion or sectarian view that science is exaggeratedly worshiped as the solution to everything, the summum bonum, our/their "all", and so forth... of all the possible things you could trust and venerate, the production and application of science to most things in life is the most beneficial, compared to meditation or yoga, or sacrifices, fasting, prayer marathons, spiritual exercises, and so on.

Even if it were true that atheists commit the "horror" of scientism, that sure would beat the rest of isms, hands down.


(And as I say, I do not fall for scientism, I consider many other things complete my life in addition to realistic thought enlightened by logic and evidence: poetry, fiction, fantasy, play, daydreaming, love, friendship, giving, writing, and so forth.)

What definition of 'scientism' are you using which leads you to characterise it as a religious belief?

 

[Perspicuo]

Don't read so fast, AntiChris.

If there were a scientistic religion [...]

And the purpose to suggest this scenario is because I suspect lots of criticism regarding "scientism" is from religious/"spiritual" quarters. And so, as I said in the OP, religions and spiritual practices oftentimes venerate practices and concepts that are overblown in their promise for better lives. In contrast to this, an ideology that would put 100% of all faith (or trust) in science would be much better. If there were such a thing.

So, really, the complaint about scientism is moot. It would actually be a much better thing than Marxism, Christianity, Buddhism, and so many other isms that either are or are lived religiously.

 

[Bronzeage]

Don't read so fast, AntiChris.

If there were a scientistic religion [...]

And the purpose to suggest this scenario is because I suspect lots of criticism regarding "scientism" is from religious/"spiritual" quarters. And so, as I said in the OP, religions and spiritual practices oftentimes venerate practices and concepts that are overblown in their promise for better lives. In contrast to this, an ideology that would put 100% of all faith (or trust) in science would be much better. If there were such a thing.

So, really, the complaint about scientism is moot. It would actually be a much better thing than Marxism, Christianity, Buddhism, and so many other isms that either are or are lived religiously.

You'll need to supply some kind of "The Scientific Creed" statement, before we can discuss scientism. There is no point in discussing something which does not exist, if we don't have any model of what it might be, if it did exist.

 

[DBT]

'Scientific religion' appears to be an oxymoron. Religous belief, a belief held in relation to supernatural beings and events, are a matter of faith and not science. A religion may engage in science as a side line, but it's core beliefs are unrelated to the scientific method.

 

[Duke Leto]

Scientism as such is basically a pejorative that people in the Humanities scream when outsiders try to interject rationality, measurement and mathematics into their disciplines

 

[Togo]

No, it isn't.

From Wiki:
Scientism is belief in the universal applicability of the scientific method and approach, and the view that empirical science constitutes the most authoritative worldview or most valuable part of human learning to the exclusion of other viewpoints.

Scientism is the science version of religious fundamentalism, not religion. It's the belief that science is all you need to know and that any other approach is inferior and irrelevent. Just like religious fundamentalism, scientism is a irrational, self-serving, and atypical. Most scientists are no more guilty of scientism than most religioius people are of fundamentalism, they know that science is good for certain kinds of problem and modelling, and not for others.

 

[Bronzeage]

No, it isn't.

From Wiki:
Scientism is belief in the universal applicability of the scientific method and approach, and the view that empirical science constitutes the most authoritative worldview or most valuable part of human learning to the exclusion of other viewpoints.

Scientism is the science version of religious fundamentalism, not religion. It's the belief that science is all you need to know and that any other approach is inferior and irrelevent. Just like religious fundamentalism, scientism is a irrational, self-serving, and atypical. Most scientists are no more guilty of scientism than most religioius people are of fundamentalism, they know that science is good for certain kinds of problem and modelling, and not for others.

Heretic!

 

[Duke Leto]

Which "other methods and approaches" are we seeking to use besides the scientific one?

 

[bilby]

Which "other methods and approaches" are we seeking to use besides the scientific one?

I dunno about you, but for most decisions in my daily life, I go with emotional responses rather than following the scientific method. It doesn't get the right answer quite as often, but it's a LOT faster.

 

[Duke Leto]

Which "other methods and approaches" are we seeking to use besides the scientific one?

I dunno about you, but for most decisions in my daily life, I go with emotional responses rather than following the scientific method. It doesn't get the right answer quite as often, but it's a LOT faster.

Good, fine, do you consider a decision reached purely from your emotional responses to be one derived from knowledge? And to the extent that your emotional responses are conditioned, aren't they conditioned by either empirical experience or rational reflection?

Suppose you had an emotional response that you like Tony Abbott? And your knowledge that you like Tony Abbott was based solely on that emotional response without any regard to rational and empiric considerations about Abbott's policies and character? Suppose you met a parallel universe bilby who hated Tony Abbott because he understood the detrimental effects of his policies and his unscrupulous character, are the differing viewpoints of these two bilbys equal in merit in any way anybody would care about?

Would that emotional response be a manifestation of "human learning" as valid as one conditioned by scientific learning methods?

Togo didn't just assert that modes of thought not firmly modeled on the scientific system had merit, he implicitly asserted that there are other methods and viewpoints that produce "human learning" with at least as good a value as the scientific method and viewpoint. I want to know what those methods and viewpoints are.

 

[Duke Leto]

Let me try and put that another way.

I "know" that atomic theory is valid because I had some excellent physics and chemistry teachers who taught it to me and then gave me positive feedback on testing that I successfully completed on the subjects.

I have not exhaustively gone through the scientifically rigorous testing that would prove atomic theory to be correct and all other theories to be falsified, but because the knowledge on the subject is derived from generations of scientists doing exactly those sorts of tests, I don't need to. That learning is built on a scientific foundation. What other methods of acquiring learning are there that are equal or superior?

The only thing I can think of deontological ethics and math and formal logic. The latter two of which are derived from rigid rational reasoning from self-consistent premises that make them fundamental to all other sorts of scientific learning. And I'm a utilitarian not a deontologist, so my version of ethics is also derived from rational reasoning from self-consistent principles (basically "I value my life" and "almost all other humans seem to do the same" and "other humans are liable to injure me if pissed off" ergo benselfish utilitarian ethics.

So again, what are these non-scientific methods and viewpoints that I need to respect as equally valid or superior generators of human learning?

 

[bilby]

I dunno about you, but for most decisions in my daily life, I go with emotional responses rather than following the scientific method. It doesn't get the right answer quite as often, but it's a LOT faster.

Good, fine, do you consider a decision reached purely from your emotional responses to be one derived from knowledge? And to the extent that your emotional responses are conditioned, aren't they conditioned by either empirical experience or rational reflection?

Suppose you had an emotional response that you like Tony Abbott? And your knowledge that you like Tony Abbott was based solely on that emotional response without any regard to rational and empiric considerations about Abbott's policies and character? Suppose you met a parallel universe bilby who hated Tony Abbott because he understood the detrimental effects of his policies and his unscrupulous character, are the differing viewpoints of these two bilbys equal in merit in any way anybody would care about?

Would that emotional response be a manifestation of "human learning" as valid as one conditioned by scientific learning methods?

Togo didn't just assert that modes of thought not firmly modeled on the scientific system had merit, he implicitly asserted that there are other methods and viewpoints that produce "human learning" with at least as good a value as the scientific method and viewpoint. I want to know what those methods and viewpoints are.

Taking the word of trusted authorities is a method that produces 'human learning' with a similar value to the scientific method; The 'truth value' of this approach is potentially lower, but that is offset by a much lower cost of acquiring the learning. This is also how almost all knowledge is acquired; few scientists have actually measured the fundamental constants themselves - they take the word of others that they carried out the experiments they claim, and got the results they published. Indeed, this trust in authorities goes deeper - few scientists have read the original papers in full that published the basic principles and constants that they trust and use daily.

The 'trust the guy who knows' approach is not scientific; but it is very effective - as long as your trust is not misplaced. By (scientifically) analysing a subset of the trusted data, and adjusting your level of trust for each authority according to their accuracy in that subset, you can minimise the misinformation burden; But that does not change the fact that most of the learning that most people undergo is based not on scientific exploration, but on trusting the authority of those they trust.

'Nullius in verba' is all very well, but it took the best minds of the whole race hundreds of years of hard work to establish the things we now know; one lifetime is not enough to reproduce their work, so you have to take some of it on trust if you want to reach a point where your efforts are not just expended in repeating past work.

 

[Perspicuo]

Don't read so fast, AntiChris.



And the purpose to suggest this scenario is because I suspect lots of criticism regarding "scientism" is from religious/"spiritual" quarters. And so, as I said in the OP, religions and spiritual practices oftentimes venerate practices and concepts that are overblown in their promise for better lives. In contrast to this, an ideology that would put 100% of all faith (or trust) in science would be much better. If there were such a thing.

So, really, the complaint about scientism is moot. It would actually be a much better thing than Marxism, Christianity, Buddhism, and so many other isms that either are or are lived religiously.

You'll need to supply some kind of "The Scientific Creed" statement, before we can discuss scientism. There is no point in discussing something which does not exist, if we don't have any model of what it might be, if it did exist.

None exists. "Scientism" is a strawman. There is no doctrine for scientism, it's a made up accusation against those who consider science in decision making and discussions.

Scientism as such is basically a pejorative that people in the Humanities scream when outsiders try to interject rationality, measurement and mathematics into their disciplines

Exactamente.

 

[Perspicuo]

No, it isn't.

From Wiki:
Scientism is belief in the universal applicability of the scientific method and approach, and the view that empirical science constitutes the most authoritative worldview or most valuable part of human learning to the exclusion of other viewpoints.

Scientism is the science version of religious fundamentalism, not religion. It's the belief that science is all you need to know and that any other approach is inferior and irrelevent. Just like religious fundamentalism, scientism is a irrational, self-serving, and atypical. Most scientists are no more guilty of scientism than most religioius people are of fundamentalism, they know that science is good for certain kinds of problem and modelling, and not for others.

Please provide a science author who openly subscribes to this. By openly I mean who is a theorist of this supposed doctrine.

----

By the way, now that you mention it, I think wikipedia is on my side about this:

Philosopher Daniel Dennett responded to religious criticism of his book Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon by saying that "when someone puts forward a scientific theory that [religious critics] really don't like, they just try to discredit it as 'scientism'"

Non-religious scholars have also linked New Atheist thought with scientism. Atheist philosopher Thomas Nagel argues neuroscientist Sam Harris conflates all empirical knowledge with that of scientific knowledge.[39] Marxist literary critic Terry Eagleton argues Christopher Hitchens possesses an "old-fashioned scientistic notion of what counts as evidence" that reduces knowledge to what can and cannot be proven by scientific procedure.

It's used to attack certain personages, it is not an actual "school of thought".

Of all the authors reviewed, only one takes on scientism as something positive:

Michael Shermer, founder of The Skeptics Society, draws a parallel between scientism and traditional religious movements, pointing to the cult of personality that develops around some scientists in the public eye. He defines scientism as a worldview that encompasses natural explanations, eschews supernatural and paranormal speculations, and embraces empiricism and reason.

But he's the only one. The vast majority go something like:

The Iranian scholar Seyyed Hossein Nasr has stated that in the West, many will accept the ideology of modern science, not as "simple ordinary science", but as a replacement for religion.

And finally:

Susan Haack argues that the charge of "scientism" caricatures actual scientific endeavor. No single form of inference or procedure of inquiry used by scientists explains the success of science. Instead we find:

1. the inferences and procedures used by all serious empirical inquirers
2. a vast array of tools of inquiry, from observational instruments to mathematical techniques, as well as social mechanisms that encourage honesty. These tools are diverse and evolving, and many are domain-specific.

Which I fully agree and subscribe, and I'm sure Dennett and Harris and the others would agree grosso modo too.

 

[Duke Leto]

'Nullius in verba' is all very well, but it took the best minds of the whole race hundreds of years of hard work to establish the things we now know; one lifetime is not enough to reproduce their work, so you have to take some of it on trust if you want to reach a point where your efforts are not just expended in repeating past work.

OK, now we're effectively quibbling over the definition of "human learning". You're emphasizing the process and experience by which the end-user of the knowledge gets the knowledge, and calling that human learning. I'm emphasizing that the method of trusting in reliable authority is only valid because it passes the buck of validity to prior actors who utilized scientific method in finding it.

The way you're using the phrase "human learning" is valid in the way that you are using it, but it's irrelevant to the point I'm trying to make, which is that trusting reliable authority never creates valid knowledge on its own, someone has to have been doing science up the intellectual food chain for us to have valid knowledge.

If there's an alternative means of originally generating valid knowledge that is equal to or superior to the scientific methods, which is what Togo's critique implied, what might that be?

 

[Juma]

'Nullius in verba' is all very well, but it took the best minds of the whole race hundreds of years of hard work to establish the things we now know; one lifetime is not enough to reproduce their work, so you have to take some of it on trust if you want to reach a point where your efforts are not just expended in repeating past work.

OK, now we're effectively quibbling over the definition of "human learning". You're emphasizing the process and experience by which the end-user of the knowledge gets the knowledge, and calling that human learning. I'm emphasizing that the method of trusting in reliable authority is only valid because it passes the buck of validity to prior actors who utilized scientific method in finding it.

The way you're using the phrase "human learning" is valid in the way that you are using it, but it's irrelevant to the point I'm trying to make, which is that trusting reliable authority never creates valid knowledge on its own, someone has to have been doing science up the intellectual food chain for us to have valid knowledge.

If there's an alternative means of originally generating valid knowledge that is equal to or superior to the scientific methods, which is what Togo's critique implied, what might that be?

Beats me. But if you, as Togo does, want to keep your belief in free will at any cost you will say some very strange things...

 

[Togo]

Beats me. But if you, as Togo does, want to keep your belief in free will at any cost you will say some very strange things...

What the heck? A pre-emptive drive-by attack from Juma?

We've had variations on this discussion several times.

On one side we have people who try and link all human knowledge back to the scientific method. It's possible, but you have to do some very strange things, like label all practical activity as 'science' (the 'monkey with a stick' argument), and try and rope in all logic, maths and reasoning as being science. You end up with a very wishy washy definition of science and the scientific method, that doesn't really correspond to what people mean by science, and doesn't take you anywhere useful.

On the other side we have people who try and create a distinction between scientific method, and other forms and sources of human understanding. You can argue about where the boundaries are, of course, but this is the only approach that allows you to say anything substantive about science in particular, as opposed to about human understanding in general.

 

[Juma]

Beats me. But if you, as Togo does, want to keep your belief in free will at any cost you will say some very strange things...

What the heck? A pre-emptive drive-by attack from Juma?

We've had variations on this discussion several times.

On one side we have people who try and link all human knowledge back to the scientific method. It's possible, but you have to do some very strange things, like label all practical activity as 'science' (the 'monkey with a stick' argument), and try and rope in all logic, maths and reasoning as being science. You end up with a very wishy washy definition of science and the scientific method, that doesn't really correspond to what people mean by science, and doesn't take you anywhere useful.

On the other side we have people who try and create a distinction between scientific method, and other forms and sources of human understanding. You can argue about where the boundaries are, of course, but this is the only approach that allows you to say anything substantive about science in particular, as opposed to about human understanding in general.

What "other forms of human understanding" are you referring to.

 

[Duke Leto]

What the heck? A pre-emptive drive-by attack from Juma?

We've had variations on this discussion several times.

On one side we have people who try and link all human knowledge back to the scientific method. It's possible, but you have to do some very strange things, like label all practical activity as 'science' (the 'monkey with a stick' argument), and try and rope in all logic, maths and reasoning as being science. You end up with a very wishy washy definition of science and the scientific method, that doesn't really correspond to what people mean by science, and doesn't take you anywhere useful.

On the other side we have people who try and create a distinction between scientific method, and other forms and sources of human understanding. You can argue about where the boundaries are, of course, but this is the only approach that allows you to say anything substantive about science in particular, as opposed to about human understanding in general.

What "other forms of human understanding" are you referring to.

Presumably he's roping off logic, math (I refuse to use the British spelling on this) and rationality as somehow separate and distinct from science as such, rather than an integral part of the scientific methods: rationality, measurement (or empiricism) and experimentation are what I think old man Steven Jay Gould called it. And thereby limiting "science" to just the measurers and experimenters.

He's also, sort of like bilby, emphasizing that most individual knowledge isn't derived from doing science, and making a reductio ad absurdum to the effect that using such a broad definition of scientific endeavors must make all human knowledge science derived, even the pre-human "experimentation" of a "monkey with a stick".

To that my response is, yes, these shortcuts to personal knowledge and understanding as such exist, and they may be better in the sense that they require less effort, but they are NOT better than scientific methods in that they are not better at producing valid and accurate knowledge. For Togo's original assertion to have merit, in my view, there would have to be some academic discipline where an increase in the application of rationality, empiricism and experimentation do not result in improved results.

Is there such a discipline?

Perhaps theology, (you can all stop laughing now), or if what you're implying about Togo's beliefs is true, philosophy and the humanities have some charmed circle of individual consciousness into which measurement and experimentation can not (and must not) penetrate. Being Dennett fan, I don't think much of that approach.