Do You Believe In Scientism?

[AV1611VET]

From Wikipedia:

Scientism is the promotion of science as the best or only objective means by which society should determine normative and epistemological values. While the term was originally defined to mean "methods and attitudes typical of or attributed to the natural scientist", some religious scholars (and subsequently many others) adopted it as a pejorative with the meaning "an exaggerated trust in the efficacy of the methods of natural science applied to all areas of investigation (as in philosophy, the social sciences, and the humanities)".

The term scientism is often used critically, implying an unwarranted application of science in situations considered not amenable to application of the scientific method or similar scientific standards.

SOURCE

 

[The IbanezerScrooge]

I said somewhat because I believe the scientific method is currently the best path to gathering the knowledge needed to make informed decisions and solve problems in society. I don't think it should dictate how we make those decisions, though. Just inform.

For the most part, "Scientism" is just a pejorative used by people who think science should take a hike.

 

[GOD Shines Forth!]

The term scientism is often used critically, implying an unwarranted application of science in situations considered not amenable to application of the scientific method or similar scientific standards.

"Science" recoils, for ex., at pretending a biological male could turn into a biological female.

"Scientism" says, "Hold my beer and watch this!"

 

[durangodawood]

From Wikipedia:

Scientism is the promotion of science as the best or only objective means by which society should determine normative and epistemological values.....

Trying to get my head around what this means.

What are epistemological values?

 

[Oneiric1975]

Trying to get my head around what this means.

What are epistemological values?

My best guess is "values around how we come to 'know' something". Science values empirical processes by which we come to 'know' what is happening in a given process and it does this through a relative strict set of "rules" or "values": observation, testing, falsification requirements etc.

Just a guess tho'.

 

[durangodawood]

My best guess is "values around how we come to 'know' something". Science values empirical processes by which we come to 'know' what is happening in a given process and it does this through a relative strict set of "rules" or "values": observation, testing, falsification requirements etc.

Just a guess tho'.

Thanks for taking a shot at it. But I dont see rules and values in the same category at all. Values are what you want. Rules are limits on how to get what you want.

So epistemological values would be what kind of standard of knowledge you want. But that has nothing do do with science, which are methods that arise after you decide you want an empirical sort of epistemology.

 

[durangodawood]

So... No, science does not determine what epistemological values we want. Thats a philosophical question that precedes science.

 

[Pavel Mosko]

I marked yes, not that I believe it for myself, but I do believe that are a sizeable chunk of people who have raised the value of Modern Science to a height epistemologically speaking that it is in fact a kind of defacto religion. This is a concept deeply hated by atheists who see it as a "strawman" and want to make religion as only being about a belief in one or more divinity's. But the concept of religion has extended into the area of Philosophy for some time especially when it comes to the Eastern religions, and the ancient Greek philosophers. Besides this their always has been an issue with the level of importance that people assign things going back to the earliest days of the Bible. The English word "Worship" is suppose to reflect that being derived from the root word for worth, (our worship shows what we value). And in the Bible, things like obedience have always been likened to worship, or reflecting the true nature of the persons heart.


Religion - Wikipedia

 

[Larniavc]

I voted yes because I think the scientific method is the best was to answer questions about reality.

 

[Pavel Mosko]

I also want to add I also believe that Scientism is a valid concept because of various atheist's concerning the classic textbook, "Science and Human Values". That book was kind of a classic back when I was in school and is much more so know seeing how it came out in the early 50s and still is widely used.

It' a great book in showing and demonstrating the kinds of arbitrary decisions that go into science, especially the social sciences. There is no innate statistical level of significance for studies for example. We have popular levels used purely as conventions etc. And the same goes for moral values, I hear some atheist's like Sam Harris express hopes that someday science will inform every aspect of our lives including morality. But that really misses the point of science. Science doesn't make moral judgements, all it can do is point to where a certain element or thing is present or likely to have caused X. The realm of making moral judgements is in things like religion and philosophy and making science as some kind of future arbiter of these things is more or less the OP of Scientism, you basically are dogmatizing the field of research of making it about moral advocacy rather than exploration, analysis etc.

 

[Larniavc]

It' a great book in showing and demonstrating the kinds of arbitrary decisions that go into science, especially the social sciences. There is no innate statistical level of significance for studies for example.

Absolute rubbish. It’s .05.

A book from the 50s? Ridiculous.

 

[Oneiric1975]

Absolute rubbish. It’s .05.

0.05 is not necessarily "innate". It is somewhat arbitrarily chosen. This is part of the ongoing current discussion around the relative importance of p-values in publications these days.

Personally I am ok with an arbitrarily chosen "cut-off" just for consistency's sake but I also understand that there may be problems in application and over-reliance on this p-value as an arbiter of truth.

 

[Pavel Mosko]

Absolute rubbish. It’s .05.

A book from the 50s? Ridiculous.

Looks like I gored a sacred cow, maybe you should read this classic and enlighten yourself.

https://www.amazon.com/Science-Human-Values-Jacob-Bronowski/dp/0571241905

 

[essentialsaltes]

ref

 

[Ponderous Curmudgeon]

Looks like I gored a sacred cow, maybe you should read this classic and enlighten yourself.

https://www.amazon.com/Science-Human-Values-Jacob-Bronowski/dp/0571241905

Fond memories of his "ascent of man" series. I think I will watch again, I liked them far better than Cosmos with Carl Sagan.

 

[Pavel Mosko]

Fond memories of his "ascent of man" series. I think I will watch again, I liked them far better than Cosmos with Carl Sagan.

Yes I never watched but I was looking through a lot of his quotes today, and saw a lot of stuff referring to that work. He was a great mind of his day. I remember being pleasantly surprised reading Science and Human values. It was one of those times where the saying "Don't judge a book by it's cover" is actually true. I had really low expectations when I read it at my aunt's house in the summer of 88, but I found it very inspiring, eloquent and it dispelled a lot of notions that I had.

 

[Larniavc]

Looks like I gored a sacred cow, maybe you should read this classic and enlighten yourself.

https://www.amazon.com/Science-Human-Values-Jacob-Bronowski/dp/0571241905

It’s nearly 70 years old.

smh

 

[Ponderous Curmudgeon]

It’s nearly 70 years old.

smh

And the origin of species is over 150 yrs old, still a classic.
Bronowski was rather ahead of his time in his approach to many things.

 

[Hans Blaster]

No. I don't believe it is real.

I think it's a term people throw around to cast aspersions on the accession of knowledge through rational processes to cover for the lack of evidentiary support for their own positions that are at odds with the outcomes of those (scientific) processes.

 

[essentialsaltes]

No. I don't believe it is real.

I think Sam Harris gets close. And a few rando Angry Internet Atheists.