Do You Believe In Scientism?

[AV1611VET]

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

Shades of ultracrepidarianism!

Samuel Benjamin Harris (born April 9, 1967) is an American author, philosopher, neuroscientist, and podcast host. His work touches on a wide range of topics, including rationality, religion, ethics, free will, neuroscience, meditation, psychedelics, philosophy of mind, politics, terrorism, and artificial intelligence.

SOURCE

 

[Hans Blaster]

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

Every time I get close to that territory, I get suspended. One more and I'm done apparently.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Shades of ultracrepidarianism!

I just call Sam Harris an idiot, but that also works.

 

[AV1611VET]

I just call Sam Harris an idiot, but that also works.

??? Seriously?

 

[dlamberth]

I voted NO.
The reason being is that the OP was very clear in that science is the ONLY means given in that first post to define what's normal for society. And it's clear (at least to myself) that there's also a Human element at play that is even more over reaching in it's scope of what is understood as social normality.

 

[essentialsaltes]

??? Seriously?

Yes. His take on morality is basically scientism grafted onto unstated assumptions.

 

[AV1611VET]

Yes. His take on morality is basically scientism grafted onto unstated assumptions.

It's almost as though the only thing that atheists have in common is a lack of belief in any gods.

For the record, Sam Harris is a dumbdumb doodyhead.

Interesting.

I misjudged you.

 

[ViaCrucis]

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

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

Nope. Nobody says that one biological sex can become another biological sex in humans. That does happen in a number of animals species, but not in humans.

Biology sex and gender expression are fundamentally different categories. The problem isn't science or "scientism" as you call it; but rather being uninformed about these topics to the point of confusing them.

There is actual science, though it continues to be part of ongoing study, as to how biological sex and gender identity don't always align. And it's not because people want to pretend, it's because of how they are wired biologically.

I am biologically male, and I am also male in my gender identity.

A failure to address objective reality out of preconceived personally held "shoulds", as in someone who is biologically and genetically male should identify a certain way and express their humanity in a certain conformist way, does not actually address the real world in a meaningful way.

I think it should be comfortably warm and sunny all year long, but it's not. We have to deal with the fact that sometimes it's cold, sometimes it's rainy and cloudy, sometimes it's too hot. When we confront those realities, we adapt ourselves to them--we dress warmer when it's cold. We seek shelter from cold and heat.

Not everyone's gender identity aligns with their biological sex, and some people have ambiguous biological sex. Those people are real people. How you choose to respond to that is up to you.

Personally, speaking as a believing Christian, I think the Christian response to that should be in alignment and in keeping with the teaching and faith which we have received from the beginning. To believe and confess the Gospel of our hope and salvation, and living out our faith in Christ in obedience to God by following His Commandment, that we love Him and love our neighbor as ourselves.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[hedrick]

I believe in making decisions based on evidence. In many areas this will come from science. In other areas history, which has its own way of gathering and weighing evidence. In other areas scholarship, which is also distinct. In others, the accumulated wisdom of the Christian community. In many areas all of these contribute.

The accusation of "scientism" seems largely to be made by people who want to ignore the evidence in areas where science does apply.

 

[public hermit]

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

I've never heard anyone use "scientism," except in a pejorative sense. I don't think it's helpful for serious discussion. I think "evidentialism" covers the main concerns and values of those one might consider proponents of scientism.

Although evidentialism, as an epistemological norm, has a lot to say in its favor, I seriously doubt it's a primary mode by which people come to know or believe.

If we take into account basing relations, which have to do with the immediate causal factor for how one came to know/believe some proposition p, it's pretty obvious that evidence is often not the primary cause of one's beliefs.

Just think of all the scientifically (evidentially) held beliefs a scientist holds. There will be many beliefs in her field where she has direct evidentiary experience of the beliefs she holds. But, once you leave her area of expertise, the number of scientifically established beliefs she holds become more the result of trust in the work of her colleagues, than the result of her own experience of the evidence. The causal factor for her belief being trust and not direct experience. So, there is a sense where her belief is based on evidence, but only by virtue of her trust in the scientific community.

That observation about basing relations becomes important when trust becomes an issue, such as the recent (ongoing) replication crisis in the softer sciences like social sciences and...medicine!

Replication crisis - Wikipedia

ETA: I should have mentioned that basing relations can be considered in terms other than causal (e.g. counterfactual). But, I don't think that in-house debate adversely affects my point.

The Epistemic Basing Relation (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

 

[SelfSim]

The Epistemic Basing Relation (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Aaarrgghh!
Whilst usually, I find the Stanford Encyclopedia useful for coming to grips with a given philosophical viewpoint, (and even though the reasonings are usually hard to follow without lots of study of the classic Philosophers), the underlying (and unstated) assumed definition of 'what knowledge is' (ie: 'a justified true belief'), leads nowhere fast .. because it becomes completely circular, IMO.
What 'knowledge is', can be framed objectively using scientific thinking too y'know .. (which also then breaks the circularity).

 

[public hermit]

Aaarrgghh!
Whilst usually, I find the Stanford Encyclopedia useful for coming to grips with a given philosophical viewpoint, (and even though the reasonings are usually hard to follow without lots of study of the classic Philosophers), the underlying (and unstated) assumed definition of 'what knowledge is' (ie: 'a justified true belief'), leads nowhere fast .. because it becomes completely circular, IMO.
What 'knowledge is', can be framed objectively using scientific thinking too y'know .. (which also then breaks the circularity).

Agreed. But justified-true-belief has been under a fairly ruthless critique since Gettier. But, I hear you.

 

[SelfSim]

Agreed. But justified-true-belief has been under a fairly ruthless critique since Gettier. But, I hear you.

Yeah .. when will these dudes realise they're chasing their own tails? How much navel-gazing will it take, I ask?

 

[SelfSim]

What 'knowledge is', can be framed objectively using scientific thinking too y'know .. (which also then breaks the circularity).

So I think I've posted this before .. but it may be appropriate to do so again:

What we mean by our word "knowing" is a complex issue, it's one of the more complicated words we have. Philosophers have tried to define that word in a meaningful way for a long time (of course all they can really do is arrive at an agreed-upon definition that they will use in their own contexts, they can never discover "what the word means" because words just don't work like that). Thinking scientifically, I'd gravitate toward an operational meaning, rather than trying to adjudicate the word by convention. (In other words, what we can show we mean, not what we'd like to mean).

So I'd say the test of "knowing", at least when restricted to testable outcomes, is akin to:
- the odds a person would give on being right (like, "95% certain"), where the odds can be deemed as correct if over many instances, the person making the odds ends up breaking even. (If they tend to not break even, they need to reassess their sense of what they know).

Note this means we would generally never assess our odds as 100% (not if we wish to break even in the long run), so we do not use the notorious standard that to "know" something, it must always end up being 'true'. (Philosophers arrived at "justified true belief" as their attempt at a definition they can use in philosophy, but to me that's a classic example of what they'd like to mean rather than what they really mean-- it's a definition that would force us to either lie to ourselves, or never use the word at all).

 

[jacks]

All I know is the way I feel

 

[Kylie]

I voted somewhat. Science is the best tool we have to learn how the universe works, but I don't think it's the best tool to determine what our values should be. Science deals with objective facts, but our values and morals are subjective. However, science should be used as a guide to our morals, even if it's not used as the final word.

 

[VirOptimus]

No, science can help us make informed desicions by letting us understand consequenses and mechanics, but it can never in itself be moral values as morals are emotional, not rational.

 

[VirOptimus]

I voted somewhat. Science is the best tool we have to learn how the universe works, but I don't think it's the best tool to determine what our values should be. Science deals with objective facts, but our values and morals are subjective. However, science should be used as a guide to our morals, even if it's not used as the final word.

I sort of agree, but I would not use subjective/objective as that presupposes an objective agent, ie god(s).

 

[SelfSim]

I voted somewhat. Science is the best tool we have to learn how the universe works, but I don't think it's the best tool to determine what our values should be. Science deals with objective facts, but our values and morals are subjective. However, science should be used as a guide to our morals, even if it's not used as the final word.

Love your response there @Kylie .. I'm smiling!
Spoken like a truly rational, subjective reasoner there .. Does that mean you're actually a human?
(Emoticon there is just me kidding around .. don't take me too seriously).

 

[Kylie]

I sort of agree, but I would not use subjective/objective as that presupposes an objective agent, ie god(s).

I mean objective as in something that exists outside of me. I am objectively sitting in a chair right now, for example. It is also an objective fact that the sun and Earth orbit their barycenter.

Subjective is more an opinion. I think Star trek is better than Star Wars, for example. That's a subjective opinion, not an objective fact.

When it comes to finding out objective facts about our universe, science is the best, and I'd say the only tool we have.

But things like morality are subjective. One person might think it's acceptable for murderers to be given the death penalty, but other people might not. There's no objective way to really show which point of view is correct.