Is Scientism misleading Christians about Science?

[Radagast]

Nice strawman. I certainly never said empirical data is all that counts.

You said "science is the most authoritative worldview because it has the most empirical data." If empirical data is not all that counts, that statement would be utterly irrelevant. If XXX also counts, you would need to have argued "science is the most authoritative worldview because its plethora of empirical data outweighs XXX."

Another strawman. I never said that.

I don't know what "that" refers to, but you did make an ad hominem attack. Your sentences "Imagine if the humanities had progressed at the same rate as science over the last 500 years. We would be living in a utopia." were an ad hominem against the humanities (and, once again, utterly irrelevant, because progress or otherwise in the humanities has nothing to do with your claim).

And yet another strawman. I replied to the OP, regarding the Humanities and Science. Where did I say or imply there are no other forms of knowledge?

By referring only to the Humanities and Science, your post implicitly assumed those were the only options.

Indeed, if it's OK with you, I'd like to publish that post in a book, as an example of logical fallacies in action.

You appear to blaming the scientist because the person reading his comments lacks the English comprehension skills required to understand what he said, and the context it was said in. That doesn't sound fair, does it?

Possibly the problem was with what you wrote, not with my comprehension of it?

 

[ThinkForYourself]

You said "science is the most authoritative worldview because it has the most empirical data." If empirical data is not all that counts, that statement would be utterly irrelevant.

No it doesn't. If types of data are weighted, some will count for more, but that does not mean that only the most weighted data counts.

Well, you did, actually. Your sentences "Imagine if the humanities had progressed at the same rate as science over the last 500 years. We would be living in a utopia." were an ad hominem attack on the humanites (or else, once again, utterly irrelevant).

Science has progressed an amazing amount in the last 500 years, far more than the humanities in my opinion.

Why would you interpret that as saying anything negative about the humanities? It makes no sense.

By referring only to the Humanities and Science, your post implicitly assumed those were the only options.

According to your logic if I talk about two animals, my post implicitly assumes that only those two animals exist. That is ridiculous.

Indeed, if it's OK with you, I'd like to publish that post in a book, as an example of logical fallacies in action.

No. Sorry, but I don't want to be associated with your book in any way. Thanks.

Why don't you use your own posts? They are far better examples.

Possibly the problem was with what you wrote, not with my comprehension of it?

No, your logic is flawed. That is clear.

 

[Radagast]

Science has progressed an amazing amount in the last 500 years, far more than the humanities in my opinion.

Why would you interpret that as saying anything negative about the humanities? It makes no sense.

Because, fairly obviously, to say "Science has progressed far more than the humanities" is to imply "The humanities have progressed far less than Science." In symbols, A > B implies B < A.

In fact, of course, progress or otherwise in the humanities has nothing to do with your claim that "science is the most authoritative worldview." An irrelevant negative characterisation of a person or group of people in an argument is an ad hominem.

No. Sorry, but I don't want to be associated with your book in any way. Thanks.

Pity. It was worth a try.

And yet another strawman. I replied to the OP, regarding the Humanities and Science.

Actually, the OP did not refer to the Humanities. The false dichotomy did not arise there:

I am under the impression that Scientism is misleading many Christians into believing that many controversial scientific facts such as evolution and origins of the earth and universe are just beliefs. What do you think?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I think you may be right. Advocates of scientism are guilty of straying out of their zone of expertise, and coming up with a great deal of mediocre philosophy. This causes, I think, many people to devalue those statements made which are well-founded.

I wouldn't call that 'scientism' per se. It's just someone pontificating on matters that they are poorly informed on. I've seen philosophers do this as well.

 

[Radagast]

I wouldn't call that 'scientism' per se. It's just someone pontificating on matters that they are poorly informed on. I've seen philosophers do this as well.

Well, the claims of scientism (philosophical materialism, empiricism, etc.) are largely philosophical claims; but ones which are generally defended very poorly (perhaps because the advocates of scientism see those claims as "obvious"). So it's a specific kind of mediocre philosophy I was referring to.

And, as I said, I agree with the point that Massimo Pigliucci makes in his Denying Evolution: Creationism, Scientism, and the Nature of Science. I think scientism has indeed contributed to the denials of evolution in the USA.

 

[ThinkForYourself]

Because, fairly obviously, to say "Science has progressed far more than the humanities" is to imply "The humanities have progressed far less than Science." In symbols, A > B implies B < A.

You seem like a Philosopher of sorts, yet you don't seem to understand logic, which is a bit confusing.

Let me try explaining it another way. I think you are making a category error.

You appear to confusing the amount of progress made by a subject (Which I have addressed) to the importance of the subject itself (Which I have not addressed).

EDIT: I think you will be able to understand this:

Imagine I was comparing dig digging to medicine. Lets say that ditch digging technology had improved doubling ditch digging speed in a year. During that year medicine didn't progress at all. I could say ditch digging had progressed more than medicine in that year. I could say "Imagine if medicine had progressed as much as ditch digging has this year". That does not mean I implied that ditch digging was more important or somehow better than medicine.

In fact, of course, progress or otherwise in the humanities has nothing to do with your claim that "science is the most authoritative worldview."
An irrelevant negative characterisation of a person or group of people in an argument is an ad hominem.

I never made "An irrelevant negative characterisation..."

I'll try to simply it so you can understand, because you seem to lack a fundamental understanding of science, and how it gathers data.

I said science was more authoritative because it has the most empirical data. Probably many many magnitudes more, mind you, I could be wrong, I never did any research. But I did watch a Lawrence Krauss lecture was discussing an experiment using the Large Hadron Collider in Switzerland.

Don't quote me on the figures, but he said that one collision generated something like 200 terabytes of data. Like I said, I don't remember the exact number, but it was an incredible amount. From one collision from one experiment.

Now think of all the sensors turned to the sky, each with computers constantly recording data. And the sensors in the earth, constantly recording data.

Let's compare that to the humanities. You're probably more familiar with research in this area, so please correct me if I'm wrong. I would guess that all the data collected by all the humanities in recorded history is less than 200 terabytes. In other words, it is less than the data science collected from one collision in one experiment. Let's say I'm wrong, let's say all the data collected by the humanities is 400 terabytes. That's two collisions, from one experiment.

EDIT: By data, I'm talking about actual data, including recorded thoughts, words, images, etc., not the software associated with the data such as word processing programs, and video formats.

That's not to say the Humanities are somehow a lesser subject. It simply means that you cannot collect and analyze information about and from living organisms as quickly as you can about inanimate objects.

If the humanities did have access to the vast quantities of data that science does, I think we can both agree that they would have progressed much further than they have. Imagine if mankind had one billion Socrates, Platos, Kants, etc.. Philosophy would, in my opinion, have progressed more than it has.

So it's not a negative characterization to say that the Humanities haven't progressed as much as the science, it's the logical outcome based on the
inherent difficulties the humanities have in collecting data.

If you still don't understand, I give up.

Pity. It was worth a try.

Honestly, after seeing your arguments, it would be like submitting a paper to a creationist "science" journal, and that's something I just wouldn't want to do.

Why not go through your own posts? There is lots of good material there.

 

[MoreCoffee]

I am inclined to view "scientism" as a pejorative that doesn't represent the views of atheists.

 

[Eudaimonist]

I am inclined to view "scientism" as a pejorative that doesn't represent the views of atheists.

It certainly doesn't represent mine.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Well, the claims of scientism (philosophical materialism, empiricism, etc.) are largely philosophical claims; but ones which are generally defended very poorly (perhaps because the advocates of scientism see those claims as "obvious"). So it's a specific kind of mediocre philosophy I was referring to.

I'm not sure who you are referring to when you speak of "the advocates of scientism." In my experience, a person is accused of scientism most frequently when they have the audacity to suggest that science could, in principle (if not in practice), address a problem previously considered to be outside the purview of science. Sometimes people are accused of scientism when they make discoveries that their detractors are disgruntled with. Other times it is when individuals (not necessarily working scientists) make greedily reductionistic claims or when they make tenuous but sciencey sounding connections across multiple levels of analysis. The word 'scientism' seems to be used so broadly that I'm uncertain of what an "advocate of scientism" would look like or say.

And, as I said, I agree with the point that Massimo Pigliucci makes in his Denying Evolution: Creationism, Scientism, and the Nature of Science. I think scientism has indeed contributed to the denials of evolution in the USA.

I may have missed your post on this, but could you elaborate on what you mean here?

 

[Radagast]

You seem like a Philosopher of sorts, yet you don't seem to understand logic, which is a bit confusing.

Well, actually I'm a professional scientist. But thank you for coming down to my level.

You appear to confusing the amount of progress made by a subject (Which I have addressed) to the importance of the subject itself (Which I have not addressed).

Well, I'm discussing your claim that "science is the most authoritative worldview." You were the one who related that to "amount of progress." I'm glad if you now admit that they are not related.

I never made "An irrelevant negative characterisation..."

Well, you did, in that the comment on progress was (1) negative and (2) irrelevant.

I'll try to simply it so you can understand

Thank you again (I'm assuming you meant "simplify"). I've only got one PhD, so I'm obviously a "bear of little brain."

I said science was more authoritative because it has the most empirical data. Probably many many magnitudes more, mind you, I could be wrong, I never did any research. But I did watch a Lawrence Krauss lecture was discussing an experiment using the Large Hadron Collider in Switzerland.

Don't quote me on the figures, but he said that one collision generated something like 200 terabytes of data. Like I said, I don't remember the exact number, but it was an incredible amount. From one collision from one experiment.

That really is a fascinating argument. I shall call it the "big numbers are impressive fallacy."

Marie Curie's classic work on radium generated only about 2k of data (a dozen or so weight measurements, some radioactivity and heat output measurements, a crude emission spectrum, and a few notes). Would you really say that one LHC collision makes 100,000,000,000 times as much progress as Marie Curie's work, or that it is somehow 100,000,000,000 times as authoritative?

 

[KCfromNC]

Advocates of scientism (there are some very vocal ones here on CF)

I'd be very curious to see if you could actually list any of the alleged vocal advocates of scientism.

 

[Radagast]

I'm not sure who you are referring to when you speak of "the advocates of scientism." In my experience, a person is accused of scientism most frequently when they have the audacity to suggest that science could, in principle (if not in practice), address a problem previously considered to be outside the purview of science.

To some extent, perhaps. But primarily the charge is made when people argue for a worldview that can be characterised as "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" (Wikipedia) or "(1) the assumption that the mathematized science of natural phenomena is a model science to which all other sciences ought to conform; (2) that all realms of being are accessible to the methods of the sciences of phenomena; and (3) that all reality which is not accessible to sciences of phenomena is either irrelevant or, in the more radical form of the dogma, illusionary" (Eric Voegelin).

There are a number of published authors that take such a line, and also a number of people here on CF.

Now some may consider the term "scientism" pejorative, but the worldview is certainly out there, and it needs a label. The label "scientism" for that worldview has been used for over half a century, so it is to some extent the standard label. Components of the worldview (like empiricism and philosophical materialism) have even older labels, but I've not seen a better term than "scientism" for the package as a whole.

I may have missed your post on this, but could you elaborate on what you mean here?

I'm not sure what to say. Massimo Pigliucci's book makes a point that I'm agreeing with (that scientism has contributed to the denials of evolution in the USA).

Feel free to read his book. His essay "Creationism vs. Scientism: the twin dangers of religious and scientific fundamentalism" also touches on the topic.

 

[KCfromNC]

I am inclined to view "scientism" as a pejorative that doesn't represent the views of atheists.

Or anyone else, for that matter. But it sure is a useful personal attack against people who point out the fact that science tends to produce a lot of useful information in a way that other fields can not. It is especially useful when the field being compared to science is one which the accuser has a strong emotional tie to.

 

[Radagast]

Or anyone else, for that matter. But it sure is a useful personal attack against people who point out the fact that science tends to produce a lot of useful information in a way that other fields can not. It is especially useful when the field being compared to science is one which the accuser has a strong emotional tie to.

And would you say that Massimo Pigliucci was using it that way in his book?

Or are you just descending to ad hominem to avoid the point that he's making?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

To some extent, perhaps. But primarily the charge is made when people argue for a worldview that can be characterised as "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" (Wikipedia)

That definition is woefully uninformative. I still have no idea what an "advocate of scientism" might say based on that.

or "(1) the assumption that the mathematized science of natural phenomena is a model science to which all other sciences ought to conform; (2) that all realms of being are accessible to the methods of the sciences of phenomena; and (3) that all reality which is not accessible to sciences of phenomena is either irrelevant or, in the more radical form of the dogma, illusionary" (Eric Voegelin).

I have never met someone who advocates such a view, at least not to my knowledge.

There are a number of published authors that take such a line, and also a number of people here on CF.

Who on CF in particular?

Now some may consider the term "scientism" pejorative, but the worldview is certainly out there, and it needs a label.

It certainly is "out there," so far "out there" that I cannot think of anyone who champions it.

The label "scientism" for that worldview has been used for over half a century, so it is to some extent the standard label. Components of the worldview (like empiricism and philosophical materialism) have even older labels, but I've not seen a better term than "scientism" for the package as a whole.

Here it sounds like you are describing naturalism.

I'm not sure what to say. Massimo Pigliucci's book makes a point that I'm agreeing with (that scientism has contributed to the denials of evolution in the USA).

In what way has it contributed to the denials of evolution in the US?

 

[Radagast]

Who on CF in particular?

I consider that a rather disingenuous question.

That definition is woefully uninformative. I still have no idea what an "advocate of scientism" might say based on that.

Based on that Wikipedia definition, an advocate of scientism would say things like "science is the most authoritative worldview," "science is the only reliable path to knowledge," "the scientific method is the only reliable way to know what is true," "the scientific method is the best and only way to gain knowledge," "science is the only reliable way of knowing if something is true," or similar statements.

And yes, those are all quotes taken from posts on CF.

It certainly is "out there," so far "out there" that I cannot think of anyone who champions it.

Read Massimo Pigliucci's book, or his essay "Creationism vs. Scientism: the twin dangers of religious and scientific fundamentalism." He names several people.

Here it sounds like you are describing naturalism.

Scientism goes beyond naturalism, in that it makes some rather strong epistemological and methodological claims.

But I think the useful life of this thread is probably over.

 

[ThinkForYourself]

Well, actually I'm a professional scientist. But thank you for coming down to my level.

That's nice.

Well, I'm discussing your claim that "science is the most authoritative worldview." You were the one who related that to "amount of progress." I'm glad if you now admit that they are not related.

Please stop being disingenuous. You know perfectly well I've maintained my stance from the beginning of our conversation, and that you are the one in error.

Thank you again (I'm assuming you meant "simplify"). I've only got one PhD, so I'm obviously a "bear of little brain."

So your educational level is equivalent to Dr. Kent Hovind's? Seems about right.

That really is a fascinating argument. I shall call it the "big numbers are impressive fallacy."

You're the one writing the book of self-quotes, I'm sure you can invent many impressive titles for your work.

Marie Curie's classic work on radium generated only about 2k of data (a dozen or so weight measurements, some radioactivity and heat output measurements, a crude emission spectrum, and a few notes). Would you really say that one LHC collision makes 100,000,000,000 times as much progress as Marie Curie's work, or that it is somehow 100,000,000,000 times as authoritative?

I would say progress would be much slower with the LHC if scientists could only generate 2k, compared to 200 TB, of similar data per collision. Wouldn't you agree?

I would suggest progress in climatology would slow to a crawl if the daily data gathered was 2k/scientist, wouldn't you agree?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I consider that a rather disingenuous question.

What? Why? You claimed that certain people on CF are advocates of scientism. I'm asking you to name these individuals so that I can ask them for myself. What's disingenuous about that? Wouldn't it be more disingenuous to allude to these purported "advocates of scientism" but then to refuse to name a single one?

Based on that Wikipedia definition, an advocate of scientism would say things like "science is the most authoritative worldview," "science is the only reliable path to knowledge," "the scientific method is the only reliable way to know what is true," "the scientific method is the best and only way to gain knowledge," "science is the only reliable way of knowing if something is true," or similar statements.

And yes, those are all quotes taken from posts on CF.

Quotes that are conveniently bereft of context and not attributed to any of their authors, so I can't ask these individuals whether they consider themselves "advocates of scientism," as you claim they are.

Read Massimo Pigliucci's book, or his essay "Creationism vs. Scientism: the twin dangers of religious and scientific fundamentalism." He names several people.

Yet you can't name them? Not only that, but you can't even outline Pigliucci's argument for how scientism has contributed to evolution denial in the US.

Scientism goes beyond naturalism, in that it makes some rather strong epistemological and methodological claims.

Such as?

 

[Radagast]

I think this thread is over; the answer to the OP is in Massimo Pigliucci's book, which anyone interested can read.

 

[ThinkForYourself]

I think this thread is over; the answer to the OP is in Massimo Pigliucci's book, which anyone interested can read.

I don't blame you. You were faring terribly.

An apology for purposefully misstating my position would have been nice.