Let's talk about "scientism"

[Jeremy E Walker]

I think there are some proponents of scientific naturalism or scientism here.

I would like for this thread to be centered on the view and its merits or lack thereof.

I may end up offering an invitation to debate someone if I get some good responses.

 

[PsychoSarah]

You are going to encounter the worst sorts of atheists with this kind of invitation you know. I hope you realize that not all atheists think the same.

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

You are going to encounter the worst sorts of atheists with this kind of invitation you know. I hope you realize that not all atheists think the same.

I agree, not all atheists think the same. Not all Christians think the same for that matter.

Are you a proponent of scientism?

 

[PsychoSarah]

I agree, not all atheists think the same. Not all Christians think the same for that matter.

Are you a proponent of scientism?

If Scientism = Naturalism, not exactly. It's complicated

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

If Scientism = Naturalism, not exactly. It's complicated

I am listening.

 

[Vergil10]

I agree, not all atheists think the same. Not all Christians think the same for that matter.

Are you a proponent of scientism?

if you are referring to the 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. then i would have to agree with this view point.

 

[PsychoSarah]

I am listening.

I think scientifically evaluating and testing certain aspects of our universe can be difficult.

 

[BL2KTN]

I think there are some proponents of scientific naturalism or scientism here.

Well, considering you're using the internet science created, it appears you are.

 

[Targaryen]

Well, considering you're using the internet science created, it appears you are.

Droll and not a very intelligent response there.

As to Sarah, why do you feel it's a complicated answer? I'm more interested in your opinion of why then I am a flat scientific response

 

[PsychoSarah]

Droll and not a very intelligent response there.

As to Sarah, why do you feel it's a complicated answer? I'm more interested in your opinion of why then I am a flat scientific response

I really just have a rough time putting my thoughts into words on this one.

So, I am an agnostic atheist. Do I think deities exist? No, but I don't reject the possibility of it either. That and anything else one might consider to be supernatural. The very nature of these things would make it pretty much impossible to measure or evaluate them scientifically even if they do exist. That and things such as dark energy are also not the greatest candidates for real scientific testing as per the technology we have.

Are most things easy to evaluate and study using the scientific methods and other naturalistic means? Sure, but I won't disregard the possibility that there are things that can't be measured so well in those ways.

 

[Deidre32]

Science is brave enough to say "we don't know," when it can't explain certain mysteries of the universe. Religion-ism pretends to know the answers, and it doesn't. Faith and religion are not answers to the mysteries of the universe. They are more creations of mankind as to not feel uncomfortable with all the (current) unknowns.

 

[Vergil10]

Science is brave enough to say "we don't know," when it can't explain certain mysteries of the universe. Religion-ism pretends to know the answers, and it doesn't. Faith and religion are not answers to the mysteries of the universe. They are more creations of mankind as to not feel uncomfortable with all the (current) unknowns.

well said.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Science is brave enough to say "we don't know," when it can't explain certain mysteries of the universe. Religion-ism pretends to know the answers, and it doesn't. Faith and religion are not answers to the mysteries of the universe. They are more creations of mankind as to not feel uncomfortable with all the (current) unknowns.

People do have a tendency to fear that which they don't understand. Like death

 

[Eudaimonist]

I think there are some proponents of scientific naturalism or scientism here.

Those aren't synonyms. One can be a scientific naturalist without being scientistic. Scientific naturalism is a metaphysical stance, while scientism is more closely related to epistemology.

There is bound to be confusion if you treat both words as synonyms. Which concept are you really interested in? Are you perhaps talking about scientific realism instead?


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[variant]

So, what are the strong arguments against the epistemological position of scientism?

Scientism being defined as:

the 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.

 

[Eudaimonist]

So, what are the strong arguments against the epistemological position of scientism?

Simple. Some fields of knowledge are not best covered by science. For instance, philosophy has the priority in certain areas.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

Those aren't synonyms. One can be a scientific naturalist without being scientistic. Scientific naturalism is a metaphysical stance, while scientism is more closely related to epistemology.

There is bound to be confusion if you treat both words as synonyms. Which concept are you really interested in? Are you perhaps talking about scientific realism instead?


eudaimonia,

Mark

I should have used "and" instead of "or". I know they are not synonymous. I want to talk about both.

 

[variant]

Simple. Some fields of knowledge are not best covered by science. For instance, philosophy has the priority in certain areas.

eudaimonia,

Mark

Hard to say, the line between science and philosophy seems incredibly blurred in terms of importance of how knowledge was gained and the authoritativeness of that knowledge when I study philosophy.

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

if you are referring to the 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. then i would have to agree with this view point.

You did not quote the entire sentence from Sorell's work.

You left out,"to the exclusion of other viewpoints." which goes directly after the phrase "human learning".

So you agree with part of what he defines as scientism. Why do you reject the later?

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

Hard to say, the line between science and philosophy seems incredibly blurred in terms of importance of how knowledge was gained and the authoritativeness of that knowledge when I study philosophy.

What you said has nothing to do with what Mark said.

He said certain domains are best studied utilizing certain methods or disciplines.

He said nothing about philosophy being "more important" than science.