Let's talk about "scientism"

[Eudaimonist]

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

Okay, I am in favor of something similar to scientific naturalism for philosophical reasons mainly involving induction and foundational ideas stemming from life experience.

However, I reject scientism, mainly for its connection to logical positivism. Rejecting scientism doesn't mean that "anything goes" in epistemology, but that science isn't authoritative in all fields of knowledge. For instance, the philosophy of science cannot be usefully handled by science itself.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

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

Scientism being defined as:

This is not Sorell's definition of scientism. Quite arguably the most critical phrase was omitted.

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

However, I reject scientism, mainly for its connection to logical positivism. Rejecting scientism doesn't mean that "anything goes" in epistemology, but that science isn't authoritative in all fields of knowledge. For instance, the philosophy of science cannot be usefully handled by science itself.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Now we have someone talking like they have some sense!

 

[variant]

This is not Sorell's definition of scientism. Quite arguably the most critical phrase was omitted.

The most biased part of his definition was omitted for sure.

If it is required to exclude all other types of thinking then I have no use for scientism.

 

[variant]

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.

I did qualify as most valuable and most authoritative with the definition I supplied so saying philosophy has priority when it directly relies on science when advancing knowledge doesn't resolve my question.

 

[variant]

However, I reject scientism, mainly for its connection to logical positivism. Rejecting scientism doesn't mean that "anything goes" in epistemology, but that science isn't authoritative in all fields of knowledge. For instance, the philosophy of science cannot be usefully handled by science itself.

That depends on if you can adequately divorce the philosophy of science from it's methodology.

Since science is a process that was discovered methodologically as well as rationally, I don't think you can give priority of the philosophy of science to science itself.

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

The most biased part of his definition was omitted for sure.

If it is required to exclude all other types of thinking then I have no use for scientism.

Bravo!!!!

Now you got it!

This is what Mark and I have been saying the whole time!

 

[variant]

Bravo!!!!

Now you got it!

This is what Mark and I have been saying the whole time!

Then it isn't a very interesting philosophical system to criticize seeing as how it would exclude philosophical systems...

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

Then it isn't a very interesting philosophical system to criticize seeing as how it would exclude philosophical systems...

Hahaha, my man!

That is exactly right! It is self-refuting!

As a criterion of knowledge it is far too restrictive and ultimately self-refuting.

Philosopher of religion Keith Ward has said scientism is philosophically inconsistent or even self-refuting, as the truth of the statements "no statements are true unless they can be proven scientifically (or logically)" or "no statements are true unless they can be shown empirically to be true" cannot themselves be proven scientifically, logically, or empirically.

Ward, Keith, Is Religion Dangerous?

Alston, William P (2003). "Religious language and verificationism". In Moser, Paul K; Copan, Paul. The Rationality of Theism. New York: Routledge. pp. 26–34

 

[Eudaimonist]

Then it isn't a very interesting philosophical system to criticize seeing as how it would exclude philosophical systems...

You are right. Perhaps the single greatest reason for scientism is logical positivism, and logical positivism was abandoned by the logical positivists themselves as unworkable. It became a dead system.

I'm not quite sure why we are talking about it, since there isn't any tight connection between scientific naturalism and scientism. It seems odd to lump them together in one conversation.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Deidre32]

Your arguments are all the same, Jeremy. You think that you can defend religion through logic and by diminishing the value of science.

To buy into religion, all it requires is faith. Your debates are always circular because you hope that we will see that no, religion is based on logic.

It's not. No matter how much you want it to be.

I secretly hope I will see a new take on it from you but nope. You always go down the path of trying to get people to not trust science in favor of your religion.

With threads like this it makes me think that you believe atheists cling to science as if it were a religion. Lol We don't. We accept that science can't answer everything. Religion tries to fill in the gaps of what science can't currently answer. (what man can't yet answer)

Science isn't a religion to an atheist, but that seems to be the theme of most of your threads.

 

[Received]

If by scientism you mean the view that science is the limitation of truth, or that fact is the limitation of truth, scientism is self-negating given its inability to validate itself. Done.

 

[variant]

You are right. Perhaps the single greatest reason for scientism is logical positivism, and logical positivism was abandoned by the logical positivists themselves as unworkable. It became a dead system.

Which is why science itself moved on to different ideas quite a while ago like say Karl Poppers views on science as falsification.

I'm not quite sure why we are talking about it, since there isn't any tight connection between scientific naturalism and scientism. It seems odd to lump them together in one conversation.

It does seem odd, the only value I would see in doing that is trying to make the weak arguments for religious propositions seem better by picking at specific philosophical over reliances on methodological science.

 

[variant]

Hahaha, my man!

That is exactly right! It is self-refuting!

As a criterion of knowledge it is far too restrictive and ultimately self-refuting.

I am actually a bit jealous that people are making money writing books dealing with a problem this easy.

The question is does scientism as Sorell defines it accurately define important views that people hold and will defend.

 

[Deidre32]

Which is why science itself moved on to different ideas quite a while ago like say Karl Poppers views on science as falsification.



It does seem odd, the only value I would see in doing that is trying to make the weak arguments for religious propositions seem better by picking at specific philosophical over reliances on methodological science.

That's precisely the reason. To discredit the trustworthiness of science as a reason to support his religion.

New thread, same theme. Atheists have made science a religion. I hear this all the time and after a while, it just becomes a tedious effort in futility to debate such people.

 

[variant]

That's precisely the reason. To discredit the trustworthiness of science as a reason to support his religion.

New thread, same theme. Atheists have made science a religion. I hear this all the time and after a while, it just becomes a tedious effort in futility to debate such people.

Well, science doesn't make a very good religion so that argument has never been anything but weak.

 

[Deidre32]

Well, science doesn't make a very good religion so that argument has never been anything but weak.

I agree but it doesn't stop people from using it. lol

Atheism is often misunderstood.
Just never knew how much until I left religion.

 

[bhsmte]

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

Ah, death. Do you think the fear of death may motivate ancient man to manufacture stories in an attempt to reduce this fear?

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

Your arguments are all the same, Jeremy. You think that you can defend religion through logic and by diminishing the value of science.

To buy into religion, all it requires is faith. Your debates are always circular because you hope that we will see that no, religion is based on logic.

It's not. No matter how much you want it to be.

I secretly hope I will see a new take on it from you but nope. You always go down the path of trying to get people to not trust science in favor of your religion.

With threads like this it makes me think that you believe atheists cling to science as if it were a religion. Lol We don't. We accept that science can't answer everything. Religion tries to fill in the gaps of what science can't currently answer. (what man can't yet answer)

Science isn't a religion to an atheist, but that seems to be the theme of most of your threads.

I do not seek to diminish the value of science but to show that science has a specific domain in which it is efficacious.

I also intend to show that a Judeo-Christian paradigm is the best paradigm when it comes to explaining the totality of human experience as compared with its competitors.

Part of my efforts revolve around demonstrating that the competing paradigms simply fail to account for the things we as humans hold to be most important. Scientism fails here because it is existentially deficient and self-refuting.

What we do is we check it off the list of proferred criterions of rationality. As we do this we by a process of elimination, reduce the live pool of viable hypotheses down to the few that have been consistently defended by philosophers of religion and science and have withstood the test of time.

I have as my signature a quote from one of the greatest scientists and astronomers of recent memory in which he states that it was science that led him to his conclusions about God.

I have utilized the findings of scientists in much of my apologetics as well. So to view me as someone who is anti-science is unwarranted and belies a bias on your own part of thinking that just because someone is a Christian, they necessarily have to be unscientific and superstitious.

Even my method for seeking the best explanation for a series of data is itself scientific in nature. I am coming to you on your own terms, on your own ground, using means that you think are reliable and efficacious in demonstrating to you the veracity of the central tenets of my worldview.

I am playing in your court, in your home town so to speak. I have never told you to just take my word that Christianity is the most comprehensive paradigm for accounting for our human experiences.

I have repeatedly asked you to debate. Repeatedly given you arguments, evidence, appealed to the findings of contemporary science and scientists and you still claim I am trying to diminish the value of science.

Why?

 

[bhsmte]

That's precisely the reason. To discredit the trustworthiness of science as a reason to support his religion.

New thread, same theme. Atheists have made science a religion. I hear this all the time and after a while, it just becomes a tedious effort in futility to debate such people.

How true.

When you see this; science is a religion, it usually means, the one making the statement has run out of ammo and is in a bit of desperation mode.

Science is not perfect, but it is certainly rigorous enough to correct it's imperfections over time. I always ask myself the question; where would we be today without science?