Scientism

[TLK Valentine]

Anything "other" than yes, might be considered a "no"...no?

It might be, or it might be a "maybe," or an "I don't know," or an "I need more information before I can give an answer..."

Given AV's penchant for trying to twist the English language until it cries "uncle!" I prefer not to encourage him on this point.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Yes, indeed!

Some people don't take their work home with them though.

When knowledge is your work, when is it a good idea not to bring it home?

Like most others here, he uses his skills very little off the job.

Well now, that's just a flat out lie, AV. You're usually more subtle than that.

Sometimes I have to show them how to think, and I'm not even a scientific methodist!

You often try to tell us "how to think," but very few people are interested in thinking like you.

At least not in the modern sense.

Or any other meaningful one.

 

[Chesterton]

Here's another word - Technocracy, and I wonder if scientism can lead to that.

People always say science is descriptive, not prescriptive, and that moral conclusions can't be drawn from scientific findings, and in practice nothing could be further from the truth. I could ramble on for pages about everything from how I'm forced to wear seatbelts on to how governments want to control the global industrial economy.* Hardly a day goes by I don't learn there's a new law or regulation about something, usually it makes no sense, and when I look into the rationale behind it I find those magic words "studies have shown...". Like the voice of a god, the studies show x so we all must conform to x, for our own good or the good of our fellow man, or for people we'll never meet, like our posterity. Instead of priests we have scientists dictating how we enforce the Golden Rule.

* The most grievous moral error of science is LED Christmas lights. There was nothing I loved so much as seeing the old incandescent colored bulbs on a cold, foggy December night, giving off light which was warm and bright and cheery. Science couldn't leave well enough alone and invented light which is cold and dark and gloomy. Oh but they save so much energy. Well of course they save energy, they barely do anything! My cousin Billy sits on the couch and drinks beer all day, he saves a lot of energy too.

 

[quatona]

And what about eugenics? Wasn't that an over valuation of science's area of competence?

I don´t think these guys identified themselves with "scientism" (in the given definition of putting "too much value on science"). You are missing my point: When you ask people the question "Do you endorse a 'too much' (or another pejorative term)" the answer will always be "No.".

 

[quatona]

Logical positivists provided scientism with its philosophical justification - until the entire edifice came crashing down.

And this addresses my post - in which I pointed out that you can call an epistemological approach (when it doesn´t lend itself to its own criteria) "self-refuting", or (when it conforms with its own criteria) "circular"; and thereby establish a standard that results in epistemological nihilims) - exactly how?

 

[AV1611VET]

You are missing my point: When you ask people the question "Do you endorse a 'too much' (or another pejorative term)" the answer will always be "No.".

Why is "too much" a pejorative term?

 

[quatona]

Why is "too much" a pejorative term?

 

[KWCrazy]

Another term one could use would be "naturalism;" a theory denying that an event or object has a supernatural significance; specifically: the doctrine that scientific laws are adequate to account for all phenomena.
Some people choose to reside in a world where there is not God and everything that happens has a natural cause and effect relationship. Both are attempts to re-construct reality to conform with a more simplified, less consequential existence.

 

[florida2]

There are certain things I would not have invented or probably discovered at a much much later time (most certainly by accident) have I stuck to the scientific method. In other words, it would delayed the discovered or simply never discovered it at all.

Two of my inventions concern things that may circumvent well known laws in physics. If I always assumed that the laws of physics are absolute, then I wouldn't have bothered to make any effort of trying to find what others missed. I would have invented just another cool car...But that is not what people need. We need change.

What are these things that you'd invented?

 

[Heissonear]

The kind of scientism that seems to pervade popular culture is strange to say the least. I suspect the emergence of militant atheism as the main influence on the impressionable. It's become this widespread belief that the only source of knowledge and truth is physical science; and if something can't be proven through the physical sciences it is meaningless or cannot be known. That is simply a false and self-refuting theory of knowledge. Consider the statement 'You should only believe what can be scientifically proven.' Can that statement be scientifically proven? Obviously not, as it is just an arbitrary definition, the view is literally self-refuting, and yet this seems to persist in pop culture very widely and prevents people from finding spiritual truths and spiritual knowledge.


I could name two that monkey around this site.

Very well said.

People can only acquire a dust perspective of Creation through science. And that is all that will be derived. As you put it, militant atheism set the bounds. Those bounds are boundries of dire misfortune, for the Kingdom of God and higher life is in our midst, and these natural men are blind to it. That is called ignorance, massive ignorance in this life. All of their intelligence and accomplishments mean very little.

AV has echoed how science can take a hike, scientism has caused blindness. I was once there, raised in seeing how everything can be explained and coming about through natural processes. God works in times and seasons, and can save the blind. Praise Him on High!

 

[AV1611VET]

People can only acquire a dust perspective of Creation through science. And that is all that will be derived.

Sorry, bro.

I'm gonna disagree on that one.

Genesis 2:7a And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground,

Or maybe I'm reading your point wrong.

Sorry.

 

[Chris B]

I want to hear AV's definition. The term is ill defined enough for it to mean whatever somebody wants it to mean.

Humpty-dumtyism. Always one to watch out for, and especially for a drift or switch of meaning half way through supporting an argument.

 

[Chris B]

Scientism

"Scientism may refer to science applied "in excess". The term scientism can apply in either of two senses:"

At least two values then. I'd proffer a case for a third, science treated as a religion where not only is it treated as the primary source of reliable knowledge, it is regarded (incredibly naively) as is it can do no wrong, teach no wrong.

Do I own up to having some scientism in my world view?
It depends which scientism is being referred to.
In any clash between a piece of science and something corresponding from any other modality of "knowing", I'd start by considering the science being more likely to be useful to work with.

Above all for that (still imperfect) self-critical and self-correcting mechanism so markedly absent in (many, most, all?) other methodologies of acquiring knowledge.

 

[AV1611VET]

At least two values then.

So?

Why should that stop you?

Some words you guys like to dwell on in Wrong's Concordance have about five or six different "values".

That's why "heaven" in Genesis 1:1 suddenly becomes "heavens."

Use the link I provided as a working definition.

Just click on it and WYSIWYG.

Go from there.

 

[Chris B]

Why is "too much" a pejorative term?

Because it is referencing a held ideal (valid or invalid, real or imaginary)
The Goldilocks story.
Now if if Goldilocks had been a hefty lumberjack, presumably Papa Bear's porridge would have been "just right" to the trespassing thief.

 

[Chris B]

So?

Why should that stop you?

Some words you guys like to dwell on in Wrong's Concordance have about five or six different "values".

That's why "heaven" in Genesis 1:1 suddenly becomes "heavens."

Use the link I provided as a working definition.

Just click on it and WYSIWYG.

Go from there.

I quoted from there, and it didn't stop me.
But I do prefer, for clarity of communication, to know which usage the other person prefers: I can usually just work with that.
If we are to dethrone science from scientism, what is proposed in its place as the "gold standard" or benchmark modality or methodology of knowledge acquisition?

 

[AV1611VET]

If we are to dethrone science from scientism, what is proposed in its place as the "gold standard" or benchmark modality or methodology of knowledge acquisition?

God.

Scientism is what the Antichrist will probably endorse.

 

[TLK Valentine]

God.

Scientism is what the Antichrist will probably endorse.

Well, good thing even Wikipedia denounces "scientism" as something best avoided...

 

[joshua 1 9]

Scientism

As I have said many times there is a huge difference between drawing up plans on paper and actually building it. The real people are the ones that can actually get the job done and not just write books or make it look good on paper. The true test is when the rubber meets the road. These are the people that really get the job done. Because they are the ones that actually have to get it to work in the real world.

 

[Chris B]

re: "what is proposed in its place as the "gold standard" or benchmark modality or methodology of knowledge acquisition?"

God.

I knew you were going to say that.
You probably know my next line:
How can that be a reliable source, when various humans are perfectly sure that their version of divinely-revealed knowledge is the right one? The confidence or faith doesn't settle it, as that's found everywhere.

Yes, it is settled from the perspective of the believer, of course. Whichever believer.
From the perspective of the outsider that's hardly a good thing.

The person having that level of confidence in science is definitely into full-blown scientism.
As I can't work that option I have to live with existential and epistemological doubt,
(usually in tolerable quantities).
I am nearly absolutely certain that absolutely sure knowledge can't be done.