The Variety of Scientisms

[2PhiloVoid]

From the video description, sponsored by the Center For Inquiry, Massimo Pigliucci offers his critique of thinking in which a person places too much credence in the efficacy of Science across the board:

"Science is by far the most powerful approach to the investigation of the natural world ever devised. Still, it has limits, and there are many areas and questions where the scientific approach is ill suited, or at best provides only pertinent information rather than full answers. The denial of this modest attitude about science is called scientism, which declares science to be the only form of human knowledge and understanding, attempting to subsume everything else, including all the humanistic disciplines, into “science” very broadly (mis-)construed. In this talk, I argue that this is a mistake, and that it moreover has the potential to undermine public trust in science itself."​

​

The Variety of Scientisms & the Limits of Science | Massimo Pigliucci​

 

[2PhiloVoid]

From the video description, sponsored by the Center For Inquiry, Massimo Pigliucci offers his critique of thinking in which a person places too much credence in the efficacy of Science across the board:

"Science is by far the most powerful approach to the investigation of the natural world ever devised. Still, it has limits, and there are many areas and questions where the scientific approach is ill suited, or at best provides only pertinent information rather than full answers. The denial of this modest attitude about science is called scientism, which declares science to be the only form of human knowledge and understanding, attempting to subsume everything else, including all the humanistic disciplines, into “science” very broadly (mis-)construed. In this talk, I argue that this is a mistake, and that it moreover has the potential to undermine public trust in science itself."​

​

The Variety of Scientisms & the Limits of Science | Massimo Pigliucci​

Thanks Massimo! You're right..........................Scientism can take a hike!!

 

[SelfSim]

From the video description, sponsored by the Center For Inquiry, Massimo Pigliucci offers his critique of thinking in which a person places too much credence in the efficacy of Science across the board:

"Science is by far the most powerful approach to the investigation of the natural world ever devised. Still, it has limits, and there are many areas and questions where the scientific approach is ill suited, or at best provides only pertinent information rather than full answers. The denial of this modest attitude about science is called scientism, which declares science to be the only form of human knowledge and understanding, attempting to subsume everything else, including all the humanistic disciplines, into “science” very broadly (mis-)construed. In this talk, I argue that this is a mistake, and that it moreover has the potential to undermine public trust in science itself."​

​

The Variety of Scientisms & the Limits of Science | Massimo Pigliucci​

I'm half way throught this presentation and I still can't understand what this dude is arguing against.

I'm not convinced he knows either.

We'll see.

 

[SelfSim]

So then, at the 22:01 mark he poses a question which he uses as an example of what he thinks science cannot answer, within his definition of what science is:

'Science .. this is my own area .. what role does the specific evolutionary process of genetic drift, within the general structure of Evolutionary biological theory for I do an experiment about? .. that is, it's not it's not the kind of approach we need to look at the logical structure for a theory ... we need to talk about what these concepts actually mean and how they play into the theory and remember theories ... scientific theories are not things out there ... they're not Platonic ideal forms that we discover .. these are human inventions .. these are human constructs that are there to help us make sense of the world .. of the world .. so it's not like we're going to have an answer by looking into a telescope and say oh yeah there is the ideal theory right it's all here ..'

So now, he's left it up to us to decode his grandiose verbosity and poor English, in order for us to try and understand what he's even on about here! Looks like he doesn't understand the basis of genetic drift.

This seems to be someone who appears to love the sound of his own voice .. when he uses it to generate what I mean by word-salad!

 

[SelfSim]

So, ok .. I've had a little more time to check out the presenter in the OP YouTube presentation, Massimo Pigliucci:

He is a critic of pseudoscience and creationism, and an advocate for secularism and science education. His recent work has focused on stoicism.

He appears to be trained in Biology and has worked professionally as an Evolutionary Biologist.
My comments about him not understanding the basis of genetic drift, were thus likely incorrect. Upon decoding his words above, it seems he was using genetic drift as an example of a principle, (or a model), which leans more towards philosophical origins than empirical science. Which to me, is more like: 'ok .. and so?' ..

Further:

Pigliucci is an atheist, but does not believe that science necessarily demands atheism, because of two distinctions: that between methodological naturalism and philosophical naturalism, and that between value judgements and matters of fact. He believes that many scientists and science educators fail to appreciate these differences.

Interesting character .. I'm unclear about why he is more intensely focused on Philosophical matters than on the science, however(?)
I'm still unclear about the specific battles he's had that have led him to make this presentation?
In summary, I'm not sure why he's concluded that science educators have failed to appreciate the differences between two philosophical positions and why that matters?

ETA: I've seen him say in another YT interview, (the 14:08 mark): 'that we don't know, for instance, whether general relativity is true, we just know that it works well enough .. there's a lot of empirical you know purification of it, but we don't know whether it's true or not .. what we do know is that Newtonian mechanics is false and that's because we have empirical evidence showing that uh .. some things that the theory predicts are actually .. not uh you know .. not the case .. and therefore Theory must be false'.

My conclusion is that this guy hasn't soaked in enough of the real sciences to gain sufficient insights, in order to be talking about science in the way he's attempting. He's asking unscientific questions ... about science!

 

[essentialsaltes]

Interesting character ..

He is. He's had a column in the Skeptical Inquirer for decades (as has Massimo Polidoro leading them to blend in my mind into a single ur-Massimo).

 

[SelfSim]

He is. He's had a column in the Skeptical Inquirer for decades (as has Massimo Polidoro leading them to blend in my mind into a single ur-Massimo).

Perhaps it may have been more apt for him to choose a pseudonym there ... y'know, something like: 'Don Quixote'(?)

PS: Of course I'm providing fodder to reinforce QEDs of Scientism here ..

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Perhaps it may have been more apt for him to choose a pseudonym there ... y'know, something like: 'Don Quixote'(?)

PS: Of course I'm providing fodder to reinforce QEDs of Scientism here ..

Your rhetorical fodder doesn't seem to be bringing about many operative effects. by which I mean-----I'd like to see other atheists here come in and start ripping Massimo's comments apart like a shark feeding frenzy. Now, if your fodder can catalyze that, it would, in my estimation, provide a cogent demonstration to show how many other atheistic, scientistic folks out there align themselves with your own particularly view on the sciences.

 

[SelfSim]

Your rhetorical fodder doesn't seem to be bringing about many operative effects. by which I mean-----I'd like to see other atheists here come in and start ripping Massimo's comments apart like a shark feeding frenzy. Now, if your fodder can catalyze that, it would, in my estimation, provide a cogent demonstration to show how many other atheistic, scientistic folks out there align themselves with your own particularly view on the sciences.

Science has nothing to do with Atheism .. (unless one is obsessed with philosophies .. like Massimo's mind apparently is).
I'll bet what he means by his Atheism .. is a religious view .. and not the simpler variant of 'no religious beliefs'.
If so, and FWIW, I've encountered his variant before ..

 

[AV1611VET]

Science has nothing to do with Atheism ..

* cough *

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Science has nothing to do with Atheism .. (unless one is obsessed with philosophies .. like Massimo's mind apparently is).
I'll bet what he means by his Atheism .. is a religious view .. and not the simpler variant of 'no religious beliefs'.
If so, and FWIW, I've encountered his variant before ..

I don't think I can say that the sciences don't contribute to Atheism, but being that this thread isn't about that topic, I'm not concerned here about the effect modern science may have for or against the Christian Faith. This thread is about Scientism, which does contribute toward disbelief in any religion.

As for Massimo, I don't think you paid attention to what he was saying and you didn't really look at his viewpoint close enough, because if you had, you'd probably see that he's not of the "atheism is a religious view" perspective, so I'm just going to sort of flutter my hand at you and shake my head.

I think the section of the OP video from 26:23 to 30:23 spells out what Massimo thinks about how Philosophy is inescapable from the sciences (and vice-versa). Of course, you're free to disagree.

 

[SelfSim]

As for Massimo, I don't think you paid attention to what he was saying and you didn't really look at his viewpoint close enough, because if you had, you'd probably see that he's not of the "atheism is a religious view" perspective, so I'm just going to sort of flutter my hand at you and shake my head.

Whatever .. based on what I see and hear from him in this video, I don't really care much about anything this dude has to say.
He seems to be obsessed about definitions.

I think the section of the OP video from 26:23 to 30:23 spells out what Massimo thinks about how Philosophy is inescapable from the sciences (and vice-versa). Of course, you're free to disagree.

If philosophy is about distinguishing the different ways humans think, then obviously, thinking scientifically is one of those ways.
It then follows that thinking scientifically is distinguished by thinking philosophically .. But so what?
All of that, is what I mean by; meaningless, empty word-salad defines philosophy .. so don't drag science into that mishmash .. and that's how I distinguish science.
I don't care about '-isms' such as 'Scientism'.

 

[SelfSim]

Whatever .. based on what I see and hear from him in this video, I don't really care much about anything this dude has to say.

I mean, anyone who dismisses Newtonian physics outright, because of Relativity theory, without further demonstrations of the derivability of Newtonian as a special case of Relativity, has demonstrated they are not qualified to speak from a scientific viewpoint.

Their subsequent claim implying the existence of something they call 'Scientism', then boils down to an empty container constructed to fill it in with their own beliefs. No matter how many superfluous words they use to fill it, they won't convince me of their meaningless arguments.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Whatever .. based on what I see and hear from him in this video, I don't really care much about anything this dude has to say.
He seems to be obsessed about definitions.

If philosophy is about distinguishing the different ways humans think, then obviously, thinking scientifically is one of those ways.
It then follows that thinking scientifically is distinguished by thinking philosophically .. But so what?
All of that, is what I mean by; meaningless, empty word-salad defines philosophy .. so don't drag science into that mishmash .. and that's how I distinguish science.
I don't care about '-isms' such as 'Scientism'.

Alright then. Thanks for taking the time to offer your own perspective on this topic.