7 ms·

Of all the fads and foibles in the long history of human credulity, scientism in all its varied guises — from fanciful cosmology to evolutionary epistemology an

Of all the fads and foibles in the long history of human credulity, scientism in all its varied guises — from fanciful cosmology to evolutionary epistemology and ethics — seems among the more dangerous, both because it pretends to be something very different from what it really is and because it has been accorded widespread and uncritical adherence. Continued insistence on the universal competence of science will serve only to undermine the credibility of science as a whole. The ultimate outcome will be an increase of radical skepticism that questions the ability of science to address even the questions legitimately within its sphere of competence. One longs for a new Enlightenment to puncture the pretensions of this latest superstition. http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-folly-of-scientism http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-folly-of-scie...

barnabes 10y ago
The issue, in my eyes anyway, is when the scientific method is used as a hammer; when it's used to crush a debate. Any method, whether scientific, philosophical, spiritual or otherwise should be used to spawn debate, and to contribute to a rich discussion. But science being used to stop debate, used to stop exchange, used to stop meaningful conversation does more harm than good to all involved.
- TuringTest 10y ago
  The irony is that it took a philosopher to produce a much better defense of scientism than many scientists are capable of.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- carsongross 10y ago
  The issue, in my eyes anyway, is when the scientific method is used as a hammer; when it's used to crush a debate. The scientific method isn't being used to crush debate. It simply isn't being used. What's most responsible for crushing debate today is (empirically false) post-modern social constructionism coupled with female mother/protector ethics. Jordan Peterson is one of the best people on these (and many, many other) topics: https://www.youtube.com/user/JordanPetersonVideos https://www.youtube.com/user/JordanPetersonVideos
acover 10y ago
> Strong Scientism: Of all the knowledge we have, scientific knowledge is the only “real knowledge.” Stupid question. What is an example of a hypothesis that is not falsifiable by experiment but should still be considered "knowledge"?
- palad1n 10y ago
  I think therefore I am?
  - acover 10y ago
    Yes. Maybe. Is it an axiom of the scientific method? [No?] Is it a tautology? [Maybe?] Are there other examples other than the basis of knowledge being knowledge? [?]
    - IsaacL 10y ago
      1. "There is an objective reality". 2. "Reality is consistent". 3. "The human mind is capable of knowledge about reality". These all need to be taken as axioms if any further knowledge is going to be possible. There's a book called Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology which covers this in much more detail. (Ayn Rand gets a bad rep, but few people know about her theories of concepts and knowledge. They indicate the path to solving many of the issues in philosophy of science).
- kijin 10y ago
  Whatever we need to take for granted in order for a scientific experiment to mean anything at all. Most of mathematics and logic would fall into this category: we can't falsify 1 + 1 = 2 by experiment, but if we throw it out, we won't have any science at all. A lot of people believe that fundamental principles of ethics also belong there. For example, we may be able to demonstrate whether or not something is a net benefit to the combined happiness of sentient beings, but I cannot see how one might even attempt to falsify the hypothesis that sentient beings matter at all.
  - 10y ago
interfixus 10y ago
Which phenomena would you consider not ultimately analysable via scientific methodology?
- smhost 10y ago
  Probably T <= 0, multiple universes, inside a black hole, etc. You also can't run an experiment on your own life, not really, since you only have one life and that's not a large enough sample. So questions like "what is true for you, uniquely?"
  - Scea91 10y ago
    Your life is definitely a large enough sample for experiments about you, since it covers the whole domain. No need to even use statistics.
    - smhost 10y ago
      You can know scientific truths about parts of your life, but you can't know scientific truths about the whole of it.
- TuringTest 10y ago
  > Which phenomena would you consider not ultimately analysable via scientific methodology? The physical existence of an external world, beyond my (TuringTest's) self-consciousness.
werpon 10y ago
In my view, the whole concept of scientism is the last attempt of philosophy to stay relevant, and it's usually only backed up by appeals to emotion and loaded words. So, the scientist in me asks: what areas of knowledge are out of the scope of science and the scientific method?
- xupybd 10y ago
  What areas of knowledge are out of the scope of science and the scientific method? Um philosophy.....
  - lz400 10y ago
    Large areas of philosophy are routinely demolished by the strangeness revealed by science. Concepts like Time after general relativity, the reach of maths after Godel, existence being coexistence after the discovery of multiverses. Philosophy very often assumes things that the real world ends up proving aren't true.
    - inimino 10y ago
      Are you sure you're not just more familiar with science than with philosophy? I don't think any of those examples hold up under the slightest scrutiny. Philosophy is mostly demolished by better philosophy.
      - lz400 10y ago
        Philosophy of science is very relevant and more difficult than ever. But you couldn't do philosophy of quantum mechanics before the science of quantum mechanics. When I say philosophy I mean metaphysics or in general attempts to explain the natural world. A lot of that has been made redundant by science. Not ethics. Modern scientists don't usually like philosophy and don't write about this stuff from a philosophical point of view. It's more necessary than ever that philosophers get with the program. Pretending that science hasn't taken the lead in explaining the natural world won't help. People like Nick Bostrom who think about what science reveals do, even though he's probably hated in philosophy circles, like Daniel Dennett or Lawrence Krauss are.

barnabes 10y ago

The issue, in my eyes anyway, is when the scientific method is used as a hammer; when it's used to crush a debate. Any method, whether scientific, philosophical, spiritual or otherwise should be used to spawn debate, and to contribute to a rich discussion. But science being used to stop debate, used to stop exchange, used to stop meaningful conversation does more harm than good to all involved.

TuringTest 10y ago
The irony is that it took a philosopher to produce a much better defense of scientism than many scientists are capable of.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
carsongross 10y ago
The issue, in my eyes anyway, is when the scientific method is used as a hammer; when it's used to crush a debate. The scientific method isn't being used to crush debate. It simply isn't being used. What's most responsible for crushing debate today is (empirically false) post-modern social constructionism coupled with female mother/protector ethics. Jordan Peterson is one of the best people on these (and many, many other) topics: https://www.youtube.com/user/JordanPetersonVideos https://www.youtube.com/user/JordanPetersonVideos

acover 10y ago

> Strong Scientism: Of all the knowledge we have, scientific knowledge is the only “real knowledge.” Stupid question. What is an example of a hypothesis that is not falsifiable by experiment but should still be considered "knowledge"?

palad1n 10y ago
I think therefore I am?
- acover 10y ago
  Yes. Maybe. Is it an axiom of the scientific method? [No?] Is it a tautology? [Maybe?] Are there other examples other than the basis of knowledge being knowledge? [?]
  - IsaacL 10y ago
    1. "There is an objective reality". 2. "Reality is consistent". 3. "The human mind is capable of knowledge about reality". These all need to be taken as axioms if any further knowledge is going to be possible. There's a book called Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology which covers this in much more detail. (Ayn Rand gets a bad rep, but few people know about her theories of concepts and knowledge. They indicate the path to solving many of the issues in philosophy of science).
kijin 10y ago
Whatever we need to take for granted in order for a scientific experiment to mean anything at all. Most of mathematics and logic would fall into this category: we can't falsify 1 + 1 = 2 by experiment, but if we throw it out, we won't have any science at all. A lot of people believe that fundamental principles of ethics also belong there. For example, we may be able to demonstrate whether or not something is a net benefit to the combined happiness of sentient beings, but I cannot see how one might even attempt to falsify the hypothesis that sentient beings matter at all.
- 10y ago

interfixus 10y ago

Which phenomena would you consider not ultimately analysable via scientific methodology?

smhost 10y ago
Probably T <= 0, multiple universes, inside a black hole, etc. You also can't run an experiment on your own life, not really, since you only have one life and that's not a large enough sample. So questions like "what is true for you, uniquely?"
- Scea91 10y ago
  Your life is definitely a large enough sample for experiments about you, since it covers the whole domain. No need to even use statistics.
  - smhost 10y ago
    You can know scientific truths about parts of your life, but you can't know scientific truths about the whole of it.
TuringTest 10y ago
> Which phenomena would you consider not ultimately analysable via scientific methodology? The physical existence of an external world, beyond my (TuringTest's) self-consciousness.

werpon 10y ago

In my view, the whole concept of scientism is the last attempt of philosophy to stay relevant, and it's usually only backed up by appeals to emotion and loaded words. So, the scientist in me asks: what areas of knowledge are out of the scope of science and the scientific method?

xupybd 10y ago
What areas of knowledge are out of the scope of science and the scientific method? Um philosophy.....
- lz400 10y ago
  Large areas of philosophy are routinely demolished by the strangeness revealed by science. Concepts like Time after general relativity, the reach of maths after Godel, existence being coexistence after the discovery of multiverses. Philosophy very often assumes things that the real world ends up proving aren't true.
  - inimino 10y ago
    Are you sure you're not just more familiar with science than with philosophy? I don't think any of those examples hold up under the slightest scrutiny. Philosophy is mostly demolished by better philosophy.
    - lz400 10y ago
      Philosophy of science is very relevant and more difficult than ever. But you couldn't do philosophy of quantum mechanics before the science of quantum mechanics. When I say philosophy I mean metaphysics or in general attempts to explain the natural world. A lot of that has been made redundant by science. Not ethics. Modern scientists don't usually like philosophy and don't write about this stuff from a philosophical point of view. It's more necessary than ever that philosophers get with the program. Pretending that science hasn't taken the lead in explaining the natural world won't help. People like Nick Bostrom who think about what science reveals do, even though he's probably hated in philosophy circles, like Daniel Dennett or Lawrence Krauss are.