3 ms·
"Science vs Philosophy" is a misguided debate. The scientific method answers questions about how the world works. Philosophy discusses how best we should act in
by ericdykstra 10y ago
"Science vs Philosophy" is a misguided debate. The scientific method answers questions about how the world works. Philosophy discusses how best we should act in the world as it is.
Do they sometimes try to answer the same questions? Yes, and it's usually in the case where philosophical ideas can be, and have in the past, been the best model for explaining phenomenon that we didn't have the tools to measure with science.
Now that that's out of the way...
There is, of course, nothing wrong with the scientific method for examining the world, but Scientism has many pitfalls:
- Biased scientists that only publish research whose results are favorable to their own idea of the world.
- Advocating for blowing up real-life systems in favor of new "scientifically proven" ones, because unintended consequences are a given in complex systems.
- "Scientists" promoting their research for their own monetary gain, regardless of known consequences.
- A culture where anyone who disagrees with the "general consensus" is labeled as an "idiot," even if they back up their claim with showing flaws in the research process.
- Even with good science and valid results, often the recommendation about what to do about the findings is not based in science, but followers of scientism will conflate the two.
Anti-scientism is not the same as anti-science.
- mizzao 10y agoGiven the reproducibility crisis in science (esp. in fields like psychology, where an estimated two-thirds of papers aren't replicable), it's good to be skeptical of new work instead of saying "scientists showed this! now let's redo an entire part of the world". An important real consequence of scientism: the war on fat circa 1960, overconsumption of sugar, and resulting diabetes epidemic. (Spoken as a practicing scientist.)