3 ms·

I thought 'scientism' described excessive faith in the scientific method, and/or dogmatic positivism. How does that apply to calling someone out for explicitly

I thought 'scientism' described excessive faith in the scientific method, and/or dogmatic positivism. How does that apply to calling someone out for explicitly invoking scientific findings in a misleading or nonsensical way?

keiferski 8y ago
Because they’re just having a discussion about interesting ideas...? It’s not a science journal. I used the term ‘scientism’ because the parent commenter is approaching the subject of science from a dogmatic, oppressive perspective. The entire oeuvre of someone like Jorge Luis Borges is predicated on a creative exploration and interpretation of science.
- retsibsi 8y ago
  I think most people have no problem with science being used as a launching pad for speculation, or a source of metaphor and artistic inspiration, or a cultural product to playfully riff on. The reason some are frustrated by the quoted lines, I think, is that Glass seems to be cloaking his poetic or metaphysical speculations in real science, and perhaps even literally putting them forward as scientific ideas. From that perspective they have more in common with the fuzzy, lazy thinking of pseudoscientists than with the fantastical literature of Borges.
  - lowtolerance 8y ago
    If you're frustrated by a layman having a layman's understanding of theoretical physics, then you need to re-evaluate your life. Glass is a composer. No one in the world looks to him for guidance on understanding relativity.
    - andrepd 8y ago
      No one in the world should look to Jenny McCarthy for guidance on vaccination, yet here we are. Dead kids and all.
      - lowtolerance 8y ago
        I’m sorry that you don’t see the difference between the two. Philip Glass isn’t an activist campaigning to alter the public’s understanding of physics. He’s just a guy relaying his beliefs in an interview where he is being pressed to explain them.
coldtea 8y ago
>I thought 'scientism' described excessive faith in the scientific method, and/or dogmatic positivism. How does that apply to calling someone out for explicitly invoking scientific findings in a misleading or nonsensical way? Scientism would also fit to describe trying to apply scientific criteria and norms where it's not required (or desirable). Like an impromptu creative conversation about what ifs...
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

keiferski 8y ago

Because they’re just having a discussion about interesting ideas...? It’s not a science journal. I used the term ‘scientism’ because the parent commenter is approaching the subject of science from a dogmatic, oppressive perspective. The entire oeuvre of someone like Jorge Luis Borges is predicated on a creative exploration and interpretation of science.

retsibsi 8y ago
I think most people have no problem with science being used as a launching pad for speculation, or a source of metaphor and artistic inspiration, or a cultural product to playfully riff on. The reason some are frustrated by the quoted lines, I think, is that Glass seems to be cloaking his poetic or metaphysical speculations in real science, and perhaps even literally putting them forward as scientific ideas. From that perspective they have more in common with the fuzzy, lazy thinking of pseudoscientists than with the fantastical literature of Borges.
- lowtolerance 8y ago
  If you're frustrated by a layman having a layman's understanding of theoretical physics, then you need to re-evaluate your life. Glass is a composer. No one in the world looks to him for guidance on understanding relativity.
  - andrepd 8y ago
    No one in the world should look to Jenny McCarthy for guidance on vaccination, yet here we are. Dead kids and all.
    - lowtolerance 8y ago
      I’m sorry that you don’t see the difference between the two. Philip Glass isn’t an activist campaigning to alter the public’s understanding of physics. He’s just a guy relaying his beliefs in an interview where he is being pressed to explain them.

coldtea 8y ago

>I thought 'scientism' described excessive faith in the scientific method, and/or dogmatic positivism. How does that apply to calling someone out for explicitly invoking scientific findings in a misleading or nonsensical way? Scientism would also fit to describe trying to apply scientific criteria and norms where it's not required (or desirable). Like an impromptu creative conversation about what ifs...

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]