4 ms·

I'm not necessarily making a criticism, just observing a deficiency in the structure of the scientific apparatus. Scientists have constructed themselves and the

I'm not necessarily making a criticism, just observing a deficiency in the structure of the scientific apparatus. Scientists have constructed themselves and their polity in a fashion that does not allow them to merge knowledge from other sources. That is, to use your phrase, they have made it none of their business. This might have certain advantages, if we believed that scientific methods yielded unequivocally superior epistemological outcomes; but I don't think this is true across all kinds of knowledge. In this case, I think what's being demonstrated is that sometimes, those methods go through ponderous effort to demonstrate what can be learned efficiently through other means (viz., getting a warm hug when you need it).

icebraining 8y ago
I disagree with your premise. I believe there are advantages to having a body of knowledge built around consistent principles even if we don't believe that scientific methods yield unequivocally superior epistemological outcomes - in fact, even if we believe it yields inferior outcomes. Scientism is certainly a problem, but the solution is not to jumble the methods of obtaining knowledge with science in an attempt to bleed some prestige from it. It should be to valorize those other methods separately, recognizing their particular advantages (and disadvantages) over science.
- astazangasta 8y ago
  I'm not sure what advantage you think to obtain from inferior, but consistent, principles. For example, the "like cures like" principle is used to ill effect in many medical systems around the world. The only reason to support such a practice is prejudice - the conviction that the conclusions reached are, by themselves, superior merely because of the methodology used to produce them. I don't advocate jumbling the methods of obtaining knowledge (although I think the notion of methodological purity in science is incorrect, I think the consistent principle in science is the establishment of authority, and not the methods applied by that authority, which change over time) - naturally every system must have its own internal consistency, or else it would not be a system. I advocate instead something close to what you are saying. It is fine to read scientific literature, but it is also useful to recognize that science can't tell you everything, and that its epistemology more or less fails at discovering certain things.

icebraining 8y ago

I disagree with your premise. I believe there are advantages to having a body of knowledge built around consistent principles even if we don't believe that scientific methods yield unequivocally superior epistemological outcomes - in fact, even if we believe it yields inferior outcomes. Scientism is certainly a problem, but the solution is not to jumble the methods of obtaining knowledge with science in an attempt to bleed some prestige from it. It should be to valorize those other methods separately, recognizing their particular advantages (and disadvantages) over science.

astazangasta 8y ago
I'm not sure what advantage you think to obtain from inferior, but consistent, principles. For example, the "like cures like" principle is used to ill effect in many medical systems around the world. The only reason to support such a practice is prejudice - the conviction that the conclusions reached are, by themselves, superior merely because of the methodology used to produce them. I don't advocate jumbling the methods of obtaining knowledge (although I think the notion of methodological purity in science is incorrect, I think the consistent principle in science is the establishment of authority, and not the methods applied by that authority, which change over time) - naturally every system must have its own internal consistency, or else it would not be a system. I advocate instead something close to what you are saying. It is fine to read scientific literature, but it is also useful to recognize that science can't tell you everything, and that its epistemology more or less fails at discovering certain things.