5 ms·

Blinded by Scientism

11 points by aww_dang 5y ago

jokoon 5y ago
It's true that existentialism and nihilism is met with a feeling of emptiness, but it's freeing more than anything else. I loathe when people try to find a meaning to their life, a goal, happiness, or harmony. I always look at human and social sciences with a hefty dose of skepticism. The only things measured are words and normed perceptions. Even the notion of good or evil doesn't click anymore.
- Alekhine 5y ago
  I believe that meaning is something we create ourselves. It can't be found. Most people assign meaning to helping others, or the advancement of knowledge.
- vcavallo 5y ago
  https://blog.vinneycavallo.com/posts/2019/12/05/optimistic-nihilism https://blog.vinneycavallo.com/posts/2019/12/05/optimistic-n...
- dariusj18 5y ago
  As an agnostic atheist person there is one thing that freaks me out more than anything, when someone who is religious asks me, "If you don't believe in god, what stops you from just going around and killing people?" My answer is typically, "Is your belief in god the only thing that prevents you from just murdering people? That is disturbing."
smackeyacky 5y ago
If you don't want to bother clicking on the article, here is a summary: Author builds a strawman called "Scientism" because he hates Richard Dawkins. Author proceeds to disassemble this strawman of his own making. The end. The problem with this kind of stupidity is that it sounds erudite and learned, and quotes Hayek in a way that is meant to stifle all criticism of anything, ever, about religion or his branch of conservatism that thrives on wilful ignorance. It's little more than the author saying he doesn't care his belief system and his tribe are irrational and you make him feel bad by pointing out that his irrationality is a dead end, potentially dangerous, seductive mode of thought that allows him to ignore all the experts in any field, on any topic, any time he chooses if it goes against his belief system. He is doggedly anti-science despite using all the technology that scientists gave him.
- LargoLasskhyfv 5y ago
  Have you read the second part?
  - smackeyacky 5y ago
    Oh yeah, the first paragraph is an absolute doozy: 'As I argued in part I, scientism—the view that all real knowledge is scientific knowledge—is either self-refuting or trivial. Moreover, consistently pursued, it leads to the “eliminative materialist” position that the human mind itself is a fiction—that there are no such things as thinking, perceiving, willing, desiring, and so forth. This position is not only incoherent, but undermines the very possibility of science itself—the very thing scientism claims to champion.' It makes absolutely no logical sense that consistently pursuing scientific thought would only ever describe the human mind as a fiction. The author is a bizarre fantasist who not only doesn't understand science, he doesn't understand science itself or is deliberately mis-representing science as some kind of philosophy or religion that purports to offer "truth". i.e. quoting again: 'Hypnotized by the unparalleled predictive and technological successes of modern science, contemporary intellectuals infer that scientism must be true' It's nonsense. Who are these contemporary intellectuals? Despite all these conservative think-tankers trying to conflate science with philosophy or religious pursuits, nobody expects science to deliver the truth, they expect it to deliver results. He can pray for some I guess.
- aww_dang 5y ago
  Your comment would be more interesting if you could provide supporting arguments instead of mere accusations, imagined motives and insults.
  - smackeyacky 5y ago
    Just trying to fit in with the style of the piece itself. e.g. the following quote 'faith” is often pitted against “science” (even by those friendly to the former) as if “science” were synonymous with “reason.”' Lots of scare quotes around science and reason, an unfounded accusation without supporting evidence (faith is often pitted against science? By whom? When are they doing this or did the author just decide it's so true he doesn't have to back up his argument? As for inferring motive, he provides that himself: 'How are we to reconcile this commonsense “manifest image” of the world with the quantitative “scientific image” (to borrow philosopher Wilfrid Sellars’ famous distinction)? The answer is that they cannot be reconciled.' He has rejected objective measurement of the world because it can't be reconciled with his "manifest image" - his lived experience which you can infer involves religion of some sort. This guy is an associate professor? I pity his students.
myWindoonn 5y ago
The author did not think through their argument very well. Mathematics is non-scientific (science requires maths!) and epistemic, so the existence of people who use science and maths for their epistemology is a counterexample to their entire framing. Could we get a (2010) in the title?
fabiofzero 5y ago
Ok, let's go to the about page: "Public Discourse is the online journal of the Witherspoon Institute, a 501(c)3 research center located in Princeton, New Jersey. We seek to enhance public understanding of the moral foundations of free societies by making the scholarship of our fellows and affiliated scholars available and accessible to a general audience." Interesting. Let's check the Witherspoon Institute's about page now: "Located in Princeton, New Jersey, the Institute promotes the application of fundamental principles of republican government and ordered liberty to contemporary problems through a variety of academic and other educational ventures." That's a big nope for me. Thanks but no thanks.

11 points by aww_dang 5y ago

It's true that existentialism and nihilism is met with a feeling of emptiness, but it's freeing more than anything else. I loathe when people try to find a meaning to their life, a goal, happiness, or harmony. I always look at human and social sciences with a hefty dose of skepticism. The only things measured are words and normed perceptions. Even the notion of good or evil doesn't click anymore.

Alekhine 5y ago
I believe that meaning is something we create ourselves. It can't be found. Most people assign meaning to helping others, or the advancement of knowledge.
vcavallo 5y ago
https://blog.vinneycavallo.com/posts/2019/12/05/optimistic-nihilism https://blog.vinneycavallo.com/posts/2019/12/05/optimistic-n...
dariusj18 5y ago
As an agnostic atheist person there is one thing that freaks me out more than anything, when someone who is religious asks me, "If you don't believe in god, what stops you from just going around and killing people?" My answer is typically, "Is your belief in god the only thing that prevents you from just murdering people? That is disturbing."

smackeyacky 5y ago

If you don't want to bother clicking on the article, here is a summary: Author builds a strawman called "Scientism" because he hates Richard Dawkins. Author proceeds to disassemble this strawman of his own making. The end. The problem with this kind of stupidity is that it sounds erudite and learned, and quotes Hayek in a way that is meant to stifle all criticism of anything, ever, about religion or his branch of conservatism that thrives on wilful ignorance. It's little more than the author saying he doesn't care his belief system and his tribe are irrational and you make him feel bad by pointing out that his irrationality is a dead end, potentially dangerous, seductive mode of thought that allows him to ignore all the experts in any field, on any topic, any time he chooses if it goes against his belief system. He is doggedly anti-science despite using all the technology that scientists gave him.

LargoLasskhyfv 5y ago
Have you read the second part?
- smackeyacky 5y ago
  Oh yeah, the first paragraph is an absolute doozy: 'As I argued in part I, scientism—the view that all real knowledge is scientific knowledge—is either self-refuting or trivial. Moreover, consistently pursued, it leads to the “eliminative materialist” position that the human mind itself is a fiction—that there are no such things as thinking, perceiving, willing, desiring, and so forth. This position is not only incoherent, but undermines the very possibility of science itself—the very thing scientism claims to champion.' It makes absolutely no logical sense that consistently pursuing scientific thought would only ever describe the human mind as a fiction. The author is a bizarre fantasist who not only doesn't understand science, he doesn't understand science itself or is deliberately mis-representing science as some kind of philosophy or religion that purports to offer "truth". i.e. quoting again: 'Hypnotized by the unparalleled predictive and technological successes of modern science, contemporary intellectuals infer that scientism must be true' It's nonsense. Who are these contemporary intellectuals? Despite all these conservative think-tankers trying to conflate science with philosophy or religious pursuits, nobody expects science to deliver the truth, they expect it to deliver results. He can pray for some I guess.
aww_dang 5y ago
Your comment would be more interesting if you could provide supporting arguments instead of mere accusations, imagined motives and insults.
- smackeyacky 5y ago
  Just trying to fit in with the style of the piece itself. e.g. the following quote 'faith” is often pitted against “science” (even by those friendly to the former) as if “science” were synonymous with “reason.”' Lots of scare quotes around science and reason, an unfounded accusation without supporting evidence (faith is often pitted against science? By whom? When are they doing this or did the author just decide it's so true he doesn't have to back up his argument? As for inferring motive, he provides that himself: 'How are we to reconcile this commonsense “manifest image” of the world with the quantitative “scientific image” (to borrow philosopher Wilfrid Sellars’ famous distinction)? The answer is that they cannot be reconciled.' He has rejected objective measurement of the world because it can't be reconciled with his "manifest image" - his lived experience which you can infer involves religion of some sort. This guy is an associate professor? I pity his students.

myWindoonn 5y ago

The author did not think through their argument very well. Mathematics is non-scientific (science requires maths!) and epistemic, so the existence of people who use science and maths for their epistemology is a counterexample to their entire framing. Could we get a (2010) in the title?

fabiofzero 5y ago

Ok, let's go to the about page: "Public Discourse is the online journal of the Witherspoon Institute, a 501(c)3 research center located in Princeton, New Jersey. We seek to enhance public understanding of the moral foundations of free societies by making the scholarship of our fellows and affiliated scholars available and accessible to a general audience." Interesting. Let's check the Witherspoon Institute's about page now: "Located in Princeton, New Jersey, the Institute promotes the application of fundamental principles of republican government and ordered liberty to contemporary problems through a variety of academic and other educational ventures." That's a big nope for me. Thanks but no thanks.