3 ms·

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 p

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.
  - marcus_holmes 5y ago
    > '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.' This was the point I lost interest. Why is that the answer? What evidence do you have that that is the answer? I think a large number of neuroscientists would consider themselves as working on reconciling these two images - so dismissing all their work as impossible or futile seems premature, if not arrogant.
    - smackeyacky 5y ago
      No, we already know our senses aren't sufficient to document and understand our universe. We need instruments to do the things we can't do ourselves. To somehow elevate our limited experience gathering capabilities because they don't give the same answers as the scientific method is a flawed dead end.
xgb84j 5y ago
The article is written in a convoluted way, but the main points it makes are valid in my opinion. The first being that science alone can never legitimate itself as being the only true way of doing something. This legitimization must come from somewhere else like philosophy and can never be part of science itself. The second point is that there is will always be a gap between science, reality, human understanding and application of science. Even the scientific process itself involves subjective decisions not derivable from science, e.g. what hypotheses to test. I think the author wants to convey that doing everything "the rational way" is not objectively superior than doing everything according to some other set of principles.
- lostmsu 5y ago
  > science alone can never legitimate itself What does this even mean?
- me_me_me 5y ago
  > science alone can never legitimate itself Nether anything else, religion is based on faith and dogma. It can never be legitimised by facts as it will not be based on faith anymore. So what's the point of your statement then? > scientific process itself involves subjective decisions Yes, you can use imagination, try/fail approaches but those are then put to the test. And if my magical stone that keeps away tigers was found not to work, then its just a stone. Thats where the non-tangible and mistic claims come to die, or live (ie placebo effect, we don't understand it yet, but we know it exists). > I think the author wants to convey that doing everything "the rational way" is not objectively superior than doing everything according to some other set of principles. In my opinion the author desperately flails their arms in an attempt to obscure the murky argument. And it feels like convoluted god of gaps argument without mentioning god.
  - xgb84j 5y ago
    > > science alone can never legitimate itself > Nether anything else, religion is based on faith and dogma. It can never be legitimised by facts as it will not be based on faith anymore. > So what's the point of your statement then? That the author of the article uses this argument to show that science alone is not enough. In comparison, like you mentioned, religion can legitimize itself through dogma. Science needs another system that promotes values and goals that can be achieved through science. > > scientific process itself involves subjective decisions > Yes, you can use imagination, try/fail approaches but those are then put to the test. And if my magical stone that keeps away tigers was found not to work, then its just a stone. Thats where the non-tangible and mistic claims come to die, or live (ie placebo effect, we don't understand it yet, but we know it exists). I completely agree with you on this. Given enough time you get more and more knowledge. The interesting cases in my opinion are where there is conflicting evidence from different studies or sources and maybe not enough time to do further studies. For example you have stomach cancer due to a genetic defect. Your doctor recommends you a medication which works for stomach cancer, but it has strong side effects. In all available studies there was no distinction made between patients with that defect and without. You reduce your survival chances if you take the medication and it doesn't work, but you also reduce your chances when you don't take it and it does work. So whats the rational thing to do? > In my opinion the author desperately flails their arms in an attempt to obscure the murky argument. And it feels like convoluted god of gaps argument without mentioning god. The author does not present a very coherent argument, but I still think he makes some good points.

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.
- marcus_holmes 5y ago
  > '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.' This was the point I lost interest. Why is that the answer? What evidence do you have that that is the answer? I think a large number of neuroscientists would consider themselves as working on reconciling these two images - so dismissing all their work as impossible or futile seems premature, if not arrogant.
  - smackeyacky 5y ago
    No, we already know our senses aren't sufficient to document and understand our universe. We need instruments to do the things we can't do ourselves. To somehow elevate our limited experience gathering capabilities because they don't give the same answers as the scientific method is a flawed dead end.

xgb84j 5y ago

The article is written in a convoluted way, but the main points it makes are valid in my opinion. The first being that science alone can never legitimate itself as being the only true way of doing something. This legitimization must come from somewhere else like philosophy and can never be part of science itself. The second point is that there is will always be a gap between science, reality, human understanding and application of science. Even the scientific process itself involves subjective decisions not derivable from science, e.g. what hypotheses to test. I think the author wants to convey that doing everything "the rational way" is not objectively superior than doing everything according to some other set of principles.

lostmsu 5y ago
> science alone can never legitimate itself What does this even mean?
me_me_me 5y ago
> science alone can never legitimate itself Nether anything else, religion is based on faith and dogma. It can never be legitimised by facts as it will not be based on faith anymore. So what's the point of your statement then? > scientific process itself involves subjective decisions Yes, you can use imagination, try/fail approaches but those are then put to the test. And if my magical stone that keeps away tigers was found not to work, then its just a stone. Thats where the non-tangible and mistic claims come to die, or live (ie placebo effect, we don't understand it yet, but we know it exists). > I think the author wants to convey that doing everything "the rational way" is not objectively superior than doing everything according to some other set of principles. In my opinion the author desperately flails their arms in an attempt to obscure the murky argument. And it feels like convoluted god of gaps argument without mentioning god.
- xgb84j 5y ago
  > > science alone can never legitimate itself > Nether anything else, religion is based on faith and dogma. It can never be legitimised by facts as it will not be based on faith anymore. > So what's the point of your statement then? That the author of the article uses this argument to show that science alone is not enough. In comparison, like you mentioned, religion can legitimize itself through dogma. Science needs another system that promotes values and goals that can be achieved through science. > > scientific process itself involves subjective decisions > Yes, you can use imagination, try/fail approaches but those are then put to the test. And if my magical stone that keeps away tigers was found not to work, then its just a stone. Thats where the non-tangible and mistic claims come to die, or live (ie placebo effect, we don't understand it yet, but we know it exists). I completely agree with you on this. Given enough time you get more and more knowledge. The interesting cases in my opinion are where there is conflicting evidence from different studies or sources and maybe not enough time to do further studies. For example you have stomach cancer due to a genetic defect. Your doctor recommends you a medication which works for stomach cancer, but it has strong side effects. In all available studies there was no distinction made between patients with that defect and without. You reduce your survival chances if you take the medication and it doesn't work, but you also reduce your chances when you don't take it and it does work. So whats the rational thing to do? > In my opinion the author desperately flails their arms in an attempt to obscure the murky argument. And it feels like convoluted god of gaps argument without mentioning god. The author does not present a very coherent argument, but I still think he makes some good points.