Scientism

[it's just me]

As much as some of you talk about "science" you are in reality espousing this:

Scientism, on the other hand, is a speculative worldview about the ultimate reality of the universe and its meaning. Despite the fact that there are millions of species on our planet, scientism focuses an inordinate amount of its attention on human behavior and beliefs. Rather than working within carefully constructed boundaries and methodologies established by researchers, it broadly generalizes entire fields of academic expertise and dismisses many of them as inferior. With scientism, you will regularly hear explanations that rely on words like “merely”, “only”, “simply”, or “nothing more than”. Scientism restricts human inquiry.

It is one thing to celebrate science for its achievements and remarkable ability to explain a wide variety of phenomena in the natural world. But to claim there is nothing knowable outside the scope of science would be similar to a successful fisherman saying that whatever he can’t catch in his nets does not exist (15). Once you accept that science is the only source of human knowledge, you have adopted a philosophical position (scientism) that cannot be verified, or falsified, by science itself. It is, in a word, unscientific.

 

[TypicalRussian]

exactly

 

[Mata Hari]

As much as some of you talk about "science". In reality, you are espousing this:

Scientism, on the other hand, is a speculative worldview about the ultimate reality of the universe and its meaning. Despite the fact that there are millions of species on our planet, scientism focuses an inordinate amount of its attention on human behavior and beliefs. Rather than working within carefully constructed boundaries and methodologies established by researchers, it broadly generalizes entire fields of academic expertise and dismisses many of them as inferior. With scientism, you will regularly hear explanations that rely on words like “merely”, “only”, “simply”, or “nothing more than”. Scientism restricts human inquiry.

It is one thing to celebrate science for its achievements and remarkable ability to explain a wide variety of phenomena in the natural world. But to claim there is nothing knowable outside the scope of science would be similar to a successful fisherman saying that whatever he can’t catch in his nets does not exist (15). Once you accept that science is the only source of human knowledge, you have adopted a philosophical position (scientism) that cannot be verified, or falsified, by science itself. It is, in a word, unscientific.

Scientism is nonsense for the masses, and would probably be out of business if the average person had 5-10 more IQ points or read at higher than an average 6th grade level (or read books, period beyond pulp fiction or articles written and marketed to that paltry level). I'm honestly surprised that anyone since the 19th century could still successfully peddle this trendy snake oil to the gullible and misinformed.

 

[noonereal]

Scientism is nonsense for the masses, and would probably be out of business if the average person had 5-10 more IQ points or read at higher than an average 6th grade level (or read books, period beyond pulp fiction or articles written and marketed to that paltry level). I'm honestly surprised that anyone since the 19th century could still successfully peddle this trendy snake oil to the gullible and misinformed.

OK, so to be clear I looked up the meaning of Scientism.

"Scientism is the view that science is the best or only objective means by which society should determine normative and epistemological values." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism

What specifically do you find wrong with this approach?

 

[it's just me]

Scientism is nonsense for the masses, and would probably be out of business if the average person had 5-10 more IQ points or read at higher than an average 6th grade level (or read books, period beyond pulp fiction or articles written and marketed to that paltry level). I'm honestly surprised that anyone since the 19th century could still successfully peddle this trendy snake oil to the gullible and misinformed.

Stick around, you'll see plenty of it here. I spent 40 years in a scientific discipline so I know what science and scientific method are, yet daily I am treated to a lecture on scientism. I am also a Priest and I am often told that real science is beyond my comprehension.

 

[Dragonfly]

The beauty of science:

It evolves
It self-corrects
It is open to question and evaluation when new information becomes available
It knows it can be wrong given new information

I’m sure there’s much more that others can add, but I would question, can religion do any of those things above?

I would say some parts of religion has evolved, but the pace of that evolution is quite tedious.

 

[it's just me]

The beauty of science:

It evolves
It self-corrects
It is open to question and evaluation when new information becomes available
It knows it can be wrong given new information

I’m sure there’s much more that others can add, but I would question, can religion do any of those things above?

I would say some parts of religion has evolved, but the pace of that evolution is quite tedious.

You have nothing to add so you change the subject. Are you saying scientism is equivalent to real science?

 

[Mata Hari]

OK, so to be clear I looked up the meaning of Scientism.

"Scientism is the view that science is the best or only objective means by which society should determine normative and epistemological values." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism

What specifically do you find wrong with this approach?

The outdated, Baconian methods of science heralding from the 17th century are archaic and inferior to other methods of understanding and information gathering - I expect them to become a relic of ancient times, viewed on par with alchemy due to the dawn of new computational and informational sciences of the 21st century, for instance.

 

[Mata Hari]

The beauty of science:

It evolves
It self-corrects
It is open to question and evaluation when new information becomes available
It knows it can be wrong given new information

No, the axioms upon which Bacon's 17th century redefinitions of science do not "evolve or correct" nor are they open to question or wrongness.

You're simply repeating things you were told about the scientific processes within the institution, but the fundamental axioms and processes (e.x. induction vs deduction) upon which that particular institution itself is based are simply held on faith and are required to be blindly accepted.

I’m sure there’s much more that others can add, but I would question, can religion do any of those things above?

I would say some parts of religion has evolved, but the pace of that evolution is quite tedious.

Yawn, yet another false "science / religion" dichotomy - that may sell in mass media for people with low intelligence, but it shouldn't even be able to be postulated in serious discourse at this day and age. "Scient-ism" is basically just a religion for stupid and gullible people, and not much else - such as the idiots and/or liars who falsely equate atheism with "Scientism" or "Secular Humanism" and prey on their ill-informed ilk not having the intelligence to see through those distinctions.

 

[JerryW]

" Science expands our understanding, rather than limiting it. Scientism, on the other hand, is a speculative worldview about the ultimate reality of the universe and its meaning. "

 

[noonereal]

The outdated, Baconian methods of science heralding from the 17th century are archaic and inferior to other methods of understanding and information gathering - I expect them to become a relic of ancient times, viewed on par with alchemy due to the dawn of new computational and informational sciences of the 21st century, for instance.

true enough but what I am asking is what definition of Scientism are you using?

I ask because the definitions I found, one of which I posted, do not seem to fit how you are presenting the term.

 

[mrjurrs]

Stick around, you'll see plenty of it here. I spent 40 years in a scientific discipline so I know what science and scientific method are, yet daily I am treated to a lecture on scientism. I am also a Priest and I am often told that real science is beyond my comprehension.

Is there a scientific basis for the faith that you represent?

 

[tshade]

This is all nice, but ya know what?----just get the vaccine

 

[it's just me]

Is there a scientific basis for the faith that you represent?

This has what to do with the topic? I'm not going to let you highjack this thread if that's what you think.

 

[mrjurrs]

This has what to do with the topic? I'm not going to let you highjack this thread if that's what you think.

I am responding to the Priest/Scientist comment. Imo, that is the dividing line between faith and science. Science can point at things as proof, religion can't.

 

[it's just me]

OK, so to be clear I looked up the meaning of Scientism.

"Scientism is the view that science is the best or only objective means by which society should determine normative and epistemological values." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism

What specifically do you find wrong with this approach?

Is there something wrong with the definition I used in the OP?

 

[it's just me]

I am responding to the Priest/Scientist comment. Imo, that is the dividing line between faith and science. Science can point at things as proof, religion can't.

I don't generally talk about rheology in sermons because it doesn't apply. Likewise, I never invoked the sacraments in the lab because it has no meaning. This doesn't make one better than the other, they are simply different disciplines.

Religion can point to things as proof, too, God created the Heavens and the earth, and here we are.

 

[noonereal]

I don't generally talk about rheology in sermons because it doesn't apply. Likewise, I never invoked the sacraments o

I did not find your characterization of the term on my search while looking for clarification hence my question. I am previous unfamiliar with the expression.

Dictionary says "thought or expression regarded as characteristic of scientists."

 

[it's just me]

I did not find your characterization of the term on my search while looking for clarification hence my question. I am previous unfamiliar with the expression.

Dictionary says "thought or expression regarded as characteristic of scientists."

Read the section of the OP in bold.

 

[OrphanSlug]

As much as some of you talk about "science" you are in reality espousing this: Scientism

That is not entirely true, scientism is not science.

Anything we discover through a system of process, something that is repeatable and by output is subject to continued clarification from additional discovery and repeat of process is science. Disciplines are applied to any given system of process as a means to validate conclusions.

Scientism on the other hand is a made up word, a concept based on speculation (as you point out.)

It is okay to say scientism is not scientific as there is no process applied, what is wrong is to say anyone claiming scientific or process reasoning is promoting scientism.

It is easy to argue that scientism tends to restrict inquiry and doubt, both of which are cornerstone to systems of process.

 

[tecoyah]

I am reminded of the spiritualism phenomenon in early 1900's....mostly because of the bogus nature but also because anyone even bothers to discus it.

 

[noonereal]

Read the section of the OP in bold.

I did and have.

Are you suggesting that the term always implies absolutism? That is a not characteristic of science. So you are saying scientism is a bastardization of science? If so, then I agree.

 

[tecoyah]

I don't generally talk about rheology in sermons because it doesn't apply. Likewise, I never invoked the sacraments in the lab because it has no meaning. This doesn't make one better than the other, they are simply different disciplines.

Religion can point to things as proof, too, God created the Heavens and the earth, and here we are.

Unicorns created my laptop and here is my reply.....absolute proof.

 

[it's just me]

I did and have.

Are you suggesting that the term always implies absolutism? That is a not characteristic of science. So you are saying scientism is a bastardization of science? If so, then I agree.

I believe that was the general feeling I was trying to convey, but I was also saying the laypeople often confuse the two.

 

[it's just me]

Unicorns created my laptop and here is my reply.....absolute proof.

Are you trying to tell me that the heavens and earth do not exist?