Contra Scientism

[Veritas6]

I read atheists committed to science who advocate the idea of “scientism” which has many variations. This claim is epistemological, which is an assertion about how we know reality. In this view reason becomes identified with modern science. Here are two forms of a definition:

• Science is the only reliable source of knowledge
• Science is the only reliable source of objectively justified beliefs

This is an all embracing view of reality: the way all reality is and the way we are to know this reality. The problem occurs when we make these reductionist statements that limit what there is or how we know something.

Claims such as “There’s nothing but this”, “We cannot know in any way except through this”, and “It’s impossible to know anything except through science” are all self-defeating if you’re claiming to know it.

Science is not the only way to obtain knowledge, philosophy is a valid way to gain this knowledge. The only way to object to this statement is by using philosophy itself, thus self-defeating the very argument.

One question I like to ask is: is it possible for humans to know something absolute, ultimate, and foundational?

Consider the claim: there is truth. This is an existential assertion. What would happen if someone denied this? It would lead to a self-contraction: if that statement is true, then there is truth. If it’s not true, then we concede the point. This statement cannot be proven, you can only show denial leads to contraction. This is what is referred to as a first principle, or a synthetic a priori claim.

If we can know truth, we know some absolute, foundational truth about the world. How would you verify there is truth? This is only known a priori (prior to and independent of sensory verification) and not a posteriori (sensory verification). We can know this claim without the methods of science, without empirical verification.

Thus it is possible to use language to speak absolute and foundational truth.

Here are a few philosophical truths that can only be known by rational reflection and not by sensory verification:

• The principle of non-contraction (PNC)
• Reality is self-consistent (follows from the PNC)
• Kant: every event has a cause
  • Rational insight that the event must have a cause
• It’s impossible to desire something without knowing it
• All colors have extension
• In order for a person to be morally responsible for an act, he/she must be free in enacting it

There are certain truths that cannot change or pass away and we can know them (or catch a glimpse to some extent).

(From Fr. James Brent, O.P.)

Now the next time someone requires “evidence” for your claims “in the world”, ask them what they mean by evidence. If they mean empirical, ask them for empirical evidence that the scientific method is the only form of knowledge.

If you can prove the philosophical truths above by sensory verification and without the use of philosophy, then “scientism” might be a valid system. If not, stop using this nonsensical system and accept philosophy as equally valid as science is.

 

[IWantGod]

If you can prove the philosophical truths above by sensory verification and without the use of philosophy, then “scientism” might be a valid system. If not, stop using this nonsensical system and accept philosophy as equally valid as science is.

First of all, i am in total agreement. However, people who hold the view called scientism hold that view either out of epistemological convenience or because they are not very reasonable people to begin with. Most of the time it is because it gives them an excuse to ignore any knowledge that isn’t consistent with their existential preferences. It’s wilful ignorance. They maintain that bias because it is an excuse to say “i am justifiably ignorant of that knowledge”

So reasoning with them, while it is important, will not change their minds because they arrive at that position out of preference and convenience, not reason; and their devotion to the importance of scientific investigation presents the perfect illusion that they are the most rational voice in the room.

 

[Veritas6]

So reasoning with them, while it is important, will not change their minds because they arrive at that position out of preference and convenience, not reason; and their devotion to the importance of scientific investigation presents the perfect illusion that they are the most rational voice in the room.

I totally agree, but I don’t think some will never change their minds. At some point their foundation will break, but only after constant pressure to call these people out on their deception.

Even the prideful can be affected by a strong argument which leaves them grasping at straws. Some are able to live in this delusion, but others cannot sustain it. Who knows who might be willing to listen and learn? Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut.

 

[johnz123]

I always respond to people who believe in scientism that there are a lot of things that can’t be proven by science. Mathematics can’t be proven by science. Metaphysics can’t be proven by science. Same for ethics

 

[Veritas6]

Metaphysics is simply speculation. Of course speculation is a wonderful concept, but as long as it stays speculation, it is not much of use. Ethics and aesthetics are subjective assessments, not to be taken seriously.

Metaphysical views are statements about what exists, and epistemological views are statements about how we know reality. Why would what exists be simply speculation?

What can we observe or what experiment must we conduct to conclude metaphysics is speculation? Your claim that the only applicable epistemological method is observation is a philosophical view that cannot be proven by observation. If this view is called true and if it reflects the actual state of affairs, it should be able to be verified by experimentation yes?

Correct me if I’m wrong, I don’t want to assume you think that only observation is the applicable epistemological method in objective, external state of affairs. If you do, then it unfortunately it is self-refuting. That view is “not to be taken seriously”.

 

[IWantGod]

Metaphysics is simply speculation.

No it isn’t. It has an epistemological method. It’s just not the scientific method, and why would it be. Scientific processes is not the object of metaphysical knowledge. Metaphysics deals with the general question of existence, not the particularities of scientifically observable things. Being as being or what it means for something to have an act of existence, or what is necessarily required for something to have an act of existence, is the object of metaphysics. We reach a conclusion about these questions by inferencing that which follows out of ontological necessity. We know an answer is correct when we know that the alternative is existentially impossible, meaningless, or absurd.

Metaphysics produces real knowledge. For example we know that something beginning to exist from nothing without a cause is absurd because a complete absence of reality cannot produce any reality precisely because it doesn’t exist. It can’t meaningfully happen because the alternative leads to a metaphysical contradiction. For example if a thing did begin to exist without a cause it would both exist and at the same time it would not be because of it’s own nature that it exists because it began to exist. In other-words it would not be natural to it’s nature to exist and would still be existing at the same time, which is absurd. Thus we can know without the scientific method that anything which begins to exist must have cause; otherwise reason breaks down and the very concept of existence becomes unintelligible. It necessarily follows, and we can make further inferences about the nature of existence that follow out of necessity.

So metaphysics isn’t just speculation, as if it is just a collection of competing theories with no way of deducing which is correct. It has a method and it deals with a different kind of knowledge compared to what the scientific method is designed achieve. You might disagree with that method but you have to do better than merely asserting that metaphysics is speculation.

 

[Nicene]

• Science is the only reliable source of knowledge
• Science is the only reliable source of objectively justified beliefs

Prove it.

Ask for the scientific proof that those statements are true.

Irony

Peace and God Bless
Nicene

 

[Freddy]

Now the next time someone requires “evidence” for your claims “in the world”, ask them what they mean by evidence. If they mean empirical, ask them for empirical evidence that the scientific method is the only form of knowledge.

Empirical evidence is only required for empirical claims. I don’t see a problem.

 

[Neithan]

“God exists” is not an empirical claim. So why the old adage, that there’s not enough evidence?

 

[Veritas6]

Empirical evidence is only required for empirical claims. I don’t see a problem.

Good, I’m glad. Some people have the strangest ideas that the scientific method is the only way to obtain knowledge. I’m sure you appreciate philosophy

 

[Freddy]

“God exists” is not an empirical claim. So why the old adage, that there’s not enough evidence?

If God is meant to interact with the natural world and produces observable and measurable effects then it would be valid to ask for empirical evidence of that interaction.

 

[Neithan]

Then you can say that there is not enough evidence for this or that miracle. Otherwise that begs the question that the natural world is not an effect of God.

That’s what scientism does → it assumes metaphysical naturalism.

 

[Freddy]

Then you can say that there is not enough evidence for this or that miracle.

Well, with respect, Neithan, that’s not my problem. That’s your problem.

First you have to show that a miracle has actually ocurred (let’s say that it’s a miraculous healing). We’ll need empirical evidence for that. Then you have to show that it couldn’t have happened naturally. So you then need to discount all empirical explanations.

How else could it be done?

 

[Neithan]

First you have to show that a miracle has actually ocurred (let’s say that it’s a miraculous healing). We’ll need empirical evidence for that. Then you have to show that it couldn’t have happened naturally. So you then need to discount all empirical explanations.

The problem of course, as you well know, is that by assuming the uniformity of nature, the question is settled before it is asked. It’s not a miracle. There is no magic. Nature is simply what is. If an empirical explanation cannot be found, it will be found at a later time when our means of empirical investigation have improved and progressed (technology).

How else could it be done?

There can, to be fair, never be enough evidence to prove a miracle. Which is why “extraordinary evidence” is just more question begging. Science is at least naturalist in method. Search for an empirical explanation. Failing that, admit that there is no known natural explanation. Accept that no natural explanation is evidence for a supernatural explanation.

 

[Veritas6]

If God is meant to interact with the natural world and produces observable and measurable effects then it would be valid to ask for empirical evidence of that interaction.

There are several things that interact with the natural world and produce observable and measurable effects but cannot be verified by empirical evidence. We observe cause and effect in our world, but we cannot expect to empirically identify a generic cause that “causes things”. In a sense we can verify that this effect follows from that cause, but we cannot verify what a cause is or what an effect is. Causality is a metaphysical idea that examines what exists, notably the idea that every effect actually has a cause.

 

[Freddy]

Failing that, admit that there is no known natural explanation. Accept that no natural explanation is evidence for a supernatural explanation.

Imagine writing that even just a few hundred years ago. The answer to so many things would have then been: ‘We can find no natural explanation, therefore it must be supernatural’.

Therein lies your problem.

 

[Nicene]

This thread quickly turned. From the premise of proving the bullet points true to flipping over to prove God.

Perhaps the thread should stick to the original point. Masterfully done flip though.

Peace and God Bless
Nicene

 

[Neithan]

‘We can find no natural explanation, therefore it must be supernatural’.

Not must but maybe.

Science can never conclude a miracle because it’s based on inductive reasoning and falsifiability. The problem is assuming that, because of this, there are never miracles.

 

[Dan_Defender]

I agree with the OP. It should also be noted that science, even in its own realm, cannot explain everything. Take dark matter and dark energy. Take the supermassive black holes at the center of every galaxy. They are all ‘mysteries’.

 

[Pattylt]

I agree with the OP. It should also be noted that science, even in its own realm, cannot explain everything. Take dark matter and dark energy. Take the supermassive black holes at the center of every galaxy. They are all ‘mysteries’.

So, it’s a problem because we only recently discovered these things and don’t have answers to them yet? Are we only allowed to discover something when also have an answer?

It seems scientism has become a negative word. If someone trusts science as providing more answers than philosophy has, it becomes some evil thing? I don’t think science has all the answers but I find philosophy…as far as I’m able to understand it…often just has competing claims, neither of which satisfies the other half. That makes it a bit hard to claim knowledge from it, from my point of view.

I agree that the scientist that says we don’t have the answer yet, is a frustrating excuse. I prefer I don’t know. It doesn’t make the default answer God. Just going by the results so far, God is losing that competition and science is winning but that doesn’t mean science will win them all…some things, we just don’t know and honestly, the religious don’t know either.