Scientism

  • Thread starter Thread starter IWantGod
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I

IWantGod

Guest
Scientism refers to the idea that all explanatory causes in relation to the existence of the universe requires scientific evidence, and all arguments that do not utilize this epistemological standard are automatically invalid as evidence and are to be ignored.

In other-words we cannot “know” the cause unless there is scientific evidence for it.

While science is essentially about describing and identifying physical relationships, what essentially defines “scientism” is that it demands scientific evidence for metaphysical claims insomuch as we cannot know metaphysical truth without science. This is the difference between science and scientism

What say ye?
 
This is spread like a plague. It’s the new imperial cult.

They demand scientific evidence for anything. They view the scientific method as the only valid and universal tool of human knowledge.

The universal tool of human knowledge is philosophy. The very scientific method is a philosophical system built upon several axioms (self evident truths taken to be true through faith). Followers of Scientism always avoid philosophical debate. They only keep pressing the key: scientific evidence.

They use the word “evidence” in a loaded sense, always meaning scientific evidence. But there are several types of evidence not only scientific evidence.
 
From Steven Pinker:

The term “scientism” is anything but clear, more of a boo-word than a label for any coherent doctrine. Sometimes it is equated with lunatic positions, such as that “science is all that matters” or that “scientists should be entrusted to solve all problems.” Sometimes it is clarified with adjectives like “simplistic,” “naïve,” and “vulgar.” newrepublic.com/article/114127/science-not-enemy-humanities

In other words, a straw man.
 
Bradski said:
From Steven Pinker:

The term “scientism” is anything but clear, more of a boo-word than a label for any coherent doctrine. Sometimes it is equated with lunatic positions, such as that “science is all that matters” or that “scientists should be entrusted to solve all problems.” Sometimes it is clarified with adjectives like “simplistic,” “naïve,” and “vulgar.” newrepublic.com/article/114127/science-not-enemy-humanities

In other words, a straw man.
Click to expand...
Reminds me of some of the debates we’ve had over the meaning of other words within these august forums; some of which atheists are rather fond of. Like “atheism”.

😉

But the term does seem to be a recent innovation. I hold most innovations on meaning with some contempt in this modern age as I find the “drift” is usually something other than natural and unguided (a nod to Thinking Sapien).

It’s another spin on radical materialism and determinism, I think.
 
Karl Popper and Hilary Putnam, two of the most respected philosophers of science, considered Scientism to be a real problem.

Followers of Scientism usually deny that Scientism even exists.
 
Vonsalza said:
But the term does seem to be a recent innovation. I hold most innovations on meaning with some contempt in this modern age as I find the “drift” is usually something other than natural and unguided (a nod to Thinking Sapien).
Click to expand...
I read recently that Jacques Maritain originally coined the term “scientism” – I don’t know the date but perhaps in his heyday in the 1950s or so.

I don’t know if anyone who was said to believe in scientism actually did so. It’s a very easy position to refute.
 
Scientism is founded in Positivism.

The difference is the obsession for the scientific method.

Positivism embraced more human activities as being equally valid.
 
Science, by definition, can’t use God or spiritual intervention to explain things. So far, so good. Some scientists are atheists and think that EVERYTHING has a natural explanation. Many others are both scientists and religious. There is no contradiction–they simply acknowledge that some things are beyond scientific explanation, although they will freely admit that in the future there may well be natural explanations for things we give religious explanations to today.

If you haven’t come across him, Rupert Sheldrake, is a fascinating author who attacks the more doctrinaire aspects of science (he is a scientist–biologist–himself) and has proposed various interesting problems over the years. www.sheldrake.org
 
reggieM said:
I read recently that Jacques Maritain originally coined the term “scientism” – I don’t know the date but perhaps in his heyday in the 1950s or so.

I don’t know if anyone who was said to believe in scientism actually did so. It’s a very easy position to refute.
Click to expand...
I guess “recent” is a subjective term.

I think most of the ground-work for western philo was laid more than two millennia ago. While nihilism was more developed in 19th century Europe, the basic elements were considered back when Greek was still the western linga franca.

A lot of “what’s new” are just different permutations of “what’s old”, imo.
 
Vonsalza said:
I guess “recent” is a subjective term.

I think most of the ground-work for western philo was laid more than two millennia ago. While nihilism was more developed in 19th century Europe, the basic elements were considered back when Greek was still the western linga franca.

A lot of “what’s new” are just different permutations of “what’s old”, imo.
Click to expand...
True. I think scientism is just metaphysical naturalism (materialism) with a blind-spot about the need for philosophy. But the concept goes back a long way, even if the terminology is more recent.
 
As tonyrey so often reminds us, scientism cannot scientifically prove itself.
 
reggieM said:
I read recently that Jacques Maritain originally coined the term “scientism” – I don’t know the date but perhaps in his heyday in the 1950s or so.
Click to expand...
Or possibly F. A. Hayek in his book, The Counter Revolution of Science.
 
Charlemagne_III said:
As tonyrey so often reminds us, scientism cannot scientifically prove itself.
Click to expand...
Exactly! And neither philosophically. Philosophically scientism is pure nonsense.

Scientismists always try to put God in a vial.

When someone asks for scientific evidence for the existence of God this person lacks the basic knowledge about the concept of God or the scientific method or both.
 
Science doesn’t provide foolproof explanations to things, but it does help add credence to some explanations.

Winter can be explained as the goddess Demeter mourning for the loss of her daughter, Persephone, as she was forced to spend a third of each year with Hades.

Winter can also be explained as a time when the tilt of the Earth causes one hemisphere to receive less sunlight per day as it revolves the sun.

It’s possible not everything can have scientific evidence, but that doesn’t give us a free pass to not search for scientific evidence that can either support or hamper a given explanation. Just because an explanation can’t be explained by science at this time doesn’t mean it should be free from scrutiny.
 
Mike_from_NJ said:
Science doesn’t provide foolproof explanations to things, but it does help add credence to some explanations.

Winter can be explained as the goddess Demeter mourning for the loss of her daughter, Persephone, as she was forced to spend a third of each year with Hades.

Winter can also be explained as a time when the tilt of the Earth causes one hemisphere to receive less sunlight per day as it revolves the sun.

It’s possible not everything can have scientific evidence, but that doesn’t give us a free pass to not search for scientific evidence that can either support or hamper a given explanation. Just because an explanation can’t be explained by science at this time doesn’t mean it should be free from scrutiny.
Click to expand...
Would you agree there is a point where physics cannot explain itself?
 
Jomann said:
This is spread like a plague. It’s the new imperial cult.

They demand scientific evidence for anything. They view the scientific method as the only valid and universal tool of human knowledge.

The universal tool of human knowledge is philosophy. The very scientific method is a philosophical system built upon several axioms (self evident truths taken to be true through faith). Followers of Scientism always avoid philosophical debate. They only keep pressing the key: scientific evidence.

They use the word “evidence” in a loaded sense, always meaning scientific evidence. But there are several types of evidence not only scientific evidence.
Click to expand...
👍 Agreed, Its a delusional position
 
IWantGod said:
Would you agree there is a point where physics cannot explain itself?
Click to expand...
I’m going to take a cue from theology and say physics just is. If need be I’ll do what has been done with God and claim that we don’t need to explain its existence by definition.
 
Mike_from_NJ said:
I’m going to take a cue from theology and say physics just is. If need be I’ll do what has been done with God and claim that we don’t need to explain its existence by definition.
Click to expand...
As with the origin of life, origin of human beings and origin of the universe?
 
reggieM said:
As with the origin of life, origin of human beings and origin of the universe?
Click to expand...
Those are events, not branches of science. And we know how God did one, we’re on the way to knowing two but the third is a tough one. It’s like trying to look at the back of your head. We know it’s there - we just can’t see it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top