The Fallacy of Scientism

[nmgauss]

Here is a scientist who did believe in the search for truth, both philosophical and scientific.

“I fully agree with you about the significance and educational value of methodology as well as history and philosophy of science. So many people today - and even professional scientists - seem to me like somebody who has seen thousands of trees but has never seen a forest. A knowledge of the historic and philosophical background gives that kind of independence from prejudices of his generation from which most scientists are suffering. This independence created by philosophical insight is - in my opinion - the mark of distinction between a mere artisan or specialist and a real seeker after truth.”

Albert Einstein. letter to Robert A. Thornton, 7 December 1944.

Sound scientific work is accomplished in today’s world by recording a large number of details. This is merely the beginning of amassing the information needed for theoretical and philosophical work. For example, theoretical physics is practiced in view of all the detailed work that has been accomplished over the centuries. Without detailed work, scientific theoreticians and philosophers have little to work with and are prone to arriving at erroneous theory. Witness the conclusions of Aristotle who was playing with water, earth, fire, and air. Mathematicians often form their theorems after material observations have been recorded. A good example is mathematical statistics. The Bell Curve, for example, was converted to mathematical theory only after it was observed in the concrete world.

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

The German philosopher Hegel notoriously said this:

"The true form in which truth exists can only be the scientific system of truth."

Ever since, scientism has been practiced as a virtual religion by many.

Your thoughts?

That is a telling quote from Hegel. Do you have a citation for it?

Related to this but on the other end of the issue, have you ever run across this passage by Leibniz in his Monadology, 17:
“Moreover, it must be confessed that perception and that which depends upon it are inexplicable on mechanical grounds, that is to say, by means of figures and motions. And supposing there were a machine, so constructed as to think, feel, and have perception, it might be conceived as increased in size, while keeping the same proportions, so that one might go into it as into a mill. That being so, we should, on examining its interior, find only parts which work one upon another, and never anything by which to explain a perception.”

 

[balto]

Without detailed work, scientific theoreticians and philosophers have little to work with and are prone to arriving at erroneous theory. Witness the conclusions of Aristotle who was playing with water, earth, fire, and air. Mathematicians often form their theorems after material observations have been recorded. A good example is mathematical statistics. The Bell Curve, for example, was converted to mathematical theory only after it was observed in the concrete world.

It’s interesting that you bring this up. Obviously the need to make observations upon which you can abstract meaning and forms from is critical, but this is not necessarily scientific (at least in the modern understanding of the word “scientific”). Mathematics is a good example of this. Any geometrical proof will obviously based on a small set of observations, but the reasoning is deductive and holds for all instances of a geometrical form. Ironically, Aquinas’ proofs for God are based of the same type of thing, i.e make basic observations on the nature of contingent beings and abstract deductively to the necessity of a non-contingent first cause, for example. They are not “God of the gaps” arguments any more than the Pythagorean theorem is a “theorem of the gaps.”

 

[balto]

“Moreover, it must be confessed that perception and that which depends upon it are inexplicable on mechanical grounds, that is to say, by means of figures and motions. And supposing there were a machine, so constructed as to think, feel, and have perception, it might be conceived as increased in size, while keeping the same proportions, so that one might go into it as into a mill. That being so, we should, on examining its interior, find only parts which work one upon another, and never anything by which to explain a perception.”

Bingo. The problem with modernist philosophy is primarily based on its assumption that reality functions as some kind of machine. Hence the reason for the so-called “traditional” mind-body problem because the mind and all its intentionality are not reducible to a mechanical view of reality, so they were all swept under the “res cognitans” rug to be dealt with at a later date. Now a lot of philosophers are trying to say that the mound under the rug doesn’t even exist. It’s all an illusion. But yet our everyday experiences and formal thinking prove that it is not an illusion.

 

[CrossofChrist]

Bingo. The problem with modernist philosophy is primarily based on its assumption that reality functions as some kind of machine.

Even that fails them because they fail to explain how reality can even be intelligible, why the world is ordered in a mathematical way and how we can come to a recognition of this intelligibility. In short, it presupposes that Reason is behind reality.

(Obviously there are attempts to get around this, but in the end I find them unconvincing at best and irrational at worst. But that’s just me. )

 

[Charlemagne_III]

That is a telling quote from Hegel. Do you have a citation for it?

Josef Pieper cites it in his *Guide to Thomas Aquinas *on the top of page 158.
Ignatius Press, 1986 Edition

 

[nmgauss]

Even that fails them because they fail to explain how reality can even be intelligible, why the world is ordered in a mathematical way and how we can come to a recognition of this intelligibility. In short, it presupposes that Reason is behind reality.

(Obviously there are attempts to get around this, but in the end I find them unconvincing at best and irrational at worst. But that’s just me. )

The world is not perceived as mathematical unless mathematicians come up with theories to explain what is observed. Simple phenomena, such as gravity, inertia, and momentum can easily be explained mathematically. But complex motion such as Brownian motion and swirling of water when disturbed is much more difficult. Look how incredibly complex weather forecasting is. The weather is a fertile field for development of complex mathematics. Weather came first, then mathematics.

 

[Ion]

The German philosopher Hegel notoriously said this:

"The true form in which truth exists can only be the scientific system of truth."

Ever since, scientism has been practiced as a virtual religion by many.

Your thoughts?

The backstabing of the Philosophy.
ET theory was pushed as scientific and people expected the same with the whole of the philosopy. And now they simply dismisses all.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Josef Pieper identifies Hegel’s *Phenomenology of the Spirit *as the source of the quote earlier cited, somewhere in the first 12 pages evidently. I have not seen it in context.

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

Josef Pieper cites it in his *Guide to Thomas Aquinas *on the top of page 158.
Ignatius Press, 1986 Edition

Thanks! Great book incidentally. . . as is just about anything Pieper writes. Leisure the Basis of Culture has been one of the most influential modern books in my life.

 

[CrossofChrist]

The world is not perceived as mathematical unless mathematicians come up with theories to explain what is observed. Simple phenomena, such as gravity, inertia, and momentum can easily be explained mathematically. But complex motion such as Brownian motion and swirling of water when disturbed is much more difficult. Look how incredibly complex weather forecasting is. The weather is a fertile field for development of complex mathematics. Weather came first, then mathematics.

Obviously there are certain aspects we struggle to understand in science (e.g quantum mechanics). At a basic level though, it has to be assumed that we can understand reality; all science presupposes that we can come to an understanding of the world around us using reason. If not science would be completely pointless.