Why Scientism is a Faith

[tonyrey]

Well, in addition to it being a logical fallacy, as Locke points out (argument from authority), we can point to examples of people getting really bad information from this method. Take, for instance, militant Islamists who take the word of their holy scriptures and/or leaders at face value. Not only do they get bad information, they go on to do dangerous and destructive things on the basis of this information.

The fact that some fanatics distort the meaning of their scriptures does not imply that everyone does so. When the teaching corresponds to everyone’s personal experience, leads to peace and harmony and forms the basis of modern civilisation we are justified in accepting it as true. The fact that a book is ancient is irrelevant to its significance. To survive the test of time is itself a sign of its value.

 

[Spock]

That’s nice (I do understand that). So I guess you meant to include the stipulation that the questioner in your setup knows the answers to the questions he is asking??..anyway, which still leaves the original question completely unanswered: how is this ‘method’ ‘epistemological’??

Any method which attempts to separate true and false statements falls under epistemology. Obviously, tossing a coin is an extremely poor way to do that. You simply asked if there is a different way (not evidence based method) to separate the true and false statements. This method attempts to do that, and the result is highly unsatisfatory. That is all.

Sure, it’s a given. I never suggested it was an assumption based on faith. It’s basic and prior to any apprehension of anything, regardless of what it is based on, including whether that apprehension is based on faith or not. But when you make a claim like “all of our measurements boil down to some personal experience,” why do you invoke the notion of ‘measurements’? That’s a very strange term to use to describe something that happens when we are burned. Same for “personal experience” - what is ‘personal’ about such an experience? What work is the term ‘personal’ supposed to be doing for you?

Do you object to the usage of “measurement”? What is the point?

But I’ve just answered your question… and so you respond by calling it “the so-far neglected question”?? What are you talking about? Or do you think that apprehension-conceptualization-interpretation is somehow unproblematically built into ‘observe-measure-verify’?

Of course they are the same. As you said, the interpreter’s ability to separate true from false is a given.

How does that work then? Or do you think that ‘observe-measure-verify’ actually unambiguously designates something, such that we can reasonably say, “that’s IT! - and gosh, what else could there BE?”? It’s easy to claim that there’s nothing mysterious going on if you ignore what I say and replace it with your pat little hand-in-fire example (the relevance of which is rather mysterious at this point) and completely ignore the issues I’ve raised.

What are those issues? We both start from the point of someone who does the “apprehension” (does he do it apprehensively? ), who is able to separate the true and false results. I suggested that observe-measure-verify method. Is there any other way?

[And here’s a concrete place where it gets a little mysterious: you might *just not get it

! And there might be nothing I can do about it! Sometimes explanations just end at this kind of blank wall: S just doesn’t get it, he just can’t seem to understand the argument presented to him.]
Maybe I don’t get it. I certainly see no difference.

 

[Spock]

…how do we ever know that our methods are sound and that our conclusions are actually true?

Excellent question. And the answer is simple: we survive.

As long as our modeling of reality is sufficiently close to the “actual” reality, and we act on the predictions of the model, and we survive; and thus the model is vindicated. This modeling does not even have to conscious, animals do it all the time, without rational thinking. As long as their perception corresponds reality, they survive. If a potential prey misinterprets the sign of predator, it will become a tasty morsel, and is removed from the gene-pool. No philosophy is needed. Nature will do the “ultimate” test of our modeling. If the model is good, we survive, if the model is bad, we die.

It is funny, though. I went through the same line of arguments quite a few years ago. Finally the other guy asked: “how do you know that you died?”. I laughed my head off. It reminded me of an old spoof about a doctor and the lawyer. In the courtroom, the lawyer interrogated the doctor on the witness stand. It went like this:

Lawyer: Please tell me doctor, was the person alive or dead when you examined him?
Doctor: He was dead.
Lawyer: How did you know that he was dead?
Doctor: I checked his pulse, and there was none, I checked his breathing and there was none.
Lawyer: But, is it possible that the person was still alive?
Doctor: No it is not possible.
Lawyer: How can you be sure?
Doctor: Well, I had his brain in a jar on my desk.
Lawyer: But, isn’t it still possible that he was alive?
Doctor (finally loses his patience): Well, come to think of it, maybe he was still alive, practicing law somewhere!

 

[vz71]

It’s an argument from authority (in other words, defective induction)

Arguments from authority only fail if the authority is really not an authority.

Is it your proposal that God is not an authority?

 

[vz71]

Well, in addition to it being a logical fallacy, as Locke points out (argument from authority), we can point to examples of people getting really bad information from this method.

I can site a number of examples of people getting really bad information using the method you have put forth.
Likewise I can put forth examples of people getting really good information from God.

However, it would appear we digress from the original question:
Why is scientism faith?
It is because it fails its own scientific method.

 

[vz71]

Which is true in the case of vz71 who wanted to know why “accepting something as true merely on one person’s say-so” is bad.

No, you have misread my post.
Not one person’s say-so.
God’s say-so.

There is a big difference there.

But I should detail this a little more.
Someone pointed out on this thread that repeatability is necessary in the scientific method being espoused. That may be. But it is meaningless.
It matters not if someone can repeat it.
Unless they do, they are appealing to the authority of another person.

Now, since most are appealing to the authority of other people, what is wrong with appeal to God?

 

[hatsoff]

Well, yes, but deductino and induction – along with the scientific method – fall under the broader heading of “evidence-based inquiry.”

As long as you count deduction and induction, I suppose that captures everything we need. However, I would not consider those principles evidence-based. For example, if I make a deductive inference that x(x+x)+1>0 based on mathematical postulates, then I avoid use of evidence—at least in the conventional sense.

 

[Rocinante]

You are obviously not acquainted with many of the posts on this forum…

no, i haven’t read most posts on this forum, but since scientism is so easily dispatched as self-refuting, it is hard for me to believe that once one is presented with the problem that the scientific method can’t be proven true with the scientific method that one could remain scientistic in the sense presented in this thread. so i still think this is a straw man issue, and refuting scientism doesn’t say anything about the truth of any religious dogma.

the OP presented faith as belief that has no basis in reason. showing that scientism has no basis in reason does not prove that people generally ought to believe things that are unsupported by reason. they shouldn’t, and they generally see making claims that are unsupported by reason as a bad thing. why make an exception for religious dogmas? it is my experience that religious people generally do think that they have good reasons for their religious beliefs. what i can’t figure out is why the OP is trying to make a case that it is good to believe things when we have no reason to believe. he calls that faith, but i see that as demeaning to the concept of faith. it is the atheist caricature of faith that the OP is buying into and and trying to sell.

rocinante

 

[Betterave]

As long as you count deduction and induction, I suppose that captures everything we need. However, I would not consider those principles evidence-based. For example, if I make a deductive inference that x(x+x)+1>0 based on mathematical postulates, then I avoid use of evidence—at least in the conventional sense.

So are you saying that “we survive” is not relevant as evidence for reliability of the methodology used in deriving this claim or as evidence of its truth?

 

[Betterave]

Any method which attempts to separate true and false statements falls under epistemology. Obviously, tossing a coin is an extremely poor way to do that. You simply asked if there is a different way (not evidence based method) to separate the true and false statements. This method attempts to do that, and the result is highly unsatisfatory. That is all.

Okay, you’re getting warm. Now answer the question! How was your coin-tossing setup an example of a way of separating true and false statements??

Do you object to the usage of “measurement”? What is the point?

Scientism is essentially the misguided attempt to force all knowledge into an ill-fitting procrustean bed that is constituted by an insistence on the universal applicability, where ‘real’ knowledge is concerned, of terms like “measurement,” “observation,” “result,” all taken with very particular narrow connotations. (We could certainly add here: “survival.”)

Of course they are the same. As you said, the interpreter’s ability to separate true from false is a given.

Oh really! Where to begin on this one… The interpreter’s ability to correctly separate true from false is NOT a given. If it were, the truth of our judgments would be a given (I hope you don’t think that’s the case!). The requirement for the interpreter to be able to correctly separate true from false is a given, if the interpreter’s conclusions are to be true. But how this requirement is to be reliably fulfilled is not clear. In particular, it is not clarified by the invocation of some abstract mantra like “observe-measure-verify - what else is there?”…

What are those issues? We both start from the point of someone who does the “apprehension” (does he do it apprehensively? ), who is able to separate the true and false results. I suggested that observe-measure-verify method. Is there any other way?

Are you suggesting here that apprehension is equivalent to separating true from false? If so I think you’re missing the essential subordination of the latter (judgment) to the former (apprehension/conceptualization) in the way I was using these terms.

 

[Betterave]

It is funny, though. I went through the same line of arguments quite a few years ago.

The same? I guess that’s possible… I’m guessing that you’re just making a big, false assumption here though.

 

[Betterave]

However, it would appear we digress from the original question:
Why is scientism faith?
It is because it fails its own scientific method.

No. We’ve already dealt with this. Scientism is an irrational superstition, not faith.

 

[Betterave]

Excellent question. And the answer is simple: we survive.

As long as our modeling of reality is sufficiently close to the “actual” reality, and we act on the predictions of the model, and we survive; and thus the model is vindicated. This modeling does not even have to conscious, animals do it all the time, without rational thinking. As long as their perception corresponds reality, they survive. If a potential prey misinterprets the sign of predator, it will become a tasty morsel, and is removed from the gene-pool. No philosophy is needed. Nature will do the “ultimate” test of our modeling. If the model is good, we survive, if the model is bad, we die.

It will be obvious to most people that your answer is simplistic, not simple. It seems to imply that all models which are ‘compatible with survival’ (however *that *is to be interpreted) are sound, and none that are not are. Is that really where you want to go?

 

[JDaniel]

no, i haven’t read most posts on this forum, but since scientism is so easily dispatched as self-refuting, it is hard for me to believe that once one is presented with the problem that the scientific method can’t be proven true with the scientific method that one could remain scientistic in the sense presented in this thread. so i still think this is a straw man issue, and refuting scientism doesn’t say anything about the truth of any religious dogma.

the OP presented faith as belief that has no basis in reason. showing that scientism has no basis in reason does not prove that people generally ought to believe things that are unsupported by reason. they shouldn’t, and they generally see making claims that are unsupported by reason as a bad thing. why make an exception for religious dogmas? it is my experience that religious people generally do think that they have good reasons for their religious beliefs. what i can’t figure out is why the OP is trying to make a case that it is good to believe things when we have no reason to believe. he calls that faith, but i see that as demeaning to the concept of faith. it is the atheist caricature of faith that the OP is buying into and and trying to sell.

rocinante

Well, you may not believe this, but, I happen to agree with you. And for exactly the reasons you have given. Faith supported by reason is grounded and, thus, difficult to topple, even if the rational claims foundational to such Faith have long been forgotten.

Science is nothing more than the investigation into the causal conditions of conditional things. Scientism conceptually exceeds that boundary and because of science’s dazzling, almost daily nuances and discoveries, believes that ultimately everything is, or, at least will be, explained by it, i.e., science. That usually comes at a point in the life (work) of the scientist when, while working on that which appears to be too difficult to determine by its causality, veers off towards something else related (or, not) to it, but, where results seem to be in sight. Accidental discoveries are of this nature.

God, on the other hand, is unconditional. Therefore, He can never be the subject of science. Now, many scientists are fine with that, but, many are not. Some have even inflated their egos to a point where they have conquered any dint of humility. Thus, they conceive that they have actually provided irrefutable, cogent arguments against an intentional creator. I contend that they are merely mesmerized beyond safety by the intense sheen of scientific discovery.

Good post, Sir.

God bless,
jd

 

[AntiTheist]

That is true, and if there is anyone here who really takes the view that there must be some other method that answers *whatever *questions we might have, please, please, speak up. Otherwise, let’s not pretend to discuss this absurd view any further.

Alright. So do you agree, then, that there is no better method of answering questions about the world around us than evidence-based inquiry, even if it may indeed be limited and not capable of answering all questions?

 

[Anselm33]

Alright. So do you agree, then, that there is no better method of answering questions about the world around us than evidence-based inquiry, even if it may indeed be limited and not capable of answering all questions?

NO!!! Not by what you call “evidence-based inquiry”. There is philsophy, logic, reason, all of which can support faith. As Pope John Paul II said, the road to truth is carried on the two wings of faith and reason.
Anselm

 

[AntiTheist]

It will be obvious to most people that your answer is simplistic, not simple. It seems to imply that all models which are ‘compatible with survival’ (however *that *is to be interpreted) are sound, and none that are not are. Is that really where you want to go?

In this case, I’m in agreement with you. It’s not merely the fact that we can “survive” that confirms that our models are accurate (after all, believing falsehoods can be equally conducive to survival) – it’s the fact that our models allow us to manipulate reality. There are literally billions of examples of our models allowing us to have control over reality, and – since each of these models was determined through evidence-based inquiry – these billions of examples are incredibly strong evidence that evidence-based inquiry works. In fact, it’s the only method of knowing things about the world that is consistently reliable (which, to be clear, doesn’t mean 100% consistent or 100% reliable).

Again, as one of billions of examples, I’m sending a message through the internet on a computer that was designed thanks to evidence-based inquiry. The fact that I can do this is evidence that we have an accurate understanding of how electrons work, and since evidence-based inquiry allows us to do this, it is part of the evidence that evidence-based inquiry is consistently reliable (the rest of the evidence is the other several billion examples I could use).

 

[AntiTheist]

NO!!! Not by what you call “evidence-based inquiry”. There is philsophy, logic, reason, all of which can support faith.

Well, an application of reason and logic to evidence – deduction, induction – is a huge part of what I consider “evidence-based inquiry.”

So that leaves you with philosophy. I’ve already explained how I know that evidence-based inquiry is consistently reliable (with specific pieces of evidence and examples). Could you please state a few conclusions about the world around us that philosophy has discovered and explain how you know that the method of philosophy is consistently reliable?

 

[LogisticsBranch]

Anselm33;7263558:

yo alec, are you saying that conventional detectors could detect single photon events? I’m not disputing that claim–that kind of experimental technique is above my pay scale (set in nuclear magnetons)… --but I find it suprising. Is there an online reference somewhere, cause if it hasn’t been done it should be?
Anselm
PS–I did find a link, but at Harvard—a little above secondary school, but not too much.
Thanks for the information.
fas.harvard.edu/~scdiroff/lds/QuantumRelativity/SinglePhotonInterference/SinglePhotonInterference.html

Well, there you go - they are using a low light level camera that has two-stages of image intensifier - although not terribly sophisticated it’ll be quite pricey I suspect. Its quantum efficiency is only about 0.1% so it only detects one in a thousand photons, but because you can have 300 - 600 million photons per second and still have less than one in the apparatus at any instant, the low quantum efficiency doesn’t matter. The advantage of their setup is that you can see the fringes building up point by point on the storage scope, whereas in the setup I suggested you have to physically move the detector (photomultiplier or avalanche photodiode) across the image plane and count photons and then subsequently plot their density. But the point is that in either case, you actually could do this in a first class school lab project. It’s really not that sophisticated. Google PMTs and APDs used in Geiger mode. It’s a groovy experiment because it demonstrates the bizarre behaviour of light at first hand.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

Alec (hecd2), thank you. I love physics! The Office of Science –U.S. Department of Energy has a wonderful website. Here is a small section from the document.

What is Physics?
*Physics is all around us. It is in the electric light you turn on in the morning; the car you drive to work; your wristwatch, cell phone, CD player, radio, and that big plasma TV set you got for Christmas. It makes the stars shine every night and the sun shine every day, and it makes a baseball soar into the stands for a home run.

Physics is the science of matter, energy, space, and time. It explains ordinary matter as combinations of a dozen fundamental particles (quarks and leptons), interacting through four fundamental forces. It describes the many forms of energy—such as kinetic energy, electrical energy, and mass—and the way energy can change from one form to another. It describes a malleable space-time and the way objects move through space and time.
There are many fields of physics, for example: mechanics, electricity, heat, sound, light, condensed matter, atomic physics, nuclear physics, and elementary particle physics. Physics is the foundation of all the physical sciences—such as chemistry, material science, and geology—and is important for many other fields of human endeavor: biology, medicine, computing, ice hockey, television…the list goes on and on.

A physicist is not some geek in a long white coat, working on some weird experiment. Physicists look and act like you or me. They work for research laboratories, universities, private companies, and government agencies. They teach, do research, and develop new technologies. They do experiments on mountaintops, in mines, and in earth orbit. They go to movies and play softball. Physicists are good at solving problems—all kinds of problems, from esoteric to mundane. How does a mirror reflect light? What holds an atom together? How fast does a rocket have to go to escape from earth? How can a worldwide team share data in real time? (Solving this last problem led physicists to invent the World Wide Web.) . . .*er.doe.gov/Sub/Newsroom/News_Releases/DOE-SC/2005/What_is_Physics.htm

Alec (hecd2) I really like your website too. Both websites give me a sense of well being (Health) who.int/about/definition/en/print.html

 

[Spock]

Oh really! Where to begin on this one… The interpreter’s ability to correctly separate true from false is NOT a given.

Of course not. That is the whole point. That is why the feedback loop is of utmost importance. If the interpreter’s assessment is false, it will be “pointed out” by the negative result of acting on the interpretation (which may even result in death, if the error is serious enough).

It will be obvious to most people that your answer is simplistic, not simple. It seems to imply that all models which are ‘compatible with survival’ (however *that *is to be interpreted) are sound, and none that are not are. Is that really where you want to go?

Of course it is a simplistic answer. You cannot expect a whole treatise within the constraints of a post. But it was not to be taken in a literal fashion. What this simplistic argument was supposed to illustrate is that we arrive at a result through trial and error. We discern if a hypothesis (or model) was “good enough” (not perfect) for our purposes.

Your question was: “how do we know if our assessment produces a correct result?”. I simply (or simplistically) chose the extreme example when a wrong decision will have the immediate repercussion of death. I thought that the illustration is sufficient. Maybe it was not. So, in greater detail: any model which allows one to survive is good enough. Any model which propagates the well-being of the individual is good enough. It does not have to be “perfect”.