Is there anything wrong with scientism?

[A_Seagull]

So is there anything wrong with scientism?

If so what?

[Immanuel Can]

So is there anything wrong with scientism?

If so what?

"Science" is the disciplined study of the material world.

"Scientism," as its name implies, is an ideology that worships scientific methodology as the total answer to all potential questions...all that have ever been asked, all that can be asked, and all that presently remain unanswered.

The first is a rational method employing facts and evidence, but the second is an belief system taken on insufficient evidence.

The first is excellent; the second is merely indoctrination.

[uwot]

"Science" is the disciplined study of the material world.

"Scientism," as its name implies, is an ideology that worships scientific methodology as the total answer to all potential questions...all that have ever been asked, all that can be asked, and all that presently remain unanswered.

The first is a rational method employing facts and evidence, but the second is an belief system taken on insufficient evidence.

The first is excellent; the second is merely indoctrination.

Very well said, Mr Can.

[A_Seagull]

So is there anything wrong with scientism?

If so what?

"Science" is the disciplined study of the material world.

"Scientism," as its name implies, is an ideology that worships scientific methodology as the total answer to all potential questions...all that have ever been asked, all that can be asked, and all that presently remain unanswered.

The first is a rational method employing facts and evidence, but the second is an belief system taken on insufficient evidence.

The first is excellent; the second is merely indoctrination.

You have merely set up a straw man and then blown it over. Any philosophical doctrine that is "worshipped" can be said to be 'taken on insufficient evidence'.

The definition of scientism that I gave in the OP "One definition according to Wikipedia is:" In essence, scientism sees science as the absolute and only justifiable access to the truth."

It makes no mention of 'worship'.

[uwot]

The definition of scientism that I gave in the OP "One definition according to Wikipedia is:" In essence, scientism sees science as the absolute and only justifiable access to the truth."

It makes no mention of 'worship'.

Mr Can is just using language he is familiar with. It is true that few people who believe that science can provide all the answers would claim to worship the stuff, but probably the most important words that distinguishes science are 'I don't know'. In the very strictest sense of 'Truth', all we know about the universe we owe to Parmenides: 'There is not nothing' and Descartes: 'There is experience'. Everything else we attribute to the universe, which loosely is science, is just our best guess.

[Immanuel Can]

It makes no mention of 'worship'.

You're splitting hairs. When a person not only believes something without sufficient evidence, but makes that the total focus of his or her hopes and values, then at least in an extended sense, we may speak of them "worshipping" that system. In that sense, Communists "worship' the State, or Humanists "worship" man.

But if it helps you, just sub in the word "revere" or "have faith in" for "worship," and you've got the same thing. No straw man...just a metaphor.

[Hobbes' Choice]

It makes no mention of 'worship'.

You're splitting hairs. When a person not only believes something without sufficient evidence, but makes that the total focus of his or her hopes and values, then at least in an extended sense, we may speak of them "worshipping" that system. In that sense, Communists "worship' the State, or Humanists "worship" man.
.

But humanists and communists don't get on their knees and do acts of devotion. In a literal sense you are totally wrong, and just being inflammatory, childish and silly.

The other more obvious thing is that in the cases above the object of their hopes actually exist; humans and "the state", are real.

[Immanuel Can]

But humanists and communists don't get on their knees and do acts of devotion.

As I say, substitute "reveres" if it makes you happy. Nobody has to choke on a metaphor.

The other more obvious thing is that in the cases above the object of their hopes actually exist; humans and "the state", are real.

So are goats, aqualungs and bunny rabbits...that doesn't show them to be suitable objects of reverence, nor reasonably grounds of a total epistemology or value system.

(As for the Supreme Being, your disbelief in Him will not decide whether or not He does exist. But that matters not at all for the moment, because the question is not whether "religion" has anything wrong with it, but whether or not "scientism" does.)

And the answer is, of course, that scientism is a gratuitous ideological position, not a rationally-tenable one.

[thedoc]

As I say, substitute "reveres" if it makes you happy. Nobody has to choke on a metaphor.

And the answer is, of course, that scientism is a gratuitous ideological position, not a rationally-tenable one.

And you talked about me "kicking the witch".

[Immanuel Can]

And you talked about me "kicking the witch".

Yeah. It's fun, isn't it?

[Hobbes' Choice]

But humanists and communists don't get on their knees and do acts of devotion.

As I say, substitute "reveres" if it makes you happy. Nobody has to choke on a metaphor.

The other more obvious thing is that in the cases above the object of their hopes actually exist; humans and "the state", are real.

So are goats, aqualungs and bunny rabbits...that doesn't show them to be suitable objects of reverence, nor reasonably grounds of a total epistemology or value system.

(As for the Supreme Being, your disbelief in Him will not decide whether or not He does exist. But that matters not at all for the moment, because the question is not whether "religion" has anything wrong with it, but whether or not "scientism" does.)

And the answer is, of course, that scientism is a gratuitous ideological position, not a rationally-tenable one.

There is no such thing as scientism either. It's just a pejorative like you choosing to apply "worship" to the non-religious.

[Immanuel Can]

There is no such thing as scientism either. It's just a pejorative like you choosing to apply "worship" to the non-religious.

Ah. You deny the relevance of the OP question. Gottit.

Thank you for your opinion. Now we have it.

[thedoc]

The use of the scientific method to discover information about the material world is quite good. To regard it as the end all and be all of possible knowledge is very dangerous. Science is just one tool in the quest for knowledge. To try to turn the scientific method into a religion is an incorrect use of the method, and should be discouraged.

[A_Seagull]

The use of the scientific method to discover information about the material world is quite good. To regard it as the end all and be all of possible knowledge is very dangerous. Science is just one tool in the quest for knowledge. To try to turn the scientific method into a religion is an incorrect use of the method, and should be discouraged.

All religions should be discouraged.

[thedoc]

The use of the scientific method to discover information about the material world is quite good. To regard it as the end all and be all of possible knowledge is very dangerous. Science is just one tool in the quest for knowledge. To try to turn the scientific method into a religion is an incorrect use of the method, and should be discouraged.

All religions should be discouraged.

Yes, if they attempt to give physical information about the physical world, but if they are giving information about spiritual matters, that is different.