Doing Away With Scientism

Discussion of articles that appear in the magazine.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
A_Seagull
Posts: 871
Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2014 11:09 pm

Re: Doing Away With Scientism

Post by A_Seagull » Fri Mar 30, 2018 12:40 am

Impenitent wrote:
Thu Mar 29, 2018 10:10 pm
as mentioned above, science suffers from the fallacy of induction...

-Imp
There is no 'fallacy of induction'
Neither is there any 'problem' of induction.

User avatar
A_Seagull
Posts: 871
Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2014 11:09 pm

Re: Doing Away With Scientism

Post by A_Seagull » Fri Mar 30, 2018 12:43 am

Science Fan wrote:
Thu Mar 29, 2018 10:15 pm
It takes all of 30 seconds to debunk scientism's claim that only science provides knowledge. Here goes:
1. Science is dependent on mathematics.

No it isn't. Mathematics is a tool that scientists use.

Since your claim 1 fails, so does the rest of your argument.

User avatar
A_Seagull
Posts: 871
Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2014 11:09 pm

Re: Doing Away With Scientism

Post by A_Seagull » Fri Mar 30, 2018 12:47 am

-1- wrote:
Thu Mar 29, 2018 11:48 pm
A_Seagull wrote:
Thu Mar 29, 2018 10:03 pm
Those who are opposed to scientism appear to have an irrational fear of it... their response is more emotional than rational.

I can only conclude that this is because they fear its power to overturn their long-cherished beliefs.

If scientism is really so bad.. what are its logical flaws? No one has yet presented evidence of any logical flaw.
I think science is different from scientism, and from scienticism, and we are all talking about it as if we had already come to a concensus as to what they mean, whereas we have not.

Science is a human endeavour of enquiry. Scientism -- I have no definition for it. Scienticism is the explanation of the importance of science and moral and emotional support for it. It is replete (in most cases) with dramatizing in terms of human perspective, and/or anthropomorphizing nature and natural forces.
You may well be right. 'Scientism' is a term used by people who oppose scientism rather than support it. And so is rather undefined.

I am supportive of using the scientific method, or something similar, as a basis for philosophy.

User avatar
A_Seagull
Posts: 871
Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2014 11:09 pm

Re: Doing Away With Scientism

Post by A_Seagull » Fri Mar 30, 2018 12:49 am

Science Fan wrote:
Fri Mar 30, 2018 12:22 am
1: Circular reasoning is generally considered as a flaky method of grounding a system. Take for example, religious people who claim God exists? How do they know? Some claim because the Bible says so. How do they know the Bible is reliable? Because it contains the word of God. How do they know God exists? Because the Bible says so....And on and on they go, which seldom convinces any atheist to believe in a God, because of the circular nature of the argument.

Science rests on the same circular foundation. How does science know something? Because of induction. How do we know we can rely on induction for knowledge? Because induction has worked before. So, science ultimately rests on a claim that induction can be used to justify induction, which is entirely circular.
You have to start somewhere. And if you don't start with some sort of circular justification, you have to start with some entirely unjustified assumption. I know which I prefer.

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 6468
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Doing Away With Scientism

Post by Immanuel Can » Fri Mar 30, 2018 1:23 am

-1- wrote:
Thu Mar 29, 2018 11:56 pm
Science Fan wrote:
Thu Mar 29, 2018 4:18 pm
Care to give us the solution to the problem of induction that haunts science and places it firmly on a circular-reasoning foundation?
What IS the problem of induction? I am unfamiliar with that term or expression or idea.
Induction is the counterpart of deduction, and is in some ways closer to a thing called abduction. Deduction is certain knowledge: the kind one finds in mathematics or formal logic. And some people think science gives us that. However, they're wrong: deduction is only possible in a closed system of self-referential symbols, like maths. Rather, all scientific knowing is inductive, because it's empirical, which means it's dependent on the material world.

Induction means that our most "certain" knowledge, as human beings, is only probabilistic, not absolute. Science tells us about only material entities, about only the probability that certain effects will follow certain patterns or causes, and only if all else remains equal. In other words, it's very far from the absolute road to truth that naive Scientism holds that it is.

In short, science is a very good thing, manifestly: but it's not the road to absolute certainty. In some cases, it's not the road to knowledge of some things at all...for example, it presupposes (rather than proves) mathematics. It has no aesthetic or moral knowledge in it. And if any non-material entities exist, such as, say, "the self," it cannot provide us means to evaluate that.

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 6468
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Doing Away With Scientism

Post by Immanuel Can » Fri Mar 30, 2018 1:25 am

A_Seagull wrote:
Fri Mar 30, 2018 12:47 am
'Scientism' is a term used by people who oppose scientism rather than support it.
Actually, this isn't at all true.

It's used by people who have a good epistemological grasp of the strengths and limitations of science itself, particularly by philosophers of science. There is no implication in it of denigrating science; rather, it decries those who don't know what science actually is, and worship it as if it were something more than it can ever be.

Science Fan
Posts: 843
Joined: Fri May 26, 2017 5:01 pm

Re: Doing Away With Scientism

Post by Science Fan » Fri Mar 30, 2018 3:25 am

A Seagull: You really need to learn some logic, which further proves my point that not all knowledge is based on science. Here is how you completely flubbed basic logic: 1. You admitted that science uses math. 2. You then claimed that because my premise asserted science depends on math, and because this is in fact true, by your own admission that science uses math, that this somehow proved my premise false, and, therefore, my argument wrong. That's essentially nonsense on steroids ---- agreeing with my premise does not refute it.

You also seem to lack even a basic understanding of science and math, so let me enlighten you on some baby issues involving science's dependence on math. One cannot even determine the instantaneous speed of a car that is not traveling at constant speed unless one uses math, because an instantaneous speed cannot be directly measured. The instantaneous speed is determined by taking the limit of the distance traveled over the corresponding time as the difference in time approaches zero. The instantaneous speed cannot be directly measured because in a space of zero time, nothing moves, but 0/0 is meaningless. This is one of the reasons calculus was developed --- so we can have speedometers on our cars that function. So, even something as basic as instantaneous speed cannot be learned without mathematics being used, which is not science at all. So much for the claim that all knowledge comes from science, when science cannot even get out of the door without being dependent on mathematics, which is not a science. I can give numerous other examples, like measurements, or taking an average, all of which are dependent on math.

As far as your claim that one has to start somewhere, so? Once again that is not very logical of you, since the problem with induction involves the circular reasoning science uses as its so-called "foundation." No one is required to engage in circular reasoning simply because one must start somewhere.

Impenitent
Posts: 2398
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 2:04 pm

Re: Doing Away With Scientism

Post by Impenitent » Fri Mar 30, 2018 7:10 am

A_Seagull wrote:
Fri Mar 30, 2018 12:40 am
Impenitent wrote:
Thu Mar 29, 2018 10:10 pm
as mentioned above, science suffers from the fallacy of induction...

-Imp
There is no 'fallacy of induction'
Neither is there any 'problem' of induction.
David Hume would disagree

-Imp

User avatar
-1-
Posts: 2833
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: Doing Away With Scientism

Post by -1- » Fri Mar 30, 2018 11:40 am

Science Fan wrote:
Fri Mar 30, 2018 12:22 am
1: Circular reasoning is generally considered as a flaky method of grounding a system. Take for example, religious people who claim God exists? How do they know? Some claim because the Bible says so. How do they know the Bible is reliable? Because it contains the word of God. How do they know God exists? Because the Bible says so....And on and on they go, which seldom convinces any atheist to believe in a God, because of the circular nature of the argument.

Science rests on the same circular foundation. How does science know something? Because of induction. How do we know we can rely on induction for knowledge? Because induction has worked before. So, science ultimately rests on a claim that induction can be used to justify induction, which is entirely circular.
What is induction? I have absolutely no knowledge of the concept. I know I am a philosophical cripple because of it. Can someone here write an explanation in a few words, which will create an 1. informative 2. exhaustive 3. exclusive understanding of "induction"?

User avatar
-1-
Posts: 2833
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: Doing Away With Scientism

Post by -1- » Fri Mar 30, 2018 11:44 am

Impenitent wrote:
Fri Mar 30, 2018 7:10 am
A_Seagull wrote:
Fri Mar 30, 2018 12:40 am

There is no 'fallacy of induction'
Neither is there any 'problem' of induction.
David Hume would disagree

-Imp
Would you care to explain that Imp? If you don't, you are just wasting space here. You are merely stating an ad hominem fallacy, namely, the appeal to authority.

Please explain your version of Hume's disagreement. If you can't, that's fine too. Just say so.

Impenitent
Posts: 2398
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 2:04 pm

Re: Doing Away With Scientism

Post by Impenitent » Fri Mar 30, 2018 1:49 pm


User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 6468
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Doing Away With Scientism

Post by Immanuel Can » Fri Mar 30, 2018 3:57 pm

-1- wrote:
Fri Mar 30, 2018 11:40 am

What is induction? I have absolutely no knowledge of the concept. I know I am a philosophical cripple because of it. Can someone here write an explanation in a few words, which will create an 1. informative 2. exhaustive 3. exclusive understanding of "induction"?
It's five messages above this request ( that is, where you first posted it).

jayjacobus
Posts: 891
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:45 pm

Re: Doing Away With Scientism

Post by jayjacobus » Fri Mar 30, 2018 4:58 pm

I don't think that Kidd is saying that scientific methods are wrong. He is saying that some (many?) scientists "go too far, promise too much, neglect or forget other things that matter, and so overstate, exaggerate, and distort."

The scientist, who thinks he is extra special because he is a scientist, will denigrate non-scientists because they are non-scientists, not because they are wrong.

Science Fan
Posts: 843
Joined: Fri May 26, 2017 5:01 pm

Re: Doing Away With Scientism

Post by Science Fan » Fri Mar 30, 2018 5:36 pm

Kind of ironic that someone who believes in scientism would accuse someone citing Hume as engaging in the fallacy of an appeal to authority.

User avatar
A_Seagull
Posts: 871
Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2014 11:09 pm

Re: Doing Away With Scientism

Post by A_Seagull » Fri Mar 30, 2018 9:37 pm

Impenitent wrote:
Fri Mar 30, 2018 7:10 am
A_Seagull wrote:
Fri Mar 30, 2018 12:40 am
Impenitent wrote:
Thu Mar 29, 2018 10:10 pm
as mentioned above, science suffers from the fallacy of induction...

-Imp
There is no 'fallacy of induction'
Neither is there any 'problem' of induction.
David Hume would disagree

-Imp
I don't think Hume would disagree at all. Hume's 'problem of induction' was suggested as a possible problem for those who thought that knowledge of the world was a divine certainty.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests