Scientism

[crimsonfloyd]

Scientism- the beleif that the investigative methods of the physical sciences are applicable or justifiable in all fields of inquiry.

It seems clear that scientism is becoming the predominate metaphysical stance of present time and in many ways is becoming a substitute for religion. Scientism has its own creation and apocolypse myths. One of the most influencial works of 20th century science, Dawkin's Selfish Gene ended by reinterating the original sin myth. Dawkins states that "we are bulit as gene machines and cultured as meme machines, but we have the power to turn against our creators. We alone on Earth, can rebel against the tyranny of the selfish replicators." Scientism attempts to explain how and why every action takes course; when it predicts incorrectly, it, like religion before it transforms its initial argument so that all knowledge once again fits into its explaination of existance.

Many of the most significant philosophers (ie Nietzsche, Wittgenstein, Foucault) have reconized the interchangability of such approaches towards scientific findings and traditional metaphysics. Is there a defense for scientism that makes it immune in comparision to other metaphysical systems? What about scientism's tennacy of commiting the naturalistic falacy (what is the case ought to be the case)? Finally, considering that scientism is based on a system that attempts to ignore all personal experience, what impact does this ignoring of our fundemental mode of perception have upon us both socially and personally?

 

[Norsemaiden]

I am 100% convinced that everything has a scientific explanation,whether or not that explanation has yet been discovered, or ever will be. Science does not ignore our "fundamental mode of perception". Science looks at our perceptions and rationalises them - explaining them both physiologically and psychologically. If there is no chance of something being rationalised scientifically, then that is because it is nonsense.

Regarding the quote from Dawkins. It seems Dawkins lacks the courage to acknowledge his own discoveries. (And indeed this quote is in contadiction to much of what Dawkins has stated in depth, about how we are gene machines). No creature can ever escape from its genes.

Dawkins has suffered threats and persecution from extreme left-wing types (or even the establishment itself maybe) and his remark is typical of an intimidated person.

He tries to back track on everything that is very clear from the Selfish Gene in this statement. Genes determine all the perameters of our behaviour and this is inescapable. If we would not be governed by our genes, where else could our brain processes originate?! We cannot turn against our genes, because we ARE our genes. (Physical building blocks with physical properties).

 

[kmik]

 

[Horus]

I wanna touch on the way Crimsonflyd defined Scientism. The only problem is that I know what I want to say, but I just don't think it will be very easy to put into words.The way I saw it, it pretty much said that Everything can be solved with logic and the Scientific Method. Here's my stance on that. I feel that I can't believe that to its full extent, because there are a select few things that will never ever be explained by Science, unless Science transcends the dimension through which Time flows. When I see people traveling through time, with full scientific explanations of how they managed to get from one time to another without their molecules falling apart and shit like that, I will believe that science can solve any and everything.

For some reason, I get the feeling I went completely off topic somewhere in the middle of that.

 

[Norsemaiden]

IF it would be possible to time travel then science would be able to explain it provided the scientists were capable of the necessary level of understanding.
It sometime is the case that one scientist doesn't know the whole of how something complex works because he is a specialist in a narrow field, and the scientific knowledge is as a result of a number of specialists' knowledge combined. For example a specialist in aerodynamics probably wouldn't be an expert on engineering and wouldn't explain the whole of how a plane works. Time travel may end up using the combined knowlege of several specialists and be too complicated to explain to a lay person. There are primitive tribes who think that many modern inventions like televisions are only explainable by the idea that they are magic. Not accepting that everything is explainable by science (given the chance) is that kind of primitive superstition.

 

[Thasis]

I used to be into Scientism. I still am to an extent. I have now taken from various philosophies and then added some of my own concepts and I've been sticking to that as I feel it makes the most sense for me.

 

[crimsonfloyd]

I am 100% convinced that everything has a scientific explanation,whether or not that explanation has yet been discovered, or ever will be. Science does not ignore our "fundamental mode of perception". Science looks at our perceptions and rationalises them - explaining them both physiologically and psychologically. If there is no chance of something being rationalised scientifically, then that is because it is nonsense.

When I say "fundmental mode of perception" I mean subjective or inter-subjective experience. Science for example claims that when I see what I describe as "red" I am in fact only seeing certain wavelengths, while the color "red" does not in fact exist in the real world. However from what I would describe as the "fundumental mode of perception" red most definitley exists. The problem is that science by definition must objectify, which doesn't when it comes to subjective experience, for obvious reasons.

Whether or not one argees with the above statement, whether or not science can indeed find an explaination for everything, is not the point. The point is that the language of science has been selected as the language oftruth in our era. In other words all philosophical, phenomonological, discoursive language etc have become 1) subordinite in value to science and 2) ignored in any instances in which they contradict science. In other words scienctism becomes, "the truth", a religion. Scienctism then, like all "ulimate truths" becomes a mode of domination. Cultures without science are missing out on the "truth" which we hold. Just as the Christains colonized an onslaught of indignenous communties because they had the "true" religion, we Westerners now have the "true" system of science and are thus justified in forcing our scientific economics upon other cultures. Now go cut down those trees of yours. Science has shown they are just carbon-dioxide-making-machines. Haha you consider these trees sacred? That isn't quanifiable, now go cut 'em down...

I hope my point is becoming clear. When a system that is founded upon objectification & quanifying/equalizing (not this tree and that tree, but two trees) what does this mean for all of us subjects? My qualm is not regarding the truth of the scientific mode of inquiry, but rather the making sceince into the fundumental standard of truth, value and the mode of finding purpose.

 

[crimsonfloyd]

There are primitive tribes who think that many modern inventions like televisions are only explainable by the idea that they are magic. Not accepting that everything is explainable by science (given the chance) is that kind of primitive superstition.

It's more likley that the "primitive" people's concept of magic is not understood. In hopes of removing this misunderstanding, the Western concept of magic is projected into the gap that is left by our lack of understanding of the "primitive" people's culture, language and worldview.

 

[کوڈانشی]

I used to be into Scientism. I still am to an extent. I have now taken from various philosophies and then added some of my own concepts and I've been sticking to that as I feel it makes the most sense for me.

good for you! i think philosophy should come down to this, but for me it serves to confuse and add intricate, sometimes unnecessary, mostly arsey layers of logical extremes and bizarre discourses. it gladdens me that someone, at least, has managed to settle on something that works for him (her?).

 

[Norsemaiden]

When I say "fundmental mode of perception" I mean subjective or inter-subjective experience. Science for example claims that when I see what I describe as "red" I am in fact only seeing certain wavelengths, while the color "red" does not in fact exist in the real world. However from what I would describe as the "fundumental mode of perception" red most definitley exists. The problem is that science by definition must objectify, which doesn't when it comes to subjective experience, for obvious reasons.

Whether or not one argees with the above statement, whether or not science can indeed find an explaination for everything, is not the point. The point is that the language of science has been selected as the language oftruth in our era. In other words all philosophical, phenomonological, discoursive language etc have become 1) subordinite in value to science and 2) ignored in any instances in which they contradict science. In other words scienctism becomes, "the truth", a religion. Scienctism then, like all "ulimate truths" becomes a mode of domination. Cultures without science are missing out on the "truth" which we hold. Just as the Christains colonized an onslaught of indignenous communties because they had the "true" religion, we Westerners now have the "true" system of science and are thus justified in forcing our scientific economics upon other cultures. Now go cut down those trees of yours. Science has shown they are just carbon-dioxide-making-machines. Haha you consider these trees sacred? That isn't quanifiable, now go cut 'em down...

I hope my point is becoming clear. When a system that is founded upon objectification & quanifying/equalizing (not this tree and that tree, but two trees) what does this mean for all of us subjects? My qualm is not regarding the truth of the scientific mode of inquiry, but rather the making sceince into the fundumental standard of truth, value and the mode of finding purpose.

For the West, exporting our science to other cultures is wrong, but not so much for the reason you say, which is that we shouldn't try to force our values onto people of another culture. It is wrong mainly because this scientific knowledge is powerful and it is ours. We should keep it to ourselves, not export it. It has been exported because corrupt people make money that way and because certain people in influential positions dislike the racial implications of mainly whites having science and technology, while everywhere else is primitive.

You said that science would say trees should be cut down because "they are just carbon dioxide making machines". Actually, trees use a process called "photosynthesis" which absorbs carbon dioxide and releases oxygen. This is why the rainforests are called "the lungs of the world".

Science says we should plant more trees and certainly not cut them down. If there was a supercomputer with artificial intelligence that knew all the facts available, this computer would tell us that the populations of those countries cutting down the rainforests should be wiped out. Not the trees!

There is nothing unscientific about saying that we see the colour red. Technically colours are to do with wavelengths, but the fact that we perceive it as red is a given. It is just like science does not say that we must regard ourself as a carbon based life form whenever we look in a mirror. Perceiving yourself as human is perfectly scientific too.

 

[crimsonfloyd]

You said that science would say trees should be cut down because "they are just carbon dioxide making machines". Actually, trees use a process called "photosynthesis" which absorbs carbon dioxide and releases oxygen. This is why the rainforests are called "the lungs of the world".

That's superfluous to my point.

Science says we should plant more trees and certainly not cut them down. If there was a supercomputer with artificial intelligence that knew all the facts available, this computer would tell us that the populations of those countries cutting down the rainforests should be wiped out. Not the trees!

Science can never say what we should do. Science can only tell facts about the world, predict what will happen and predict what has happened, but science can never say what we should do. When this occurs the realm of science is left and the realm of scientism is entered. The question of wheather trees should be cut down, though it obviously has scientific implications, is not a question of science. It is a question of ethics & values.

On another note, the trees are being cut down because of the Western ideaological invasion. For centuries the peoples of South America, Africa etc lived more or less in balance with their enviornment. Trees were cut, but in limited degrees, degrees that did not decimate the enviornment. When Western capitalist culture permiated the people's way of living the forests were subsequently decimated. Without the logic and value system of Western economics it is pure insanity for these people to destruct thier home.

There is nothing unscientific about saying that we see the colour red. Technically colours are to do with wavelengths, but the fact that we perceive it as red is a given. It is just like science does not say that we must regard ourself as a carbon based life form whenever we look in a mirror. Perceiving yourself as human is perfectly scientific too.

A given? So in other words science can just pass on explaining the perception of red? That's not expalining, thats copping out... its kinda like saying "The world is so complex, come on its a given that a God must have created it..."

 

[Lord SteveO]

I think the argument of should the trees be cut down or not is more of a logical/rational argument, not an ethical one.

Logic would tell us that cutting them down damages the earth, and as a result harms our planet's ability to remove CO2 which would indirectly harm us.
A supercomputer would give you the logical answer to the problem, the one that makes the most sense.
Don't cut the trees down, it will fuck up the planet.

The way S.American indians don't rip the rainforest up, thats using the logical argument that looking after the trees is better than killing them. Ethics don't really come into it.

 

[crimsonfloyd]

Hmmm... thats a good point. Refering to tree conservation as rational is more precise then ethical, you're most definitley right there. It beter emphasises just how insane, or if you prefer irrational it is to destruct the real physical world in which one lives for the sake of an economic concept.

 

[Norsemaiden]

That's superfluous to my point.



Science can never say what we should do. Science can only tell facts about the world, predict what will happen and predict what has happened, but science can never say what we should do. When this occurs the realm of science is left and the realm of scientism is entered. The question of wheather trees should be cut down, though it obviously has scientific implications, is not a question of science. It is a question of ethics & values.

On another note, the trees are being cut down because of the Western ideaological invasion. For centuries the peoples of South America, Africa etc lived more or less in balance with their enviornment. Trees were cut, but in limited degrees, degrees that did not decimate the enviornment. When Western capitalist culture permiated the people's way of living the forests were subsequently decimated. Without the logic and value system of Western economics it is pure insanity for these people to destruct thier home.



A given? So in other words science can just pass on explaining the perception of red? That's not expalining, thats copping out... its kinda like saying "The world is so complex, come on its a given that a God must have created it..."

Ethics and values are scientific to me and to a lot of people.

The overpopulation of the 3rd world leads to environmental destruction, and YES the west is to blame for that situation. Charity multiplies misery. We should stop feeding the problem.

Science does explain the colour red, but that doesn't mean the explanation of the colour makes our perception of it false. The explanation is just an explanation - not a refutation. That's all I was trying to say.

 

[crimsonfloyd]

Ethics and values are scientific to me and to a lot of people.

Yes. Anyone who follows scientism...

Science does explain the colour red, but that doesn't mean the explanation of the colour makes our perception of it false. The explanation is just an explanation - not a refutation. That's all I was trying to say.

To a degree, I actually think we agree with eachother on this point. When one speak of an apple from a scientific perspective it is described as "wavelength X". When one speaks of an apple from a phenomenological perspective it is "red". Both refer to the same thing. The difference arises, I think, when it comes to the order in which we prioritize these modes of explaination.

 

[Norsemaiden]

Yes. Anyone who follows scientism...

To a degree, I actually think we agree with eachother on this point. When one speak of an apple from a scientific perspective it is described as "wavelength X". When one speaks of an apple from a phenomenological perspective it is "red". Both refer to the same thing. The difference arises, I think, when it comes to the order in which we prioritize these modes of explaination.

Yeah, we do agree a lot really. I had never really heard of the word "scientism" before now. Are all scientists "followers of scientism" and is this word just invented as a way of saying that science is some kind of faith? It can't be a faith because it is supposed to be an impartial observation of nature, with nothing set in stone just quantified in terms of how probable it is. A lot of scientists do have theories that they cling to like a faith, but that's their problem. (An all too human failing!)

 

[crimsonfloyd]

No, all scientists are not followers of scientism. An example: science does not state whether there is a realm other then the physical- because science is limited to the physical. Science is "disinterested" in the question. Therefore a scientist who states that either one there is a realm beyond the physical, or two it is unclear whether there is a realm beyond the physical is not practicing scientism. Let me make it clear that scientism is not as simple as accepting that there is only the physical, and that one can accept the premise that there is only physical and not follow scientism. This is only one of the premises that collectivley creates scientism.

Also scientism does not simply mean that science is a type of faith. Instead scientism means one creates philosophical premises that make science into the language/ system/ mode of discourse that explains or is "the truth". If these premises are well defended then refering to them as an act of faith is probably incorrect. If these premises are just assumed to be self-evident, then yes, scientism becomes an act of faith.

 

[Norsemaiden]

So it may or may not be a faith? Is that what you said? Science tends to agree there are parallel universes and speculates about things like dark matter in space and the nature of black holes, which isn't limiting itself to the physical realm - or is it? Science is interested in absolutely everything. That is the point of science. Trying to evaluate and study everything with no exceptions.

 

[Cythraul]

If there is no chance of something being rationalised scientifically, then that is because it is nonsense.

That's absolutely false. The truths of mathematics and logic are in no way able to be "rationalized scientifically." Moreover, I can make perfectly meaningful statements about things that aren't verifiable by means of scientific inquiry. Scientific testability/ verifiability is not a criterion for meaningfulness or significance. Furthermore, there are things, such as normative notions, which cannot be reduced to the language of the physical sciences et al. This does not mean that those notions are nonsensical or insignificant.

Case in point: Scientism, a philosophical stance which itself presupposes epistemic/normative notions not even properly describable in the language of science.

 

[Norsemaiden]

That's absolutely false. The truths of mathematics and logic are in no way able to be "rationalized scientifically." Moreover, I can make perfectly meaningful statements about things that aren't verifiable by means of scientific inquiry. Scientific testability/ verifiability is not a criterion for meaningfulness or significance. Furthermore, there are things, such as normative notions, which cannot be reduced to the language of the physical sciences et al. This does not mean that those notions are nonsensical or insignificant.

You are right in the strict sense of scientific testability and verifiability. This is a problem for the so called "theory" of evolution through natural selection. It must remain a "theory" because the origins of life have not been demonstated under laboratory conditions. Mathematics is a science is it not? Logic is a necessary tool for scientific theorising through analysing data is it not? I agree that scientific testability isnot a criterion for meaningfulness in that many scientific theories are not testable for practical reasons, and yet the few things that are scienfifically testable by strict laboratory/statistical research are meaningful and significant, if the tests are not flawed and up until such time as they may be altered by new facts. There are subjects like ghosts, telepathy, etc that have been studied to some extent scientifically and progress has been made. There are non scientific explanations for these things, but science is always supposed to be willing to look at all explanations and use a process of logic and (if possible) testability to verify the probability of any explanations being valid. Some areas of inquiry are being studied in far greater depth than others, which may never be researched as well as they potentially could have been. Because trends suggest that in the future there will be fewer and fewer scientists and increasing proportion of superstitious people it seems that many areas of interest will never be investigated - but that doesn't alter the fact that they are still areas that COULD have been analysed scientifically.