What’s so bad about Scientism?
philpapers.org
What’s so bad about Scientism?
1–10 of 95 posts
Re: What’s so bad about Scientism?
#2I didn't read the whole article; I hope to be able to return to it tomorrow. However, from a brief skim, it seems it started out well and then quickly went downhill. A better title might be, "A strawman in defense of Scientism".
The gist of it is that the author starts with a decent argument about why philosophers against scientism might want to attack a weaker (i.e., more easily believed/more likely true) version of scientism, since that would give more weight to their arguments. But then the author goes off the rails by choosing to defend that weak version of scientism with some rather silly arguments, essentially arguing that since the term has been redefined, none of the work which has gone before (which has shown that these silly arguments are silly) applies any more.
Re: What’s so bad about Scientism?
#3Of all the fads and foibles in the long history of human credulity, scientism in all its varied guises — from fanciful cosmology to evolutionary epistemology and ethics — seems among the more dangerous, both because it pretends to be something very different from what it really is and because it has been accorded widespread and uncritical adherence. Continued insistence on the universal competence of science will serve only to undermine the credibility of science as a whole. The ultimate outcome will be an increase of radical skepticism that questions the ability of science to address even the questions legitimately within its sphere of competence. One longs for a new Enlightenment to puncture the pretensions of this latest superstition.
http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-folly-of-scie...
Re: What’s so bad about Scientism?
#4It's pure evil!
Re: What’s so bad about Scientism?
#5Of all the fads and foibles in the long history of human credulity, scientism in all its varied guises — from fanciful cosmology to evolutionary epistemology and ethics — seems among the more dangerous, both because it pretends to be something very different from what it really is and because it has been accorded widespread and uncritical adherence. Continued insistence on the universal competence of science will ser…
The issue, in my eyes anyway, is when the scientific method is used as a hammer; when it's used to crush a debate.
Any method, whether scientific, philosophical, spiritual or otherwise should be used to spawn debate, and to contribute to a rich discussion.
But science being used to stop debate, used to stop exchange, used to stop meaningful conversation does more harm than good to all involved.
Re: What’s so bad about Scientism?
#6Of all the fads and foibles in the long history of human credulity, scientism in all its varied guises — from fanciful cosmology to evolutionary epistemology and ethics — seems among the more dangerous, both because it pretends to be something very different from what it really is and because it has been accorded widespread and uncritical adherence. Continued insistence on the universal competence of science will ser…
> Strong Scientism: Of all the knowledge we have, scientific knowledge is the only “real knowledge.”
Stupid question. What is an example of a hypothesis that is not falsifiable by experiment but should still be considered "knowledge"?
Re: What’s so bad about Scientism?
#7So that's how intellectual masturbation looks like. It's pretty cute - almost looks like a real paper with proper formatting, citations. There was even an attempt at first-order logic!
Re: What’s so bad about Scientism?
#8Of all the fads and foibles in the long history of human credulity, scientism in all its varied guises — from fanciful cosmology to evolutionary epistemology and ethics — seems among the more dangerous, both because it pretends to be something very different from what it really is and because it has been accorded widespread and uncritical adherence. Continued insistence on the universal competence of science will ser…
> Strong Scientism: Of all the knowledge we have, scientific knowledge is the only “real knowledge.” Stupid question. What is an example of a hypothesis that is not falsifiable by experiment but should still be considered "knowledge"?
I think therefore I am?
Re: What’s so bad about Scientism?
#9Of all the fads and foibles in the long history of human credulity, scientism in all its varied guises — from fanciful cosmology to evolutionary epistemology and ethics — seems among the more dangerous, both because it pretends to be something very different from what it really is and because it has been accorded widespread and uncritical adherence. Continued insistence on the universal competence of science will ser…
Which phenomena would you consider not ultimately analysable via scientific methodology?
Re: What’s so bad about Scientism?
#10Of all the fads and foibles in the long history of human credulity, scientism in all its varied guises — from fanciful cosmology to evolutionary epistemology and ethics — seems among the more dangerous, both because it pretends to be something very different from what it really is and because it has been accorded widespread and uncritical adherence. Continued insistence on the universal competence of science will ser…
> Strong Scientism: Of all the knowledge we have, scientific knowledge is the only “real knowledge.” Stupid question. What is an example of a hypothesis that is not falsifiable by experiment but should still be considered "knowledge"?
Whatever we need to take for granted in order for a scientific experiment to mean anything at all. Most of mathematics and logic would fall into this category: we can't falsify 1 + 1 = 2 by experiment, but if we throw it out, we won't have any science at all.
A lot of people believe that fundamental principles of ethics also belong there. For example, we may be able to demonstrate whether or not something is a net benefit to the combined happiness of sentient beings, but I cannot see how one might even attempt to falsify the hypothesis that sentient beings matter at all.