Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

What’s so bad about Scientism?

philpapers.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 95 posts

Re: What’s so bad about Scientism?

#11

Post by icen »

acover wrote: post #6
juliangamble wrote: post #3

Of 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"?

1+1=2

And no, apples are not the same things as numbers.

Re: What’s so bad about Scientism?

#12

Post by acover »

kijin wrote: post #10
acover wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 be…

1+1=2 is falsifiable as it relates to an experiment. You could show that in an experiment that when you "add" a "one" and another "one" together you do not get "two".

If it doesn't aid in understanding the world then I'm not sure it qualifies as knowledge.

Re: What’s so bad about Scientism?

#13

Post by jamesrcole »

icen wrote: post #11
acover wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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"?

1+1=2 And no, apples are not the same things as numbers.

Some people would say that the relational patterns in numbers are a kind of definition, and that such statements aren't so much truths but consequences of those patterns - and that it's only when you're using the two '1's to represent real world details that the '2' is true or false.

(and BTW, there are real-world situations where '1' and '1' do not make '2'... e.g. putting a snake and a mouse in a box. We only apply maths statements like that to the kinds of entities/situations where they will apply).

Re: What’s so bad about Scientism?

#14

Post by werpon »

juliangamble wrote: post #3

Of 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…

In my view, the whole concept of scientism is the last attempt of philosophy to stay relevant, and it's usually only backed up by appeals to emotion and loaded words.

So, the scientist in me asks: what areas of knowledge are out of the scope of science and the scientific method?

Re: What’s so bad about Scientism?

#15

Post by xupybd »

werpon wrote: post #14
juliangamble wrote: post #3

Of 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…

In my view, the whole concept of scientism is the last attempt of philosophy to stay relevant, and it's usually only backed up by appeals to emotion and loaded words. So, the scientist in me asks: what areas of knowledge are out of the scope of science and the scientific method?

What areas of knowledge are out of the scope of science and the scientific method? Um philosophy.....

Re: What’s so bad about Scientism?

#16

Post by smhost »

interfixus wrote: post #9
juliangamble wrote: post #3

Of 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?

Probably T <= 0, multiple universes, inside a black hole, etc. You also can't run an experiment on your own life, not really, since you only have one life and that's not a large enough sample. So questions like "what is true for you, uniquely?"

Re: What’s so bad about Scientism?

#17

Post by werpon »

icen wrote: post #11
acover wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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"?

1+1=2 And no, apples are not the same things as numbers.

That's an axiom. It doesn't say anything about the real world, it just introduces a framework of thought.

In other words, if you can imagine a reality where 1+1=2 for some meaning of '1', '2', '+' and '=', then a series of conclusions will hold true.

Re: What’s so bad about Scientism?

#18

Post by icen »

acover wrote: post #12
kijin wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 be…

1+1=2 is falsifiable as it relates to an experiment. You could show that in an experiment that when you "add" a "one" and another "one" together you do not get "two". If it doesn't aid in understanding the world then I'm not sure it qualifies as knowledge.

How do you go about testing the hypothesis that 1 + 1 = 2? Not just showing that a particular physical representation obeys the logical laws of arithmetic, but to test the actual laws themselves.

Re: What’s so bad about Scientism?

#19

Post by lz400 »

xupybd wrote: post #15
werpon wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In my view, the whole concept of scientism is the last attempt of philosophy to stay relevant, and it's usually only backed up by appeals to emotion and loaded words. So, the scientist in me asks: what areas of knowledge are out of the scope of science and the scientific method?

What areas of knowledge are out of the scope of science and the scientific method? Um philosophy.....

Large areas of philosophy are routinely demolished by the strangeness revealed by science. Concepts like Time after general relativity, the reach of maths after Godel, existence being coexistence after the discovery of multiverses. Philosophy very often assumes things that the real world ends up proving aren't true.

Re: What’s so bad about Scientism?

#20

Post by jamesrcole »

icen wrote: post #18
acover wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1+1=2 is falsifiable as it relates to an experiment. You could show that in an experiment that when you "add" a "one" and another "one" together you do not get "two". If it doesn't aid in understanding the world then I'm not sure it qualifies as knowledge.

How do you go about testing the hypothesis that 1 + 1 = 2? Not just showing that a particular physical representation obeys the logical laws of arithmetic, but to test the actual laws themselves.

The point is that it's not a hypothesis. Or, at least there are views about maths where it's not a hypothesis.
Post reply on HN