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

31–40 of 95 posts

Re: What’s so bad about Scientism?

#31

Post by kriro »

werpon wrote: post #22
xupybd wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Is philosophy knowledge? Can I use it, for example, to take an informed choice about the real world? Does it at least contain a set of verifiable, falsifiable statements that every practitioner can and has agreed upon?

One could argue that it is because of philosophy (of science) that you even consider "a set of verifiable, falsifiable statements that every practitioner can and has agreed upon" as a litmus test (or demarcation criterion) for what science is supposed to be.

Re: What’s so bad about Scientism?

#32

Post by devoply »

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?

Science can only answer the how? The why is always a philosophical question which has to be loaded with appeals to emotions. Certain personalities are okay with only asking the how, other personalities need the why. Certain other personalities don't need either. They just do. If we stop asking the why, which we more or less have as we think that it's a dead end that leads to nilhism and absurdism then we will accumulate more and more power and use it with delirious overall effects on the systems that we inhabit and will inevitably go extinct.

Re: What’s so bad about Scientism?

#33

Post by kriro »

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"?

Not related to hypotheses but most axiomatic systems and the apparatus of deduction that accompanies them would probably qualify as they are not scientific (by the circular definition that anything that uses the scientific method is scientific). The most notable example would be mathematics. I'd argue that mathematics provides knowledge (as in it helps me understand stuff better).

Re: What’s so bad about Scientism?

#34

Post by adgasf »

devoply wrote: post #32
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?

Science can only answer the how? The why is always a philosophical question which has to be loaded with appeals to emotions. Certain personalities are okay with only asking the how, other personalities need the why. Certain other personalities don't need either. They just do. If we stop asking the why, which we more or less have as we think that it's a dead end that leads to nilhism and absurdism then we will accumul…

I dislike this point because it is imprecise. What do you mean by a "why" question? How do objects fall to Earth? Gravity. Why do objects fall to Earth? Gravity.

Re: What’s so bad about Scientism?

#35

Post by adgasf »

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?"

Well, now your are doing Philosophy of Science.

Re: What’s so bad about Scientism?

#36

Post by maze-le »

lz400 wrote: post #19
xupybd wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> existence being coexistence after the discovery of multiverses

Please keep in mind that multiverses haven't actually been discovered. They are a very real possibility if the model of inflation of the early universe (and thus eternal inflation) is correct. But since the Planck satellite hasn't found conclusive b-mode polarisation patterns, inflationary models should be viewed with a bit of scepticism. On the other hand: inflation can explain a lot of problems in the early universe that would arise without it: magnetic monopoles, the large-scale homogenity and isotropy and geometric flatness. So, it remains a valid model, and the best explanation of the very early universe.

We should be aware of the things we don't know, and not just assume multiverses, when there is no conclusive evidence.

Re: What’s so bad about Scientism?

#37

Post by acover »

palad1n wrote: post #8
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"?

I think therefore I am?

Yes. Maybe.

Is it an axiom of the scientific method? [No?]

Is it a tautology? [Maybe?]

Are there other examples other than the basis of knowledge being knowledge? [?]

Re: What’s so bad about Scientism?

#38

Post by devoply »

adgasf wrote: post #34
devoply wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Science can only answer the how? The why is always a philosophical question which has to be loaded with appeals to emotions. Certain personalities are okay with only asking the how, other personalities need the why. Certain other personalities don't need either. They just do. If we stop asking the why, which we more or less have as we think that it's a dead end that leads to nilhism and absurdism then we will accumul…

I dislike this point because it is imprecise. What do you mean by a "why" question? How do objects fall to Earth? Gravity. Why do objects fall to Earth? Gravity.

Well what I mean by why is the overall moral question of doing the right thing for the continued survival of life on the planet. That's more or less a metaphysical thing. And we don't have that figured out. And it does not seem to me that science will provide the answer to this. As science is hierarchical and specialized. It might provide individual answers but it does not provide guidance as to how or why to use those answers. For instance why we must live or do things a certain way. It merely provides knowledge and tools and then we apply that knowledge and tools to act on the world. If we do not act properly on the world with our science we will inevitably destroy the world. Currently we use the economic paradigm as our moral compass, which seems to work in certain cases but in other cases fails. Philosophy is needed to address this sort of deficit in our economic thinking.

Re: What’s so bad about Scientism?

#39

Post by chrischen »

lz400 wrote: post #19
xupybd wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The existence of multiverses is philosophy.

Re: What’s so bad about Scientism?

#40

Post by lz400 »

maze-le wrote: post #36
lz400 wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> existence being coexistence after the discovery of multiverses Please keep in mind that multiverses haven't actually been discovered. They are a very real possibility if the model of inflation of the early universe (and thus eternal inflation) is correct. But since the Planck satellite hasn't found conclusive b-mode polarisation patterns, inflationary models should be viewed with a bit of scepticism. On the other h…

Multiverses as a result of space receding faster than speed of light are pretty much universally accepted. Other kinds are more controversial. There are galaxies not co-existant with us in the future that are now.
Post reply on HN