Earlier quoted context omitted.
What are some [legitimate] examples of non-science ways of understanding the world?
Traditional religions.
Which are now completely discredited as complete lies.
The Folly of Scientism
11–20 of 139 posts
Re: The Folly of Scientism
#12Re: The Folly of Scientism
#13This essay should be required reading for anyone who thinks science is or should be the only legitimate way of understanding the world. For more information, I strongly recommend: "Naturalism and the Human Condition: Against scientism" by Frederick A. Olafson and "Scientism" by Tom Sorell
What are some [legitimate] examples of non-science ways of understanding the world?
Intuition?
(Yes, it's probably pattern-matching taken to an extreme, but can we quantify it? Why not?)
Re: The Folly of Scientism
#14This essay should be required reading for anyone who thinks science is or should be the only legitimate way of understanding the world. For more information, I strongly recommend: "Naturalism and the Human Condition: Against scientism" by Frederick A. Olafson and "Scientism" by Tom Sorell
Name one question for which a scientific answer no matter how inadequate was once the best, but for which now a philosophical or religious one is the best one?
Consciousness, experience, spontaneity, 'the present moment'..
There's a very good book on this called "The Wisdom Of Insecurity" by Alan Watts. It's very short and definitely worth a read if this question interests you.
Re: The Folly of Scientism
#15Earlier quoted context omitted.
What are some [legitimate] examples of non-science ways of understanding the world?
Intuition? (Yes, it's probably pattern-matching taken to an extreme, but can we quantify it? Why not?)
What does that mean? I intuit that your program has bugs, therefore it has bugs? I intuit that there is an alien race living on Mars that is able to disguise itself as red rocks?
I do not see how intuition gives you anything other than -- maybe, and only maybe -- a smaller set of hypotheses to test scientifically.
Re: The Folly of Scientism
#16I thought we were done with Constructivism a long time ago. And scientism is not the biggest problem in a world where climate change, stem cells and creationism debates still exist.
Unfortunately philosophers alienated scientists with their postmodern (de-)constructivism to the point of creating enmities (such as the Sokal affair[1]). At this point, when scientists speak to philosophers, one gets the impression that there's nothing to learn from them that they don't already know (or even worse, that philosophers dance around subjects).
The author seems frustrated that philosophers are no longer the highest authorities, but that's just the current state of philosophy.
Re: The Folly of Scientism
#17Earlier quoted context omitted.
Intuition? (Yes, it's probably pattern-matching taken to an extreme, but can we quantify it? Why not?)
What does that mean? I intuit that your program has bugs, therefore it has bugs? I intuit that there is an alien race living on Mars that is able to disguise itself as red rocks? I do not see how intuition gives you anything other than -- maybe, and only maybe -- a smaller set of hypotheses to test scientifically.
Your inability to fit it into your belief system is not my problem.
Re: The Folly of Scientism
#18A reply under the title of "The folly of 'The folly of scientism'" by Professor Jerry Coyne of the University of Chicago, who frequently reads and comments on issues related to the philosophy of science: http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2012/12/08/the-folly... ". . . . Hughes is an evolutionary biologist with wide-ranging interests, and I’ve really liked some of his papers." . . . . "The big problem with Hughe…
Questions don't lead to answers, they lead to more questions. It is the asking of questions and the process of trying to answer them that is valuable.
Re: The Folly of Scientism
#19A reply under the title of "The folly of 'The folly of scientism'" by Professor Jerry Coyne of the University of Chicago, who frequently reads and comments on issues related to the philosophy of science: http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2012/12/08/the-folly... ". . . . Hughes is an evolutionary biologist with wide-ranging interests, and I’ve really liked some of his papers." . . . . "The big problem with Hughe…
This is exactly it. Hughes writes:
> Similarly, modern theorists imply, the multiverse has necessary being even though any given universe does not.
No. What's implicit is that arguments of necessary being will not ever be found.
As I'm fond of saying (a bit unfairly): a philosopher is someone insightful enough to ask the fundamental questions and thick enough to try to answer them.
Re: The Folly of Scientism
#20A reply under the title of "The folly of 'The folly of scientism'" by Professor Jerry Coyne of the University of Chicago, who frequently reads and comments on issues related to the philosophy of science: http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2012/12/08/the-folly... ". . . . Hughes is an evolutionary biologist with wide-ranging interests, and I’ve really liked some of his papers." . . . . "The big problem with Hughe…
The Hughes article is very strange, but the theme of the sentiment is remarkably (perhaps alarmingly) common among the university students I know who are not scientists, engineers, or mathematicians. This is enormously condescending to write, but I think this is born of frustration at not being able to make progress in discovery without the tools of mathematics and science. If you have not picked up and mastered these tools, you are left out of the game. Suddenly four years of college goes whoosh and you are no closer to the enlightenment you were seeking.
To give one ridiculous example, I had a graduate student in anthropology suggest to me that science needs to be democratized and taken away from the scientists and verified and decided upon by the common man. I asked by what method the common man could do such verification and make any such decisions, as the obvious answer to both is Science.
I do not think criticisms of this type are worth much, especially when they are written on a computer, posted on the internet, and then discussed on forums like this. In a dictum: "Science works, bitches."