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

The Folly of Scientism

thenewatlantis.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 139 posts

Re: The Folly of Scientism

#41

Post by return0 »

gnosis wrote: post #36
return0 wrote: post #16

I 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…

This might come as a surprise, but not every philosopher is a postmodernist. Postmodernists aren't even in the majority. They're a relatively small minority in an ocean of different philosophical outlooks. Even many so-called postmodernists deny the label applies to them. As for who alienated who in the Sokal affair, it should be remembered that Sokal was the original perpetrator of the hoax, and appeared to have ini…

No doubt about that; yet postmodernists seem to be the ones most engaged in what is perceived as a pursuit to discredit or trivialize science. Unfortunately, they are loud people so it's hard to hear other, more interesting views on the philosophy of science. I would be grateful if you could suggest some good books.

Re: The Folly of Scientism

#42

Post by derleth »

webnrrd2k wrote: post #34
DanielBMarkham wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wonder if Coyne realizes the circular and non-responsive nature of his reply. To rephrase this, science is the only thing we know. Show me something that's not science that we know. Of course, you can't. You've given yourself the answer before you begin to ask the question. Effective science and humility have to go hand-in-hand. Otherwise you're just creating a new religion with the rubric "science" stuck on it.

Maybe we are thinking of "scientific" in different terms, but I know lots of things that are not scientific. I'm speaking broadly here, but qualia are not scientific. My internal experiences aren't scientific. So I'd say that, on one sense, at least half of what I experience is not scientific. No one actually knows what is going on inside of my head at this moment. Yet I know my own thoughts, emotions and experiences…

> I'm speaking broadly here, but qualia are not scientific.

Do you think they'll remain unscientific?

Re: The Folly of Scientism

#43

Post by derleth »

georgeorwell wrote: post #18
tokenadult wrote: post #5

A 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.

This sounds like a response that would not exist if questions were being answered.

Re: The Folly of Scientism

#44

Post by return0 »

cs702 wrote: post #32

The author believes scientific inquiry should not 'overreach' into subjects that have traditionally belonged to fields like philosophy, metaphysics, epistemology, and religion, because, he explains in painful detail, science can't have all the answers. Regardless of whether one agrees with him or not, his argument makes NO sense to me. The relevant question is not whether science can have all the answers, but whether…

Ethical questions cannot not really be answered by science cause that would be an appeal to nature. Some evo-psychologists may claim otherwise, but i think he's right about their narrow utilitarian position.

Re: The Folly of Scientism

#45

Post by inavat »

DanielBMarkham wrote: post #21
tokenadult wrote: post #5

A 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…

Wonder if Coyne realizes the circular and non-responsive nature of his reply. To rephrase this, science is the only thing we know. Show me something that's not science that we know. Of course, you can't. You've given yourself the answer before you begin to ask the question. Effective science and humility have to go hand-in-hand. Otherwise you're just creating a new religion with the rubric "science" stuck on it.

I didn't get that from his response at all. He's asking what the "other ways of knowing" have done for us. Science has been demonstrably useful -- Coyne is asking why the criticisms of Scientism aren't followed by examples of the questions answered by "other ways of knowing". I wonder the same thing myself.

Re: The Folly of Scientism

#46

Post by derleth »

gnosis wrote: post #36
return0 wrote: post #16

I 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…

This might come as a surprise, but not every philosopher is a postmodernist. Postmodernists aren't even in the majority. They're a relatively small minority in an ocean of different philosophical outlooks. Even many so-called postmodernists deny the label applies to them. As for who alienated who in the Sokal affair, it should be remembered that Sokal was the original perpetrator of the hoax, and appeared to have ini…

> Sokal was the original perpetrator of the hoax, and appeared to have initiated it with the sole aim of discrediting philosophers he did not approve of.

Yes, but why was he capable of doing so? The whole point of his paper was to use scientific words out of context in a way that fed into the postmodernist mindset, and the postmodernists ate it up.

Sokal was victorious to the extent he validated his idea that postmodernists wanted to use the trappings of science without having to apply any of the rigor of science to their own ideas.

Re: The Folly of Scientism

#47

Post by georgeorwell »

seiji wrote: post #4
gnosis wrote: post #2

This 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?

Well, science is based on the rational interpretation of our five senses. Other ways of understanding the world include our five senses but also rely on other phenomena, such as our dreams and emotions, and then are subject to somewhat rational but mostly irrational personal and subjective interpretations. Note that irrational is not the same as incorrect, and I don't consider it a pejorative.

I guess as a primary example, art is non-scientific, but it is an equally valid way of communicating the understanding of our experience to others. We understand beauty. The meaning of symbols in our society seems unlikely to ever come under some scientific theory but forms a very large part of our experience. The search for meaning in life is not a scientific one.

It is probably true that science is the only objective, factually accurate, rational, logical, and methodical approach to understanding the world. This does not invalidate other approaches, since we are more than objective, factually accurate, rational, logical, and methodical beings. Your subjective experience is yours and yours alone and totally resistant to the scientific method.

Re: The Folly of Scientism

#48

Post by derleth »

georgeorwell wrote: post #31
rohern wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

My intuition says you have angry feelings.

> My intuition says you have angry feelings.

This is just the kind of dismissive attitude that makes philosophers unpopular.

Re: The Folly of Scientism

#49

Post by VMG »

aroberge wrote: post #33
VMG wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The answers that you'll receive won't be supported by rational thought or evidence. If they were, it'd be scientism.

How can something that is not supported by evidence be a valid answer to any legitimate question?

It can't, that's my point. Arguing against rationality using rational arguments is self-contradictory.

Re: The Folly of Scientism

#50

Post by derleth »

mattgreenrocks wrote: post #27
rohern wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If that is the strongest argument you can make, I think you've said all that needs to be said about intuition.

Hehe, I'm not trying to convince you. I suppose I shouldn't be posting, then. Really, I'm not certain you would be convinced even if I did a better job, though. All I'm really looking for is less of a skeptical "explain it to me in terms of science" viewpoint, and more of a "huh, interesting" response. I've never seen someone even try to work with me when discussing these things. It's always shut down so they can cla…

This purely dismissive attitude is why philosophers are mocked and ignored.
Post reply on HN