The Jorge against scientism

[pancreasman]

Some readers may appreciate this introduction to the complex and subtle case against scientism (the author's definition).

To begin with, part of the central tenet of empiricism-positivism (also called Popperianism and logic positivism) is that statements can be classified into three categories: 1) empirical, 2) analytical, and 3) nonsense or emotive. An emotive statement is merely emotion-provoking ("Wow!" "Grrr!") Consider the sentence, "Leprechauns are not real." Let's assume "leprechaun" is understood to be a particular kind of being. The statement could be true or false and hence is to be classified as empirical (this point will be disputed later). Analytical statements are in essence definitions. For example, someone may point to a deer on his front lawn and say, "deer!" His listeners are supposed to associate the word "deer" with that tan-colored animal presently cavorting on the lawn.

The second part of the tenet is that only empirical statements can be true or false. Analytical statements are meaningful only to the extent that they help people or lead them to understand what every part of any particular empirical statements mean.

Note that that tenet is a strong version of the author's version of scientism. In this post I will attempt to show that empiricism is self-contradictory. But even if I succeed in convincing a reader that it is, that does not disprove scientism. This post is just introductory.

Now consider the central tenet of empiricism (the tenet above) itself. Is it empirical? No--what experiments or observations have been made that would support or disprove it? None as far as I know. So, is it analytical? But even if the answer is yes, that would not show the tenet is true. Is it nonsense, then? Not emotive, clearly, but it could be nonsense. Possibly!

Knowledge is possible that is not in the form of empirical statements, but to establish that point would take many pages of close and subtle reasoning, so may I be allowed to end the post here?

A good summary. I question the use of the word 'knowledge'. Perhaps it's just my hangup, but I consider knowledge to be that which is known to be true within reasonable limits and available to all. I certainly don't consider myself a proponent of scientism however. I think we can make statements which are not 'knowledge' as I've loosely defined it but still meaningful.

Thus 'That poem touches my heart', 'I believe in God', 'I believe in reincarnation' are all meaningful statements in one sense or another.

If I say 'God exists', I think that statement is meaningful but it cannot be classified as either true or false. Therefore I would not classify that as 'knowledge', not even if I was the one saying it.

[Truthseeker]

Some readers may appreciate this introduction to the complex and subtle case against scientism (the author's definition).

To begin with, part of the central tenet of empiricism-positivism (also called Popperianism and logic positivism) is that statements can be classified into three categories: 1) empirical, 2) analytical, and 3) nonsense or emotive. An emotive statement is merely emotion-provoking ("Wow!" "Grrr!") Consider the sentence, "Leprechauns are not real." Let's assume "leprechaun" is understood to be a particular kind of being. The statement could be true or false and hence is to be classified as empirical (this point will be disputed later). Analytical statements are in essence definitions. For example, someone may point to a deer on his front lawn and say, "deer!" His listeners are supposed to associate the word "deer" with that tan-colored animal presently cavorting on the lawn.

The second part of the tenet is that only empirical statements can be true or false. Analytical statements are meaningful only to the extent that they help people or lead them to understand what every part of any particular empirical statements mean.

Note that that tenet is a strong version of the author's version of scientism. In this post I will attempt to show that empiricism is self-contradictory. But even if I succeed in convincing a reader that it is, that does not disprove scientism. This post is just introductory.

Now consider the central tenet of empiricism (the tenet above) itself. Is it empirical? No--what experiments or observations have been made that would support or disprove it? None as far as I know. So, is it analytical? But even if the answer is yes, that would not show the tenet is true. Is it nonsense, then? Not emotive, clearly, but it could be nonsense. Possibly!

Knowledge is possible that is not in the form of empirical statements, but to establish that point would take many pages of close and subtle reasoning, so may I be allowed to end the post here?

[Truthseeker]

Without reading it, Scientism is essentially an offspring of Ontological Materialism.

"Ontological Materialism" is not in Wikipedia. My inquiry (search) was redirected to the entry "Materialism." There the definition was offered:

A form of philosophical monism which holds that matter is the fundamental substance in nature, and that all phenomena, including mental phenomena and consciousness, are the result of material interactions.

Once that point is comprehended, my position becomes perfectly clear and justified. Sorry you can't see it that way, Truthseeker.

I think it is clear. Justified? Well, can you prove your position starting from premises that even atheists will accept?

[rwatts]

For new readers: Jorge Fernandez was a constant bugbear to scientism people involved in this forum. Mighty and frequent were the attacks on Jorge's positions; yet, unbowed, he dished out as much abuse as his opponents did.

It would be interesting to know what Jorge thinks of this book Scholastic Metaphysics: A Contemporary Introduction by Edward Feser, herein reviewed: http://www.catholicworldreport.com/I...scientism.aspx

[Tip o'the hat to Leonhard.]

I think a better way to look at this is along the lines of the use of philosophy in science. I'm reading this book:-

Plato at the Googolplex

- at the moment. It's very early days, but the author notes that many (but by no means all) scientists jeer at philosophy often claiming that it's useless in science. And besides, it's often the case that science ends up answering questions that were once considered to be philosophical questions and potentially unsolvable ones at that.

However I think her aim is to show why philosophy is relevant and one of the ways is that it always forces us to question our assumptions. The moment one feels to have solved a particular problem, then take a step back and look at the assumptions it relies upon, and begin to question those.

[Jorge]

Accusations of 'scientism' are easily flung about, often by people who aren't fully informed on what scientism actually is. It has become one of those all purpose derogatives like 'fundamentalist'.

See my last post (above) and try harder.

Jorge

[Jorge]

For new readers: Jorge Fernandez was a constant bugbear to scientism people involved in this forum. Mighty and frequent were the attacks on Jorge's positions; yet, unbowed, he dished out as much abuse as his opponents did.

It would be interesting to know what Jorge thinks of this book Scholastic Metaphysics: A Contemporary Introduction by Edward Feser, herein reviewed: http://www.catholicworldreport.com/I...scientism.aspx

[Tip o'the hat to Leonhard.]

I'd first have to read the book, of course.

Without reading it, Scientism is essentially an offspring of Ontological Materialism. Once that point is comprehended, my position becomes perfectly clear and justified. Sorry you can't see it that way, Truthseeker.

Jorge

[Jorge]

For new readers, Jorge Fernandez has been a long-time clown making unsupportable and unsupported statements, defending them with "you're drunk" accusations, and without a single exception running away from all requests for analysis, evidence, or even rudimentary intelligence. ALL Jorge dished out was abuse. His opponents, when not laughing at him, generally have produced informed, interesting, and thought-provoking discussions. Without showing any signs of being drunk.

Then you have the hutzpah of questioning why I often tossed "you're drunk or on drugs" to people like yourself. Just read the above (when you're sober) and you'll know why. The same to Tassman et al.

Jorge

[phank]

I guess one question is whether rock-solid, unshakeable sincere belief in the imaginary counts as "real knowledge". The key to good science has always been imagination - the ability to dream up how things MIGHT be, in ways that can be operationally defined so as to be testable. Science is far less the drawing of logical conclusions from available evidence, than it is leaping to nearly unwarranted conclusions and then looking at (or for) the evidence those conclusions require, to see if they're right. Most of the time, alas, they're not right, or only partially right.

But right offhand, we see two related categories: leaps of imagination to untestable conclusions; and the stubborn refusal to let foregone conclusions fall prey to failed tests. Both of these categories surely result in "real knowledge" in the minds of those who fall into them.

[pancreasman]

From the review: " . . . there is no kind of knowledge superior to modern science.

Anyone who denies the possibility of a meaningful metaphysics, and affirms instead the alleged superiority of science as what should replace it, is devoted to “scientism.” Again, this is the theory that there is no such thing as a “metaphysics” that can go beyond physics. “Scientism” thinks nothing can attain fundamentals better than modern science."

All right, pancreasman, tell us what you think scientism really is. Try to explain things so that we can see what is wrong with Feser's understanding of what scientism is.

Read your quoted sentence again and see if it says what you think it says. I certainly don't think science is the only intellectual tool. I do think its the best tool for investigating the physical universe. I also think that there is no superior tool. If there is, what tool is superior to science in gaining knowledge.

Historian Richard G. Olson defines scientism as “efforts to extend scientific ideas, methods, practices, and attitudes to matters of human social and political concern.” (1) But this formulation is so broad as to render it virtually useless. Philosopher Tom Sorell offers a more precise definition: “Scientism is a matter of putting too high a value on natural science in comparison with other branches of learning or culture.” (2) MIT physicist Ian Hutchinson offers a closely related version, but more extreme: “Science, modeled on the natural sciences, is the only source of real knowledge.” (3) The latter two definitions are far more precise and will better help us evaluate scientism’s merit.

from http://www.aaas.org/page/what-scientism

[Truthseeker]

Accusations of 'scientism' are easily flung about, often by people who aren't fully informed on what scientism actually is. It has become one of those all purpose derogatives like 'fundamentalist'.

Since it targets a particular individual, yes. A nuanced understanding of scientism is a worthwhile discussion. Shame we didn't start with that.

From the review: " . . . there is no kind of knowledge superior to modern science.

Anyone who denies the possibility of a meaningful metaphysics, and affirms instead the alleged superiority of science as what should replace it, is devoted to “scientism.” Again, this is the theory that there is no such thing as a “metaphysics” that can go beyond physics. “Scientism” thinks nothing can attain fundamentals better than modern science."

All right, pancreasman, tell us what you think scientism really is. Try to explain things so that we can see what is wrong with Feser's understanding of what scientism is.

[pancreasman]

This thread belongs in the looney bin.

Since it targets a particular individual, yes. A nuanced understanding of scientism is a worthwhile discussion. Shame we didn't start with that.

[Cow Poke]

This thread belongs in the looney bin.

[pancreasman]

Feser, according to the linked review, has his own definition of "scientism", which boils down to the denial that Making Stuff Up is a valid avenue to knowledge. Feser argues that science is simply one approach among many which lead us to Right Answers, and a limited approach which fails to produce Feser's answers. I especially enjoyed where he dismissed the argument that the scientific method works, and produces results on which everyone can ultimately agree (rather than arbitrary and irresolvable schisms). After all, science is itself based on a philosophy, which honest scientists must admit puts it on equal footing with the philosphy of Making Stuff Up.

Yes, well that's just silly. Why the mutually assured destruction of solipsism is preferable to just admitting science actually WORKS a whole lot of the time is beyond me.

[phank]

Accusations of 'scientism' are easily flung about, often by people who aren't fully informed on what scientism actually is. It has become one of those all purpose derogatives like 'fundamentalist'.

Feser, according to the linked review, has his own definition of "scientism", which boils down to the denial that Making Stuff Up is a valid avenue to knowledge. Feser argues that science is simply one approach among many which lead us to Right Answers, and a limited approach which fails to produce Feser's answers. I especially enjoyed where he dismissed the argument that the scientific method works, and produces results on which everyone can ultimately agree (rather than arbitrary and irresolvable schisms). After all, science is itself based on a philosophy, which honest scientists must admit puts it on equal footing with the philosphy of Making Stuff Up.

[pancreasman]

Accusations of 'scientism' are easily flung about, often by people who aren't fully informed on what scientism actually is. It has become one of those all purpose derogatives like 'fundamentalist'.