Need Help With Reading Comprehension

[Jedidiah]

[cite=https://answersingenesis.org/creation-vs-evolution/the-creation-evolution-controversy]

When I read :"Science, has not hesitated to wade into the domain of religion." I read the author saying it is not really science but scientism. Shuny is incorrect.

[phank]

When I read :"Science, or more accurately “scientism,” has not hesitated to wade into the domain of religion." I read the author saying it is not really science but scientism. Shuny is incorrect.

But this leaves us wondering exactly how the author distinguishes science from scientism. This single paragraph doesn't make that clear. My best interpretation is that he regards scientism as anything that LOOKS like science, but makes the category error of wading into what he regards as the proper domain of religion. Kind of like Gould's DOMA, where science horning in on religion's domain therefore becomes scientism, while religion horning in on the domain of science becomes religionism. The "real" science and religion have no overlap, in this view.

But, like shuny, I may have read a little bit too much of this stuff. From the AiG perspective, the "domain of religion" encompasses just about anything about which his religion has made any truth statements. This religious scope surely includes evolution, history, archaeology, paleontology, biology, astronomy, geology, and so on. About the only space left for science is electronic engineering, since Genesis didn't say anything specific about electricity. All else is scientism to the degree that it conflicts with AiG religious doctrine.

Maybe a homework assignment for the truly diligent is to find a source where AiG blesses evolutionary theory as good science. I admit in all my reading, I haven't yet found a single creationist whose description of evolutionary theory matches what someone like, say, Jerry Coyne or Larry Moran (or even Carl Zimmer) would regard as evolutionary theory.

[Adrift]

But this leaves us wondering exactly how the author distinguishes science from scientism. This single paragraph doesn't make that clear. My best interpretation is that he regards scientism as anything that LOOKS like science

When reading the paragraph initially, it never occurred to me that what he was referring to was anything that just LOOKED like science. People don't just go around talking about creating new religions because...science! That requires a certain philosophical motivation.

Maybe a homework assignment for the truly diligent is to find a source where AiG blesses evolutionary theory as good science. I admit in all my reading, I haven't yet found a single creationist whose description of evolutionary theory matches what someone like, say, Jerry Coyne or Larry Moran (or even Carl Zimmer) would regard as evolutionary theory.

I agree with robrecht that investing much time researching AIG is probably a waste. It seems to me that when I've talked with YECs on the subject of the theory of evolution, that they don't automatically assume that its not science. They do think its science, they just don't think its very accurate science, or at best, they think its one of several options on the table. Maybe its because I don't jump into the debate that much, but the greatest resistance I see on the subject is not so much against the theory itself, but against the teaching of the theory as the one and only truth.

[MaxVel]

I think the problem is that the first sentence is a little ambiguous.

It can be read as 'Science, which is more accurately described as scientism,...' - this seems to be the sense that Shunya is taking. Science = scientism

Or it can be read as 'Science, actually, to state it more accurately, scientism rather than science,...' - this seems to be the sense that Adrift is taking, and I think it is the correct one (what the author intended). Not 'Science as a whole', but scientism.


If we take the first reading, then everywhere the author mentions 'science', what he means is actually 'scientism'. So a sentence like "The general premise of the conference was that modern science requires us to develop an entirely new religion for the future." should be read as meaning "The general premise of the conference was that scientism requires us to develop an entirely new religion for the future."

This seems a bit counter-intuitive and laboured to me. If the author really meant scientism, then, having corrected himself in the opening sentence, why then revert to the incorrect term?

[Truthseeker]

Maybe yet another instance of poor writing, to be more specific, poor plan for the composition of the article. Or poor execution.

[Jorge]

Speaking of "Scientism", here's a poem by someone I know (name withheld by request):

We Are Scientism's Scholars

We are Scientism's scholars,
And we teach your children well!
When we get them in our classroom,
They buy everything we sell.

Yes, we tell them where they come from,
Little "naked apes", we say...
Then we teach 'em God's not needed,
And we send 'em out to play.

We say, "Science has the answers",
"Trust your feelings, little ones!"
"If it feels good, well..., just do it!"
"Life is short...Go have your fun!"

We make sure they get "the basics"...
Darwin-bots with genes to share,
They'll be trained in "bio-ethics",
After all, it's only fair.

We'll explain how "nothing matters",
How, in fact, that's where they're from...
Accidents of Goddess Gaia,
Products of some luck that's dumb.

*****************************

Jorge

[shunyadragon]

Please note, I am not asking you if you want to apply such a label to anyone or any group in particular, but, for those who do, rightly or wrongly, what term would you propose as a derogatory characterization of an overreaching scientific worldview that supposedly denigrates or eschews philosophy or sometimes even social sciences?

First, please provide some citations of scientists that present this view. If I knew of such a scientist, I would probably consider him or her a 'severe reductionist materialist' that considers humans as some sort of robotic automatons. Not very realistic. The major atheist/agnostic scientists in physics and cosmology, for the most part are so specialized in their efforts that they are indifferent about other sciences like social sciences. Depending on their theological/philosophical view, they will likely clearly consider themselves either Metaphysical Naturalists, or Methodological Naturalists. All the scientists should follow the methods of Methodological Naturalism regardless.

The term 'metaphysical naturalist' is itself something of an oxymoron. Do you intend it to carry a derogatory meaning? Metaphysicians who deny any value to metaphysics? Or, more neutrally, people who deny any value to metaphysics?

First, Metaphysical Naturalism is not an oxymoron. It is well accepted and defined term equivalent to Philosophical Naturalism.

And what of those who merely question or deny the scientific character of the social sciences or even biology? Do you deny the use of the label of scientism for those who, rightly or wrongly, fit in this category? I think you will find that trying to get everyone in the world to use your terminology, and only your terminology, is a futile and comical endeavor.

I am not relying on just my own terminology. Metaphysical Naturalism is not my terminology. I object to the word 'scientism' because of the ambiguity of its use. The definition in wiki is simply equivalent to Metaphysical Naturalism, but the 'philosopher' cited by adrift, and AIG used the word differently without clear unambiguous references to how it may apply consistently to science, or scientists.

Labels without clear unambiguous useful application in science, are not worth the effort.

Who are these scientists you are describing?

. . . and there is Jorge's poem, which roughly agrees with AIG.

[robrecht]

First, please provide some citations of scientists that present this view.

I'm not sure such exists for I am not making the accusation. Nor is the accusation always meant to apply to specific individuals. Stephen Hawking, a prominent cosmologist, says, 'philosophy is dead'. I have not read any of his more recent popular material so I am not sure how he would respond to those who might critique this position of his, but I imagine some might criticize him for taking this position, perhaps they might characterize this view as representative of a scientism that does not appreciate philosophical inquiry. In reality, he may be primarily criticizing current philosophy for not keeping up with science and cosmology.

If I knew of such a scientist, I would probably consider him or her a 'severe reductionist materialist' that considers humans as some sort of robotic automaton. Not very realistic.

Also sounds derogatory. 'Severe' and 'reductionist' are both negative terms.

The major atheist/agnostic scientists in physics and cosmology, for the most part are so specialized in their efforts that they are indifferent about other sciences like social sciences.

Their work is specialized, but I don't think you should assume they are indifferent to other sciences. I work with physical scientists all day long and they are all very interested in developments outside their areas of study, both in other sciences and in philosophy. They would be greatly insulted by your remarks.

First, Metaphysical Naturalism is not an oxymoron. It is well accepted and defined term equivalent to Philosophical Naturalism.

I am not relying on just my own terminology. Metaphysical Naturalism is not my terminology.

Do you know who coined the term? Did they apply the label to themselves?

I object to the word 'scientism' because of the ambiguity of its use. The definition in wiki is simply equivalent to Metaphysical Naturalism, but the 'philosopher' cited by adrift, and AIG used the word differently without clear unambiguous references to how it may apply to science.

There are lots of general and polyvalent terms in human language. Probably impossible to eliminate such terms.

Labels without clear unambiguous useful application in science, are not worth the effort.

It is not meant to have useful application in science--surely you realize that, right? It is typically a derogatory term used of a sometimes unconscious worldview that is blind to realities that are supposedly not well investigated by scientific methodology. Saying that it is not a good term because it does not have a useful application in science smacks of .... dare I say, 'scientism'. It is a useful term to those who are sincerely interested in speaking with people who use the term.

[MaxVel]

I object to the word 'scientism' because of the ambiguity of its use. The definition in wiki is simply equivalent to Metaphysical Naturalism, but the 'philosopher' cited by adrift, and AIG used the word differently without clear unambiguous references to how it may apply to science.

{emphasis mine}

Metaphysical Naturalism and Scientism aren't 'equivalent', at least according to Wikipedia:

Scientism is belief in the universal applicability of the scientific method and approach, and the view that empirical science constitutes the most authoritative worldview or most valuable part of human learning to the exclusion of other viewpoints.[1] It has been defined as "the view that the characteristic inductive methods of the natural sciences are the only source of genuine factual knowledge and, in particular, that they alone can yield true knowledge about man and society."

Metaphysical naturalism, also called ontological naturalism, philosophical naturalism and scientific materialism is a worldview which holds that there is nothing but natural elements, principles, and relations of the kind studied by the natural sciences, i.e., those required to understand our physical environment by mathematical modelling. In contrast, methodological naturalism is an assumption of naturalism as a methodology of science, for which metaphysical naturalism provides only one possible ontological foundation.

While there might be a bit of overlap - someone could hold to Metaphysical naturalism and scientism, they're clearly not the same thing. Someone could be a metaphysical naturalist but not hold to scientism.

BTW, scientism seems to be self-refuting, as it's an item of factual knowledge (that the characteristic inductive methods of the natural sciences are the only source of genuine factual knowledge) that is not discovered through the methods of natural science.

[shunyadragon]

{emphasis mine}

Metaphysical Naturalism and Scientism aren't 'equivalent', at least according to Wikipedia:







Quote Originally Posted by Wikipedia

Scientism is belief in the universal applicability of the scientific method and approach, and the view that empirical science constitutes the most authoritative worldview or most valuable part of human learning to the exclusion of other viewpoints.[1] It has been defined as "the view that the characteristic inductive methods of the natural sciences are the only source of genuine factual knowledge and, in particular, that they alone can yield true knowledge about man and society."

Quote Originally Posted by Wikipedia

Metaphysical naturalism, also called ontological naturalism, philosophical naturalism and scientific materialism is a worldview which holds that there is nothing but natural elements, principles, and relations of the kind studied by the natural sciences, i.e., those required to understand our physical environment by mathematical modelling. In contrast, methodological naturalism is an assumption of naturalism as a methodology of science, for which metaphysical naturalism provides only one possible ontological foundation.

While there might be a bit of overlap - someone could hold to Metaphysical naturalism and scientism, they're clearly not the same thing. Someone could be a metaphysical naturalist but not hold to scientism.

BTW, scientism seems to be self-refuting, as it's an item of factual knowledge (that the characteristic inductive methods of the natural sciences are the only source of genuine factual knowledge) that is not discovered through the methods of natural science.

Sounds like very much the same world world view to me in Wikipedia. Both worldviews or philosophies clearly simply reject everything outside the physical existence that is subject to the Methods of Methodological Naturalism. I see no difference of substance. The bolded in both definitions is simply a rewording of the same worldview. Please define the differences you see.

[MaxVel]

Sounds like very much the same world world view to me in Wikipedia. Both worldviews or philosophies clearly simply reject everything outside the physical existence that is subject to the Methods of Methodological Naturalism. I see no difference of substance. The bolded in both definitions is simply a rewording of the same worldview. Please define the differences you see.

Scientism is epistemology (about how we know what we know) and Metaphysical naturalism is ontology (what is reality?). As I've already pointed out, one could hold MN but not Scientism.

[robrecht]

Sounds like very much the same world world view to me in Wikipedia. Both worldviews or philosophies clearly simply reject everything outside the physical existence that is subject to the Methods of Methodological Naturalism. I see no difference of substance. The bolded in both definitions is simply a rewording of the same worldview. Please define the differences you see.

Note, however, that the Wikipedia entry on scientism demonstrates that it is frequently used in a pejorative sense by those who would definitely not call themselves proponents of scientism. Do you not see that difference?

[shunyadragon]

I'm not sure such exists for I am not making the accusation.

Then there is little or no need for me to come up with such a term to describe these nebulous vague maybe nonexistent scientists. I am sure there are individuals that present this view, but scientism is not

Nor is the accusation always meant to apply to specific individuals. Stephen Hawking, a prominent cosmologist, says, 'philosophy is dead'.

I have not read any of his more recent popular material so I am not sure how he would respond to those who might critique this position of his, but I imagine some might criticize him for taking this position, perhaps they might characterize this view as representative of a scientism that does not appreciate philosophical inquiry. In reality, he may be primarily criticizing current philosophy for not keeping up with science and cosmology.[/quote]

I have read much of his work. I do not consider his philosophical view on philosophy representative of scientists. As far as I know he does not reject the social sciences.

Also sounds derogatory. 'Severe' and 'reductionist' are both negative terms.

Reductionist in terms of materialist views and is not an insulting term. Severe could be easily replaced by Extreme. A few scientists, not many like Hawkins may express this view and not be insulted.

Their work is specialized, but I don't think you should assume they are indifferent to other sciences. I work with physical scientists all day long and they are all very interested in developments outside their areas of study, both in other sciences and in philosophy. They would be greatly insulted by your remarks.

You asked for a description of an extreme case, and I stated I do not know of many or in fact any such extreme cases, and your exaggerating big time. It is true, most scientist are devoted to their own specialty to the point they are indifferent to other fields of science. That does not mean they do not have an 'opinion.'

Do you know who coined the term? Did they apply the label to themselves?

No, but I may check.

There are lots of general and polyvalent terms in human language. Probably impossible to eliminate such terms.

I would like to see some examples. I would probably avoid them.

It is not meant to have useful application in science--surely you realize that, right? It is typically a derogatory term used of a sometimes unconscious worldview that is blind to realities that are supposedly not well investigated by scientific methodology. Saying that it is not a good term because it does not have a useful application in science smacks of .... dare I say, 'scientism'. It is a useful term to those who are sincerely interested in speaking with people who use the term.

AIG is not sincerely interested in speaking with other people whom they are describing using this term. Well, I surely realize AIG is using this term in a manor that has no constructive application of a dialogue with scientists nor science. IF it is as you say it is used usually as a derogatory term, then that is reason for me to reject it. The wiki definition does not describe a derogatory term. Despite what Maxvel asserts it is fundamentally Metaphysical Naturalism,

[shunyadragon]

Note, however, that the Wikipedia entry on scientism demonstrates that it is frequently used in a pejorative sense by those who would definitely not call themselves proponents of scientism. Do you not see that difference?

Yes, but it does not define scientism that way.

This is a problem I see with the word. As defined it is equivalent to Metaphysical Naturalism.

There is the added problem of the 'philosopher' cited by Adrift that further muddies the water of what scientism means.

Source: Source: LECTURES ON SCIENCE AND NATURALISM

Other kinds of naturalism do not agree with reductionist universalism and feel comfortable with permitting other scientific fields to describe reality with just as much legitimacy as physics. Because the biological and social sciences have traditionally used some methodological principles and modes of causality that depart from the physical sciences, many naturalists want to draw a line between trustworthy physical sciences (physics, chemistry, geosciences, astronomy, cosmology) and suspicious biological and social sciences. For example, some approaches to the social sciences have assumed the existence of social entities (that must not be treated as mere aggregates of people), and some biological and social sciences have use teleological causality (explanations that appeal to future outcomes to explain present behaviors). We will not discuss this internal dispute among naturalists here. However, the naturalists who would permit just the physical sciences to describe reality (let us call their view "scientism") do form a separate camp from those naturalists who are comfortable with all of the physical, biological, and social sciences describing reality (let us call their view "pluralism").

© Copyright Original Source

He needs to cite and discuss the actual differences before this is meaningful. Vague reference to scientists that view negatively 'suspicious biological and social sciences,' lacks substance without more explanation. The difference between 'pluralism and scientism' lack a meaningful distinction in actual cited references. I am not sure whether the intent here is derogatory or descriptive, but regardless it is different from Wikipedia and the AIG use of the term.

[MaxVel]

The wiki definition does not describe a derogatory term. Despite what Maxvel asserts it is fundamentally Metaphysical Naturalism,

Yes, but it does not define scientism that way.

This is a problem I see with the word. As defined it is equivalent to Metaphysical Naturalism.