What is Scientism? (Philosophy of Science)

[@InventiveHarvest]

The way i have been seeing the term "scientism" recently is as a pejorative for people who misinterpret and overstate what science says. Followers of scientism will focus on a study they heard about on TV and claim that therefore its conclusions must be absolutely true; even though they didnt read the paper or look for scientific studies that came to other conclusions than the one cited by the TV.

[@afacere736]

That would make a nice segue into Critical Rationalism

[@kevinodonnell3451]

Those who embrace Scientism use Philosophical Reasoning to defend their position. They also need Epistemology to justify their Knowledge of it. So anybody who denies Philosophy, uses Philosophy to justify it and shoots themselves in the foot lol.

[@pleaseenteraname1103]

Exactly scientism within itself is a philosophical presupposition which cannot be justified by science, so it’s literally self-contradictory, there’s a good reason why no analytic philosopher pretty much, holds or affirm scientism.

[@GeorgWilde]

Experience proves itself. It's not circular in the lingustic or logical sense. You don't need any paradigms for the science beyond the "faith" in common sense. You just do through the operations of doing an experiment.

[@betaorionis2164]

Como sense tells you Humans can't fly. Yet, millions board a plane everyday.

[@lightbeforethetunnel]

It's unprofessional to claim Scientism is a pejorative or derogatory term. Just include what the philosophy is and allow subjective opinions such as whether it's insulting up to the individual. Also, Scientism is much more than just those who think science is the best or only way to truth. It also *includes the excessive deference to the claims of scientists and the uncritical eagerness to accept anything described as scientific* Those who adhere to Scientism tend to think science means blind faith in the current consensus of academia sort of like a religious text. This is problematic because science is actually a METHOD of discovery requiring no faith... including no blind faith in academia

[@pleaseenteraname1103]

Scientism is ultimately intellectually and philosophically bankrupt position, because the Scientific method itself is a philosophical presupposition which can’t be proven by science, The very basis of scientism cannot be accounted for given scientism standard of evidence, it is self-contradictory. Science does require faith depending on how you define faith.

[@lightbeforethetunnel]

@@pleaseenteraname1103 Exactly! I'm actually surprised I didn't include that it's self-refuting in my post, I usually do. Here's how I usually show people that it's self-refuting: The claim "Truth can only be known if it's scientifically verified" cannot be scientifically verified ITSELF. It doesn't meet it's own requirements of acceptability, so it refutes itself.

[@lightbeforethetunnel]

@@pleaseenteraname1103 It's a philosophy that philosophies can't be true. I mean, it really doesn't get any more asinine than that lol

[@pleaseenteraname1103]

@@lightbeforethetunnel yeah 100% agree. Is my name really @@please enter name1103, because that doesn’t show up, on my account I can’t see that so pretty weird.

[@pleaseenteraname1103]

@@lightbeforethetunnel The tism implies it’s a philosophy, so the name itself is also self-contradictory.

[@km1dash6]

There was an interesting philosopher, W.T. Stace, who advocated for a position called phenomenolism which I think is a good synthesis of skepticism and realism. Scientific phenomenolism is a form of scientific instrumentalism that says phenomena is what exists, and the role of science is to "save" that phenomenon. We can build models that suggest light has properties of a partical-wave duality, but that model is a useful tool that describes what we experience in the double slit experiment. The data from the double slit experiment is what exists. We can see the results. But the Truth behind what we see is beyond the scope of science, according to this view.

[@MrSuperSonic1108]

I'm done with humanity.

[@tomholroyd7519]

A scientific study starts with a hypothesis that you try to falsify. But where does the hypothesis come from? Often from the previous study you did where *that* hypothesis failed. So it may be an attempt to fix the previous hypothesis. But maybe it's just an "intuitive leap" based on experience yes but also the desire of the scientist to satisfy a personal goal, which is usually not scientifically derived

[@pleaseenteraname1103]

Exactly that’s why we have philosophy of science because the scientific method is a philosophical presupposition.

[@Pfhorrest]

I think that science is the only source of "truth and knowledge about the world", when those words are understood specifically as delineating the project of *describing* how the world *is* . But I think there are many other projects besides that one, that science is not even in the business of *attempting* to do. Math, for one, doesn't say anything about how the world is, except as an implication of its business of talking about ways that worlds *could be* . Then there are the two kinds of value, aesthetic and ethical, which each have their own fields of inquiry, neither of which science even attempts to replicate -- though personally I argue that ethics deserves a perfect analogue of the physical sciences, a field of "ethical sciences", that do not *de* scribe but rather *pre* scribe, on the basis of repeatable *hedonic* experience rather than repeatable *empirical* experience. And then there is philosophy itself, which combines both mathematical (logical) and aesthetic (rhetorical) methodologies together to provide the grounds from which to do those physical and ethical sciences. Because I think that all of the places (the physical) science(s) are inapplicable are different endeavors than the project of finding "truth and knowledge about the world", and that science is the uniquely correct methodology of that one project, I tend to use the term "scientism" in my work for the view that collapses prescriptivity to descriptivity, and entirely denies that there is any non-descriptive kind of anything to do: saying not only that science is the only way to do the kind of thing that science sets out to do (with which I pretty much agree), but that that thing that science sets out to do is the only thing to do (with which I vehemently disagree).

[@pleaseenteraname1103]

Yeah 100% agree.

[@springinfialta106]

There seem to be an increasing number of scientists who believe that free will is a fiction, the concept of "the self" is a fiction, and that consciousness is not really something special or a "hard problem" but is just a not as yet fully understood result of brain activity. They might say something like we don't have the knowledge or computing power to work up from the Standard Model or String Theory to more complex layers of knowledge. However, we could in theory work up from physics to chemistry then biology then neurology then psychology then sociology then culture, politics, and economics. So there could one day be a quantum theory of art. So they might believe in scientism, but agree that we have to settle for pragmatism until we obtain the necessary knowledge and computer power. They will view the methods of historians, economists, political theorists, etc. as pale imitations of the scientific method. I get this air of superiority especially from physicists. It is said that they are among the smartest people on Earth, and that they have made great strides in their field while historians, philosophers, economists, etc. are still arguing over the same points they have been for centuries. A case could be made, however, that the reason there has been so much advancement in physics is that it is the easiest field in which to gain knowledge. After all, we don't have to ask protons or electrons for their consent before slamming them together at velocities close to the speed of light in a near perfect vacuum at temperatures hovering near absolute zero.

[@lightbeforethetunnel]

I think what those scientists are suffering from is a form of Ontological Nihilism

[@lindaophoenix5148]

I have never considered my views to be absolute scientism as you have defined here; yet it seems to me that Science could at least determine a logical, rational Supreme Range of Functional Guidelines for us as humans using the results from experimental scientific method. It may also be able to provide actual plans for Realization of those Supreme Range of Functional Guidelines. If the arts and humanities were included as part of the plan, religion and philosophy wouldn't need to be as volatile and divide societies so greatly.

[@noah5291]

not necessarily, we might get to a point where zooming in or digging deeper results in unintelligible data

[@socraticgadfly]

The intro sounded like it was going to go into strawmanning, and I'm still not sure it didn't at least flirt with that. Even the latter portion was not fantastic. There's related questions, such as, are all things in the universe knowable, period. (I say this as a friend of Massimo Pigliucci who believes he has some good thoughts in general on the subject.)

[@Vuuguv]

Is the statement that science is the only method for knowledge provable by science ?

[@orrinwells6571]

AWESOME VIDEO MAN. I LOVE IT.

[@jimmyjmv]

It is not deniable that "scientific intuition" is needed to choose the option(s), chosen in the midst of plenty of them, which would lead us to find some answers in the research process. Perhaps, in this situation, science is not working at all ^_^

[@DoraemonFan-ww3jm]

it's true, science can't explain everything the world offers, such as mysterious paranormal experiences, history, art, alongside others.

[@Cieln0va]

It actually can explain "paranormal experiences" because experiences are often fallible. History can be discerned by piecing together multiple historical accounts to see which parts are consistent across descriptions of events, humanity's creation of art could be explained by our pattern-seeking brains but that's not the only possible answer.

[@sharpie6888]

@@Cieln0vanot science

[@3kinformaticamanutencaoeve91]

They, scientificism ou scientism defenders or even without knowing belief that science is an entity. They think per si science can bring all that we need or expose what we reject. But science is abstract and always put on a being the claims about what is questioning. Thus surround science and including science in a whole doing that science can bring elucidations. So all linguistics of all beings is always needed to we have good science.

[@rer9287]

Maybe this argument was relevant 100 years ago or more, but it seems rather dated. Modern science is first and foremost a method for evaluating evidence - and there can always be more evidence. The term "proof" then is an anathema to science. It can't be used in a scientific context except as an indication the conversation is gibberish. Subjective proof has little utility and objective proof is only available in the context of logic or math - which are tools used in science.

[@GeorgWilde]

"Modern science is first and foremost a method for evaluating evidence" - I believe it is the other way around. It is a method of evaluating theories in face of evidence, or a method of subjecting conjectures to evidence, seeing what survives the evidence, what remains unfalsified. Just taking evidence and applying methods to it is data science, statistics, machine learning, induction ... That doesn't get us very far. Science does more.

[@rer9287]

@@GeorgWilde when you carry a specific theory into an analysis it necessarily brings with it biases an assumptions which are antithetical to science. The fewer biases and assumptions in the analysis, the better the science. It should not then be considered the fundamental or best place to start.

[@G_Demolished]

I thought it was a parting shot from people who have been unsuccessfully trying to convert you to their religion.

[@DeathbyKillerBong]

this is not the way iv been using the scientism pejorative, iv been using it to criticize the dogmatic belief in scientific results, as if they were unquestionable and unfalsifiable when that is the exact antithesis of what such results are, quotes like "the science is settled" and "trust the experts" have been prolific last few years and its dumb and anti science.

[@salmac7892]

exactly, many in science spaces know this. Questions like "how does just the act of observing influence behaviour and results" exist heavily in physics +quantum physics yet everyone outside science insists science is "settled"

[@humanrights5742]

Sound a lot like Positivism.

[@RyanK-100]

I have never heard such restrictive definitions of scientism. I would sum up the most common definition as: the presumption that science (or those trained as scientists, employing science) can address or solve non-scientific issues, such as morality, or a religious faith in "science as salvation."

[@uzairwaheed330]

I appreciate your strong stance against philosophically illiterate scientismic dogmatist fools.

[@MT-ll3tu]

Ah the same lot that will directly call you Schizophrenic. If you driven a road seeing a few ghosts and a Dogman crossing the road with a limp from being hit by accident.

[@subliminallime4321]

The way I understand it, Ethical Naturalists who think that science has a place in moral philosophy frame arguments like "If a moral agent wants to achieve X, then they ought to do Y" The Y is something that science has a lot to say about. The X is something that philosophers would argue about in the same way they discuss which things are virtues, what makes actions right or wrong, or which consequences are better than others... What should the goal be? Ask philosophy What's the best way to achieve the goal? Ask science. *but also sciences like sociology, psychology, economics, etc... have a lot to say about what X should be as well.

[@Dare5358]

Science is by far the BEST method for acquiring and confirming knowledge, and it's just a very very strong (in fact, the strongest) inductive argument and method. It's hard to think of any other method of knowledge gathering and confirmation that even comes close.

[@FrozenSpector]

Inductive Science is not the only source of Truth though. What is Math but a language of Deduction? Science might use Math, but the two look at Truth in the world with unique ways - both of which require Philosophy to examine.

[@pleaseenteraname1103]

Your statement is self refuted, because if you believe that science is the best method for truth and knowledge, how do you know that your statement is accurate? Since you can’t scientifically verify that statement.

[@pleaseenteraname1103]

@@FrozenSpector his comment to self refuting because you can’t scientifically verify the statement that science is the best method for confirming knowledge and truth.

[@geraldharrison5787]

'Scientism', as I understand it, is synonymous with the extreme empiricist view that only sensible data can be evidence for anything. The victim of scientism is someone who treats empirical data and 'evidence' as synonyms. The view is incoherent, as sense data can only be evidence for something if it gives us reason to believe something in light of it, and reasons to believe things are not empirically detectable. Thus by its own lights sense data is not evidence of anything, as you cannot 'sense' that sensations provide us with reasons to believe things. This is why it is a term of insult: by accusing someone of scientism one is accusing them of holding a view that all those capable of thinking clearly recognize to be incoherent. It should be confused with naturalism - the view that only the entities and relations revealed by the natural sciences are the ultimate constituents of reality. A naturalist - at least one who is not so stupid as to be a victim of scientism - will acknowledge that it is by our reason that we find out what's what. They will simply argue that our reason's representations are about the same place that our senses are of (and that reasons-to-believe things are themselves naturalizable).

[@GeorgWilde]

If scientism was what you defined it to be, then it would be completely uncontroversial. It would be equivalent to saying that "knowledge comes to me only from science and i don't know of any other means for obtaining it." What i would call scientism would be things like pretending some scientific knowledge that doesnt' exist yet (or which cannot ever exist). For example pretending that empidemiology shows NORMATIVE truths about how the society should behave without any ifs (obscuring that it depends on goals of the people and pretending that virus bad = measures good). So that is extension of scientific knowledge where it in fact doesn't reach yet. Some go so far that they pretend we can replace politics by science. Other form of scientism is pretending that scientific knowledge is absolutely certain thus denying its provisional probabilistic nature.

[@Ronaaronhunt]

I agree with your last point. But take note of the comments here, I have seen at least on person here advocate for scientism. I will say that I have generally seen non-scientists, and not those trained in science, who believe in scientism.

[@RENATVS_IV]

I didn't know it was a derogatory term in English. But I can say that in Spanish, actually, it is a term to be proud of.

[@KojackD1B]

All models are wrong some are just more useful than others. Science is better at producing asymptotic statements than objective truths. There are some objective truths it does produce. For example, we know the Earth is not flat because we've been outside the Earth and verified it isn't flat. We however don't fully know the age of the Earth because we haven't gone back in time to verify the age of the Earth.

[@hckytwn3192]

It goes deeper than though. Fundamentally, science has no basis, no central truth supporting it (see: Godel & Tarski). And in such it relies on circular reasoning--specifically using science to validate science, all while excluding any 'non-scientific' contradicting evidence. Furthermore science itself shows us the scientific method isn't truly feasible--we simply can't make objective, accurate and detached measurements (see: Relativity, Uncertainty Principle, Quantum Entanglement, Observer Effect, the Measurement Problem, etc.) Science is definitely useful, but it will never be complete, consistent or prove anything true on it's own. In the end, it can really only tell us if something is 'scientific' or not.

[@orrinwells6571]

yes sir

[@coldboltlighting1237]

What?

[@GeorgWilde]

@@hckytwn3192 "i.e. Godel & Tarski" - science is not a system of formal logic. You are attacking the disembodied language which you chose to formalize in some particular way.

[@hckytwn3192]

​@@GeorgWilde C'mon. No one would say science is 'informal' or 'illogical'. That's kind of ridiculous. Formal logic uses deductive process to discover relationships--which is the very backbone of science. Also, math and logic themselves are inescapably formal, and also central to science.

[@JoeHinojosa-ph8yw]

You left out religion and spirituality. An unintended oversight, no doubt?

[@williambranch4283]

A cargo cult, not a philosophy

[@NeroDefogger]

that's literally not true!!!! dude you guys don't know what scientism is, scientism is trying to justify as science a religious faithful belief!!!! that is what it is!!!! not just science!!! that is just... SCIENCE! science is science, it is a thing, it exists, and it is amazing, but science is science, and scientism is scientism, what????!!!

[@MyMy-tv7fd]

Scientism is extremely common, it is practically The Western Heresy of our day. I have experienced scientism from the philosophically illiterate scientist very commonly: eg, some biologist say: 'evolution...blah, blah, blah'. I say: 'OK, define the term 'evolution' '. Biologist say: 'you are an ignorant, anti-scientific creationist...', I say...'No, I just want clarity on the term 'evolution', all scientists know that terms must have definitions...', conversation ends with self-justifying waffle... This I have also experienced from the grossly ignorant non-scientist with a good degree in history from Cambridge - the exact same debate stand-off. Scientism is a good clean descriptor, and if it is used perjoratively, it is with good reason. The usage may or may not be conducive to further civil debate but it is fully justified.

[@Cieln0va]

Do I smell a straw man? I do believe I do. Any Biologist would be able to define evolution. The issue is when someone rejects the definition given. An example that happened to me a few days ago. Someone asks me to "Define evolution", I do, and they reply with "That's not evolution, that's adaptation.". If that continues, then I'd call them ignorant because, well, they're purposefully being ignorant.

[@MyMy-tv7fd]

@@Cieln0va - but what def. of evolution did you give? Examples please. Adaptation often is called 'evolution', but good old Darwin said it was the 'origin of species' without giving the origin of any single species at all.

[@johnmanno2052]

Science is the best. Science makes models that we continuously tinker with so that they make ever more accurate predictions. Science has had undeniable success. Science has made our lives undeniably better. What's the alternative to science? Science is inarguably better than astrology/religion/superstition for providing accurate knowledge about our world...... Blah blah blah blah blah. So many discussions. So many standardized arguments. One of these days, I'd love for someone to tell me what "better" means, what "more accurate" means (exactly), how precisely "knowledge" can be separated from a priori notions/assumptions, how our perceptions can be divorced from our unconscious expectations, and all that jazz. I've heard an awful lot of attempts at doing so, I've heard philosophers building arguments (quite sophisticated ones) that they say demonstrate how we could do so, but none of these seem to succeed. If someone could also tell me exactly how we do this thing called perceive and precisely what this thing called consciousness is for which this thing called science is an apparently indispensable tool and aid, I'd greatly appreciate it.

[@pumpkingamebox]

Not a scietismst, but when science eventually will figure out what combination of genes and experiences causes a person to see certain things as beautiful. Beauty and ethics will become less subjective.

[@LukeVilent]

I would describe myself as a strong follower of scientism. LIke it or not, but in scientific circles the word "philosoper" is pejorative, an for good reason. Starting with Boole's proving logic a part of math, and not the phislosophy, science has been ever taking ground, describing and evaluating what philosophers claimed for "ineffable" i.e. a domain where they can do their verbiage indefinitely. In the end, it all just came to finding the right instruments for measuring stuff - art, ethics and justice included.