“The Demon Haunted World.” I won’t type up an example, because he goes on for 2 whole chapters about it. I won’t even give a quote of one line, because there is no one line that encapsulates it. It’s more the general tenor of the chapters that indirectly says “Yea, science! Rah Rah!”
I should be careful to note that he does say, several times, that science doesn’t know all the answers, and scientific method is more important that scientific findings. But he clearly doesn’t quite believe that. At least that wasn’t my impression when reading it.
Scientific method can be defined as “Searching for truth, irregardless of what the truth is.”.We can get all specific with terms like “hypothesis”, “rules of inference” adn “grounds for falsification” but basically it is nothing more than a system of checks and balances for rationally examining the universe we live in.
There is nothing inherent in scientific methodology that lends itself to so-called “scientism”.People that ignore what the method tells them in order to dogmatically adhere to a presupposition are practicing egotism and/or dogmatism.I do not know for sure who coined the term “scientism” but I suspect it was one of the supernaturalists who commonly make the argument that by not agreeing with supernaturalist claims, one is making a “leap of faith”(in science or rationality or materialism) that there is nothing beyond what we observe adn what can be empirically verified.
A silly argument to say the least but it persists nonetheless.
I think you’re right, but the term seems now to also be used by scientists and rational thinkers. See Dogface’s post above.
In looking through some stuff, I came across this vile stinking pile of dog droppings. If you value your blood pressure, don’t read it. I you do read it, feel free to Pit it.
Yet another “The Bible is %100 scientifically accurate but the acolytes of scientism are trying to cover this up” bunch of nonsense.
What I find strange is how religionists will go on and on about how great “faith” is and how insufficient rationality and logic are but will turn right around and accuse us of being “just as religious or “faithful” as them”(as if “religious” or “faithful” is not something to be proud of after all).
I know the part of Demon-Haunted World that tdn is referring to. Sagan did not say that “science is the answer to everything” he just said that it was more dependable than the alternatives (He uses examples like using prayer to cure an infection vs. antibiotics). Sagan was always consistent in saying that science was fallible but also self-correcting.
“Scientism” to me just sounds like an attempt by creationists to characterize science as being dependent on faith, which is nonsense. Scientific theory is in no way dependent on faith and calling science “scientism” in no way invalidates the evolutionary science that creationsists hate so much.
Agreed Diogenes.The other day I had a theist try to make the case that Sagan was a theist himself by taking a quote from Broca’s Brain out of context.Fortunately I had a copy of the book right in front of me and was able to figure out what Sagan was actually saying.
I did a philosophy course at university which briefly touched on Scientism. The definition we were taught there was totally different to the definition that most of the posters here seem to be using.
We were taught scientism is essentially a philosophical position that the only things worth of study are those that can be described in a totally objective fashion. Basically it says that the only the scientific method is valid.
For instance if you want to study emotion, you should only study electrical impulses, neurotransmitters, and other phenomena that can be described in scientific terms. The subjective feeling of emotion is meaningless because it cannot be described in objective measurable terms.
Scientism is not an acceptance of the body of scientific knowledge as the absolute truth. That is no different to religious faith.
While scientism can be said to be a valid philosophical viewpoint, i don’t think many people would agree with it. The fact that we have subjective experiences that cannot be fully described objectively means that science is not and cannot ever be a complete description of the world.
**
I think I disagree with THIS.I guess it comes down to priorities.I do not think it very important to understanding the reality of our existence that someone prefers ‘red’ over ‘blue’ or some equally subjective, imeasureable notion.To my mind the important questions are :
1)What exists(materially/physically)?
2)How does the existential interact with other existing things?What effect(s) does the existing things have on existence as a whole?
3)How do we know what exists(independently of our imaginings) or how do we recognise what is ‘true’ and what is ‘false’(objectively)?
4)How are we lead to errors in thinking(believing falsehoods to be true adn vice versa) and how do we avoid such?
I am probably forgetting something but oh well.I realise I am probably in the minority as an unapologetic materialist/functionalist here but I have never been impressed with the mental masturbation and semantic gamery of idealism and similar philosophies.
I think i agree with you GodlessSkeptic. I wasn’t trying to denigrate the scientific method or science - it is obviously the most powerful tool we have to describe reality.
In the future we will have a much greater understanding of the human brain than we now do. Science will be able to accurately explain what goes on when we feel emotion - how various neurons and other parts of the brain interact to produce the subjective experience of joy for instance. This won’t be a complete description though, because it does not include what that feels like to the person experiencing it.
I’m not saying that the subjective is more important, and that science is bunk. I agree with you that the search for objective truth is the most important endeavor. I’m just explaining why i feel scientism is incorrect - why science is not a complete description of reality as we experience it.
Do you disagree? Do you feel that science is a complete description of reality?
As for this statement that “science isn’t the answer for everything”; without any context, it’s meaningless. What is it to which we are comparing science, and what what are the purposes for which this other method(s) is superior to science? Without answering these questions, it’s impossible to evaluate the truth of the statement. As it stands, it’s merely an attempt to paint others as dogmatists.
Science is a method of obtaining knowledge. The relative completeness/incompleteness of the knowledge that has been obtained does not change the method. The strength of science is that it doesn’t attempt to be a complete explanation of reality. In my opinion, one of the many failings of faith as a method of obtaining knowledge is that it often insists on giving answers to what is currently unexplained (e.g., what is outside of the universe?, or why do we exist?), rather than accepting “we don’t know” as the answer.
First of all, what Blowero just said!I have no idea what a “complete description of reality” is(to you at least).If by that you mean knowing all there is to know about our objective reality, then no I do not think it likely we will ever know so much.
However, there is one method that works for understanding as much as we possibly can about reality and that is the scientific method.
Some will argue that spiritual practices are equally important in this endeavor but I see no reason to believe this as I see no reason to believe there is anything spiritual to ‘know’ in the first place.
I see no reason to think that even subjective things such as “I enjoy pie” are not rooted in the physical and therefore potentially scientifically measurable.
A good example of a typical statement uttered by a scientistic fanatic, as opposed to a real scientist is: “Evolution is a fact, not a theory.” I think evolution is a good theory, but it cannot be a fact. To call evolution a fact is completely unscientific.
A related concept is “promissory materialism”, e.g., believing that we can use genetics to solve social problems, it will be possible someday we just don’t have the proper techniques right now.
You have no idea what you are talking about.Evolution is both a fact AND a theory.A theory in science is an explanation of a fact or known observable phenomenom.We KNOW that evolution occurs adn it is explained by a few different theories…chiefly natural selection(there is also Gould’s theory of punctuated equilibrium).
“Theories” are not rungs on a ladder of increasing certainty.A theory never becomes and has nothing to do with a “law” or “fact” otehr than serving as an explnantion of that fact/law.
Today we have both the theory and law of gravitation.
Sighhh…Godless skeptic you have no idea what you are talking about.
Evolution is a theory. Period. It can never be a fact. End of discussion. Not even worth arguing about.
Roger_Mexico, I really don’t think you understand what a scientific theory is. “Theory” does not mean “unproven.” It means an explanation that best fits a set of phenomena and which is supported by empirical data.
Do you think that the existence of the atom is a fact? How about gravity? Do germs make you sick? These are all theories, and evolution has just as much support as any of them.