Wrong, sorry. The fact of evolution is that we see fossils of species that are related to modern species, and we see relationships between different species today - simply put, we see a change in gene frequency over time. The theory of evolution attempts to explain why it changes.
Just like with gravity. The fact (law) of gravity is that when you drop an object, it accelerates toward the ground at 9.8 m/s^2. The theory of gravity attempts to explain why that happens.
The word scientism is a bad one – that is, badly coined – because, based on it, the obvious construction to denote a person who accepts the belief-system of scientism is a “scientist” – and that word is already in use to mean something very different, and much more important. And not all scientists are believers in scientism, as above defines.
The term “scientific materialist” might be a better choice. It has long been used to denote a person who accepts scientific explanations of phenomena over spiritual or supernatural explanations; although even this might not be “scientism” in the hard or weak sense.
Blowero and GodlessSkeptic:
I don’t think i’m making myself clear enough. I should say that i’m an atheist, and I’m not trying to argue in favour of faith or a spiritual side to life, or that science is in some way lacking.
This goes to the heart of what i’m trying to say. We are of course rooted in the physical and we are scientifically measurable.
What goes on when someone eats pie is totally able to be measured and explained scientifically. We already know what happens with the taste buds, nerve cells etc, and in the future we will know how neurons in the brain interact to produce the subjective experience of eating pie.
So i agree with you that subjective experiences are produced by the interaction of physical elements in our brain.
The scientistic viewpoint says this is a complete description. But my view is that it isn’t, because it doesn’t include how it feels to the person whose neurons are firing in ways that produce the subjective experience.
Again, I don’t know about any “scientistic” viewpoint and I am not saying you are WRONG …I am saying I have no idea what a “complete description” of reality is, much less whether science will ever be able to give us such.
If science can tell us what is going on when we are enjoying pie then how is this not complete?SHOULD science be able to give us this “complete description”(whatever it is) in the first place?
This seems a bit like saying “Math is incomplete because it cannot tell us why we enjoy a Kurosawa movie!”.
He apparently has more of an idea of what he is talking about than most.
The scientific method is very much different from any type of religion.
-Using the SM the method by wich data is collected must be reproducible. No religion make that claim.
-Using the SM, theories supported by empirical data must be falsifiable using contradictory data or theory that better fits the available data.
Genesis is still holding strong with some ppl, even with contradictory data (obvious link to ape descendants, improbable Noa Arch etc.).
-The SM is open to theories is from anyone. I could make a scientifically valid theory about dog temperment and noselength, support it (or not support it) by data and it would be valid given the proper methodology. You dont need a special conduit to the SM.
Religion relies on a very few from its group to have a direct/semi direct access to its deity. Try speaking up in church and tell everyone that God told you its ok to be gay.
-The SM does not address morals or ethics. The SM may address issues such perceived freedom or social harmony but does not make claims on what is good or bad.
After all of these posts, it seems to me that a scientific statement would be “Evolution is a fact, let’s begin a discussion.” A scientistic statement would be “Evolution is a fact, end of discussion.”
Would this be a fair comparison?
No. A Realistic and Factual Discussion would begin with, “The Preponderance of the Evidence Supports the Scientific Theory of Evolution.” It would end with, “If Any Scientific Evidence Whatsoever Arises in Such Quantity to Refute the Scientific Theory of Evolution as it is Now Understood, then that Scientific Theory would be Amended to Account for Such Evidence.”
Anything else is just religous-based posturing.
FWIW, I think the term may havwe been coined by Neil Postman, but I forget the title of the book.
He is/was an atheist who nonetheless finds risible the supposition that scientific method could ever give a definitive description of (say) “love” or “beauty” is.
Really GodlessSkeptic, Is there such a word as irregardless??
(I am not a grammer nazi!!)
Planet of the Shapes has nailed the philosophical usage of the term on the head. Well done. I’m not aware of any other use of the notion, but that may be due to my limited knowledge.
I tend to apply scientism in particular for denoting the position of people who think the only way to arrive at valid knowledge is by using the methods of natural science (hypothesis, experiment, theory). It is a seductive viewpoint, but ultimately to my mind doesn’t hold. For one thing, how do you prove that the scientific method is the only way to arrive at knowledge? Such a proof cannot base itself on experiments: you need a philosophical argument for that. Hence scientism itself is unscientific (where scientific means, according to the experimental method of natural science).
Of course scientists need not be adherents of scientism, and AFAIK philosphers don’t believe scientism is peculiar to scientists, who (as was noted earlier) are usually more aware of the limits of the scientific method than laymen.
I think you’re missing the point. I was not attempting to differentiate between right-thinking scientific method and wrong-thinking religion (as if those were the only two possibilities). I was trying to ask if science:scientism::science as a beginning:science as an end in itself.
It surprises me that among so many posts by people who have heard of scientism and know its meaning, so many others are simply reguritating “religion bad, science good.” Is that, in itself, a form of scientism?
Almost.
A scientific statement would be “Evolution is a theory, let’s begin a discussion.”
A scientistic statement would be “Evolution is a fact, end of discussion.”
A creationist statement would be “Evolution is a theory, throw it out.”
I dislike scientism because it is as hostile to critical thinking as creationism.
BTW, if you read The Origin of Species, Darwin was a creationist.
Scientism is one of those terms bleated out by people trying to justify a rather tenuous beleif system. Critics are often refered to as adherants of “Scientism” because they do not fall for the tenets of such a belief system. People prone to Scientism do exist, but they are very, very rare.
The term is used in an accusatory manor about 10,000 times to every actual Scientismist. (I did not just write that word, did I?)
Theory of Gravity,
Theory of Electricity.
Wanna tell me those things are not facts? The “Theory” part merely covers the study and detail of them.
Evolution is a fact. Same deal
The Theory of Evolution is a theory since it continues to have major elements of it in a learning process, has details in need of fleshing out. Calling it a theory in this case is not to give creationism any basis in reality any more than the “theory of no-gravity.”
As were most of the early evolutionists. The assumptions was god was doing more than just making man, he was shaping man.
Not that it is relevant.
Observations, experimental results and other facts are woven together with interpretations to create a theory. There is no way that the theory of electricity or gravity or evolution can be a fact anymore than a book can be a word or a car can be a piston. It is simply illogical, meaningless and unnecessary to call a theory a fact. They belong to different logical classes. It is scientismogistical bullshit to call a theory a fact and it is due to the polarization caused by creationists questioning science. It is sad to see scientists sinking to the same level as creationists by trying to make science into a religion.
However, the use of the term “theory” does not detract from the obvious existance of gravity, electricity or evolution!
Nonense, scientists are simply tired of the old saw creationists use of declaring that since Evolution is “theory” therefore it can neccessarily (and thus by implication, very easily be untrue). Calling evolution a fact is like calling gravity a fact. They are equal. Calling the theory of gravity or evolution a “fact” is a semantic error, but one born of frustration of those who would use ignorance to advance their cause. This is not turning science into a religion, this is a reaction to the deliberate spread of ignorance.
In my book, creationists never have anything to offer to a discussion, merely errors to be corrected.
tdn: And exactly where in the hell did I say religion is bad?
Got a reference or do you care to apologize now?
Roger_Mexico,
What part of “‘theory’ does not mean ‘unproven’” do you not understand.
Evolution is a theory which has been proven. It is a fact. It is not in a different logical class. You don’t know what the word means. Please inform yourself before you make assertions.
Thank you for admitting that calling a theory a fact is a semantic error. There is no justification for committing semantic errors. Anyone who would stoop to committing semantic errors in order to win political battles with creationists has automatically left the halls of science.
You said:
“However, the use of the term “theory” does not
detract from the obvious existance of gravity,
electricity or evolution!”
Of course it doesn’t. Why on earth would you infer that? Calling something a theory doesn’t negate its truthfulness. This insistence on calling theories facts springs from intellectual immaturity and insecurity.
Grow up.