I’m not following you. What sorts of existential claims are you referring to?
Method for knowledge, I believe. I wasn’t aware that very many people were claiming science as a method for other things, like happiness? Is that what you’re talking about? What is this incorrect application of science to which you refer?
At the risk of sounding like a broken record, punctuated equlibrium is not an alternative mechanism to natural selection. It is not, in fact, a new mechanism at all.
That evolution occurs is a fact - an observation that the phenotypes (and underlying genotypes) of populations of organisms change over time. This is every bit as factual as the observation that objects fall when dropped, and that the underlying force is what we call “gravity”. The mechanisms which drive evolution are what comprise the “theory” in “the Theory of Evolution” (which is, in my opinion, part of the problem, since there is no single “theory of evolution”, as there are multiple mechanisms at work).
Well, take ghosts, for example. At least god has the heightened metaphysical position to definitely be outside the scope of science, but will you believe in ghosts before they are scientifically demonstrated? And what does that say about where you place science in terms of…
Oh? And what knowledge is that? Care to elaborate what truths science has you hold?
I wasn’t aware that the claim “I don’t know if theory X is true” is a statement that is the result of a method of seeking knowledge. I hope that helps you see why I find there to be a dilemma there.
The notion of science as oracular, while at the same time rejecting that it even says anything about truth.
When a person says, “I don’t see any scientific reason to believe in ghosts” and then follows that up with “[the method of] science never proves anything” then I have to wonder just what they are thinking about. Admittedly this is just my own sort of pet peeve, but if science never proves anything, then why appeal to science as a method for discounting ghosts anyway? Science won’t demonstrate their existence, will it?
I think science (in the way it is spoken of by adherents) sets the truth bar too low, and belief, in a metaphysical or truth-based sense, sets it too high, and I think many people use one to work around their disatisfaction with the other which creates strongly religious people and, well, scientism people, depending on the method of compensation.
You’re still losing me. How is belief in ghosts an example of people worshipping science? I would consider it the opposite.
If you believe things for which there is little evidence, then you obviously hold science in low regard. Is that what you’re asking?
Uh, water is made of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom? What exactly are you asking for? A list of the billions of things we have learned from science? I’m afraid others might complain about the waste of bandwidth.
That’s not the result; it’s the beginning. Who said it was a result?
Afraid not. I see no dilemna. Perhaps you are confusing the fact that we can never be 100% sure of anything with the notion that we don’t know anything at all?
Easy there! Who said that?
But surely you see the difference between “I don’t see any scientific reason to believe in ghosts”, and “ghosts cannot exist”, don’t you? I can be reasonably sure that ghosts don’t exist, but there is always a remote chance that indisputable evidence could show up tomorrow. See, it’s not that science never proves anything, it’s that science never proves anything absolutely. There’s always that chance that what we know now will change. For example, for a long time we thought that time was immutable. Nobody in their wildest dreams imagined that it was relative. But with many things, you reach a point where the chance that we are mistaken is so remote that it’s not even worth mentioning. What would you consider the chance that the Tooth Fairy is real?
Science could demonstrate their existence, if they exist. But, after thousands of years of looking for objective evidence for ghosts, and finding very little or none, we can infer that they do not exist, but we can never be 100% sure (the whole “apples might start to rise tomorrow” thing).
Sorry, but I don’t see how you’ve demostrated this at all.
From what I’ve heard, scientism is non-existent. No one claims to be an adherent themself; they just claim some other people are. Some people use the term scientism in an attempt to claim science is a religious belief. Often these same people will then use the term creationism in an attempt to claim their religious beliefs are a science.
What would you consider the chance that the Tooth Fairy is real?
I have no method of assigning probability to certainty in terms of the natural sciences. But I think the chances of science telling me electrons exist is the same as science telling me the tooth fairy exists. We have a model, and in that model, this is what is said and done. Inside the model of the atom, electrons exist, and when we look at this data from that perspective, thats what the data means. Of course, whether electrons exist or not has never been answered, and cannot be answered. But that’s not my problem (indeed, I agree with that entirely).
Science could demonstrate [the existence of ghosts], if they exist. But, after thousands of years of looking for objective evidence for ghosts, and finding very little or none, we can infer that they do not exist, but we can never be 100% sure (the whole “apples might start to rise tomorrow” thing).
I don’t think science can demonstrate any such thing; if it did, it would be oracular.
You’re still losing me. How is belief in ghosts an example of people worshipping science? I would consider it the opposite.
It isn’t. Why would I say that? I asked if you would consider ghosts to exist without scientific evidence. In other words, what things do you consider you know about this world that you wouldn’t defer to science’s judgment on? Is science the method for obtaining knowledge?
That’s not the result; it’s the beginning. Who said it was a result?
At any point in the scientific method, the statement I made is true. Is it a question of “absolute knowledge” versus not knowing anything? No. Again, my problem with belief is that it sets the bar too high, it might make people inclined to say that something is now and forever shall be true. My problem with science is that it sets the bar too low, it makes people with the slightest trace of skepticism inclined to say we can never know anything. Given the history of science, one might be inclined to say that if there is a thread that runs through it, it is that every theory gets replaced. One might begin to suspect that no matter how “good” we think current theories are, they will always be replaced, and we are in a perpetual state of ignorance.
“I know more today than I did yesterday, but everything I know is likely to be wrong.” I think the philosophy of science needs some revamping, is all. Again, a pet peeve of mine.
What are you smoking, and can I have some? If both electrons and the Tooth Fairy actually exist, and have about the same amount of objective evidence for their existance, then yes, science has the same chance of telling you that both exist. If electrons exists and the Tooth Fairy doesn’t (as seems to be the case), then science has an almost zero chance of telling you that the Tooth Fairy exists, while still being pretty much emphatic that electrons exist.
You make it sound like you have to be looking for electrons before the data shows that they exist, and that is simply untrue. The objective data was observerd first, sans model, and the model was created from that data.
I’d say that there is a 99.9999% chance that electrons exist. They may be the result of multi-dimensional brane vibrations, but they would still exist.
So you contend that science can never show that anything exists? We’re not talking about proving existance. We’re talking about demonstrating existance by the proponderence of the evidence. That’s what science does, and if there were enough objective evidence for the existance of ghosts, then science could demonstrate that they exist.
It’s the method for obtaining verifiable, objective knowledge, yes.
But we are in a perpetual state of ignorance. There is always something that we don’t know. You make that sound like a bad thing, and I don’t think that it is. We are constantly refining our knowledge, that’s all.
Revamping . . . how, exactly? That isn’t an arbitrary philosophy of sicence, it is a direct result of how science works. Of course, the “everything I know is likely to be wrong” is really better worded as “everything I know is possibly wrong, with a probability inversely proportional to the amount of evidence.”
First off, I must say that many scientists and many of those in the confluence of the Northern and Western Hemispheres often have a rather poor understanding of religion. Christianity, Judaism, and Islam are exceptional albeit recently (in historical terms) very popular religions.
For most of it’s history, religion was not codified in an unchallengable holy tome. It was an integrated part of human knowledge, not an act of blind faith.
Astronomy grew effortlessly from the work of Astrology. There’s a lot in Astrology that is useless now, but for naked eye observations of the stars, Astrology left little to be improved on. Astrologists’ knowledge of the cycles of the stars and planets allowed for accurate calendars that were invaluable for planting crops and understanding the cycles of the local environment.
My point of mentioning this?
Faith as an integral and necessary part of religion is a recent development. Much of what we now call religion was based on direct observation and meeting the needs of those who proscribed to it. It changed and grew organically as people’s knowledge of the world expanded.
I am by no means a creationist, but I think that science cannot and was never intended to give meaning to people’s lives. This is an integral part of the psychological makeup of people. We want to know “why” not just “how.” Take away religion and people will look elsewhere, often to science for what they now lack.
This I believe, is scientism. I have no creationist agenda, I’ve simply observed some incredible dogmatic and irrational behavior in the defense of “science.”
Not that YourOldBuddy really offered an example of this, but let’s look at some things I consider common misperceptions:
I offer up astrology as it existed in many religions as having a rather extensive and verifiable quantity of data. Sure, the fertility goddess explanation utimately had less explanatory power than later theories, but when the moon was full and mars was aligned with Venus (or whatever) was really a good time to plant the crops.
I think this is largely a matter of degree and emphasis. This is certainly where science has set itself apart, but if you predict a great snake is going to swallow the sun (eclipse) and it doesn’t, well, you might be out of a preisthood.
As I said, a conscious decision on faith is a new development born out of strict monotheism based on a historical tome, which is contrary to what religion generally has been. Also it depends upon what you mean by contradictory. Is light a wave or a particle?
I disagree. One needs to be “initiated” into science in order to present any evidence in an acceptable manner. Very few people can question any accepted theory effectively.
This seperation often leads to appeals to authority instead of the sort of debate that science is supposed to be about, like this one from Mr. Miskatonic:
Yet amorality is a form of morality in a sense. If one wishes to create human genetic experiments or eviscerate conscious animals in the pursuit of science then morality inevitably comes into play. Will these experiments be justified in the “pursuit of knowledge” or perhaps the god of “progress”?
A need for a system of ethics deprived of religion or any cultural myopia has never been greater. We will look to science for this. But if it is based on neuronal interactions of the brain I don’t think we’ll get far. Reliance on direct observation will be critical, but science’s methodology of hyper-specialization could be counterproductive. I think our solutions need to be syncretic and wholistic. These are methods of gaining knowledge that science is not well suited for.
I have a feeling that no matter what level of proof I offer, it won’t be good enough for you. What’s your beef with this anyhow? Why the need to dispove scientism?
But to attempt to answer your question as best as I can, my girlfriend is a college professor. She often comments that some other professors cling to old ideas despite new evidence to the contrary, because the old ideas fit like a comfortable old shoe. And they will defend such ideas with “Science has shown again and again” type logic, without even considering alternative ideas.
As far as I am concerned, Scientism is a barely extant bugaboo that those with weak positions evoke to support their weak position. It is a thinkly disguised ad hominen.
Could you be more specific about what the new ideas are? This is often a case of human srtubborness than any scientism per se. In a contrary case, I can give you plenty of people who have researched these “new ideas” and get so wrapped and emotionally attached to them that they cannot accept the idea that their shiny new idea is completely wrong.
But without a specific example, I cannot comment any further on what your girlfriend is talking about.
Oh, and Errata? Mine was not an appeal to authority, look a the context and read about what the ‘appeal to authority’ fallacy actualy is.
Where did I evade the question? Asked and answered, even though not to a satisfactory extent.
If that’s so, then how come it is a word used by respected scientists and critical thinkers who often support strong positions? Don’t forget that the entire reason I started this thread was because I read an article that basically stated that scientism is bad, in, of all places, Skeptical Inqirer. What weak positions do you suppose they held, and at whom was the ad hominem directed in that case?
The experts you referred to were experts in evolution not the philosophy of science. From your perspective, I can see why you value that, as you seem worried about creationists devaluing evolution. But from a larger perspective, science can operate just fine with observations and theories and may indeed be better served by dropping the idea of “facts” all together.
Gould may be in a position to tell us that questioning the very existence of evolution has little scientific value, yet I find no reason to accept his definition of fact as a scientific concept based on his credentials.
Also look at the context of my post. I was trying to emphasize the degree of trust that we place in experts. One symptom may be trusting authority figures outside of their fields of expertise.
Wow, I don’t even know where to start. Joe covered much of it, but there are some things I vehemently disagree with.
That’s just patently absurd. All the evidence indicates that the Tooth Fairy is a made-up story told to children, whereas electrons were discovered as a result of empirical observation. I can scarcely think of 2 things with a more divergent probability of being true.
That’s just plain false.
At some point, you have to consider that perhaps the reason there is no evidence for ghosts is that they DON’T EXIST. You seem to want science to be able to prove a negative. But as long as you are allowed to weasel out of defining a phenomemon by saying it’s “supernatural” (a fancy word for “magic”), science can’t prove that negative.
No, I would not. Wasn’t that obvious?
Not at all; it’s not that we don’t know anything, it’s that we don’t know everything.
But that is the very strength of science; the system is NOT dogmatic by nature. If we could not replace theories when new data comes to light, we could never refine our knowledge. I believe what you have said is actually evidence that “scientism” does NOT exist. If “scientismists” did exist in large numbers, one would expect that theories would simply be worshipped as ultimate truth, and would NEVER get replaced.
No, not likely to be wrong - just possibly wrong. If you refuse the possibility of being wrong, how could you possibly learn anything? You would simply start with a set of assumptions and tenaciously cling to them until your death; there would be no learning.
Wouldn’t that fall under Astronomy? Anyway, it doesn’t matter what you call it, the act of empirically observing the motion of stars and planets is scientific. Inventing nebulous characteristics that people supposedly share because they happened to be born on a particular day, without positing any sort of causal mechanism for them to be imbued with said characteristics, is not scientific.
I agree.
You say that, but you haven’t given any good examples, or any indication of why you think it’s true. The only example you gave was regarding ghosts, but then you turned around and said that was not an example. So I ask again, where exactly is this “dogmatic and irrational” behavior occurring?
But that has nothing to do with Mars or the moon; it has to do with the climate, which is a function of the distance from the Earth to the Sun. Even other animal species know how climate will affect the availability of food. Squirrels don’t need Astrology to store nuts for the winter. In that case, Astrology takes something simple and makes it mystical for no reason.
I disagree. Morality exists seperately from science AND from religion. I see no evidence that religion produces people who are more moral than non-religious people. Your first speculation regarding human experiments is groundless. Unethical human experimentation is rare, and is far overshadowed by the countless cases of cruelty to other humans carried out in the name of religion. And animal sacrifices appear to have been common in a number of religions, so you can’t claim moral superiority in that case either.
This is way off topic and minor nit to pick, but no it isn’t. It’s about the tilt of the earth, not the distance. In fact, the earth is about 2 million miles closer to the sun in winter.
Sorry, way off topic, but I couldn’t let that slip by.
blowero you got my quotes mixed up with someone else’s. I imagine an apology will come along sometime soon.
Science did not invent observation. This is a natural human inclination. Nor did science spring like Minerva from the human mind. It evolved from other forms of knowledge. To look back on history and claim that anything that currently makes sense is science and everything else is superstition is just doublethink.
It’s atomistic adherence, tendency to mathematical applicability, and reductionist methodology are really what set it apart.
You really do have me confused with someone else as I haven’t mentioned ghosts. So you’ve really only had to ask once.
Well let’s see. How about dismissing all other forms of human knowledge as worthless, superstitious claptrap without even knowing much about them?
Makes it mystical? It wasn’t all that mystical to astrologists, it’s just how things were done. For the people of the day, it made perfect sense, and helped them structure their lives. Furthermore, astrology, a form of knowledge which is found in Mayan, Indian, Chinese, Sumerian and virtually of a the great civilizations has a much broader use than you seem to be aware of.
Don’t think I’m advocating astrology, it don’t think it makes sense given the knowledge we now have. But pretending that the whole of humanity was a bunch of bumbling idiots before 1600 or so seems a little far-fetched.
You’ve misunderstood me here as that’s not my thesis. It’s not a black and white science/religion ideology I’m putting forth. Rather, I’m saying that in addition to observation, science works primarily through reductionism, and that this methodology isn’t suited for answering social and many psychological problems. Hence, we may need to draw from other forms of knowledge such as philosophy or philosophical elements of religions/ways of life in a manner which is syncretic and wholistic to find meaning in our lives and ways to live together.
Darwin’s Finch:I could be misunderstanding Gould’s theory but if I am then I am not alone.Tell Dennet adn Dawkins PE is not an alternate theory of evolution.
**
What is the point of this vague generalization, besides possibly setting up a defense of religious mysticism?
**
No, religions have always been constructed on a combination of observation, ignorance and faith(blind or otherwise)…even pre-abrahamic ones.
**
This is like saying “Modern medicine grew effortlessly from tribal shamanism/voodoo/ju-ju”.As a whole it is not true.Specific observations may have been made by astrologers prior to the advent of astronomy just as some actual medicinal benefits were stumbled upon by witch-doctors.
**
I disagree.Perhaps not all religionists have always refered to it as “faith” but faith is a necessity for spiritual belief because rationality does not support such.
**
Religion has ALWAYS been a hindrance to science and the pursuit of understanding our reality.Don’t get me wrong…I recognise the evolutionary role that superstition has played in humanity’s survival.Someone who believed that evil spirits were roaming about at night was less likely to wander into a tar pit or bear’s cave, but that does not mean that the method of being superstitious is comparable to SM.
It was Erastothenes, 2200 years ago who used the scientific method(and two sticks) to deduce the shape and circumfrence of the earth and yet religion managed to supress this knowledge for nearly another two millenia.One can only wonder what sort of progress we could have made if not for religion.The first two-piston steam engine was also developed over 2,000 years ago but it’s prototype and design were destroyed by superstitious religious zealots.
**
You are correct.Whatever “meaning” you would like to think your life has is quite beyond the scope of science to answer.
**
Generally speaking this may be true but it is also wrong.It is presuppositional to think there is a “why” in te first place and if there is not, then it is not surprising that science is unable to tell us what the “why” is.
I am content to know the “how”.I do not think myself important to the universe or reality as a whole beyond whatever effects my actions have on the lives of others.
**
Again, generally this is true of the psychological make-up of humans but it is also wrong.Humans are compelled to invent new boogeymen and fairies as science exposes the areas where the old boogeymen and fairies were thought to exist but we do not NEED to do this.We only think we do.Recognising the truths of the universe does not cancel out our sense of wonder!Why should it?
**
I have heard this charge many times but I have seldom even read of a case that could be in any way construed as “scientism”(some examples can be found in the infighting between several early paleontologists during the Piltdown man escapade).
**
That is like saying psychics are a valuable tool in homocide investigations.Once in a great while some psychic’s guesswork turns out to be somewhat right(i.e. the body IS found near water) but nearly 100% of the time they are completely wrong.Detective work/forensics is a viable and reliable method of solving crimes.Psychicism(I know that is not a word) is NOT.
**
You would think so but you would also be wrong.Jehova’s witnesses have been predicting the end of the world every few years for decades now as have many smaller cults.This does not even begin to phase a believer because of the way the human belief mechanism works.We can ALWAYS find rationalizations to explain away inconsistencies.
**
Both but that is beside the point.My couch is a thing to sit upon as well as a thing to hold loose change but there is no contradiction there.
**
???Are you refering to the peer review process?What are you talking about?
**
I am all for eviscerating anything that moves if it will save millions of my species from suffering an agonizing death due to ebola or AIDS.I am quite a liberal fellow but conservative comedian Nick DePaulo had a funny bit in one of his old sketches:
“I have one thing to say to these people who think they are going to cure AIDS by hooking a monkey up to a car battery:
Red is the positive and black is the negative.”
**
No we will not!?!?Why would you look to science for your subjective morality/ethics?This would be like attending flight school to learn to cook.
I can’t speak as to what Dennet or Dawkins may or may not misunderstand, but I would suggest this as a good starting place for clearing up any confusion you might have.
Yes, I mixed up errata with erislover. If I inadvertenly addressed something to you that is not applicable, please feel free to ignore it.
No it’s not. Science is a method. In a nutshell, you form a hypothesis based on some sort of observation; you use the hyposthesis to make predictions, and you test the predictions. If that’s what you’re doing, then it’s science. I don’t care if you want to give it another name. I don’t know what you mean by “science did not invent observation”. Science is not a sentient entity, of course it doesn’t invent things. Objective observation is an element of science. What you are saying is as meaningless as saying “Light did not invent the Sun”.
Not at all. Logical reasoning and objective observation are what set it apart.
That’s still not an example, it’s just a blithe characterization. Exactly what form of knowledge has been dismissed, and by whom? And how do you know the person who dismissed it didn’t know much about it?
The only use you have suggested so far is that the positions of the stars at certain times of the year happen to coincide with the angle of the Earth to the Sun in that particular hemisphere. I see no advantage of such a method over simply counting the days until the next planting season occurs. How do the imaginary gods that inhabit the constellations contribute to that knowledge?
Yes, that’s why I never said any such thing.
I don’t disagree. But I also don’t think there is a particular large contingent who are under the impression that science can solve moral problems. I think you are knocking down a strawman.