Scientism

[commonsense]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism

https://www.thenewatlantis.com/publicat ... -scientism

Thanks for these.

[commonsense]

Non-scientism is a belief in magic!

Well, you are free to define scientism as you wish, but as I said, I think it's like theism and atheism. There are hard atheists who believe they can rule out god, and there are soft atheists who simply don't believe in god. Similarly there are people who believe they can eliminate supernatural causes for everything and some who simply don't believe that there are supernatural causes. If you are claiming a soft version of scientism, then fair enough, I can subscribe to that, but I don't take the hard scientism view that supernatural causes are impossible. Most scientists accept that eliminating potential explanations a priori is not how science is done.

Aren't these people called agnostics, or did you mean something else?

[uwot]

there are soft atheists who simply don't believe in god.

Aren't these people called agnostics, or did you mean something else?

It's confusing, because while in everyday use 'agnostic' simply means 'I don't know', technically it refers to the belief that there can be no evidence. As a result, theists can assert that there is no evidence for god, ie be agnostic, but still believe in it anyway. I personally don't believe in god, but I don't believe there can be no evidence.

[commonsense]

"Science can explain comfort. It just can’t measure nor describe your kid’s specific experience."

I disagree.

Science can describe and explain mechanisms, pieces and parts, but it cannot describe or explain comfort cuz comfort is what happens to the comforted, it's an internal, subjective experience only accessible 'through' the comforted (that is: you gotta ask him how he feels, you can measure brain states, sure, but to 'know' you have to ask him),

I’m certain that I have miscommunicated with you. I think that I am using some words differently than you. As a result, there is less disagreement here than there is confusion. Mea culpa.

I would have it that to explain something is to make it understandable by offering its definition and, in doing so, enumerate its components as well as declaring what things are not components.

I would say that statistical studies can propose a non-exhaustive but sufficiently significant list of potential components of comfort. Studies can then sample a representative population and declare those components under the middle of a bell-shaped curve as the components that most likely define comfort.

This does not define the experience of comfort, but rather it yields a useful, though incomplete and imperfect, definition of comfort. By this approach, the components most likely to have informed your kid’s comfort (but not the qualia of his experience of those components) can be predicted with a reasonable degree of confidence.

I’d say that to measure is to engage in a process that can only be accomplished by means of units of measure. Qualia refers to how an experience feels. Qualia, by their very nature, cannot be measured.

A description is like a definition, but with its focus on attributes, characterizations and comparisons. While the qualia of comfort might be described, the qualia of your son’s individual experience cannot be described nor defined, and can only be approximated after interviewing your kid.

All this is to say that I believe comfort can be defined generally, but the specific experience of comfort cannot.

I see now that the internal experience of comfort that you mention is akin to what I call qualia.

[henry quirk]

No worries, Common: I think you and me are largely on the same page.

"Qualia, by their very nature, cannot be measured."

Yes, and the scientist therefore remains silent on them (while the philosopher writes books on them... ).

The scientism-ist, on the other hand, proclaims 'science will crack that pesky subjectiveness, that interior experience, and render it unremarkable and mechanical!'. Or, the scientism-ist grudgingly acknowleges the internal experience (the experiencer) is beyond measurement and then declares the internal experience (the experiencer) as trivial and unimportant (usually following the lead of some 'authority').

Science investigates everything and where investigations yield nuthin' shuts its trap and keeps invetigating.

Scientism investigates everything and where investigations yield nuthin' declares (loudly) 'results are just 'round the corner!', or, '*the non-yielding subject isn't worth investigating anyway', or, 'the leaders of the field (the priests) say 'it' is 'this' (without a jot of evidence to back the claim) so the subject is setttled! '.

Science is great.

Scientism is bullshit.









*sour grapes syndrome

[A_Seagull]

No worries, Common: I think you and me are largely on the same page.

"Qualia, by their very nature, cannot be measured."

Yes, and the scientist therefore remains silent on them (while the philosopher writes books on them... ).

The scientism-ist, on the other hand, proclaims 'science will crack that pesky subjectiveness, that interior experience, and render it unremarkable and mechanical!'. Or, the scientism-ist grudgingly acknowleges the internal experience (the experiencer) is beyond measurement and then declares the internal experience (the experiencer) as trivial and unimportant (usually following the lead of some 'authority').

Science investigates everything and where investigations yield nuthin' shuts its trap and keeps invetigating.

Scientism investigates everything and where investigations yield nuthin' declares (loudly) 'results are just 'round the corner!', or, '*the non-yielding subject isn't worth investigating anyway', or, 'the leaders of the field (the priests) say 'it' is 'this' (without a jot of evidence to back the claim) so the subject is setttled! '.

Science is great.

Scientism is bullshit.

*sour grapes syndrome

Where DO you get your information from?

The point about scientism , so far as I understand it, is that, scientism claims that the scientific method underpins all of knowledge; and that this is in conflict with the received-view of popular philosophy and which is why it is so feared by received-view philosophers.

[henry quirk]

"The point about scientism , so far as I understand it, is that, scientism claims that the scientific method underpins all of knowledge; and that this is in conflict with the received-view of popular philosophy and which is why it is so feared by received-view philosophers."

Yeah, none of that is right.

Go look at the links I posted (twice) in this thread.

[A_Seagull]

"The point about scientism , so far as I understand it, is that, scientism claims that the scientific method underpins all of knowledge; and that this is in conflict with the received-view of popular philosophy and which is why it is so feared by received-view philosophers."

Yeah, none of that is right.

Go look at the links I posted (twice) in this thread.

Sorry, I don't follow links..

[henry quirk]

Well, you asked where I get my info: aside from my experiences with scientism-ists 'here', articles like the ones I link to are a source. If you won't access 'em, then...*shrug*

[HexHammer]

I've noticed the lack of scientistics (adherents of Scientism, that is reductionist at core) on this forum. Why is it that Scientism is frown upon here?

I've also noticed that a lot of people don't like scientism, not because it lacks arguments/reasoning, but because at the core of anti-scientism lies some belief in the divine, superstitious.

I think that the poor reputation of scientism here is highly biased due to a lot of panpsychism-deity-believers.

- the average IQ on various philosophy forums are tragical low!
- the knowledge base on philosophy forums is exceedingly low!
- when presented with solid facts, it is ignored by phi ..eh cozy chatters, as they want something poetic and spicy
- most cozy chatters are here because they want a cozy chat, not really to become more intelligent and wiser, but chases the illusions of enlightenment!
- most cozy chatters are high functioning retards.