Philosophy Now Forum

One definition according to Wikipedia is:" In essence, scientism sees science as the absolute and only justifiable access to the truth."

This seems quite reasonable to me. There doesn't seem to be any other process which allows the extraction of truth about the real world

And yet, many philosophers would seem to hold a form of derision for scientism I suspect that this is a result of an irrational fear of the power of scientism rather than any rational justification.

What do you think?

induction

-Imp

Scientism is a word designed to traduce an adherence to science and portray it as negative.
It is a social definition, and like calling a black person a "n1gger" is always wrong.
Scientism is a pejorative.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:Scientism is a word designed to traduce an adherence to science and portray it as negative.
It is a social definition, and like calling a black person a "n1gger" is always wrong.
Scientism is a pejorative.

Are you being the word police again?

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:Scientism is a word designed to traduce an adherence to science and portray it as negative.
It is a social definition, and like calling a black person a "n1gger" is always wrong.
Scientism is a pejorative.

Are you being the word police again?

Say something interesting or fuck off.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:Scientism is a word designed to traduce an adherence to science and portray it as negative.
It is a social definition, and like calling a black person a "n1gger" is always wrong.
Scientism is a pejorative.

Are you being the word police again?

Say something interesting or fuck off.

I'm sorry. I see the truth hurts. Make me 'fuck off', hypocrite.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:Scientism is a word designed to traduce an adherence to science and portray it as negative.
It is a social definition, and like calling a black person a "n1gger" is always wrong.
Scientism is a pejorative.

My point exactly.

So what then is a better term for a philosophic perspective that " sees science as the absolute and only justifiable access to the truth."?

Impenitent wrote:induction

-Imp

What is wrong with induction? Except that people don't like to see it as a source of knowledge?

A_Seagull wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:Scientism is a word designed to traduce an adherence to science and portray it as negative.
It is a social definition, and like calling a black person a "n1gger" is always wrong.
Scientism is a pejorative.

My point exactly.

So what then is a better term for a philosophic perspective that " sees science as the absolute and only justifiable access to the truth."?

I 'm not sure even the most rabid scientist would assert that of himself.

A_Seagull wrote:

Impenitent wrote:induction

-Imp

What is wrong with induction? Except that people don't like to see it as a source of knowledge?

There is, of course, Hume's "problem". But you have to accept that it is the only ultimate source of knowledge and deduction is really only definitive or analytic, being circular.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

A_Seagull wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:Scientism is a word designed to traduce an adherence to science and portray it as negative.
It is a social definition, and like calling a black person a "n1gger" is always wrong.
Scientism is a pejorative.

My point exactly.

So what then is a better term for a philosophic perspective that " sees science as the absolute and only justifiable access to the truth."?

I 'm not sure even the most rabid scientist would assert that of himself.

Why 'rabid'?

Why not 'enlightened'?

"Scientism" - use of the scientific method - is being challenged by those who would benefit most from not having the logic of their unsubstantiated beliefs exposed. This harks back to the origins of the scientific method - the need to check the veracity of numerous competing claims.

There is nothing wrong with the scientific method as long as ethical considerations are taken seriously. However, it is limited in studying certain aspects of reality because we are studying from the inside, looking out. An overview is physically unattainable. To study the physically inaccessible we increasingly must rely on mathematical models, since empirical evidence will be unattainable. Ideas, in the meantime, often come from speculating "renegade" scientists and science fiction authors and, I expect, philosophers.

Many complain that theorising without associated experimentation is "not science". However, if science can't access something, eg. needing a particle accelerator the size of the solar system, then all that's left are mathematical models, thought experiments and speculation until more information comes available.

A_Seagull wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

A_Seagull wrote:
My point exactly.

So what then is a better term for a philosophic perspective that " sees science as the absolute and only justifiable access to the truth."?

I 'm not sure even the most rabid scientist would assert that of himself.

Why 'rabid'?

Why not 'enlightened'?

Either or both. Why would you want a word for a person that does not exist?

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

A_Seagull wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:
I 'm not sure even the most rabid scientist would assert that of himself.

Why 'rabid'?

Why not 'enlightened'?

Either or both. Why would you want a word for a person that does not exist?

And I suppose you believe that there are no black sheep either?

A_Seagull wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

A_Seagull wrote:
Why 'rabid'?

Why not 'enlightened'?

Either or both. Why would you want a word for a person that does not exist?

And I suppose you believe that there are no black sheep either?

i think you've lost the thread.