Merged Is Scientism Really Justified?

[JayUtah]

We should also consider logic, mathematics, and philosophy.Is science the only way to gain knowledge?

Those are all used in the scientific method.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

There is, and probably cannot have be, another method by which Everyone can test the same theory by repeating the experiment themselves. It doesn't really matter what the experiment is as long as it is, in theory, repeatable by everyone.

Any form of knowledge derived from personal experience only cannot be experienced by others in the same way.

So even if you think you have achieved some knowledge via a different method than the Scientific One, it's use is limited to you only, as you cannot make others have the same experience.

 

[catsmate]

Is scientism really justified?

"Scientism" is a term used by people who don't want to a accept their delusions don't matter.

By scientism, I mean the idea that science is the only reliable way to gain knowledge about reality.

Yes it is.

I am not convinced that this claim is correct.

You're wrong

 

[Puppycow]

We should also consider logic, mathematics, and philosophy.Is science the only way to gain knowledge?

Logic and mathematics are used in science. Science itself is part of philosophy (it used to be referred to as natural philosophy). There are related and overlapping concepts.

Then you need to specify what you mean by 'knowledge'.

Of course, not all knowledge is scientific knowledge, per se. The works of Shakespeare, poetry, etc. You get the point. There's all sorts of what we might call "cultural knowledge". There's historical knowledge, although here too, some of it is shaky, especially the farther into the past you go. Science can help to make such knowledge more reliable and distinguish myths and propaganda from reality.

I do think that the OP is engaging in some sort of strawman.

 

[arthwollipot]

No, science is not the only source of knowledge. But it is by far the most reliable one.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

I mean knowledge in a broad sense, including science, logic, mathematics, and philosophy. My question is whether science is the only path to knowledge.

No, it isn't.

Science

...is a systematic discipline that builds and organises knowledge in the form of testable explanations about nature and society. It is driven by the scientific method: an empirical cycle that typically involves making observations, producing hypotheses, testing them with evidence, and drawing conclusions.

Science only accounts for a small part of the sum of human knowledge. An important part for sure, but not even close to the majority of it. Most of the knowledge we gain is processed subconsciously by a method that science has yet to discover. If we had to consciously produce a hypothesis, test it with evidence, and draw conclusions about every observation we made it we would hardly get anything done. Just breathing and keeping your heart beating would be hard work.

Knowledge that isn't obtained directly is generally accepted on trust, not application of the scientific method. For most of it science is hardly relevant except in the broadest terms.

 

[Axxman300]

What is the strongest argument for scientism?

And how can we justify the claim that science is the only reliable source of knowledge?

You have a problem. You come here claiming you're not looking for a fight when you clearly are looking for one.

There is a difference between scientific knowledge, and general knowledge. Science gives us medicines, buildings that can survive earthquakes, submarines with nuclear reactors, solar panels, battery-powered cars, LCD screens, and science allows us to send robots to other planets.

Science cannot tell us who will win the Super Bowl this year, who the good movie actors are, why two peaches from the same tree don't taste equally sweet, or if watching the sunrise is clinically good for you.

A good example of science vs general knowledge is the Money Ball concept of building a baseball team using On-Base Percentage to win enough games to get into the playoffs while on a small budget. The Oakland A's have done well with this concept, but they have not been to the World Series while using this model...because their owner is a cheapskate. Other teams that have embraced the O-BP model while at the same time spending money on proven clutch players (something that often is not quantified with statistics) have won multiple World Series championships. Science helps the A's do well, but organic knowledge of baseball has defeated them when the championships are on the line.

And any sports fan can point to multiple examples where the team that had all the stats loaded in their favor lost their big game to the underdog.

But if a baseball player gets hit in the head by a 95mph fastball? Science is his only savior. MRIs, neurologists, and a long list of medical techniques come into play. "Manning up" and "Walking it off" are a thing of the past.

It all comes down to staying in your lane.

 

[Pixel42]

I think the important word in the OP's question is the one I've highlighted:

By scientism, I mean the idea that science is the only reliable way to gain knowledge about reality.

There are many ways to obtain knowledge with varying degrees of reliability. In many, probably most, cases, the anecdotal evidence we accumulate as we go about our lives is perfectly adequate to successfully navigate the world. But the cognitive biases that have been built into the way the human brain works by evolution pre-dispose us to make false positive mistakes, rather than risk making (possibly fatal) false negatives, and can lead us to believe many things that simply aren't true. That's why the scientific method had to be invented, and why it is by far the most reliable way to gain knowledge about reality.

 

[Carrot Flower King]

Why is it that pretty much the only times I've seen or heard the term "scientism" it's being used by a religionista with an agenda - usually "science is just like another religion" or similar.

No doubt another of those pesky coincidences...

 

[Darat]

If knowledge is meant to be the collection of things we know to be true then "scientism" or rather the "scientific method" is the only way humans have come up with - so far - that allows us to test our ideas to see if they accurately describe reality or not.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

The most important aspect of Science is not the discovery of Knowledge, but of Ignorance.
Without it, we would delude ourselves that we know and understand things we really don't.

The most important aspect of the Scientific Method is not Success, but Failure.
We need to learn what doesn't work in order to find out what does. If you are always right, it means that you are either doing something trivial or doing something wrong.

You can always tell a scientist from a pseudo one by their willingness to say:" I don't know".

 

[Gubiosak]

Ideas have a role to play in a very broad sense - see hypothesis. Ideas only become practical knowledge when they are tested and confirmed using the scientific method.

You may have encountered people of various religious persuasions who "know" that their particular god exists. That, and similar ideas and philosophies, are not knowledge in any practical sense.

What about mathematical or logical knowledge? Is that not knowledge?

 

[Darat]

What about mathematical or logical knowledge? Is that not knowledge?

Give examples of each.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

What about mathematical or logical knowledge? Is that not knowledge?

It's inference, like figuring out a logic puzzle from some initial hints.
It is inherently limited, as Gödel proved.

 

[Gubiosak]

Human knowledge has been around since the first caveman learned that, although fire is burny, he could use it to see at night and cook his dinosaur steak.

Many religious proscriptions are actually passed-down history and knowledge, usually local to the time and place. They arose because someone learned something through observation and recording, proto-science.

So what's the alternative to this?

I am not proposing an alternative to science.
I am asking whether science is the only way to obtain knowledge.
That is the question I want to explore.

 

[Puppycow]

What about mathematical or logical knowledge? Is that not knowledge?

All part of science.

 

[Gubiosak]

The word scientism has its use, there some folks who use the.....sounds of science as though its a sort of magic incantation that can turn nonsense into sense.

That being said, the scientific method is the most reliable way to gain knowledge of reality. That belief is not what I would use scientism to describe. Google says I'm wrong about that though. I'm willing to hear about the alternatives, historically they don't have a good track record though.

I agree that science is the most reliable method for many questions about reality.
But is it the only reliable source of knowledge?
That is where I think the question of scientism becomes interesting.

 

[Gubiosak]

It's the only one that we know of so far. If you discover another source, let us know. If it turns out to be better at making testable claims with repeatable results, we'll probably switch.

I'm not saying we should replace science. I'm asking whether all knowledge has to come from the scientific method.

 

[Gubiosak]

The most important aspect of Science is not the discovery of Knowledge, but of Ignorance.
Without it, we would delude ourselves that we know and understand things we really don't.

The most important aspect of the Scientific Method is not Success, but Failure.
We need to learn what doesn't work in order to find out what does. If you are always right, it means that you are either doing something trivial or doing something wrong.

You can always tell a scientist from a pseudo one by their willingness to say:" I don't know".

The most important aspect of Science is not the discovery of Knowledge, but of Ignorance.
Without it, we would delude ourselves that we know and understand things we really don't.

The most important aspect of the Scientific Method is not Success, but Failure.
We need to learn what doesn't work in order to find out what does. If you are always right, it means that you are either doing something trivial or doing something wrong.

You can always tell a scientist from a pseudo one by their willingness to say:" I don't know".

I agree. Saying “I don't know” is an important part of genuine skepticism.
But does that mean that all knowledge must come from science?
I think that is a separate question.

 

[Gubiosak]

Those are all used in the scientific method.

I agree that science uses logic, mathematics, and philosophy.
But if they are part of the scientific method, does that make them science?
Or does it show that science depends on things that are not themselves science?