• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Merged Is Scientism Really Justified?

Carrot Flower King said:
What I have described as The Year Long Argument was between me and my final year botany tutor...He was a mathematician by trade and had moved into mathematical modelling in ecology; I don't have much time for mathematical modelling, unless it can be shown to actually work in the real world (hence my utter contempt for most economics), so we had this long discussion about empiricism and theoretical modelling...Several essays by me, loads of papers being thrown at each other...I had a great time, I hope he did.

My conclusion was that empiricism won, as the models still don't tell you what is actually happening in reality, as opposed to in someone's head.

So, science it is.

NOT scientism!

I mean saying you don't want a fight then using that sort of provocative term is asking for trouble.
Click to expand...
Fair enough. Then perhaps we agree that science and scientism should be distinguished.
 
Darat said:
No. As said above logic and maths are tools, they are languages we use to describe reality, to work out if they are accurately describing reality they need to be tested.
Click to expand...
I agree that mathematical models of reality need empirical testing. But what about mathematical truths that make no claim about physical reality?
 
Gubiosak said:
Fair enough. Then perhaps we agree that science and scientism should be distinguished.
Click to expand...
What's the distinction?

I think you should probably define your terms. What do you mean by "science"? Is it experimentation? Empirical observation?

I would say that empirical observation is the best way to know that something is measurable and reliable. Or predictable, if you prefer. Or explanatory.

The way I see it, "science" in this context means the scientific method: Observe, predict, test, observe. Is there another way to know if a claim is true or real? I don't think so. Is there another way to demonstrate to others that a claim is true or real? I don't think so.

If you think there might be another way, I'd expect you to describe it, and I'd expect you to demonstrate that it works.


In mathematics, the process is the same. The hypothesis is called a conjecture, and the test is called a proof. The conjecture arises from logical inferences based on empirical observation of the mathematical rules of logic in action.

For example, observation of the behavior of knots, according to the rules of four-dimensional manifolds, leads to the conjecture (hypothesis) that the Conway knot is slice. For many years, no proof (test) of this conjecture was known. Recently, mathematician Lisa Piccirillo devised a proof that the Conway knot is in fact not slice. Now we know. This is the essence of the scientific method. Observe, predict, test, observe.


We can even consider your question in terms of the scientific method. We can rephrase the question as a hypothesis: There is another way (besides the scientific method) to know something is true. If we do this, we see that a few steps are still missing. Your hypothesis doesn't seem to arise from any observations. What do you see, that leads you to think there might be other ways to know if something is true or real? And your hypothesis so far lacks a test. What do you propose, to test your hypothesis? Finally, without a test, we have no observation of whether the hypothesis is true or not.
  1. Observe
  2. The scientific method is not the only way to know if something is true or real.
  3. Test
  4. Observe
So. According to the scientific method, your hypothesis is currently unproven, and currently untestable. We'll never know for sure if it's true or not, but that's okay. The scientific method doesn't concern itself with ultimate truth or reality, only observable truth and reality.

Maybe your hypothesis is true. Science could tell us, if you were to devise a test.

Maybe some other method could tell us if your hypothesis is true. But until you describe and demonstrate such a method, we won't know.


Meanwhile, what do you mean by "scientism"? I would say scientism is the belief that science is the only way to know whether something is true or real.

This brings us back to what I mean by science. By science, I mean the scientific method: observe, predict, test, observe.

I would say that the scientific method (a.k.a. science) is the only method that we know of, to determine whether something is true or real. Therefore, I think scientism is justified - it is a reasonable working assumption. Of course, without a testable hypothesis or observable results, we'll never know for sure. But that's okay. Not knowing for sure is also part of the scientific method.


So that's where I'm at, with your question. Is scientism justified? Yeah, I think it is. If you think it isn't, that's fine. If you want me to think it isn't, then I expect you to come up with observations, predictions, and tests, that show me it isn't. Or come up with some other way to convince me.

Here's how I would structure the problem, scientifically:
  1. I observe that people like to get rich.
  2. Hypothesis - if there's some other way to know if things are true and real, someone would be using it to get rich.
  3. The way to test this is to see if people are using other ways to get rich, besides prediction, testing, and observation.
  4. I don't observe people using other ways to get rich.
So my scientific conclusion is that there are no other ways to know if something is true or real - that we know of. Scientism is justified so far.

 
Last edited:
theprestige said:
What's the distinction?

I think you should probably define your terms. What do you mean by "science"? Is it experimentation? Empirical observation?

I would say that empirical observation is the best way to know that something is measurable and reliable. Or predictable, if you prefer. Or explanatory.

The way I see it, "science" in this context means the scientific method: Observe, predict, test, observe. Is there another way to know if a claim is true or real? I don't think so. Is there another way to demonstrate to others that a claim is true or real? I don't think so.

If you think there might be another way, I'd expect you to describe it, and I'd expect you to demonstrate that it works.


In mathematics, the process is the same. The hypothesis is called a conjecture, and the test is called a proof. The conjecture arises from logical inferences based on empirical observation of the mathematical rules of logic in action.

For example, observation of the behavior of knots, according to the rules of four-dimensional manifolds, leads to the conjecture (hypothesis) that the Conway knot is slice. For many years, no proof (test) of this conjecture was known. Recently, mathematician Lisa Piccirillo devised a proof that the Conway knot is in fact not slice. Now we know. This is the essence of the scientific method. Observe, predict, test, observe.


We can even consider your question in terms of the scientific method. We can rephrase the question as a hypothesis: There is another way (besides the scientific method) to know something is true. If we do this, we see that a few steps are still missing. Your hypothesis doesn't seem to arise from any observations. What do you see, that leads you to think there might be other ways to know if something is true or real? And your hypothesis so far lacks a test. What do you propose, to test your hypothesis? Finally, without a test, we have no observation of whether the hypothesis is true or not.
  1. Observe
  2. The scientific method is not the only way to know if something is true or real.
  3. Test
  4. Observe
So. According to the scientific method, your hypothesis is currently unproven, and currently untestable. We'll never know for sure if it's true or not, but that's okay. The scientific method doesn't concern itself with ultimate truth or reality, only observable truth and reality.

Maybe your hypothesis is true. Science could tell us, if you were to devise a test.

Maybe some other method could tell us if your hypothesis is true. But until you describe and demonstrate such a method, we won't know.


Meanwhile, what do you mean by "scientism"? I would say scientism is the belief that science is the only way to know whether something is true or real.

This brings us back to what I mean by science. By science, I mean the scientific method: observe, predict, test, observe.

I would say that the scientific method (a.k.a. science) is the only method that we know of, to determine whether something is true or real. Therefore, I think scientism is justified - it is a reasonable working assumption. Of course, without a testable hypothesis or observable results, we'll never know for sure. But that's okay. Not knowing for sure is also part of the scientific method.


So that's where I'm at, with your question. Is scientism justified? Yeah, I think it is. If you think it isn't, that's fine. If you want me to think it isn't, then I expect you to come up with observations, predictions, and tests, that show me it isn't. Or come up with some other way to convince me.

Here's how I would structure the problem, scientifically:
  1. I observe that people like to get rich.
  2. Hypothesis - if there's some other way to know if things are true and real, someone would be using it to get rich.
  3. The way to test this is to see if people are using other ways to get rich, besides prediction, testing, and observation.
  4. I don't observe people using other ways to get rich.
So my scientific conclusion is that there are no other ways to know if something is true or real - that we know of. Scientism is justified so far.

Click to expand...
I understand your position. But isn't a logical argument itself a way of establishing that a conclusion follows from premises, without empirical testing?
 
Gubiosak said:
I understand your position. But isn't a logical argument itself a way of establishing that a conclusion follows from premises, without empirical testing?
Click to expand...
Sure, if you want to define it that way. So now you have two ways of knowing if things are true, according to your taxonomy.

My taxonomy unites the two species of knowing under the same genus of knowing: Scientific method.

Taxonomical questions don't interest me much. It amuses me to know that chickens are counted as dinosaurs, according to our conventional taxonomy, but that's a pretty shallow truth, in my opinion. We could just as easily have a different taxonomy, that counted chickens as distinct from dinosaurs.

If you want to use a taxonomy that says that some applications of observe, predict, test, observe are called "science" and others are not, that's fine. But I don't think it really answers the question you're asking. I think you're looking for answers that go beyond mere labels.


In the example of mathematics, I explained that a logical proof consists of the same methodological components as an empirical experiment: Observe, predict, test, observe. Therefore I consider logical proofs to be scientifically identical to empirical experiments.

I would consider a non-scientific way of knowing to be one that doesn't incorporate the tools of the scientific method.

(I'd also expect its claims to be replicable using the scientific method. If there's more than one way to know the truth, then both ways should agree about truths already known by one of the two ways.)


Note that logical arguments are only proofs when they are arguments about closed abstract systems with known rules. We can know that Conway's knot isn't slice, because we already know all the rules of four-dimensional manifolds. That's a logical argument that's also a proof.

"If gravity is the same everywhere, then we should expect to observe certain patterns in distant galaxies" is certainly a logical argument, but it's not a proof of anything. It's just the "testable hypothesis" part of the scientific method.


Which brings us back to: What are you asking?

Are you asking if there's another way to know if something is real or true, that doesn't use the tools of the scientific method?

My best answer to that question is, "not that we know of". But that's also my most scientific answer, so you may not find it satisfying the same way I do.


ETA:

Somente para minha diversao, e sem acentos pq so preguicado demais:

Assim voltamos ao: O que e sua pergunta?

Esta pergunando se existe outro metodo, para saber a verdade, alem das ferramentas do metodo scientifico?

A minha melhor resposta para essa questao e, "nao que sabemos". Mas isto e tambem minha resposta mais scientifica. Assim, e possivel que voce nao vai achar tao satisfatoria como eu acho.
 
Last edited:
Gubiosak said:
I agree that mathematical models of reality need empirical testing. But what about mathematical truths that make no claim about physical reality?
Click to expand...
They have an annoying habit of insisting on making those pesky claims anyway.
Gubiosak said:
I understand your position. But isn't a logical argument itself a way of establishing that a conclusion follows from premises, without empirical testing?
Click to expand...
It's a way of establishing a relationship between premises and a conclusion, not of establishing tested knowledge. If the premises aren't useful, neither is the conclusion. How do you check your premises? Observe and test. So, logic without the scientific method is a much more fallible approach than the scientific method.

Dave
 
theprestige said:
Sure, if you want to define it that way. So now you have two ways of knowing if things are true, according to your taxonomy.

My taxonomy unites the two species of knowing under the same genus of knowing: Scientific method.

Taxonomical questions don't interest me much. It amuses me to know that chickens are counted as dinosaurs, according to our conventional taxonomy, but that's a pretty shallow truth, in my opinion. We could just as easily have a different taxonomy, that counted chickens as distinct from dinosaurs.

If you want to use a taxonomy that says that some applications of observe, predict, test, observe are called "science" and others are not, that's fine. But I don't think it really answers the question you're asking. I think you're looking for answers that go beyond mere labels.


In the example of mathematics, I explained that a logical proof consists of the same methodological components as an empirical experiment: Observe, predict, test, observe. Therefore I consider logical proofs to be scientifically identical to empirical experiments.

I would consider a non-scientific way of knowing to be one that doesn't incorporate the tools of the scientific method.

(I'd also expect its claims to be replicable using the scientific method. If there's more than one way to know the truth, then both ways should agree about truths already known by one of the two ways.)


Note that logical arguments are only proofs when they are arguments about closed abstract systems with known rules. We can know that Conway's knot isn't slice, because we already know all the rules of four-dimensional manifolds. That's a logical argument that's also a proof.

"If gravity is the same everywhere, then we should expect to observe certain patterns in distant galaxies" is certainly a logical argument, but it's not a proof of anything. It's just the "testable hypothesis" part of the scientific method.


Which brings us back to: What are you asking?

Are you asking if there's another way to know if something is real or true, that doesn't use the tools of the scientific method?

My best answer to that question is, "not that we know of". But that's also my most scientific answer, so you may not find it satisfying the same way I do.


ETA:

Somente para minha diversao, e sem acentos pq so preguicado demais:

Assim voltamos ao: O que e sua pergunta?

Esta pergunando se existe outro metodo, para saber a verdade, alem das ferramentas do metodo scientifico?

A minha melhor resposta para essa questao e, "nao que sabemos". Mas isto e tambem minha resposta mais scientifica. Assim, e possivel que voce nao vai achar tao satisfatoria como eu acho.
Click to expand...
Is the claim “the scientific method is the only reliable way of knowing” itself a scientific claim that can be empirically tested?
 
Dave Rogers said:
They have an annoying habit of insisting on making those pesky claims anyway.

It's a way of establishing a relationship between premises and a conclusion, not of establishing tested knowledge. If the premises aren't useful, neither is the conclusion. How do you check your premises? Observe and test. So, logic without the scientific method is a much more fallible approach than the scientific method.

Dave
Click to expand...
How do you empirically test the validity of a logical rule itself?
 
Trebuchet said:
Science is real. Scientism isn't. It's only in your head. Those are the distinguishing characteristics.
Click to expand...
I understand that scientism is a position or doctrine, not a physical object. My question is whether that position is justified.
 
Norman Alexander said:
Premises:
  1. Standard unicorns can fit in garages.
  2. I have a garage which I can lock for privacy.
  3. I have a unicorn in my garage but you can't see it.
Conclusion: Unicorns exist.

All logically correct. But why is this not science?
Click to expand...
Isn't the problem here the unsupported premise, rather than the logic?
 
Gubiosak said:
Is the claim “the scientific method is the only reliable way of knowing” itself a scientific claim that can be empirically tested?
Click to expand...
You tell me. I've given you the tools I use. If you have an argument to make about those tools, make it.

If you want to test a claim using those tools, test it, and tell us your results.

If you want to test a claim using some other tools, do that.
 
Norman Alexander said:
Premises:
  1. Standard unicorns can fit in garages.
  2. I have a garage which I can lock for privacy.
  3. I have a unicorn in my garage but you can't see it.
Conclusion: Unicorns exist.

All logically correct. But why is this not science?
Click to expand...
Not logically correct. 3 does not follow from 2, nor does it follow from 1.

Meanwhile what makes it not science is the lack of scientific methodology. It's just three claims or predictions or hypotheses or whatever you want to call them. There's no observations or testing.
 
Gubiosak, how about giving us an example of something that is known that could not have been known through science. (Aside from something known through personal experience.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom