Merged Is Scientism Really Justified?

[Little 10 Toes]

Claiming 'nobody holds this position' is simply a denial of a well-documented epistemological stance (scientism). If you don't hold the claim that only empirical science yields valid knowledge, then you already agree that non-empirical philosophical premises are valid. The question answers itself.

Cool. "Well documented". Please provide evidence.

Edit: I might have missed it, but what is your definition of "knowledge"?

 

[theprestige]

Claiming 'nobody holds this position' is simply a denial of a well-documented epistemological stance (scientism). If you don't hold the claim that only empirical science yields valid knowledge, then you already agree that non-empirical philosophical premises are valid. The question answers itself.

Fair enough.

I stipulate that non-empirical philosophical premises are valid. But I've never seen an example.

Do you have an example you can show us, of a non-empirical philosophical premise that you believe is valid? Can you tell us how you determined its validity?

 

[Gubiosak]

Ask your AI what a "virtuous circle" is.

According to my 21st-century epistemology and philosophy of science texts: labeling circular reasoning "virtuous" doesn't eliminate the fallacy—it just admits that empirical science cannot logically justify its own foundational assumptions without relying on them.

 

[Gubiosak]

Ooooooooh, "radical scientism"...How on earth did I get through years of studying and qualifying in sciences without ever hearing this term?

This is beyond silly now.

What stops you calling it "science", like everyone else, aside from

Not encountering a term in your technical training doesn't make it invalid—scientism is a well-established concept in the philosophy of science that describes an ideological overreach, not the practice of science itself.

 

[Gubiosak]

Oh, darn. Calling attention to his obviously coded language means you can't refute his proposition. You have to play his game by his rules.

Debating the scope and epistemology of science isn't 'playing a game'—it's standard philosophy of science. Pointing out epistemological limits is a valid conceptual critique, not a secret code.

 

[Gubiosak]

Which means that your entire argument is vacuous and built on a false premise. Show me one person who advocates for "scientism" as you have defined it. Just one. I'll wait.

Oh, and speaking of definitions, you still haven't defined "justify".

Requesting a self-proclaimed 'scientist' misses the point—scientism describes an implicit epistemological stance, not a self-applied badge, as shown by thinkers like Alex Rosenberg. As for 'justify': in epistemology, it means providing non-circular ground for a claim's validity.

 

[Gubiosak]

Cool. "Well documented". Please provide evidence.

Edit: I might have missed it, but what is your definition of "knowledge"?

Alex Rosenberg explicitly defends strong scientism in The Atheist's Guide to Reality, arguing physics is the only path to true knowledge. As for 'knowledge': in standard epistemology, it is justified true belief—a framework that requires logical coherence before empirical testing can even begin.

 

[Gubiosak]

Fair enough.

I stipulate that non-empirical philosophical premises are valid. But I've never seen an example.

Do you have an example you can show us, of a non-empirical philosophical premise that you believe is valid? Can you tell us how you determined its validity?

The principle of non-contradiction is a fundamental non-empirical premise. Its validity is proven deductively: denying it makes thought, language, and scientific data interpretation impossible.

 

[Gubiosak]

This debate has reached a standstill, so I’m stepping out. For those interested in moving past 20th-century assumptions, I strongly suggest diving into modern 21st-century philosophy of science and epistemology—specifically contemporary works on scientific realism, anti-realism, and structuralism (such as those by James Ladyman, Don Ross, or Timothy Williamson). Moving beyond outdated logical positivism is essential if we want to have a serious conversation about the foundations of knowledge. Goodbye!

 

[Little 10 Toes]

Do you agree that this definition from Wikipedia is correct? Epistemology and Knowledge

Knowledge is an awareness, familiarity, understanding, or skill. Its various forms all involve a cognitive success through which a person establishes epistemic contact with reality. Epistemologists typically understand knowledge as an aspect of individuals, generally as a cognitive mental state that helps them understand, interpret, and interact with the world. While this core sense is of particular interest to epistemologists, the term also has other meanings. For example, the epistemology of groups examines knowledge as a characteristic of a group of people who share ideas. The term can also refer to information stored in documents and computers.

In quote references removed.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

Which means that your entire argument is vacuous and built on a false premise. Show me one person who advocates for "scientism" as you have defined it. Just one. I'll wait.

This isn't necessary. The fact that the word exists indicates that some people advocate for it. Of course people in this thread will deny it, but some of them have done it - frequently. You can find plenty of examples in this forum.

The principle of scientism isn't bad when applied correctly. However it can easily be abused, both by advocates and detractors. Therefore it should be used with caution and respect.

The OP says he doesn't want to attack a straw man, but asks "how can we justify the claim that science is the only reliable source of knowledge?" The answer is we can't, because reliability isn't binary and other sources have utility. But sometimes we can. Those are the cases we should be careful with, to avoid giving scientism a bad name. But it already has a bad name, so maybe we should avoid using it. The dictionary is full of words that used to be fine but are avoided today due to pejorative usage.

 

[theprestige]

The principle of non-contradiction is a fundamental non-empirical premise. Its validity is proven deductively: denying it makes thought, language, and scientific data interpretation impossible.

Thanks!

I'm sorry to see that you think this debate has reached a standstill. To the degree that it has slowed down, I think it is largely attributable to your unwillingness to answer clarifying questions.

I've been fighting for days, to get an example out of you.

Anyway, now we have an example. I agree that non-empirical philosophical premises can be valid. Is that the end of it, or were you planning to build on this foundation?

 

[JayUtah]

According to my 21st-century epistemology and philosophy of science texts: labeling circular reasoning "virtuous" doesn't eliminate the fallacy—it just admits that empirical science cannot logically justify its own foundational assumptions without relying on them.

Funny how your “texts” explicitly support your quirky proposition without requiring you to define and explain a virtuous circle. Your response is a naked, “So what, I’m right.”

 

[JayUtah]

This debate has reached a standstill, so I’m stepping out. For those interested in moving past 20th-century assumptions...

We apologize for being too stupid to appreciate your genius.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Using the scientific method to validate the scientific method is the textbook definition of begging the question (circular reasoning). You cannot use a framework to prove its own foundational validity without presupposing the very thing under test.

The same is true of any other methodology you may choose to evaluate. It is equally true that you cannot choose between two methodologies M1 and M2 using either M1 or M2 as a methodology, so you will require a third methodology M3 to choose. But M3 cannot be used to evaluate itself, so M4 is now required, and so on infinitely. Your original question, therefore, can trivially be seen as excluding the possibility of any conceivable answer, and your continued demand that somebody else answer your carefully constructed impossible question is simple rudeness. Stop wasting everybody's time.

Dave

 

[Dave Rogers]

This isn't necessary. The fact that the word exists indicates that some people advocate for it.

Unproven, and trivially refuted. The fact that the word exists may equally only indicate that some people dishonestly claim other people advocate for it.

Dave

 

[catsmate]

If the argument is sound, its origin doesn't matter—it could come from a parrot! Just confess that you are unable to refute it!

Rubbish. Your The argument you parrot is long refuted nonsense.

 

[arthwollipot]

Requesting a self-proclaimed 'scientist' misses the point—scientism describes an implicit epistemological stance, not a self-applied badge, as shown by thinkers like Alex Rosenberg. As for 'justify': in epistemology, it means providing non-circular ground for a claim's validity.

And there you are again, equating science to religion. I wish you'd just come out and say that you don't believe in science because it fails to find evidence for God.

This debate has reached a standstill, so I’m stepping out.

Okay, never mind, I guess.

 

[Darat]

I guess this gets into the 'is math invented or discovered?' question. I think the fact that obscure mathematics can be found to have practical applications decades after being formulated suggests that the question isn't a simple one.

Invented. It is a human language, a very, very useful language to describe the universe, but it doesn't exist without humans.

 

[Darat]

Using the scientific method to validate the scientific method is the textbook definition of begging the question (circular reasoning). You cannot use a framework to prove its own foundational validity without presupposing the very thing under test.

Yes we can, consider the scientific method to be a map, I can use other maps to show that my map is correct. (And then I can check that the maps do correctly describe the territory by taking a walk.)

ETA: It is quite standard when bods are seeing if a theory holds up that different experiments I.e. "maps" will be run not just repeating the exact same experiment as we have knowledge that reality is a tricky bastard.