Merged Is Scientism Really Justified?

[Gord_in_Toronto]

25 years ago I had much more patience with the solipsists and nihilists and those arguments, these days I’m with Philip K Dick.

Thus my sig that I have used for decades.

 

[Carrot Flower King]

And if I decide I'm sticking with Popper's definition of scientism, rather than something else made up to try to undermine, for whatever reasons belonging to whichever individual, the validity of the scientific method?

I'm not that keen on discussing matters with some combination of Humpty Dumpty, Sergeant Fottrell, a character from Last Year In Marienbad, half of the "cast list" of If On A Winter's Night A Traveller and someone escaping The Sound And The Fury, allied to a bunch of cheap, sub-post-modernism.

 

[Darat]

Be interesting to see the response, just fed the last few posts into Gemini.

 

[Gubiosak]

I'm specifically examining the strong form of scientism here: the claim that scientific knowledge is the only valid form of knowledge. I'm not arguing against science or against the weaker claim that science is the best method for investigating empirical questions.

 

[Mojo]

I'm specifically examining the strong form of scientism here: the claim that scientific knowledge is the only valid form of knowledge. I'm not arguing against science or against the weaker claim that science is the best method for investigating empirical questions.

Who, specifically, are you arguing against?

 

[Darat]

I'm specifically examining the strong form of scientism here: the claim that scientific knowledge is the only valid form of knowledge. I'm not arguing against science or against the weaker claim that science is the best method for investigating empirical questions.

The scientific method is the only method we have come up with that allows us to "objectively" test our ideas about reality and create a corpus of knowledge that we know to be true.

 

[Darat]

Who, specifically, are you arguing against?

 

[JayUtah]

I'm specifically examining the strong form of scientism here: the claim that scientific knowledge is the only valid form of knowledge.

Does anyone here actually hold the position you're arguing against? Does anyone in the world?

 

[Gubiosak]

And if I decide I'm sticking with Popper's definition of scientism, rather than something else made up to try to undermine, for whatever reasons belonging to whichever individual, the validity of the scientific method?

I'm not that keen on discussing matters with some combination of Humpty Dumpty, Sergeant Fottrell, a character from Last Year In Marienbad, half of the "cast list" of If On A Winter's Night A Traveller and someone escaping The Sound And The Fury, allied to a bunch of cheap, sub-post-modernism.

Does Popper’s definition include the claim that scientific knowledge is the only valid form of knowledge?

 

[Mojo]

Does Popper’s definition include the claim that scientific knowledge is the only valid form of knowledge?

Why the obsession with this claim?

 

[Gubiosak]

Does anyone here actually hold the position you're arguing against? Does anyone in the world?

I'm examining the position itself, rather than claiming that someone here necessarily holds it. But yes, strong forms of scientism have been defended by contemporary philosophers. Alex Rosenberg, for example, is explicitly discussed in the literature as defending a strong form of scientism.

 

[Mojo]

I'm examining the position itself, rather than claiming that someone here necessarily holds it. But yes, strong forms of scientism have been defended by contemporary philosophers. Alex Rosenberg, for example, is explicitly discussed in the literature as defending a strong form of scientism.

Why not go and argue with him then?

 

[Darat]

I'm examining the position itself, rather than claiming that someone here necessarily holds it. But yes, strong forms of scientism have been defended by contemporary philosophers. Alex Rosenberg, for example, is explicitly discussed in the literature as defending a strong form of scientism.

That doesn't make sense - why were you asking people about their stance before you would answer their questions. Perhaps you should yourself look to making your arguments rather than being concerned about who is asking about them.

 

[Gubiosak]

Does anyone here actually hold the position you're arguing against? Does anyone in the world?

Do you yourself hold the position that scientific knowledge is the only valid form of knowledge?

 

[Mojo]

Do you yourself hold the position that scientific knowledge is the only valid form of knowledge?

Knowledge of what?

 

[JayUtah]

I'm examining the position itself, rather than claiming that someone here necessarily holds it.

Do you expect anyone here to defend that position?

 

[Mojo]

Do you expect anyone here to defend that position?

He's desperate for someone here to defend it.

 

[Gubiosak]

Why not go and argue with him then?

The point is to examine whether the claim is justified, not to find a particular person to argue with.

 

[Helen]

Well, why don't you just go ahead and examine it then?

 

[Gubiosak]

That doesn't make sense - why were you asking people about their stance before you would answer their questions. Perhaps you should yourself look to making your arguments rather than being concerned about who is asking about them.

The issue is whether the strong scientistic claim is justified.