Merged Is Scientism Really Justified?

[theprestige]

I'm not looking for a rubber stamp for my beliefs. I'm genuinely open to being persuaded. If someone can give me a convincing argument for strong scientism — that scientific knowledge is the only valid form of knowledge — I may change my mind.

I think you're asking people to try to convince you of something that nobody here needs or wants you to be convinced of.

For example, I have no serious attachment to the claim of strong scientism. I don't think it's a good claim. I don't want to argue for it. I don't need to convince you to accept it.

I think the scientific method is the most reliable method that we know of, but if you don't agree that's fine with me. I'd much rather understand the nature of your disagreement, and the counter-examples you provide, than try to convince you that you're wrong.

 

[Gubiosak]

I think you're asking people to try to convince you of something that nobody here needs or wants you to be convinced of.

For example, I have no serious attachment to the claim of strong scientism. I don't think it's a good claim. I don't want to argue for it. I don't need to convince you to accept it.

I think the scientific method is the most reliable method that we know of, but if you don't agree that's fine with me. I'd much rather understand the nature of your disagreement, and the counter-examples you provide, than try to convince you that you're wrong.

I appreciate that. That's actually the kind of discussion I'm looking for.
I don't expect anyone here to defend strong scientism, and I'm not trying to persuade anyone to accept my position. I'm interested in examining the claim itself.
My basic objection is that the success and reliability of the scientific method do not, by themselves, establish the stronger claim that scientific knowledge is the only valid form of knowledge. That stronger claim is an epistemological claim, and that's the part I'm questioning.
So I'd be very interested in hearing your thoughts on that distinction, and on any counterexamples you think challenge my position.

 

[JayUtah]

I think the scientific method is the most reliable method that we know of, but if you don't agree that's fine with me. I'd much rather understand the nature of your disagreement, and the counter-examples you provide, than try to convince you that you're wrong.

This is that pragmatic approach I keep talking about.

There are indeed the toy counterexamples: arithmetic, propositional logic, elementary ethics. These allude to kinds of knowledge and consequently they employ different methods. Our OP wants to stick to those subjects, but I want to get to the hard questions he posed in other threads.

It's facile to say that "strong scientism" rejects the paranormal, and does so improperly because "strong scientism" has a shaky epistemological foundation. But pragmatic science has no such limitation. It is grounded in observed reality and employs a virtuous cycle to maintain its status as the most reliable method we know for ascertaining the behavior of the universe. Can one say pragmatic science is wrong when it rejects the paranormal for the same reasoning one says "strong science" is wrong to reject it?

One really steps in it when one tries to bring up the paranormal as an illustration of questions that challenge the scope of pragmatic empiricism. We covered this already. The only thing that separates paranormal from normal—and thus would place it outside the scope of pragmatic empiricism—is the set of assumptions claimants bring to the table. And this (we already showed) is exactly the sort of interference that pragmatic empiricism achieves its demonstrable reliability by rejecting.

So yes, it's quite understandable why @Gubiosak wants to stick to his abstract handwaving and his toy counterexamples. The question he's really here to explore doesn't go away so neatly.

 

[JayUtah]

My basic objection is that the success and reliability of the scientific method do not, by themselves, establish the stronger claim that scientific knowledge is the only valid form of knowledge.

You're right. They don't. That's why no one believes that pragmatic empiricism is the only valid form of knowledge. Same straw man, same answer.

Move on.

You mentioned that paranormal claims illustrate a problem with the scope of useful empirical science. Is it possible for you to make such a claim without also arguing that there is something about the paranormal that lies outside the scope of science?

 

[Carrot Flower King]

OK, that looks like an admission above that this is really only an exercise in mental masturbation with no real world application.

I will revise my opinion in the light of new evidence, per science...

 

[catsmate]

I'm opposed specifically to strong scientism because I think the claim is self-undermining. The claim that scientific knowledge is the only valid form of knowledge is itself an epistemological claim, not a scientific finding. So I don't see how science alone could establish the principle that science is the only valid source of knowledge.

You are utterly wrong.
When will you be posting the list of questions that you think "may be beyond the current reach or scope of science"?
We're waiting for you to make good in your promise.....

 

[Tristan Chi]

You’d want 12a down the hall.

 

[JayUtah]

When will you be posting the list of questions that you think "may be beyond the current reach or scope of science"?

He already did. It was
2+2=4,
Categorical logic exists, and
Don’t beat up the weak kids.

He refuses to talk about the hard questions such as whether paranormal claims pose questions that are beyond the scope of science.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

You’d want 12a down the hall.

It's just contradiction.

 

[Gubiosak]

He already did. It was
2+2=4,
Categorical logic exists, and
Don’t beat up the weak kids.

He refuses to talk about the hard questions such as whether paranormal claims pose questions that are beyond the scope of science.

Do you think empirical evidence is necessary for every kind of valid knowledge, including mathematics and logic, or only for empirical claims about the world?

 

[ahhell]

It's been a bit since I posted in this thread but...

I'm opposed specifically to strong scientism because I think the claim is self-undermining
. The claim that scientific knowledge is the only valid form of knowledgeis itself an epistemological claim, not a scientific finding. So I don't see how science alone could establish the principle that science is the only valid source of knowledge.

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

Those are different claims.

Is scientific knowledge the only valid knowledge, no. Is it the only reliable method or gaining knowledge about reality, yes, except perhaps....

The fact that I love my children is knowledge about reality, I guess, but there is no scientific way to determine the truth of that. The universe outside of the human mind, for that you need science.

And so far, we can only come up with better models of the reality, there are still bits and pieces missing from those models, and who knows, maybe some of those models are actually wrong the way the Bohr model of the atom is wrong but still useful.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

I don't expect anyone here to defend strong scientism,

Excellent!

No need to look for things you don't expect. I don't expect to find $7.5 million in my linen closet, which saves me the time it would take to search that closet 250 times a day.

and I'm not trying to persuade anyone to accept my position.

Excellent!

You aren't trying to persuade, so there's no need to give a second thought to whether you've persuaded anyone or could persuade anyone.

I'm interested in examining the claim itself.

Then examine the claim itself. There's absolutely no need to confuse yourself by wondering whether anyone actually believes the claim. That's completely irrelevant to your examination of it.

My basic objection is that the success and reliability of the scientific method do not, by themselves, establish the stronger claim that scientific knowledge is the only valid form of knowledge.

To what are you objecting?

Are you objecting to the idea that success and reliability establish a stronger claim that yada yada?

Are you objecting to the idea that success and reliability do not establish a stronger claim?

Either way, the nature of your objection might help you to form your own opinion on the subject. You should put more effort into forming your own opinion, and stop wasting all the effort you've been putting into finding someone to form your opinion for you.

If you can't find an actual human who's willing to form your opinion for you, you could ask your AI assistant to tell you your opinion. That would keep both of you occupied in a more productive activity, and might amuse the AI.

That stronger claim is an epistemological claim, and that's the part I'm questioning.

Everyone should have a hobby. Many hobbies, yours among them, are best pursued in private.

So I'd be very interested in hearing your thoughts on that distinction,

It would appear that many of us think it would be almost as much a waste of time to think about that distinction as conversing with you has proved to be.

If we wanted to waste our time on such things, we'd talk to a chatbot. Whatever we may think of chatbots, they're more thought-provoking than you have been.

and on any counterexamples you think challenge my position.

We'd have to start with an ontological question: Do you actually have a position?

 

[JayUtah]

Do you think empirical evidence is necessary for every kind of valid knowledge, including mathematics and logic, or only for empirical claims about the world?

How about you answer my question about the paranormal claims you cited as examples
of things outside the scope of science? Or are you out of AI tokens?

 

[Gubiosak]

It's been a bit since I posted in this thread but...




Those are different claims.

Is scientific knowledge the only valid knowledge, no. Is it the only reliable method or gaining knowledge about reality, yes, except perhaps....

The fact that I love my children is knowledge about reality, I guess, but there is no scientific way to determine the truth of that. The universe outside of the human mind, for that you need science.

And so far, we can only come up with better models of the reality, there are still bits and pieces missing from those models, and who knows, maybe some of those models are actually wrong the way the Bohr model of the atom is wrong but still useful.

I think we actually agree on the main point: you don't think scientific knowledge is the only valid form of knowledge. What I'm curious about is the stronger part of your position: why do you think science is the only reliable method for knowing about the external universe? What rules out other possible forms of justification in principle?

 

[JayUtah]

What I'm curious about is the stronger part of your position…

Or stated another way, something that isn’t our position.

Enough straw men. Answer my question, if you have enough brains to.

 

[Gubiosak]

Excellent!

No need to look for things you don't expect. I don't expect to find $7.5 million in my linen closet, which saves me the time it would take to search that closet 250 times a day.


Excellent!

You aren't trying to persuade, so there's no need to give a second thought to whether you've persuaded anyone or could persuade anyone.


Then examine the claim itself. There's absolutely no need to confuse yourself by wondering whether anyone actually believes the claim. That's completely irrelevant to your examination of it.


To what are you objecting?

Are you objecting to the idea that success and reliability establish a stronger claim that yada yada?

Are you objecting to the idea that success and reliability do not establish a stronger claim?

Either way, the nature of your objection might help you to form your own opinion on the subject. You should put more effort into forming your own opinion, and stop wasting all the effort you've been putting into finding someone to form your opinion for you.

If you can't find an actual human who's willing to form your opinion for you, you could ask your AI assistant to tell you your opinion. That would keep both of you occupied in a more productive activity, and might amuse the AI.


Everyone should have a hobby. Many hobbies, yours among them, are best pursued in private.


It would appear that many of us think it would be almost as much a waste of time to think about that distinction as conversing with you has proved to be.

If we wanted to waste our time on such things, we'd talk to a chatbot. Whatever we may think of chatbots, they're more thought-provoking than you have been.


We'd have to start with an ontological question: Do you actually have a position?

I do have a position. I reject strong scientism: the claim that scientific knowledge is the only valid form of knowledge. My argument is that the success and reliability of science do not, by themselves, establish that exclusivity claim. I'm open to changing my mind if someone can provide a convincing argument that does establish it. So if you disagree, I'm interested in the argument against that position.

 

[JayUtah]

I do have a position. I reject strong scientism: the claim that scientific knowledge is the only valid form of knowledge.

So does everyone else here. Do you have a point beyond this straw man?

 

[Gubiosak]

Or stated another way, something that isn’t our position.

Enough straw men. Answer my question, if you have enough brains to.

I'm not attributing that position to you. I'm asking you to clarify your own position. You said that science is the only reliable method for gaining knowledge about the external universe, and I'm asking why you think that is the case. If that's not your position, then please clarify what your position is.

 

[ahhell]

I think we actually agree on the main point: you don't think scientific knowledge is the only valid form of knowledge. What I'm curious about is the stronger part of your position: why do you think science is the only reliable method for knowing about the external universe? What rules out other possible forms of justification in principle?

It's the only method that has track record of correctly making predictions about reality.

 

[Tristan Chi]

It's just contradiction.

Yes, it is!