Merged Is Scientism Really Justified?

[JayUtah]

You said that science is the only reliable method for gaining knowledge about the external universe…

I said no such thing. Answer my question about paranormal claims or admit that you cannot.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

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.

I also have a position.

I reject the claim that someone is putting $7.5 million in my linen closet every afternoon. My argument is that the success and reliability of science do not, by themselves, establish the claim that someone is putting $7.5 million in my linen closet every afternoon. (A lot of folks here will realize the two sentences I highlighted have exactly the same structure: My argument is that the truth of A does not by itself establish the completely unrelated claim that B is true. But I don't think @Gubiosak will notice that.)

I'm open to changing my mind if someone can providing a convincing argument for the claim that someone is putting $7.5 million in my linen closet, especially if that argument puts $7.5 million in my linen closet.

So if you disagree, I'm interested in your argument against my rejection of the claim that someone is putting $7.5 million in my linen closet, especially if your argument counters my rejection of the claim by putting $7.5 million in my linen closet.

 

[Dave Rogers]

I'm open to changing my mind if someone can providing a convincing argument for the claim that someone is putting $7.5 million in my linen closet, especially if that argument puts $7.5 million in my linen closet.

Dude, I just put $7.5 million in the exact centre of your linen closet, go and take a look. Better hurry though, some guy called Werner told me it might not stay there long.

Dave

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Dude, I just put $7.5 million in the exact centre of your linen closet, go and take a look. Better hurry though, some guy called Werner told me it might not stay there long.

Dave

Thank you, Dave. That was really nice of you.

I want you and the IRS to know Werner got there first.

My fault, really. I should have enabled push notifications.

 

[Gubiosak]

I also have a position.

I reject the claim that someone is putting $7.5 million in my linen closet every afternoon. My argument is that the success and reliability of science do not, by themselves, establish the claim that someone is putting $7.5 million in my linen closet every afternoon. (A lot of folks here will realize the two sentences I highlighted have exactly the same structure: My argument is that the truth of A does not by itself establish the completely unrelated claim that B is true. But I don't think @Gubiosak will notice that.)

I'm open to changing my mind if someone can providing a convincing argument for the claim that someone is putting $7.5 million in my linen closet, especially if that argument puts $7.5 million in my linen closet.

So if you disagree, I'm interested in your argument against my rejection of the claim that someone is putting $7.5 million in my linen closet, especially if your argument counters my rejection of the claim by putting $7.5 million in my linen closet.

The analogy is not the same. I'm not claiming that because science doesn't establish strong scientism, strong scientism is false. I'm pointing out that strong scientism itself requires an epistemological justification.
My point is not that strong scientism is impossible to defend. My point is that it requires an argument. If you can provide a convincing argument that scientific knowledge is the only valid form of knowledge, I am open to changing my mind and no longer rejecting strong scientism.

 

[Gubiosak]

I said no such thing. Answer my question about paranormal claims or admit that you cannot.

I'm not arguing for spiritualism, and I'm not arguing against science. I accept that empirical science is the most reliable method we have for investigating empirical claims about the external world. My point is only about the stronger epistemological claim that scientific knowledge is the only valid form of knowledge. That is the claim I'm questioning.

 

[EHocking]

Who, specifically, are you arguing against?

 

[JayUtah]

I'm not arguing for spiritualism...

You brought up paranormal claims as illustrations of questions that are beyond the scope of science. Tell us why.

My point is only about the stronger epistemological claim that scientific knowledge is the only valid form of knowledge. That is the claim I'm questioning.

And you're so desperate to have the easy debate that you're trying to cram those words into the mouth of anyone who talks to you.

No one here advocates what you describe as "strong scientism." No one claims that any form of empiricism is "the only valid form of knowledge." All you're doing by repeatedly demanding that someone defend your straw man is revealing yourself as a weak intellect.

 

[Dave Rogers]

My point is not that strong scientism is impossible to defend. My point is that it requires an argument. If you can provide a convincing argument that scientific knowledge is the only valid form of knowledge, I am open to changing my mind and no longer rejecting strong scientism.

Please, stop deluding yourself by selectively forgetting parts of the conversation whose existence you find inconvenient. You have made it perfectly clear by implication that all possible arguments are to be rejected in advance on the grounds that no system of acquiring knowledge may fairly be assessed on its own terms. Since you have preemptively rejected every argument, you have therefore not only failed to make yourself open to changing your mind, but rendered yourself incapable of doing so.

Dave

PS: Remind me, is your next knee-jerk response to ask me whether I embrace strong scientism before you'll talk to me?

PPS: My spell checker corrected "scientism" to "scientist.' I don't think even my smartphone supports strong scientism, which is quite ironic if you think about it.

 

[Gubiosak]

View attachment 75296

I'm not arguing against a specific person here. I'm examining a philosophical position: strong scientism, the claim that scientific knowledge is the only valid form of knowledge.

 

[Axxman300]

I'm not arguing for spiritualism, and I'm not arguing against science. I accept that empirical science is the most reliable method we have for investigating empirical claims about the external world. My point is only about the stronger epistemological claim that scientific knowledge is the only valid form of knowledge. That is the claim I'm questioning.

But that claim does not exist, and no one with a scientific background is claiming that science is the only valid form of knowledge.

You have built a straw man, and you are now losing a fight to this straw man.

 

[Axxman300]

I'm not arguing against a specific person here. I'm examining a philosophical position: strong scientism, the claim that scientific knowledge is the only valid form of knowledge.

You've come to the wrong place. Scientism isn't a thing here. Science? Yes.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

But that claim does not exist, and no one with a scientific background is claiming that science is the only valid form of knowledge.

You have built a straw man, and you are now losing a fight to this straw man.

What it comes down to is that he's arguing with himself, and losing the argument.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

Coward...

At no point in this thread, or in any of your other threads has anyone stated, "The Scientific Method is the only way to know something"

Not outright of course, for this would make them vulnerable to accusations of scientism. But they have strongly implied it.

Science, unlike religion or philosophy, has never been a fixed belief system. Science evolves as new information is added, and tested. Science is not handed down from on high. Papers are written, their conclusions are disseminated, and tested, and re-tested, and those conclusions validated, or tossed out.

Neither has religion or philosophy. It could be argued that science is actually more rigid, since it likes to build on prior knowledge rather than discarding it. Advocates often promote this as a positive, arguing that it makes science better than other ways of knowing.

 

[Gubiosak]

You brought up paranormal claims as illustrations of questions that are beyond the scope of science. Tell us why.


And you're so desperate to have the easy debate that you're trying to cram those words into the mouth of anyone who talks to you.

No one here advocates what you describe as "strong scientism." No one claims that any form of empiricism is "the only valid form of knowledge." All you're doing by repeatedly demanding that someone defend your straw man is revealing yourself as a weak intellect.

I'm not claiming that you or anyone here advocates strong scientism. I'm examining a philosophical position and asking whether it can be justified. If you agree that scientific knowledge is not the only valid form of knowledge, then we may actually agree on that point. My question is about the arguments for and against the stronger claim itself.

 

[Gubiosak]

Please, stop deluding yourself by selectively forgetting parts of the conversation whose existence you find inconvenient. You have made it perfectly clear by implication that all possible arguments are to be rejected in advance on the grounds that no system of acquiring knowledge may fairly be assessed on its own terms. Since you have preemptively rejected every argument, you have therefore not only failed to make yourself open to changing your mind, but rendered yourself incapable of doing so.

Dave

PS: Remind me, is your next knee-jerk response to ask me whether I embrace strong scientism before you'll talk to me?

PPS: My spell checker corrected "scientism" to "scientist.' I don't think even my smartphone supports strong scientism, which is quite ironic if you think about it.

I don't reject arguments in advance. My point is simply that strong scientism is a philosophical claim that requires justification. If someone provides a convincing argument for it, I am open to changing my mind. Asking whether someone accepts strong scientism is not a rejection of their arguments; it is a question about the position they are defending.

 

[arthwollipot]

So before I provide examples of questions beyond the current scope of science, I think we need to distinguish these two claims: “science is the best method for investigating the empirical world” and “science is the only valid source of knowledge.” I am challenging the latter claim, not the former.

Who is making the latter claim? Name names, please.

 

[JayUtah]

I'm not claiming that you or anyone here advocates strong scientism.

But at the same time you claimed I said empiricism was the only valid form of knowledge. I said no such thing, and in fact said the opposite. You're desperate to make me defend the straw man you set up.

Then when someone else came along saying what his position was, you said you wanted to talk about the "stronger version" of his claim. That's tantamount to putting words in his mouth too. If someone claims he advocates law and order, you don't get to make him assume responsibility for the "stronger version" of that claim, which might be something like authoritarianism or fascism. You're desperate to make someone defend your "stronger version" of their positions. That's a classic straw man.

If you're not willing to engage people on the terms they actually state, why should anyone pay attention to you?

I'm examining a philosophical position and asking whether it can be justified.

So examine it. But do it without ham-fistedly trying to make someone else take up a contrary position they don't agree with.

If you agree that scientific knowledge is not the only valid form of knowledge, then we may actually agree on that point. My question is about the arguments for and against the stronger claim itself.

For the last time, no one wants to talk about your "stronger claim." As someone else pointed out, what you want is tantamount to mental masturbation. Historically that activity does not require another person.

 

[arthwollipot]

I'm asking because I'm opposed to strong scientism. I want to know whether anyone here actually defends that position, so I know whether there is someone arguing for the other side.

There isn't.

What now?

 

[arthwollipot]

These are examples of questions where the relevant justification is not itself a scientific experiment.

There is more to science than just experiments.