Merged Is Scientism Really Justified?

[arthwollipot]

I'm genuinely open to being persuaded.

The evidence strongly suggests otherwise.

 

[Dave Rogers]

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.

Right, you've distinguished between the two claims to everyone's satisfaction, right there in black and white. Now you can either (a) go ahead and provide your examples or (b) waste everyone's time by pretending that you distinguishing between two claims doesn't count as someone else distinguishing between two claims using your precise form of words, so that there's some spurious reason why you can't provide your examples.

I'm betting on (b) because I think you're only interested in timewasting. Prove me wrong.

Dave

 

[Roger Ramjets]

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

Are you sure about that?

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.

Empiricism

is an epistemological view which holds that true knowledge or justification comes either only or primarily from sensory experience and empirical evidence. It is one of several competing views within epistemology, along with rationalism and skepticism. Empiricists argue that empiricism is a more reliable method of finding the truth than relying purely on logical reasoning

So it's more than just the 'set of assumptions' that empiricists argue makes it 'truer' than other ways of knowing. The insistence on physical evidence makes this a form of scientism. Specifying a particular set of assumptions makes it even more so.

Effectively what you are saying is that the data and how you interpret it is king. Based on this epistemology the numerous sightings of UFOs shows they are real, and skepticism or logical arguments against them are bogus. Also black holes weren't real until 1973, when the first one was observed.

 

[JayUtah]

So it's more than just the 'set of assumptions' that empiricists argue makes it 'truer' than other ways of knowing. The insistence on physical evidence makes this a form of scientism. Specifying a particular set of assumptions makes it even more so.

The assumptions I'm talking about are not the assumptions you're talking about.

Effectively what you are saying is that the data and how you interpret it is king.

If that's what I was saying, that's what I would have said.

 

[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 anyone here advocates strong scientism. I'm examining the philosophical position itself. If you agree that scientific knowledge is not the only valid form of knowledge, then we may actually agree on that point.

 

[Gubiosak]

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

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.

A philosophical position can be discussed even if no one in this conversation personally endorses it. My question is whether that claim can be justified.

 

[Gubiosak]

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?


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


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.

I'm not claiming that anyone here personally endorses strong scientism. I'm examining whether the stronger claim can be justified as a philosophical position. If everyone agrees that scientific knowledge is not the only valid form of knowledge, then we may agree on that point. The question is whether the stronger claim is defensible in principle.

 

[Gubiosak]

There isn't.

What now?

That's fine. I'm not claiming that anyone here holds that position. I'm examining whether the position itself can be justified as a philosophical claim.

 

[Gubiosak]

There is more to science than just experiments.

I agree that science involves more than experiments. My point is not that science is only experimentation. My question is whether the methods and standards of science are the only possible ways of justifying all forms of knowledge.

 

[JayUtah]

I'm...

...copypasting the same vacuous post over and over regardless of what was said. Did you run out of brain?

 

[Gubiosak]

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.

I'm not claiming that you or anyone here personally endorses strong scientism. I'm examining a philosophical position and asking whether that position can be justified. A philosophical claim can be discussed even if no one in this conversation holds it. My question is whether the stronger claim — that scientific knowledge is the only valid form of knowledge — can be defended.

 

[Gubiosak]

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

I'm not claiming that scientism is the position of this forum or that anyone here endorses it. I'm asking about the philosophical question itself: whether the stronger claim that scientific knowledge is the only valid form of knowledge can be justified. A position can be examined philosophically even if no one here currently defends it.

 

[Gubiosak]

...copypasting the same vacuous post over and over regardless of what was said. Did you run out of brain?

I'm not repeating the same point to avoid the discussion. I'm clarifying the distinction between criticizing science and questioning a stronger epistemological claim. If you disagree with that distinction, explain why.

 

[arthwollipot]

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.

A philosophical position can be discussed even if no one in this conversation personally endorses it. My question is whether that claim can be justified.

But if nobody is making that claim, examining it is - as one poster has already put it - mental masturbation. Why are you bothering? What do you get out of spending your valuable time examining a claim that nobody is making?

I'm not repeating the same point to avoid the discussion.

Looks to me like you are:

I'm examining the philosophical position itself.

I'm examining a philosophical position: strong scientism, the claim that scientific knowledge is the only valid form of knowledge.

I'm examining whether the stronger claim can be justified as a philosophical position.

I'm examining whether the position itself can be justified as a philosophical claim.

My question is whether the methods and standards of science are the only possible ways of justifying all forms of knowledge.

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

I'm asking about the philosophical question itself: whether the stronger claim that scientific knowledge is the only valid form of knowledge can be justified.

 

[JayUtah]

I'm not repeating the same point to avoid the discussion.

Yes, you pretty much are. If not, answer my question about how you think paranormal claims challenge the scope of scientific inquiry.

 

[Axxman300]

'm asking about the philosophical question itself: whether the stronger claim that scientific knowledge is the only valid form of knowledge can be justified. A position can be examined philosophically even if no one here currently defends it.

You have yet to define knowledge. The concept is not singular. Physics, medicine, aerospace, engineering, biology, geology are science-based knowledge. The fact the Beatles will always be better than The Backstreet Boys is knowledge based on reason alone, with no empirical evidence needed. Nobody here is saying science is the only way to go, but surgery should not be an act of faith.

 

[Mojo]

But if nobody is making that claim, examining it is - as one poster has already put it - mental masturbation. Why are you bothering? What do you get out of spending your valuable time examining a claim that nobody is making?

He isn't. As the quotations in your post show, he isn't actually examining the claim. He's Just Asking Questions. Or rather, repeatedly asking the same question.

 

[catsmate]

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.

That doesn't really match his claim of "questions that may be beyon?d the current reach or scope of science".....
But I suppose he's desperate to find something, anything, that he can distort to suit his beliefs.

 

[Helen]

This is actually one of the most impressive mulberry bushes around here. The competition is very stiff, but this particular bush is competing with just the one single mulberry, over and over again, and still puts up a fight.

 

[Darat]

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.

Yeah - go kick a rock.