Merged Is Scientism Really Justified?

[catsmate]

Good. Because it worked before philosophers got interested in it, and it continues to work while the philosophers debate. By "works" we mean it is grounded in an observable reality which serves as a check to any flaw in its foundation that philosophers may have lately decided might be there. As @Dave Rogers pointed out, every form of knowledge suffers from the same foundational issues. Thus there is no reason to single out empiricism as you have done. Since it's philosophically pointless, we properly disregard it.


No one here claims that empirical science is the only valid way to know truth.

There is enough straw in this thread to fill an army of scarecrows.

 

[Darat]

Science doesn't need to stop just because it relies on philosophical foundations; its practical success remains completely intact. The point is simply that claiming science is the only valid way to know truth is itself a philosophical position—one that science alone cannot prove.

Yes it can. We've investigated the other methods of adding to our collection of things we know are true and we found they don't add to the collection of things we know are true. Examples include all the prayers to gods a significant number of people worship, psychic powers, life after death phenomenon (the likes of ghosties), poetry and so on.

If you have a method that adds to the collection of things we know to be true, that aren't simply a language to describe the world, I'd like to know about it.

/da

 

[Gubiosak]

I’m sure his AI can explain it to him. And if not, he has a pat paragraph in his paste buffer for just such an every occasion.

Actually, long before the emergence of these AI tools, I was already using Google Translate to translate my posts from Portuguese to English here. The software merely translates the language; the conceptual foundation comes from the literature on the philosophy of science and contemporary epistemology—a field shaped by figures such as Karl Popper, Thomas Kuhn, Imre Lakatos, and Willard Quine, who thoroughly examined the limits and conditions of validity of empirical knowledge.

Attempting to dismiss a position by attacking the medium used to write it or by inventing hypotheses about its origin is a textbook case of the genetic fallacy—a logical error that consists of judging the value of an idea by its supposed source rather than evaluating its conceptual merit.

The validity of a logical inference is independent of whether the text was translated by software, printed in a book, or written by hand. Resorting to the genetic fallacy to dodge the topic does not resolve the epistemological weakness of scientism.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

How were you posting here before AI when your account details say you joined 1st April 2026?

 

[JayUtah]

Attempting to dismiss a position by attacking the medium used to write it or by inventing hypotheses about its origin is a textbook case of the genetic fallacy—a logical error that consists of judging the value of an idea by its supposed source rather than evaluating its conceptual merit.

Focusing on a throwaway comment instead of the meat of the discussion is a textbook case of evasion.

 

[Steve]

How were you posting here before AI when your account details say you joined 1st April 2026?

Hmmm, April 1st......hmmm.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

Hmmm, April 1st......hmmm.

Yes I did notice, but I didn't dwell on it. I'm interested in an answer.

 

[Gubiosak]

Focusing on a throwaway comment instead of the meat of the discussion is a textbook case of evasion.

Focusing on the tool used to write a post rather than its content is the definition of the genetic fallacy—it was never a 'throwaway comment,' but a clear attempt to bypass the argument itself.

However, I agree: let’s drop the distraction about AI and translators completely and focus on the meat of the discussion.

The core question remains: How does strict scientism justify its own premise that empirical science is the only valid source of knowledge, without relying on circular reasoning or falling back on the very epistemological frameworks (Popper, Kuhn, Quine) you claim to dismiss?

 

[JayUtah]

Focusing on the tool used to write a post rather than its content is the definition of the genetic fallacy—it was never a 'throwaway comment,' but a clear attempt to bypass the argument itself.

I was seriously suggesting that you could use your AI to explain an English idiom that I had used. But as soon as someone mentions AI, your knee jerks and you write irrelevant, inflammatory posts like this.

I gave you a whole lengthy post on the nature of moral epistemology which challenges your definition of knowledge. You completely ignored it.

The core question remains: How does strict scientism justify its own premise that empirical science is the only valid source of knowledge, without relying on circular reasoning or falling back on the very epistemological frameworks (Popper, Kuhn, Quine) you claim to dismiss?

And this is the “pat paragraph” I also referred to. I can’t believe someone who wants to be seen as smart is so unable to grasp a point. No one will defend your straw man. Find something else for your life to be about.

 

[Gubiosak]

How were you posting here before AI when your account details say you joined 1st April 2026?

Fixating on account registration dates and April Fools' jokes to dodge an epistemological argument is the absolute textbook definition of evasion.

Whether an account was created on April 1st 2026, ten years ago, or yesterday has zero logical bearing on the validity of a premise, the limits of empiricism, or the self-refuting nature of strict scientism.

Notice the sequence: first you attacked the translation tool, then you ignored the philosophy of science, and now you are investigating profile metadata.

You are doing everything possible to avoid the actual question: How does strict scientism logically justify its own premise that empirical science is the only source of valid knowledge, without relying on circular reasoning?

 

[Gubiosak]

Hmmm, April 1st......hmmm.

Fair enough. If you are genuinely interested in an answer, let's skip the meta-discussions about account dates, translation software, and April Fools' day altogether.

The core question has been on the table from the beginning: How does strict scientism logically justify its foundational premise—that empirical science is the only valid source of knowledge—without relying on circular reasoning or falling back on non-empirical epistemological frameworks?

Whenever you're ready to address the conceptual merit of that question, the floor is yours.

 

[JayUtah]

Fixating on account registration dates and April Fools' jokes to dodge an epistemological argument is the absolute textbook definition of evasion.

You’re nit-picking picking every little irrelevant thing instead of answering people’s serious questions. You are not serious.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

Fixating on account registration dates and April Fools' jokes to dodge an epistemological argument is the absolute textbook definition of evasion.

Whether an account was created on April 1st 2026, ten years ago, or yesterday has zero logical bearing on the validity of a premise, the limits of empiricism, or the self-refuting nature of strict scientism.

Notice the sequence: first you attacked the translation tool, then you ignored the philosophy of science, and now you are investigating profile metadata.

You are doing everything possible to avoid the actual question: How does strict scientism logically justify its own premise that empirical science is the only source of valid knowledge, without relying on circular reasoning?

I didn't fixate on anything, or make April Fool's Day jokes. I asked a simple question. You made a statement to which there is evidence to the contrary and I asked you to explain it.

 

[Gubiosak]

Dismissing a central question as a 'straw man' without providing a single logical reason why is not a refutation—it is a concession.

If 'strict scientism' is indeed a straw man, then the solution is simple: state clearly whether empirical science requires non-empirical philosophical premises to validate itself or not.

Substituting epistemological analysis with personal insults ('find something else for your life to be about') only confirms the core thesis of this audit: when forced to confront the philosophical limits of empiricism, the defensive mechanism of this forum relies on ad hominem evasion.

 

[JayUtah]

Dismissing a central question as a 'straw man' without providing a single logical reason why is not a refutation—it is a concession.

Yawn.

The “logical reason” why it’s a straw man is that no one here subscribes to the claim you’re frantically trying to pin on them. You’ve been told this reason several times a day. Since you are rudely ignoring that, you are properly being treated as a provocateur and not as a serious claimant. You’ve must argue in good faith to enjoy more than basic civility.

You’ve been dangling the same bait for days. No one is biting. Move on.

 

[JayUtah]

If 'strict scientism' is indeed a straw man, then the solution is simple: state clearly whether empirical science requires non-empirical philosophical premises to validate itself or not.

@Dave Rogers answered this question days ago. Address his answer.

 

[theprestige]

Fixating on account registration dates and April Fools' jokes to dodge an epistemological argument

We're distracting ourselves with side business while we wait for you to actually make your epistemological argument.

We've been waiting for days for you to give some examples of the kind of alternative epistemologies you have in mind. If you don't want us to play around with other stuff, then get to the point already.

 

[JayUtah]

We've been waiting for days for you to give some examples of the kind of alternative epistemologies you have in mind.

He named three: mathematical, logical, and moral. I wrote a lengthy piece about how moral epistemology doesn't really define "knowledge" the same way as other kinds of philosophy. Nothing from @Gubiosak in response except nit-picks and a list of all the fallacies his opponents are allegedly committed by not taking his bait. @Dave Rogers went right to the heart of the whole rationale for asking about philosophical groundings for all these epistemologies. Against, crickets from the OP.

Let's say the question is, "Do ghosts literally exist?"

I'm interested in what other epistemologies answer that question best or better than pragmatic scientific empiricism.

 

[theprestige]

Let's say the question is, "Do ghosts literally exist?"



I'm interested in what other epistemologies answer that question best or better than pragmatic scientific empiricism.

Same here.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

In what follows, all highlighting is mine.

The name-dropping quoted below caught my attention, because my undergraduate courses in philosophy had a lot to do with Willard Van Orman Quine, and I don't recall any discussion of scientism in his philosophy. That doesn't mean Quine never considered scientism, but it seemed weird that @Gubiosak would cite Quine as contributing to "the conceptual foundation" of @Gubiosak's ongoing search for someone who wants to talk about scientism.

[....] the conceptual foundation comes from the literature on the philosophy of science and contemporary epistemology—a field shaped by figures such as Karl Popper, Thomas Kuhn, Imre Lakatos, and Willard Quine, who thoroughly examined the limits and conditions of validity of empirical knowledge.

The core question remains: How does strict scientism justify its own premise that empirical science is the only valid source of knowledge, without relying on circular reasoning or falling back on the very epistemological frameworks (Popper, Kuhn, Quine) you claim to dismiss?

I performed web searches of the form "X, scientism" where X is Popper, Kuhn, Lakatos, or Quine. From the top hits for each search, I examined at least half a dozen encyclopedic discussions of their philosophies. The word "scientism" did not appear within any of those discussions.

You are doing everything possible to avoid the actual question: How does strict scientism logically justify its own premise that empirical science is the only source of valid knowledge, without relying on circular reasoning?

The core question has been on the table from the beginning: How does strict scientism logically justify its foundational premise—that empirical science is the only valid source of knowledge—without relying on circular reasoning or falling back on non-empirical epistemological frameworks?

If 'strict scientism' is indeed a straw man, then the solution is simple: state clearly whether empirical science requires non-empirical philosophical premises to validate itself or not.

Substituting epistemological analysis with personal insults ('find something else for your life to be about') only confirms the core thesis of this audit: when forced to confront the philosophical limits of empiricism, the defensive mechanism of this forum relies on ad hominem evasion.

I find it interesting that, when asked to give examples, @Gubiosak evades the question by dropping the names of several philosophers for whom scientism was not much of a concern.

As I broadened my web searches, however, I did find a 5-page essay that mentions both Quine and scientism within its third-to-last paragraph:

Quine’s project—his “extreme nominalist,” antirealist, neopragmatist and empiricist
“naturalized epistemology”—is a bridge from the ascending path that is the absolutism of
Modernist objectivist Scientific Realism and Scientific Materialism/Scientism (and from the
descending fuzzy Romantic Sturm und Drang, and the skeptical nihilist Postmodern reactions
to Modernism), to the later holism of Kuhn, Habermas and the emerging pragmatic and
neopragmatic reformation in religion, science and culture that is our incipient radically holistic
and pragmatic Noetic Revolution .

That doesn't say Quine cared about scientism. It just says David Paul Boaz, who wrote that paragraph, sees Quine as a "bridge" from some "ascending path" that starts with something that might have something to do with scientism (and also with "the descending fuzzy Romantic Sturm and Drang, and the skeptical nihilist Postmodern reactions to Modernism") and somehow arrives at "the later holism of Kunn" yada yada "and the emerging pragmatic and neopragmatic reformation in religion, science and culture that is our incipient radically holistic and pragmatic Noetic Revolution."

I found the "authentic frontier gibberish" of Blazing Saddles to be a great deal more convincing than Boaz.

But I was intrigued by the "emerging...reformation in religion, science, and culture that is our incipient...Noetic Revolution" (who wouldn't be?) and set out to learn about it. Let's start with a dictionary's definition of noetic that says

The most notable use of noetic might be in the name of the Institute of Noetic Sciences, a research organization based in California that is devoted to studies of consciousness and the mind.​

The Institute of Noetic Sciences (IONS) was co-founded by Edgar Mitchell, one of the first men to walk on the moon, who used part of his time in space to conduct ESP experiments with some of his friends on earth. IONS is notable for its contributions to the science behind several of Dan Brown's novels.

I half-expected Boaz to be associated with IONS, but could find no evidence of that. On the other hand, Boaz is "Co-Founding Director and Vice President of" a similar organization, the Copper Mountain Institute, which is "a tax exempt Buddhist Temple and Buddhist and contemplative studies research institute where he teaches Buddhist studies and mindfulness meditation."

Boaz has a doctoral degree in religious studies and considers himself to be a philosopher of physics and cosmology. He is the author of six books and more than a hundred essays, and is noted for his non-mathematical presentation of quantum physics in books such as The Prior Unity of Science and Spirit: Toward a Panpsychic Noetic Quantum Ontology, which "unifies Buddhist boundless emptiness and 'nonlocal entangled' quantum emptiness. At last, a viable foundational interpretation of quantum mechanics!"

I think we can all drink to that.