What on earth is "Scientism"? We have all heard that term before of course. Almost always from religious nut-cases or anti-science crackpots who think they know better because they have taken a course in a 3000 year old outdated subject called "philosophy".
Scientism is the belief that the scientific method is the best or only method that exist to expand human knowledge and that process should be expanded to all aspects of inquiry. Those who profess scientism are dogmatic. It is a new religion.
You just said that "most scientific experiments based on theories have proved false". Well, first of all an "experiment" cannot be "false" ... the interpretation of the results might be wrong, but the experiment itself cannot be "false". So what do you actually mean when you claim things like that?
Then I misspoke. Most hypothesis are proven false. You can view this as simultaneously being a benefit or disadvantage. It depends on the perspective that you take.
The whole of your paragraph is begrudging of what science has achieved. You are trying to minimise it by saying that scientists are biased and that they only achieve anything by eventually over a long time finding something which you say is only a "minimal increase in Wisdom/truth".
I am not intending to minimize the accomplishments of science. I am merely pointing out that it is an imperfect process lacking omniscience. I have said that it is one of the many tools (Implying that there are others tools that serve an important purpose) that humans have to expand their knowledge. I have also been claiming that philosophy is an integral part of science. Stanford University agrees with me. Every scientist I've read about agrees with me.
That is really a complete give-away of your anti-science beliefs/agenda. There's just no point in any scientifically educated people talking to anyone so off the wall as that (which is probably why scientists rarely waste their time or waste public money bothering to speak to idiot philosophers like that). But, why on earth do you think scientific discoveries and their explanations should appear instantly, as if it did not take a lot of time and lot of effort to devise many of the experiments, then time to analyse the results, then more time to try way's of confirming and repeating the results, before refining possible explanations, and then writing a research paper and waiting months to see if that is accepted, then more months waiting for publication … why do you think that should happen in the blink of an eye?? …
… and then you claimed the end results would only be a “marginal increase in wisdom/truth”. I mean what complete nonsense is that supposed to be. How many important discoveries and explanations do you think have been found by modern science, things that directly improve the lives of everyone on the planet? … If I guess it as millions of things, then that would probably be a huge underestimate, and you are claiming that amount of progress is minimal! … I mean, at least try to get real.
I don't believe that knowledge should expose itself to us. I understand it takes time to
You are sensitive to criticisms of science. I'm curious where that reactivity originates.
OK, first of all - a lot of quotes have been attributed to Einstein. And a lot of them have later turned out to be false ... ie, misquoted, misunderstood, or just never said it.
But Einstein was born in an era where scientists still did believe that philosophy was important. And they often thought it was fashionable in the sense of making them look clever or sophisticated. A number of the mathematicians who developed quantum theory in the 1920's seemed to have held philosophy in some sort of awe like that ... though iirc Dirac denounced it as an obvious load of nonsense & not worthy of his time.
Famous scientists like Einstein, Dirac, Bohr, Heisenberg became celebrities, and they were often asked for quotes and comments. And they often tried to say surprising or provoking things. In more modern times, Feynman was also fond of doing that.
But the scientists we are talking about here (Einstein, Dirac, Heisenberg Feynman, etc. ... there have been hundreds of them) were really mathematicians who were deeply into new exotic lines of mathematical complexities about the nature of the universe. And that line of deep intellectual mathematical thought (going on 24/7), often does lead people into expressing all sorts of weird & amazing ideas about what they think their discoveries are showing us about nature and reality.
As it happens I've actually worked with quite a few mathematicians in that line of research (when I was doing my PhD and later Post-doc research), and I remember thinking then that almost all of them were very peculiar people with some very odd ideas and often distinctly odd behaviour. In passing, as a more off-topic comment/explanation - I never really got anything useful from any of them (I was asking for their help & advice on some papers that had earlier been published on complex areas of Stochastic Processes in QM, which I was struggling with) ... but it quickly became clear to me that they did not really understand it either, even though they had themselves written papers in similar area of maths/physics research.
I think that you will find most highly intelligent and accomplished scientist are peculiar/unique. That creative spirit is useful for contemplating on where to begin exploring the unknown. Divergent thinking increases the probability of discovering something new.
Are you aware of any prominent scientist in contemporary society that are dismissive of philosophy?
It is unfortunate that your attempts to network did not work in the example you gave. In a similar way that there is benefit in interdisciplinary collaboration (physicist working with mathematicians, or biologists working with computer scientist, etc) there is benefit in consilience. Which is attempting to combine the wisdom from different aspects of inquiry. I can find a specific example if you'd like.
But going back to Einstein's quote - when he mentions "epistemology" he may just have been saying that in the light of what he had been discovering about relativity (a lot of which seemed extremely perculiar at the time, almost unimaginably weird) we need to think hard about how we "know" things & about what "knowledge & reality" actually is. Also keep in mind that Einstein was famously quoted for several remarks about God ... but it later turned out that he was speaking in metaphors that were not to be taken literally.
It is fun to contemplate what Einstein may have meant. Perhaps another quote from him may provide additional insight into his thought-process:
Einstein 1944 said:
“A knowledge of the historic and philosophical background gives that kind of independence from prejudices of his generation from which most scientists are suffering. This independence created by philosophical insight is—in my opinion—the mark of distinction between a mere artisan or specialist and a real seeker after truth.”
After reading another quote from Einstein on the relationship between physics and philosophy, what do you think his belief is?
I did not say that you had ever claimed to have studied science extensively. In fact I specifically told you that it was two other people in this thread who had said that (where they were praising philosophy in opposition to science).
But actually, if you or anyone is going to criticise science and minimise it (eg in the way you did in your first paragraph quoted above), then I think you do need to get yourself on at least a first degree course in core science (though that will only give you 10% of what you need to really understand about science research).
Do you really believe if I had more education about the sciences I'd see things your way? I received a college degree last year. The courses I took were taught with the most up-to-date material available. Never not once was Science communicated as being the only or best system of human inquiry for everything. Nor was it communicated that it was a perfect process. It can be a self-correcting system, it does not always manifest as a self-correcting system. Where as, it was clearly communicated in the courses I took that philosophy and Science are interrelated. You defend Science as if it is above reproach.
Just regarding your reliance on a quote from Einstein … here's another famous quote that almost everyone has heard of (heard from religious creationists) ;
“the odds of life forming from non-life on Earth, are comparable to the odds of a tornado sweeping through a junk yard and creating a Boeing 747 aircraft” … but do you know who that quote is attributed too? … apparently it was said by Fred Hoyle, who as I expect you know, was a fairly eminent UK astronomer in the 1950's-60's, who famously dismissed the idea of a “Big Bang”, believing instead that a Steady State model was correct for the existence of our universe … so on the basis of your preference for believing quotes from famous scientists, we should all be accepting Hoyle's claim that evolution is virtually impossible with odds of almost zero … brilliant huh!
I am not ONLY relying on Einstein. I am also relying on the history of philosophy and science as well as the definitions in common use for philosophy and science. I am also relying on
Stanford University, and as of today based on what I know, every university that exist.
Are you able to provide ONE resource from a respected university in the United States which claims there is NO link whatsoever between science and philosophy?
) but I’m interested in nuts and bolts, in this case that is questions and actual answers. That’s why I’ve asked several times what is the philosophical answer to the thread’s title question. So far I’ve had two different answers and one claim that philosophically it is a bad question.