Merged Is Scientism Really Justified?

[ahhell]

In the Westminster system, cabinet ministers are traditionally members of Parliament. This is because Parliament is supreme in the Westminster system, and having executives also sit in Parliament keeps them accountable individually to Parliament. The Westminster system does not have the concept of executive privilege as exists in the U.S.

In the Hamiltonian-Madisonian system, executive officers cannot be members of Congress. Executive officers are accountable to the President, and the President and his officers may invoke an executive privilege to prevent Congress or the judiciary from inquiring too deeply into their official acts. The U.S. had "independent agencies" for about 100 years—beholden mostly to Congress—but no longer. Congress is not supreme in the H-M system, although it is clear that the Framers intended Congress to have and wield more power than it currently does.

Well, wielding any power would be more than congress currently does. Congress is also meant to be supreme in the US system; they are the ones that make the laws and the only branch that can remove members of the other branches.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

As an example of something we can know without relying upon empirical science:

Similarly, the inability to prove empirically that there are an infinite number of primes—you do it by mathematical induction—is a given.

The main point here is that the infinity of primes is something we know independently of empirical science.

For the record, however, some Greek guy (Euclid) proved there are infinitely many primes using excluded middle (proof by cases—it can also be proved using reductio ad absurdum), without appealing to mathematical induction.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

In the Westminster system, cabinet ministers are traditionally members of Parliament. This is because Parliament is supreme in the Westminster system, and having executives also sit in Parliament keeps them accountable individually to Parliament. The Westminster system does not have the concept of executive privilege as exists in the U.S.

In the Hamiltonian-Madisonian system, executive officers cannot be members of Congress. Executive officers are accountable to the President, and the President and his officers may invoke an executive privilege to prevent Congress or the judiciary from inquiring too deeply into their official acts. The U.S. had "independent agencies" for about 100 years—beholden mostly to Congress—but no longer. Congress is not supreme in the H-M system, although it is clear that the Framers intended Congress to have and wield more power than it currently does.

Strictly speaking they have to be Parliamentarians, members of either the Commons or the Lords, for the last hundred years or so most cabinet ministers have been MPs, elected members of the Commons but this wasn't so much the case before that and isn't necessarily the case now, After her failure to get elected, Baroness Warsi was enobled and appointed to the cabinet by Davud Cameron and Cameron himself was enobled after he stood down as an MP by Sunak so he could be made Foreign Secretary.

 

[Ryan O'Dine]

Treating science as a pragmatic heuristic that works based on its history is already adopting a philosophical position.
Science needs epistemological foundations to justify why it works and to validate logic and mathematics, which cannot be proven in the laboratory. Using the successes of science to prove the empirical method is circular reasoning. The objective is not to limit scientific practice, but to demonstrate that strong scientism cannot sustain itself on its own.

Why does science need to justify itself on philosophical grounds? I don't understand that requirement. Can you explain?

 

[Dave Rogers]

Why does science need to justify itself on philosophical grounds? I don't understand that requirement. Can you explain?

And, in order to reduce the likelihood of an unfair choice of methodology, have you considered augury as a means of obtaining this information?

Dave

 

[Gubiosak]

Why does science need to justify itself on philosophical grounds? I don't understand that requirement. Can you explain?

 

[Ryan O'Dine]

Thanks, Gubiosak. But could you summarize the video?

Meanwhile, let's suppose we never find epistemological justification for science. Should we then stop doing science? Should we reject all the conclusions it's come to so far?

That would be ridiculous, right? In fact, surely such a conclusion would indicate a failure of philosophy rather than anything about science.

 

[JayUtah]

I'm sure glad that the philosophy of science came around in the early 20th century. Otherwise how could we possibly have known that all the science done theretofore was any good.

 

[Gubiosak]

Thanks, Gubiosak. But could you summarize the video?

Meanwhile, let's suppose we never find epistemological justification for science. Should we then stop doing science? Should we reject all the conclusions it's come to so far?

That would be ridiculous, right? In fact, surely such a conclusion would indicate a failure of philosophy rather than anything about science.

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.

 

[Steve]

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.

Well there you go. OP answered. Thread closed.

 

[Dave Rogers]

I can't help wondering, based on my own 40-year career as an industrial R&D scientist, how we found ourselves referring back so little to the philosophy of science.

====== woogly cross fade =======

"Good morning team, here is the quarterly highlight summary for the optical amplifier v7 project. We have fabricated the pre-production batch based on last quarter's design report, which predicted a 3dB increase in saturated output power from v6 at 80% yield. Results show 84, 83 and 87% for the three sub-batches. Qualification samples are on lifetest and using similarity we can have full product release by the end of this quarter. We're starting the first pilot production batch now, and we should be shipping product to the customer division in early December in time to hit their market window. Great work everyone, this is a big market segment, should be a big win for all of us. Any questions?"

"Yes. Are we certain we acquired this knowledge in the most appropriate manner? We carry a lot of risk assuming a particular methodology to be the correct one. The product may be meeting the scientific spec, but if it's epistemologically flawed, we can't even begin to estimate what problems might arise."

".... wait, what?"

"I recommend we place the project on hold till we've created a proper framework to assess different methodologies for acquisition of knowledge."

"But this is the methodology we've used for every successful product we've ever released! What methodology should we be using?"

"I'm not arguing for any particular methodology. But if everything we've done makes the same assumptions, we have no way of assessing whether anything we've done follows the most appropriate approach. I'm sorry, but until we have a thorough understanding of this issue, I'm going to have to overrule you, call a stop to device fabrication, and free up the whole team to address this vital issue."

Later, on the phone:

" Yes, Director.
"No, Director, but...
"Yes, Director, I realise they're not happy.
"Yes, Director, that's right, it's the seventh time.
"No, Director, but...
"Yes, Director, but...
"Director, can we please find the VP for the Philosophy of Science something different to do?"

Dave

 

[JayUtah]

Science doesn't need to stop just because it relies on philosophical foundations...

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.

The point is simply that claiming science is the only valid way to know truth is itself a philosophical position...

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.

 

[arthwollipot]

To be clear: I am completely pro-science. Recognizing the necessity of science does not mean we must accept strong scientism. However, I am not dogmatic about this. If anyone here can provide a sound, non-circular philosophical argument demonstrating that empirical science is indeed the only valid form of knowledge, I am entirely open to changing my mind and accepting strong scientism. I am simply asking for the argument.

You're asking the wrong people, in the wrong place.

 

[JayUtah]

To be clear: I am completely pro-science.

But at this point we have to ask, "Which science?" You seem to have acquired the notion that there exists a dogmatic form of science that you have termed "strong scientism." It doesn't seem to correspond to anything people here follow or advocate. It doesn't seem to correlate to any actual activity being undertaken under the auspices of science. Nobody here subscribes to it.

Do you actually advocate the kind of pragmatic empirical science we practice and advocate? Or perhaps do you just nod to the prodigious product of that science and hold your philosophical nose while doing so?

Recognizing the necessity of science does not mean we must accept strong scientism.

Agreed, which is why we don't.

However, I am not dogmatic about this.

You very much are, because you've spent dozens of pages trying to get someone to defend the straw man you've constructed. You've tried shoving your straw man's words into people's mouths. You've suggested that they secretly believe and advocate it. You've tried to say that people somehow must advocate it as the "stronger form" of the position they really hold. You are certainly dogmatic about something, if only that the fugitives from philosophy that you seek are somehow hiding out here.

If anyone here can provide a sound, non-circular philosophical argument demonstrating that empirical science is indeed the only valid form of knowledge...

Nobody here will.
Nobody here believes that statement.
Nobody here wants to defend it.
Nobody here secretly advocates it or practices it.

This has been explained to you several times a day for the past several days.

 

[Axxman300]

The Beatles vs. Backstreet Boys isn't about knowledge, it's about taste

Nope. One is clearly superior. You don't get to pick what qualifies as knowledge. You repeatedly state there are other ways to gauge knowledge aside from the scientific method, but when an example of non-scientific knowledge is given, you blow it off.

This is not a debate for you. This is about control for you. You are not interested in debate, nor defending a point, let alone making one.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Science needs epistemological foundations to justify why it works and to validate logic and mathematics, which cannot be proven in the laboratory.

Why does science need to justify itself on philosophical grounds? I don't understand that requirement. Can you explain?

Meanwhile, let's suppose we never find epistemological justification for science. Should we then stop doing science? Should we reject all the conclusions it's come to so far?

That would be ridiculous, right? In fact, surely such a conclusion would indicate a failure of philosophy rather than anything about science.

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 is a philosophical position that science alone cannot prove.

More importantly, the claim is a philosophical position of no interest to science.

Also, it seems, of no interest to logicians and mathematicians.

So far as I can tell, absolutely no one but you has any interest in claiming that science is the only valid way to know truth, and you yourself have so little interest in that claim that you have repeatedly disclaimed it. Even as you have tied yourself in knots trying to get others to express any interest in the claim.

Those windmills don't joust themselves.

Well there you go. OP answered. Thread closed.

"Director, can we please find the VP for the Philosophy of Science something different to do?"

Since it's philosophically pointless, we properly disregard it.

 

[JayUtah]

Nope. One is clearly superior. You don't get to pick what qualifies as knowledge.

Opinion is not generally considered knowledge in philosophy.

Whether opinions such as, "It is wrong to torture an innocent person," or "Blame should apply to actions corresponding to outcome rather than intent," qualify as knowledge under moral epistemology is much debated. I'm sure the philosophers enjoy the debate. Happily back in the real world, "Do not torture innocent people" has the same imperative effect on most people as, "Do not put the toaster in your bathtub." The danger of the latter is well established by empirical methods.

Questions such as, "Do ghosts exist?" have answers that qualify as knowledge by any philosophical definition. As with all other existential questions based on phenomena, empirical methods are the most effective and reliable at discovering the answers. This is obviously a pragmatic approach. I venture that any who advocate such an approach remain open to better methods. However, philosophical purity is not high on the list of criteria for evaluating such methods.

This is not a debate for you. This is about control for you. You are not interested in debate, nor defending a point, let alone making one.

I don't know about control. But I sense there is a question out there he dares not raise.

 

[EHocking]

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.

I'm not really sure he is getting the allusion in the last sentence, e.g.,

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.

 

[JayUtah]

I'm not really sure he is getting the allusion in the last sentence, e.g.,

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.

 

[Puppycow]

Gubiosak, can you explain why science needs an epistemological foundation? Would it be invalid if it didn't have one? What if science is just a heuristic that succeeds because it works when it works, and when it fails it's improved upon?

Basically you seem to be demanding a philosophical foundation for a practical approach to problem solving. Personally I believe in science because its approach makes the most sense to me (compared to alternatives), and because of its track record. Why demand more?

That's a good point. Science has been proven as a practical matter. As far as I'm concerned, that's what actually matters. The most elegant theory in the world fails if it doesn't match real-world measurements and observations.