Merged Is Scientism Really Justified?

[Gubiosak]

All part of science.

Are mathematics and logic themselves sciences?

 

[Gubiosak]

It's inference, like figuring out a logic puzzle from some initial hints.
It is inherently limited, as Gödel proved.

But if mathematical reasoning can produce knowledge, does that knowledge have to be scientific?

 

[Gubiosak]

I think the important word in the OP's question is the one I've highlighted:



There are many ways to obtain knowledge with varying degrees of reliability. In many, probably most, cases, the anecdotal evidence we accumulate as we go about our lives is perfectly adequate to successfully navigate the world. But the cognitive biases that have been built into the way the human brain works by evolution pre-dispose us to make false positive mistakes, rather than risk making (possibly fatal) false negatives, and can lead us to believe many things that simply aren't true. That's why the scientific method had to be invented, and why it is by far the most reliable way to gain knowledge about reality.

So you agree that science is not the only way to gain knowledge, only the most reliable?

 

[Gubiosak]

Give examples of each.

For example, mathematical proofs and logical deductions can establish conclusions without experiments. Would you consider that scientific knowledge?

 

[Gubiosak]

You have a problem. You come here claiming you're not looking for a fight when you clearly are looking for one.

There is a difference between scientific knowledge, and general knowledge. Science gives us medicines, buildings that can survive earthquakes, submarines with nuclear reactors, solar panels, battery-powered cars, LCD screens, and science allows us to send robots to other planets.

Science cannot tell us who will win the Super Bowl this year, who the good movie actors are, why two peaches from the same tree don't taste equally sweet, or if watching the sunrise is clinically good for you.

A good example of science vs general knowledge is the Money Ball concept of building a baseball team using On-Base Percentage to win enough games to get into the playoffs while on a small budget. The Oakland A's have done well with this concept, but they have not been to the World Series while using this model...because their owner is a cheapskate. Other teams that have embraced the O-BP model while at the same time spending money on proven clutch players (something that often is not quantified with statistics) have won multiple World Series championships. Science helps the A's do well, but organic knowledge of baseball has defeated them when the championships are on the line.

And any sports fan can point to multiple examples where the team that had all the stats loaded in their favor lost their big game to the underdog.

But if a baseball player gets hit in the head by a 95mph fastball? Science is his only savior. MRIs, neurologists, and a long list of medical techniques come into play. "Manning up" and "Walking it off" are a thing of the past.

It all comes down to staying in your lane.

I am not looking for a fight. I am trying to understand the distinction you are making between scientific knowledge and general knowledge.
If general knowledge can be reliable, does that mean science is not the only way to gain knowledge?

 

[Carrot Flower King]

Wake me up when we get to "What do you mean 'mean'?"

 

[Steve]

I am not looking for a fight. I am trying to understand the distinction you are making between scientific knowledge and general knowledge.
If general knowledge can be reliable, does that mean science is not the only way to gain knowledge?

Reliable, and repeatable, yes it is.

 

[Puppycow]

I agree that science uses logic, mathematics, and philosophy.
But if they are part of the scientific method, does that make them science?
Or does it show that science depends on things that are not themselves science?

Good grief.

A car needs wheels, but a wheel by itself is not a car. An engine by itself is not a car. These are silly questions.

Does that show that a car "depends on things that are not themselves a car?"

 

[Darat]

For example, mathematical proofs and logical deductions can establish conclusions without experiments. Would you consider that scientific knowledge?

How do you know whether those conclusions are true or not?

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

How do you know whether those conclusions are true or not?

Late to this thread but isn't that the crux of the question?

If you have found a result by using something other than science, how do you prove it to be true? Surely the only way is by the scientific method?

 

[Gubiosak]

Good grief.

A car needs wheels, but a wheel by itself is not a car. An engine by itself is not a car. These are silly questions.

Does that show that a car "depends on things that are not themselves a car?"

I understand the analogy. My question is whether mathematics and logic are themselves sciences, and whether they can produce knowledge without empirical testing.

 

[Gubiosak]

How do you know whether those conclusions are true or not?

Through logical proof, given valid premises and rules of inference. That is different from empirical testing.

 

[Gubiosak]

Late to this thread but isn't that the crux of the question?

If you have found a result by using something other than science, how do you prove it to be true? Surely the only way is by the scientific method?

Does every kind of knowledge need empirical testing to be justified?

 

[Darat]

Through logical proof, given valid premises and rules of inference. That is different from empirical testing.

That's circular.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

I understand the analogy. My question is whether mathematics and logic are themselves sciences, and whether they can produce knowledge without empirical testing.

They are not and they can not.
They are the tools, not a separate method.

 

[Gubiosak]

That's circular.

Isn't some degree of circularity unavoidable when we try to justify our basic methods of reasoning?

 

[Gubiosak]

They are not and they can not.
They are the tools, not a separate method.

But if they can establish conclusions through deduction without empirical testing, why can't they produce knowledge?

 

[The Great Zaganza]

But if they can establish conclusions through deduction without empirical testing, why can't they produce knowledge?

If you have a Sudoku puzzle in front of you, you can come to the correct solution using logic. But the solution was given by the setup, not the logic.

You cannot use deductions by themselves to generate knowledge, only to reveal all the information provided by your initial set of information about a system that might not have been obvious from the start.
If there is any flaw in your initial assumptions, logic will not reveal them unless they are contradictory.
Maths and Logic create systems that are internally consistent, nothing more.

 

[Gubiosak]

If you have a Sudoku puzzle in front of you, you can come to the correct solution using logic. But the solution was given by the setup, not the logic.

You cannot use deductions by themselves to generate knowledge, only to reveal all the information provided by your initial set of information about a system that might not have been obvious from the start.
If there is any flaw in your initial assumptions, logic will not reveal them unless they are contradictory.
Maths and Logic create systems that are internally consistent, nothing more.

I agree that logic cannot establish whether empirical assumptions about reality are true. But does that mean logical and mathematical knowledge is not knowledge?

 

[Carrot Flower King]

What I have described as The Year Long Argument was between me and my final year botany tutor...He was a mathematician by trade and had moved into mathematical modelling in ecology; I don't have much time for mathematical modelling, unless it can be shown to actually work in the real world (hence my utter contempt for most economics), so we had this long discussion about empiricism and theoretical modelling...Several essays by me, loads of papers being thrown at each other...I had a great time, I hope he did.

My conclusion was that empiricism won, as the models still don't tell you what is actually happening in reality, as opposed to in someone's head.

So, science it is.

NOT scientism!

I mean saying you don't want a fight then using that sort of provocative term is asking for trouble.