Merged Is Scientism Really Justified?

[theprestige]

Gubiosak, how about giving us an example of something that is known that could not have been known through science. (Aside from something known through personal experience.)

I don't think this is a fair question. Gubiosak is asking if it's possible, not claiming that it's possible.

 

[theprestige]

Is the claim “the scientific method is the only reliable way of knowing” itself a scientific claim that can be empirically tested?

Also, now you are starting to be rude. I have asked you several clarifying questions, which you have ignored.

Why should I put any more effort into answering your questions, when you won't put the least effort into answering mine?

 

[Gubiosak]

Also, now you are starting to be rude. I have asked you several clarifying questions, which you have ignored.

Why should I put any more effort into answering your questions, when you won't put the least effort into answering mine?

I apologize if my question came across as rude. My intention is only to clarify the scope of your position. I will address your questions as well.

 

[arthwollipot]

I am not proposing an alternative to science.
I am asking whether science is the only way to obtain knowledge.
That is the question I want to explore.

And that is a question that has been answered several times in several ways, even at this early stage in the thread. Are you willing to even consider these answers? If not, then you are not "exploring the question" you are simply stating your position.

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

It is, in fact, the most important question.

Fair enough. Then perhaps we agree that science and scientism should be distinguished.

Inasmuch as science is a real thing and "scientism" is not, yes.

I understand that scientism is a position or doctrine, not a physical object. My question is whether that position is justified.

"Scientism" is a fake thing that is made up by people who don't think that science is a reliable method for testing reality. It is fabricated to analogise science with religion, with belief systems. And as such it bears no reality to what science actually is or what science actually does. It's the philosophical equivalent of a schoolyard nickname given by a bully.

 

[Gubiosak]

You tell me. I've given you the tools I use. If you have an argument to make about those tools, make it.

If you want to test a claim using those tools, test it, and tell us your results.

If you want to test a claim using some other tools, do that.

I am not arguing against the scientific method. I am asking about the justification of the claim that it is the only reliable way of knowing. Is that claim itself established by the scientific method, or by philosophical reasoning about the method?

 

[Gubiosak]

And that is a question that has been answered several times in several ways, even at this early stage in the thread. Are you willing to even consider these answers? If not, then you are not "exploring the question" you are simply stating your position.


It is, in fact, the most important question.


Inasmuch as science is a real thing and "scientism" is not, yes.


"Scientism" is a fake thing that is made up by people who don't think that science is a reliable method for testing reality. It is fabricated to analogise science with religion, with belief systems. And as such it bears no reality to what science actually is or what science actually does. It's the philosophical equivalent of a schoolyard nickname given by a bully.

I agree that science and scientism should not be confused. My question is not whether science works, but whether the claim that science is the only reliable way of knowing is itself a philosophical claim.

 

[arthwollipot]

I agree that science and scientism should not be confused. My question is not whether science works, but whether the claim that science is the only reliable way of knowing is itself a philosophical claim.

And again, that question has been answered several times in several ways already. You have shown no sign of accepting or even understanding these answers. What is the point of even asking?

 

[theprestige]

I am not arguing against the scientific method. I am asking about the justification of the claim that it is the only reliable way of knowing. Is that claim itself established by the scientific method, or by philosophical reasoning about the method?

Philosophical questions interest me even less than taxonomical questions.

This question isn't even relevant here. Whatever the answer, it doesn't get you any closer to finding out if there's other reliable ways of knowing.

What steps would you suggest we take, to try to find another reliable way of knowing? Where would you start? What would you look for?

 

[Norman Alexander]

Not logically correct. 3 does not follow from 2, nor does it follow from 1.

Meanwhile what makes it not science is the lack of scientific methodology. It's just three claims or predictions or hypotheses or whatever you want to call them. There's no observations or testing.

Was asking the OP.

 

[Norman Alexander]

Isn't the problem here the unsupported premise, rather than the logic?

How would you know it is unsupported?

 

[theprestige]

For what it's worth, I consider Socratic Dialog to be absolutely the least useful species in the genus science.

 

[junkshop]

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

How are you defining 'knowledge'?

 

[Dave Rogers]

How do you empirically test the validity of a logical rule itself?

By pulling yourself up by your own bootstrap. In other words, wrong question.

Dave

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

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

What do you mean by "justified"? If the knowledge has utility, it must be verifiable. OTW it's just speculation or fantasy.

 

[JayUtah]

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

How do you know your premises are valid?

 

[JayUtah]

This seems like little more than the OP’s latest rant against science, of which we already have similar examples. This is usually a matter of understanding which pet belief of his science has rejected.

 

[arthwollipot]

I agree that science and scientism should not be confused. My question is not whether science works, but whether the claim that science is the only reliable way of knowing is itself a philosophical claim.

So far only you have made that claim.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

Meanwhile, what do you mean by "scientism"? I would say scientism is the belief that science is the only way to know whether something is true or real.

Scientism

...is the belief that science and the scientific method are the best or only way to render truth about the world and reality.
While the term was defined originally to mean "methods and attitudes typical of or attributed to natural scientists", some scholars, as well as political and religious leaders, have also adopted it as a pejorative term with the meaning "an exaggerated trust in the efficacy of the methods of natural science applied to all areas of investigation (as in philosophy, the social sciences, and the humanities)"

That puts you in the 'hard scientism' camp, which one poster here thinks isn't real and is only 'in your head' as opposed to 'real' science.

Now that we have this actual knowledge of what scientism is (as apposed to what some people think it is) we begin to see the problem. By insisting that science (ie. the scientific method) is the only way to know if some 'knowledge' is true or not, you imply that:-

1. Other methods of gaining knowledge are inadequate - which clearly isn't true. In many cases other methods are better, because they produce useful results without so much time and effort. Often the science isn't 'settled' until the knowledge is already in regular use.

2. It is inherently far more trustworthy than other methods which cannot tell you 'for sure' whether some knowledge is real. But science is only as trustworthy as its application, which is not comprehensive or faultless. In some fields the science is so unsure that scientists themselves have large disagreements, and what little 'knowledge' they do agree on is inadequate for practical application.

'Scientism' is often used pejoratively against those who elevate science to being the gatekeeper of all 'true' knowledge, dismissing everything else as untrustworthy or false. That is true in some cases (eg. religion) but not all. The OP asks about logic, mathematics, and philosophy, all of which are used by science but are not themselves science.

For example you can use logic alone to show that the supernatural doesn't exist, without the need to gather evidence, develop theories, and test them. You may say that without that process I can't be sure that eg. Jesus didn't perform miracles and come back to life as a god, but it works well enough in practice. Science OTOH has an impossible job trying to 'prove' a negative via lack of physical evidence and ability to test it.

 

[arthwollipot]

Scientism

Nobody's saying that the word does not exist, or it does not have a definition. What I've been saying is that it is a concept that was made up in order to equate "belief" in science with belief in religion.

We don't have faith in science. It isn't an ism. It is the most reliable and repeatable way of interrogating reality, and its track record for success is far better, by orders of magnitude, than any other human endeavour. Acknowledging that requires no faith or belief. Just an acceptance of facts.

 

[Helen]

Cf evolutionism, another madey uppy word to imply that it's about faith.