Merged Is Scientism Really Justified?

[Gubiosak]

And (following on from Mojo's question) what alternative way of obtaining knowledge are those questions within the current reach and scope of?

Before answering your question, I think it would help to clarify something: do you defend a strong form of scientism (that science is the only valid way of obtaining knowledge), or a more moderate view (that science is the best method for investigating the empirical world, while other forms of reasoning may have a role in other areas)?

 

[Mojo]

Do you defend the stronger claim that science is the only valid way of obtaining knowledge, or the more moderate claim that science is simply our best method for investigating the empirical world?

I was asking what questions there are that may be beyond the current reach or scope of science, as you had claimed in the post I was replying to.

Further, Pixel42 has asked what alternative way of obtaining knowledge are those questions within the current reach and scope of.

Please answer these questions.

 

[Mojo]

Before answering your question, I think it would help to clarify something: do you defend a strong form of scientism (that science is the only valid way of obtaining knowledge), or a more moderate view (that science is the best method for investigating the empirical world, while other forms of reasoning may have a role in other areas)?

Are you unable to identify any questions that may be beyond the current reach or scope of science, but are within the current reach and scope of alternative ways of obtaining knowledge?

 

[Gubiosak]

I agree. I continually want to ask @Gubiosak to point on the doll to where science touched him. Science is reasonably good (and increasingly better) at answering the kinds of questions science can answer. That's not meant to be a tautology. And properly conducted as a virtuous cycle, it avoid logical circularity by being grounded to confirmatory observation. Knowledge obtained by the scientific method must result in a prediction whose truth can be observed. And a failure to make that connection results in refining the process until it works better. The notion that empiricism lacks some sort of magical grant of a priori validity is ultimately unimportant. As @Dave Rogers pointed out, if you propose to ask that question fairly, then you have to conclude we can know nothing, since all knowledge is similarly hobbled. Therefore it's just solipsism with an unconvincing coat of paint.

It turns out that questions like, "Does God exist?" (or ghosts or aliens or whatever paranormal claim is being made) are the kind science is good at answering. Attempts to place those propositions outside the grasp of empiricism commit the error of putting one foot in the boat while keeping one foot on the dock. Advocates want the real-world causations that paranormal or supernatural propositions entail, but they don't want them to be subject to the same standards of proof as other real-world causations. You can wave all the philosophy books you want, but it still comes down to straightforward special pleading.

Before continuing the discussion, I think it would help to clarify your position. Do you think science is the only valid way of obtaining knowledge, or do you think it is simply the best method for answering empirical questions?

 

[Helen]

But if he answers your questions, he will have to reveal his hand, and then it gets harder to twist and turn.

Also, Gubiosak, scientism is not a thing.

 

[Gubiosak]

I was asking what questions there are that may be beyond the current reach or scope of science, as you had claimed in the post I was replying to.

Further, Pixel42 has asked what alternative way of obtaining knowledge are those questions within the current reach and scope of.

Please answer these questions.

I will answer, but I think it is important to clarify whether we are discussing the limits of science itself or the stronger philosophical claim of scientism.

 

[Mojo]

I will answer, but I think it is important to clarify whether we are discussing the limits of science itself or the stronger philosophical claim of scientism.

We're discussing whether you can identify any questions that are "beyond the current reach or scope of science", but not beyond the current reach or scope of other ways of obtaining knowledge.

You seem reluctant, or unable, to do so.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

I am not against science; I believe the scientific method is extremely important, but there are questions that may be beyond the current reach or scope of science.

Do you defend the stronger claim that science is the only valid way of obtaining knowledge, or the more moderate claim that science is simply our best method for investigating the empirical world?

At the risk of saying something moderately uncontroversial, I don't think science is particularly well suited to investigating un-empirical non-worlds.

Unless we count mathematics as science. Mathematics is one way to obtain knowledge of un-empirical non-worlds.

Before answering your question, I think it would help to clarify something: do you defend a strong form of scientism (that science is the only valid way of obtaining knowledge), or a more moderate view (that science is the best method for investigating the empirical world, while other forms of reasoning may have a role in other areas)?

As explained above, I do not regard science as the only valid way to obtain knowledge. I cited mathematical reasoning as a well-established way to obtain knowledge that cannot be obtained through empirical investigation of whatever world we happen to inhabit.

Before continuing the discussion, I think it would help to clarify your position. Do you think science is the only valid way of obtaining knowledge, or do you think it is simply the best method for answering empirical questions?

You're repeating yourself.

I will answer, but I think it is important to clarify whether we are discussing the limits of science itself or the stronger philosophical claim of scientism.

We're discussing whether you can identify any questions that are "beyond the current reach or scope of science", but not beyond the current reach or scope of other ways of obtaining knowledge.

You seem reluctant, or unable, to do so.

I could do so, but his avoidance of that question suggests @Gubiosak cannot do so.

 

[theprestige]

I am not against science; I believe the scientific method is extremely important, but there are questions that may be beyond the current reach or scope of science.

Questions like what? Can you give examples?

 

[Mojo]

Questions like what? Can you give examples?

 

[Mojo]

I could do so, but his avoidance of that question suggests @Gubiosak cannot do so.

I suspect that his questions, and his other ways of obtaining knowledge, wouldn't be the same as yours in any case.

 

[Gubiosak]

Are you unable to identify any questions that may be beyond the current reach or scope of science, but are within the current reach and scope of alternative ways of obtaining knowledge?

My point is not that every question beyond the current scope of science has an alternative method that can provide a definitive answer.
My point is narrower: the success and usefulness of science do not, by themselves, establish the stronger claim that science is the only valid way of obtaining knowledge.
So before I provide examples of questions beyond the current scope of science, I think we need to distinguish these two claims: “science is the best method for investigating the empirical world” and “science is the only valid source of knowledge.” I am challenging the latter claim, not the former.

 

[Gubiosak]

But if he answers your questions, he will have to reveal his hand, and then it gets harder to twist and turn.

Also, Gubiosak, scientism is not a thing.

f scientism is not a thing, then what position do you think I am actually criticizing when I refer to the claim that science is the only valid way of obtaining knowledge?

 

[Helen]

I have no idea. Do you?

 

[Mojo]

My point is not that every question beyond the current scope of science has an alternative method that can provide a definitive answer.
My point is narrower: the success and usefulness of science do not, by themselves, establish the stronger claim that science is the only valid way of obtaining knowledge.
So before I provide examples of questions beyond the current scope of science, I think we need to distinguish these two claims: “science is the best method for investigating the empirical world” and “science is the only valid source of knowledge.” I am challenging the latter claim, not the former.

No we don't. Either you know of such questions or you don't.

The evidence so far presented suggests that you don't.

 

[Mojo]

f scientism is not a thing, then what position do you think I am actually criticizing when I refer to the claim that science is the only valid way of obtaining knowledge?

It looks as if the position you are actually criticising is the claim that science is the only valid way of obtaining knowledge.

 

[Gubiosak]

I suspect that his questions, and his other ways of obtaining knowledge, wouldn't be the same as yours in any case.

Here are three examples:

1. Mathematics: “What is 17 × 23?”
2. Logic: “If all A are B, and X is A, does it follow that X is B?”
3. Ethics: “Is it morally wrong to torture an innocent person for fun?”
   These are examples of questions where the relevant justification is not itself a scientific experiment. My point is not that science is useless, but that its success does not by itself establish that science is the only valid way of obtaining knowledge.

 

[Darat]

Here are three examples:

1. Mathematics: “What is 17 × 23?”

Science: We counted 23 sets of 17

1. Logic: “If all A are B, and X is A, does it follow that X is B?”

Science: We looked at a A and B and X and we found that depending on whether they were identical or different that they were identical or different each time we checked.

1. Ethics: “Is it morally wrong to torture an innocent person for fun?”
   These are examples of questions where the relevant justification is not itself a scientific experiment. My point is not that science is useless, but that its success does not by itself establish that science is the only valid way of obtaining knowledge.

Science: The answer is yes. We ran a survey of a million people and 99.8% said it is morally wrong .

 

[theprestige]

My point is not that every question beyond the current scope of science has an alternative method that can provide a definitive answer.
My point is narrower: the success and usefulness of science do not, by themselves, establish the stronger claim that science is the only valid way of obtaining knowledge.

However, the lack of any other alternative being offered, does establish the intermediate claim that science is the only valid way of obtaining knowledge, that we know of.

For certain definitions of science, of course. I know you like to keep empiricism and logic separate, but I prefer to group them together under the same methodology. My understanding is that it's really the methodology you're talking about.

So before I provide examples of questions beyond the current scope of science, I think we need to distinguish these two claims: “science is the best method for investigating the empirical world” and “science is the only valid source of knowledge.” I am challenging the latter claim, not the former.

You just made the distinction, so now you can give examples based on the distinction you just made.

 

[Gubiosak]

However, the lack of any other alternative being offered, does establish the intermediate claim that science is the only valid way of obtaining knowledge, that we know of.

For certain definitions of science, of course. I know you like to keep empiricism and logic separate, but I prefer to group them together under the same methodology. My understanding is that it's really the methodology you're talking about.


You just made the distinction, so now you can give examples based on the distinction you just made.

I have now given examples: mathematics, logic, and ethics. Your response seems to broaden the definition of science to include logic and empiricism under one methodology. That is precisely the distinction I am questioning.
Also, saying that science is the only valid way of obtaining knowledge “that we know of” is different from establishing that it is the only valid way of obtaining knowledge. The absence of a known alternative does not by itself prove that no other valid form of knowledge exists.