Why Scientism is True!

[The Pixie]

Again, you seem to limit the terms of debate (creating redundant Either/Ors). Remember, my original proposition was that there IS NO final answer! Must there always be a Way? A center? A Ring to rule them ALL? Is our only choice one between lessor-of-the-evils metanarratives?

As you said last time, evetyuthing has a context. The context for our discussion is a forum of religion. I think, therefore, that it is valid to point out the weaknesses of religion, in case anyone might imagine it is comparable to science. I am not suggesting it is either/or.

Is that a limit on what is "truly justified?" Does that in the end define what is "truly justified?"

No.

Okay, why not?

Hmm, maybe I am wrong. I do not know.

Power rules over knowledge....

Okay. And? Is it your position that those in power have, for example, decided what the laws of thermodynamics are? How exactly have those in power exherted their influence over science? Can you point to any established science that you think is wrong and that that error is due to capitalism?

I ask because I think this is all paranoid delusion. I accept that what areas get researched will be influenced by those in power (and medicines to help the rich and old will flourish, whilst those that would benefit the starving poor in Africa will not). And there are issues with peer-review that relate to getting funding (but again, this seems more a problem in medicine than othere areas). But if we look at what is actually accepted as science, the actual body of knowledge, can you give some examples of anything actually wrong?

Yes, there does seem to be a kind of blurring between an authoritarian and a populist system of knowledge implicit in the rhetoric of science? On the one hand, it's a supposedly open system. On the other, we're all supposed to bow to what "scientists say...."

Sure. It is an open system because you can learn it, specialise and then contribute. Potentially anyone can, and millions do, from all around the world, from numerous faiths.

And because science is third person verifiable, that does mean that science knowledge is justified in a way that, say, religious knowledge is not, which does make it hard to argue against. You are not expected to bow, but if you start saying the world in 6000 years old, you would open yourself up to ridicule.

Almost like we're all still waiting for the pronouncements from "Rome", from "the center of the faith," except now it's located somewhere in Switzerland, inside a mountain....(& someone might note that there still seems to be a need to create a vast, mysterious, and prohibitively expensive mystical structure.)

Except when it is science, it is justified knowledge, rather than some guy's opinion. I think that that makes a huge difference, which is why I subscribe to scientism (as defined in the OP). You see no difference between opinion that supposedly comes from God and third person verified knowledge, so you do not subscribe to scientism.

[met]

As you said last time, evetyuthing has a context. The context for our discussion is a forum of religion. I think, therefore, that it is valid to point out the weaknesses of religion, in case anyone might imagine it is comparable to science. I am not suggesting it is either/or.

But I can recast 'religion'--or at least 'spirituality'--outside of religious power structures. (And that is exactly because it IS subjective / internal rather than objective / external.) Can you recast science thusly? How you gonna do particle physics without that big accelerator?

And because science is third person verifiable, that does mean that science knowledge is justified in a way that, say, religious knowledge is not, which does make it hard to argue against.

Geez! Okay, given any random individual, which are the chances higher of: (1) if they go sit in a cave somewhere and pray or meditate for a long time, they might have one of those mystical experiences that Meta's always on about, or (2), if they study long and hard enough, they might actually become one of those particle physicists who has access to the CERN accelerator?

WDYT?

Except when it is science, it is justified knowledge, rather than some guy's opinion.

Question-begging. This kind of assumption of the 'purity of science' is exactly what I'm doubting here, & I'm hardly the only one who ever questioned it, either, btw. Here's a surprising quote....

Science advances one funeral at a time
Max Planck

... he means that only when the old scientific establishment who rule the academic structures die out, can new ideas (of the younger set) have their turn... pretty much just like in any other human field of endeavor.

[met]

. I think, therefore, that it is valid to point out the weaknesses of religion, in case anyone might imagine it is comparable to science.

There is a scholar at Wesleyan university--a philosopher/religious studies scholar and a former student of Derrida--named Mary Jane Rubenstein who studies how religiosity--religious concerns--enter into supposedly secular areas of concern like science. She is brilliant, funny, and good-looking too, so maybe you could give her a listen? Her lecture (about one hour) is linked at the end of the big, long "quantum particles" thread, so look for it there...

(It might be necessary for you to look up a summary of a book called "Face of the Deep," by the process theologian Catherine Keller first, for some context....)

[met]

. But if we look at what is actually accepted as science, the actual body of knowledge, can you give some examples of anything actually wrong?

And you can hide under the bed but brain damage is under the bed, and you can hide in the universities but they are the very seat and soul of brain damage— Brain damage caused by bears who put your bead in their foaming jaws while you are singing “Masters of War”... Brain damage caused by the sleeping revolution which no one can wake up... Brain damage caused by art. I could describe it better if I weren’t afflicted with it...
Donald Barthelme, Brain Damage (1970)

Okay, I'll try to give you a concrete example.... so, um, superdeterminism?"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superdeterminism

There is a way to escape the inference of superluminal speeds and spooky action at a distance. But it involves absolute determinism in the universe, the complete absence of free will. Suppose the world is super-deterministic, with not just inanimate nature running on behind-the-scenes clockwork, but with our behavior, including our belief that we are free to choose to do one experiment rather than another, absolutely predetermined, including the "decision" by the experimenter to carry out one set of measurements rather than another, the difficulty disappears. There is no need for a faster than light signal to tell particle A what measurement has been carried out on particle B, because the universe, including particle A, already "knows" what that measurement, and its outcome, will be.
John Bell

is not superdeterminsitic explanation of the "spooky action" phenonema at least as intuitive as the standard "non-locality" answer, and yet not even hardly mentioned in most literature (for seemingly ideological reasons)?

[W]e always implicitly assume the freedom of the experimentalist... This fundamental assumption is essential to doing science. If this were not true, then, I suggest, it would make no sense at all to ask nature questions in an experiment, since then nature could determine what our questions are, and that could guide our questions such that we arrive at a false picture of nature

So, no, we MUST NOT question the freedom of the "experimentalist." (Especially since, after all, they are very likely to be white & male, and have a PhD on top of that....) Yet, in other contexts, "science" in the form of psychology, cognitive science, and neurosciences will reverse itself and tell us that scenario is exactly the case.

What do you make of this?

[Jim B.]

You're assuming the point at issue, whether or not all justifiable knowledge must be 3rd person verifiable. Can you honestly not see that? ...

Right, so the basic premise of scientism is that justifiable knowledge must be third person verifiable. You may disagree with that, but it seems a reasonable position to hold.

[/quote]

Okay, so here you seem to be saying that justifiable knowledge must be third person verifiable, and that's a reasonable position to hold. So do you not think that first person knowledge is justifiable?

See here you go in to the other definition of scientism, the one that says science can determine all the big general truths.

But this is the one you seem to be using now. Is science as necesarily involving big gnereal truths part of your scientism definition or not?

Ah, you are getting confused; perhaps you missed the word "all"?.[/quote]

But I never assumed that scientism ever included the "all" qualification, you did. Your original definition of scientism was the belief that science could answer ALL the questions. Remember? I was the one who kept saying that this was an absurd definition. So you changed yours more or less to conform to mine, except sometimes you add on the Big General Truths part, other times you leave it off...'Tis a puzzlement!

Scientism says science is the only way we have of getting justified knowledge of the big general truths, but that does not imply science is required to have justified knowledge about specifics and it does not imply that we cannot have justified knowledge about specifics.

That may not have been clear in the OP, but it is not different to the OP.

In my first post on this thread I gave examples of Big General Truths that couldn't be gotten by science. There are also cases of third person verifiable knowledge that are not strictly scientific.

[Jim B.]

I agree that really this comes down to whether 2) is true or not. And really that comes down to opinion. I think it is so; that makes me a scientismist (as per the definition in the OP). I would guess a lot of scientists and atheists would agree with that.

Okay, so you're qualifying 2) as limited just to the Big General. But I offered Big Genreal truths that were not strictly scientific and /or not third person verifiable.

I agree that we are talking about the big truths, but the issue here is whether science can discover them all. Scientism as defined in the OP does NOT claim that. And yet you seem to be arguing against a scientism that does.

No, the definition of scientism as the idea that science can answer all questions is the one I rejected as being obviously absurd. It was your original definition. I never argued against that definition. I am arguing against the definition we both agree to here, that science is the only source of truly justifiable knowledge.

It is qualitatively different because it is third person verifiable.

So are nearly all other forms of human knowledge.

Just to be clear here, is the ideology of certainty the belief that science is certain, or the belief that science is definitely the only source of reliable knowledge?

The latter.

Oh, and do you think either of these are part of scientism? If so, can you point out where you made that clear in your definition, or where it is stated or implied in the OP?

Yes, for most believers in it, it is not falsifiable. When it's challenged, the believers demand scientific evidence to prove that it is false. It is, for most of its adherents, a closed realm of discourse.

I ask because the underlying point of this thread is how the definition of scientism is massaged to mean whatever is convenient around here, and this looks like an excellent example of that, but I may be wrong.

That's true but the perpetrator of this is not who you might think. Recall that your original definition of scientism is very differnt from what it is now.

Okay, great. So this ideology of certainty is not a part of scientism.

When I say ideology, I refer to what scientismists actually believe, and they tend to be quite certain of themselves. You are an exception in that regard.

Yeah, but no one seems to clear on how we can judge of knowledge is reliable in another way.

In terms of justifiable knowledge of the BGT's (Big general truths)? I gave some earlier.

But this is all about specifics. I fully accept that you can obtain reliable knowledge about things specific to you, whether it is how warm you feel or whether the chair you are sat on exists.

But two quotes above, you seemed to be saying that no one seems clear on how we can judge knowledge to be reliable in any other way (?) There were several typos, so maybe I misunderstood your point.

I said that in the OP - and you even said earlier in your post this is about the Big Truths. Can we try to stick to that definition, please? At least for this thread?

Sure.

Scientific claims vary wildly in how tentative there are, so this question is meaningless. However, I am not committed to scientism; I cannot see what could convince me to start accepting as fully justified knowledge claims that were not third person verifiable, but it is certainly possible.

You're not committed to scientism, and yet the title of this thread... Well, whatever. I appreciate the fact that you entertain the possibility you might be wrong.

[The Pixie]

met: Again, you seem to limit the terms of debate (creating redundant Either/Ors). Remember, my original proposition was that there IS NO final answer! Must there always be a Way? A center? A Ring to rule them ALL? Is our only choice one between lessor-of-the-evils metanarratives?

Pix: As you said last time, evetyuthing has a context. The context for our discussion is a forum of religion. I think, therefore, that it is valid to point out the weaknesses of religion, in case anyone might imagine it is comparable to science. I am not suggesting it is either/or.

met: But I can recast 'religion'--or at least 'spirituality'--outside of religious power structures. (And that is exactly because it IS subjective / internal rather than objective / external.) Can you recast science thusly? How you gonna do particle physics without that big accelerator?

Sorry, I have no idea how your last comment relates to our earlier comments.

And because science is third person verifiable, that does mean that science knowledge is justified in a way that, say, religious knowledge is not, which does make it hard to argue against.

Geez! Okay, given any random individual, which are the chances higher of: (1) if they go sit in a cave somewhere and pray or meditate for a long time, they might have one of those mystical experiences that Meta's always on about, or (2), if they study long and hard enough, they might actually become one of those particle physicists who has access to the CERN accelerator? [/quote]
Hey, I can make up scenarios that heavily weight the probabilities too.

given any random individual, which are the chances higher of: (1) lived in or around Jerusalem 2000 years ago and witnessed Jesus after his resurrection, or (2), if they study long and hard enough, learn some real science?

WDYT?

Question-begging. This kind of assumption of the 'purity of science' is exactly what I'm doubting here, & I'm hardly the only one who ever questioned it, either, btw. Here's a surprising quote....

Science advances one funeral at a time
Max Planck

... he means that only when the old scientific establishment who rule the academic structures die out, can new ideas (of the younger set) have their turn... pretty much just like in any other human field of endeavor.

Sure, it takes time. But unlike those other fields, it is third person verifiable.

Okay, I'll try to give you a concrete example.... so, um, superdeterminism?"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superdeterminism

There is a way to escape the inference of superluminal speeds and spooky action at a distance. But it involves absolute determinism in the universe, the complete absence of free will. Suppose the world is super-deterministic, with not just inanimate nature running on behind-the-scenes clockwork, but with our behavior, including our belief that we are free to choose to do one experiment rather than another, absolutely predetermined, including the "decision" by the experimenter to carry out one set of measurements rather than another, the difficulty disappears. There is no need for a faster than light signal to tell particle A what measurement has been carried out on particle B, because the universe, including particle A, already "knows" what that measurement, and its outcome, will be.
John Bell

is not superdeterminsitic explanation of the "spooky action" phenonema at least as intuitive as the standard "non-locality" answer, and yet not even hardly mentioned in most literature (for seemingly ideological reasons)?

[W]e always implicitly assume the freedom of the experimentalist... This fundamental assumption is essential to doing science. If this were not true, then, I suggest, it would make no sense at all to ask nature questions in an experiment, since then nature could determine what our questions are, and that could guide our questions such that we arrive at a false picture of nature

So, no, we MUST NOT question the freedom of the "experimentalist." (Especially since, after all, they are very likely to be white & male, and have a PhD on top of that....) Yet, in other contexts, "science" in the form of psychology, cognitive science, and neurosciences will reverse itself and tell us that scenario is exactly the case.

What do you make of this?

Superdeterminism would seem to be compatibile with compatibilism, and would not exclude free will, so I am mystified at the comments you quoted. There is also an interesting discussion on superdeterminism here:
http://motls.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/sup ... iracy.html

As yet, it has not been verified, and that is enough to keep it out of the body of knowledge of science.

[The Pixie]

Okay, so here you seem to be saying that justifiable knowledge must be third person verifiable, and that's a reasonable position to hold. So do you not think that first person knowledge is justifiable?

If we are talking about specifics, then yes it is. But for the Big truths, no.

But I never assumed that scientism ever included the "all" qualification, you did. Your original definition of scientism was the belief that science could answer ALL the questions. Remember?

I never said that.

In my first post on this thread I gave examples of Big General Truths that couldn't be gotten by science.

And I have consistently said that there are examples of Big General Truths that couldn't be gotten by science.

There are also cases of third person verifiable knowledge that are not strictly scientific.

Really? Can you actually tell us what they are?

Okay, so you're qualifying 2) as limited just to the Big General.

Yes. Did you read the OP?

But I offered Big Genreal truths that were not strictly scientific and /or not third person verifiable.

Right. I agree with you.

No, the definition of scientism as the idea that science can answer all questions is the one I rejected as being obviously absurd. It was your original definition.

I never said that.

You need to reread the OP.

So are nearly all other forms of human knowledge.

Then it should be trivial for you to show that that is the case for a couple of them.

Yes, for most believers in it, it is not falsifiable. When it's challenged, the believers demand scientific evidence to prove that it is false. It is, for most of its adherents, a closed realm of discourse.

I accept it is not falsifiable. I would say it is an approach to knowledge, not something that is true as such (despite the thread title), but a way to evaluate the truth of a claim.

That's true but the perpetrator of this is not who you might think. Recall that your original definition of scientism is very differnt from what it is now.

I did adopt a new definition when I started this thread, but my definition on this thread is unchanged.

Again, you need to reread the OP.

But two quotes above, you seemed to be saying that no one seems clear on how we can judge knowledge to be reliable in any other way (?) There were several typos, so maybe I misunderstood your point.

When I am talking about knowledge, I am talking about knowledge of the Big Truths. Sometimes I might forget to qualify that, and that might be what is causing confusion here,

You're not committed to scientism, and yet the title of this thread... Well, whatever. I appreciate the fact that you entertain the possibility you might be wrong.

The title is hyperbole to a degree, but I think scientism is a reasonable and rational approach to knowledge.

Can you be committed to something, but still accept it could be wrong? I do not see why not, but then I cannot imagine what it is like to be committed to something that you do not think could possibly be wrong about.

I know and have known numerous scientists over the years, and I think something that tends to characterises them is that they are cautious in their assertions; they are rather more likely to qualify a statement as their opinion than non-scientists do, they are rather more likely to hold beliefs as tentative, so I find your "ideology of certainty" somewhat surprising - something that seems far more common with theists.

[met]

As yet, it has not been verified, and that is enough to keep it out of the body of knowledge of science.

So, all you're saying is there's some accepted body of established scientific knowledge that's now uncontrovertible? That's not so controversial, and has little to do with the debates on theology, morals, the grounding of reason, or anything else being discussed on such a 'religion forum'? One reason we can 'rely' on those concepts, moreover, is that the contexts in which they were first expressed have at this point become irrelevant, unlike the current products being output by the paradigm.

Also, "just cuz it worked in the past..." ... what about the law of diminishing returns? .... does that apply as well to paradigms of knowledge? Seems like it could. Eg, that $48 billion accelerator has provided much less 'truth' (so far) even than Einstein, alone in his patent office, did just by doing thought-experiments.

Why is that, you think?

More on your various responses here, asap...

[Jim B.]

But I never assumed that scientism ever included the "all" qualification, you did. Your original definition of scientism was the belief that science could answer ALL the questions. Remember?

I never said that.

Scientism is the belief that science can answer all questions.

viewtopic.php?f=6&t=2868

You wrote it several other places too, but I can't locate them at the moment.

In my first post on this thread I gave examples of Big General Truths that couldn't be gotten by science.
And I have consistently said that there are examples of Big General Truths that couldn't be gotten by science.

But are they justifiable beliefs? If you think they are, then you don't hold to scientism. If you don't, why, without begging the question, do you think that?

There are also cases of third person verifiable knowledge that are not strictly scientific.

Really? Can you actually tell us what they are?

Are you sad?
Yes, I am sad. Do I seem sad to you?
Yes, you do.

But I offered Big Genreal truths that were not strictly scientific and /or not third person verifiable.

Right. I agree with you.

But then what are you disagreeing with? That first person truths are not as justifiable as third person scientific truths? That's the only possible way you could still claim to believe in scientism, yet you haven't offered any actual argument to that effect.

No, the definition of scientism as the idea that science can answer all questions is the one I rejected as being obviously absurd. It was your original definition.

I never said that. [/quote]

Wrong. See above.

You need to reread the OP.

You need to figure out what you actually believe and what an argument for those beliefs might be.

So are nearly all other forms of human knowledge.

Then it should be trivial for you to show that that is the case for a couple of them.

Are you in love with her?
Yes.
Do I turn left after the bridge?
No, you keep straight.
Where's the butter?
On the table.
Do you smell smoke.
Yes....

I accept it is not falsifiable. I would say it is an approach to knowledge, not something that is true as such (despite the thread title), but a way to evaluate the truth of a claim.

I appreciate your honesty. So nothing could change your mind about it? No rational argument?

I did adopt a new definition when I started this thread, but my definition on this thread is unchanged.

So when you wrote "I never said that" that's misleading, wouldn't you say?

When I am talking about knowledge, I am talking about knowledge of the Big Truths. Sometimes I might forget to qualify that, and that might be what is causing confusion here,

No, here is part of the confusion for me. You wrote in the previous post:

And I have consistently said that there are examples of Big General Truths that couldn't be gotten by science.

So are you saying that knowledge of the BGT's not accessible to science is not justifiable or not As justifiable as those accessible to science? What are you saying? If they are as justifiable, or "truly justifiable" then scientism is wrong. If they are not, you haven't presented an argument for why they are not.

The title is hyperbole to a degree, but I think scientism is a reasonable and rational approach to knowledge.

To all knowledge? Is it the ONLY source of justifiable knowledge? If so, why?

Can you be committed to something, but still accept it could be wrong? I do not see why not, but then I cannot imagine what it is like to be committed to something that you do not think could possibly be wrong about.

No, I completely agree. We could all be wrong. I appreciate that you acknowledge you could be wrong. So could I. Most ideologues are not so disposed.

I know and have known numerous scientists over the years, and I think something that tends to characterises them is that they are cautious in their assertions; they are rather more likely to qualify a statement as their opinion than non-scientists do, they are rather more likely to hold beliefs as tentative, so I find your "ideology of certainty" somewhat surprising - something that seems far more common with theists.

But again, I'm not talking about science but scientism. Not all religion is absolute, literalist certainty, either.