Why Scientism is True!
Posted: Mon Jul 11, 2016 3:15 am
I am using as a starting point Jim B.'s definition of scientism (from here):
"... Science is the only means of gaining truly justifiable knowledge."
My contention in this thread is that that is true. I am going to qualify that somewhat. One does not need science to say that one exists and is conscious. One does not need science to know the specific chair one is sat on exists, or to know its nature to at least some degree. What I am discussing is the generalities about the universe.
I am thinking of science in a pretty broad sense. We know that if we drop a pencil, it will fall. That is a general observation, and we do not need science to know that. But we do use the same sort of approach. Years of experience, rather than carefully designed experiments, has led to that conclusion. As small children, we have probably even done it as science; deliberately dropped things to see if they fall, according to prediction. And like science, this is something that can be tested by a third party.
The conclusion from this thread was that science, at least in this broad sense, gives the only third person verifiable approach to learning about the universe, so really scientism is this:
The belief that a third person verifiable approach is the only means of gaining truly justifiable knowledge.
Really it comes down to saying that knowledge is only truly justified if it can be verified by a third person.
And a lot of scientists, including me, will agree with that sentiment.
"... Science is the only means of gaining truly justifiable knowledge."
My contention in this thread is that that is true. I am going to qualify that somewhat. One does not need science to say that one exists and is conscious. One does not need science to know the specific chair one is sat on exists, or to know its nature to at least some degree. What I am discussing is the generalities about the universe.
I am thinking of science in a pretty broad sense. We know that if we drop a pencil, it will fall. That is a general observation, and we do not need science to know that. But we do use the same sort of approach. Years of experience, rather than carefully designed experiments, has led to that conclusion. As small children, we have probably even done it as science; deliberately dropped things to see if they fall, according to prediction. And like science, this is something that can be tested by a third party.
The conclusion from this thread was that science, at least in this broad sense, gives the only third person verifiable approach to learning about the universe, so really scientism is this:
The belief that a third person verifiable approach is the only means of gaining truly justifiable knowledge.
Really it comes down to saying that knowledge is only truly justified if it can be verified by a third person.
And a lot of scientists, including me, will agree with that sentiment.