Why Scientism is True!

[The Pixie]

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.

[The Pixie]

You may say that what I am talking about is not scientism, and I can appreciate that. To be frank, this is not how I would define scientism. Personally I would define scientism ad the belief that science can answer all the questions about reality. That is a scientism that very few atheists or scientists subscribe to, and certainly I do not.

That is kind of the point here. Scientism can be defined to mean one thing that is not true and is rejected by virtually all scientists, or it can be defined another way, to be something that is perfectly rational and accepted by many scientists.

Or it can be kept deliberately vague, so you can use one definition to say most scientists subscribe to it, and you can use the other to show it is not rational, and so dishonestly lead the reader to think scientists are not rational. Let us hope no one round here would do that!

[Jim B.]

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.

What you're doing is using "third person verifiable knowledge and the methods used to gain it" to mean roughly the same thing as "science." So your reasoning goes something like this:

1)Science is defined as the only means of gaining third person verifiable knowledge.
2)Third person verifiable knowledge is the only truly justifiable form of knowledge.

3)Therefore, science is the only means of gaining truly justifiable knowledge.

Your conclusion is embedded in the second premise. You're begging the question. I will grant for the sake of argument that the premises are factually correct. (This is highly dubious, but I'll get into that later.) I've gone into why I think that, even granting that the first premise is factually right, the second one clearly is not. There are big general truths about reality that are not third person verifiable. Things like:

The world includes subjectivity as a general feature which is not reducible to an objective understanding or third person verifiablity and therefore not within the scope of scientific investigation as subjectivity.

General subjectivity of consciousness is an irreducible feature of reality.

Reality is not just objective reality.

As I've already said, science depends upon unverifiable assumptions; it must assume certain things in order to be possible at all, such as the veridical nature of sense perception, the uniformity of the world, including the fact that the future will be significantly like the past, that there are other minds and that our minds are reliable and able to some extent to know the truth about an extra-mental reality, that the past really occurred as it seems to us to have occurred and so on.

Also, science is not this uniform monolithic thing, as met's pointed out. It's extremely diverse and inherently fuzzy. The same with verification. "Is it hot in here to you?" is asking for verification. Verification is an integral part of every aspect of our lives. We use it when talking about ethics and morality, aesthetics, emotions, practical matters. Virtually every human activiyt is characterized by "third person verification." So it's hard to limit that characterisitc to this thing called "science" which itself is notoriously hard to define, without arguing circularly.

Given all of the unverifiable assumptions that "science" depends on, no scientific conclusion can reach the level of certainty as the statement "I am conscious," as Descartes pointed out. My senses and everything else happening in and around me may be an illusion but not this belief. All the rest of knowledge (other than possibly analytic statements) must be plotted as degrees of probability, so there's no difference in kind between what you'd call "scientific knowledge" and other kinds, except for what I'd call constitutive knowledge, which is knowledge about intrinsic states like my being conscious and seeing red, etc.

I will answer your posts on the other threads as I find the time.

[Jim B.]

You may say that what I am talking about is not scientism, and I can appreciate that. To be frank, this is not how I would define scientism. Personally I would define scientism ad the belief that science can answer all the questions about reality. That is a scientism that very few atheists or scientists subscribe to, and certainly I do not.

Even nonsense questions? Or unanswerable ones? You see, for your definition to make even the slightest sense, it must be revised to mean "all the questions that are at least in principle answerable," or put another way,"all the questions that can in principle yield knowledge."

That is kind of the point here. Scientism can be defined to mean one thing that is not true and is rejected by virtually all scientists, or it can be defined another way, to be something that is perfectly rational and accepted by many scientists.

Are you assuming that all justifiable knowledge is third person verifiable? If you are, then you're defining scientism as true. So you're either begging the question or defining scientism into an absurd strawman.

Would most scientists accept your definition of science as the only source of justifiable knowledge? Sean Carroll would not, if he thinks that morality involves knowledge. Would most scientists think they wouldn't be justified in knowing when they're in pain?

[met]

Well, anyone asserting that only third person verifiable events are 'true' is obviously being being pretty illogical,no? There's no reason that everything that happens should be mundane and repeatable. That's gotta be wishful thinking, or more accurately, an attempt to limit discussion to 'the ordinary'. (This one s exactly what Meill is trying to change about atheist thinking, btw.)

Your claims are obviously rhetorical and onto-political, so I'll just refer you to Michel Foucault et al for more refutations....

[The Pixie]

What you're doing is using "third person verifiable knowledge and the methods used to gain it" to mean roughly the same thing as "science." So your reasoning goes something like this:

1)Science is defined as the only means of gaining third person verifiable knowledge.
2)Third person verifiable knowledge is the only truly justifiable form of knowledge.

3)Therefore, science is the only means of gaining truly justifiable knowledge.

No, I am not. I am saying:

1)Science is a means of gaining third person verifiable knowledge.
2)Third person verifiable knowledge is the only truly justifiable form of knowledge.
3) No other means of gaining third person verifiable knowledge is available
3)Therefore, science is the only means of gaining truly justifiable knowledge.

Your conclusion is embedded in the second premise. You're begging the question. I will grant for the sake of argument that the premises are factually correct. (This is highly dubious, but I'll get into that later.) I've gone into why I think that, even granting that the first premise is factually right, the second one clearly is not. There are big general truths about reality that are not third person verifiable.

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

It is your definition of scienmtis, Jim B., but you cannot stick to it can?

As I've already said, science depends upon unverifiable assumptions; it must assume certain things in order to be possible at all, such as the veridical nature of sense perception, the uniformity of the world, including the fact that the future will be significantly like the past, that there are other minds and that our minds are reliable and able to some extent to know the truth about an extra-mental reality, that the past really occurred as it seems to us to have occurred and so on.

But that does not mean it is wrong. We have good reason to suppose these thing are true, and we accept they may not, but the evidence (such as the the technology we use everyday) points to them being good assumptions.

Also, science is not this uniform monolithic thing, as met's pointed out. It's extremely diverse and inherently fuzzy.

Certainly it is fizzy at the edges, but the vast majority of it is indeed monolithic. We here about the new ideas and the controversies in the news, we do not hear about how the periodic table has been unchanged for a century.

And in any case, what is wrong with bits of it being fuzzy? Science is not offering certainty. It is not a religion. It acknowledges that there is uncertainty.

How does that invalid scientism (the way you defined in it in other tyhrerad, not the version you are using in this post)?

The same with verification. "Is it hot in here to you?" is asking for verification. Verification is an integral part of every aspect of our lives. We use it when talking about ethics and morality, aesthetics, emotions, practical matters. Virtually every human activiyt is characterized by "third person verification." So it's hard to limit that characterisitc to this thing called "science" which itself is notoriously hard to define, without arguing circularly.

Hey, it was you who used the term in the first place.

Most of what you describe is opinion. Does it feel hot to you? Do you think abortion is morally wrong? Is this a good painting? Are you happy? Any any of these actually verification or are they canvasing opinion?

Science is about other people repeating an experiment to confirm results in an objective manner (as far as possible).

Given all of the unverifiable assumptions that "science" depends on, no scientific conclusion can reach the level of certainty as the statement "I am conscious," as Descartes pointed out. My senses and everything else happening in and around me may be an illusion but not this belief. All the rest of knowledge (other than possibly analytic statements) must be plotted as degrees of probability, so there's no difference in kind between what you'd call "scientific knowledge" and other kinds, except for what I'd call constitutive knowledge, which is knowledge about intrinsic states like my being conscious and seeing red, etc.

Science acknowledges that it is tentative.

[The Pixie]

Even nonsense questions? Or unanswerable ones? You see, for your definition to make even the slightest sense, it must be revised to mean "all the questions that are at least in principle answerable," or put another way,"all the questions that can in principle yield knowledge."

Okay the definition requires rigor, but the difference is highlighted by morality. A believer of the narrowly defined scientism would say science can answer moral questions, whilst a believer of the broad definition would disagree.

Are you assuming that all justifiable knowledge is third person verifiable?

Yes. How can you justify it otherwise?

If you are, then you're defining scientism as true.

Cool, so it must be rational then.

Would most scientists accept your definition of science as the only source of justifiable knowledge? Sean Carroll would not, if he thinks that morality involves knowledge.

Only if he thinks it involves justified knowledge.

Would most scientists think they wouldn't be justified in knowing when they're in pain?

Now you are talking about specific examples. As I said in the OP, you do not need science to know the chair you are sat on exists. Similarly, you do not need science to tell you your broken arm hurts

[The Pixie]

Well, anyone asserting that only third person verifiable events are 'true' is obviously being being pretty illogical,no?

Right.

Does anyone do that?

[met]

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.

Well what does "is truly justified" mean then?

Does it have any actual, practical meaning?

(As the female ethicist said about 'moral obligation' on another thread ) is it just a nice, kinda "pompous intellectual discussion" way of saying, "Beliefs that should be foisted on us through indoctrination, of by force, if necessary"? (which is what Foucault, btw, would more or less tell you it means...)

[Metacrock]

so He's gone fromsayiung scientism doesm't exisst to totally embracimng it.