Scientism

Ahnimus
Ahnimus Posts: 10,560
edited March 2007 in A Moving Train
Although I've been called a "Scientismist" or something to that effect several times I fail to see the negativity associated with Scientism. Perhaps I'm ignorant as to the definition of scientism. So, I'd like to get some different perspectives on what it actually is and the positive or negative effects of scientism.

Firstly, I don't consider it a religion. It's been suggested - and I rather like this model - that religion conveys fact and value by convergence into myth. In a religious text there will be stories, or myths, that convey a fact and a value, such as "Play with fire and prepare to be burned", this conveys a fact "Fire is hot" and a value "Meddling in aggressive behavior can backfire". However, this is simply my interpretation, the myth is entirely open to interpretation and personalization.

In Scientism, from what I understand, there are no myths or stories, there is no convergence. Rather there is a direct linkage of fact to value. The facts are clearly stated and the proposed value is also typically well communicated. In reading a theory of scientism there is little room for interpretation or personalization. However, if by looking at the facts alone we draw our own values, then it's entirely personalized and open to interpretation. At the root of this "ideology" if we call it that, are facts or science, hence the name "Scientism".

In classical religions the root source of both fact and value is a religious text of stories to which one must interpret both the fact and the value.

So, I suggest that by this definition Scientism may be the ideal approach to convergence of fact and value into a personalized fact-value system. I think the preaching involved in scientism may be a means for some to rally support for their view, but not to the extent that religious preachers succeed. For religious preaching bases it's self in a myth and for those who cannot interpret the myth, they are highly submissive to the ideas of the preacher.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Post edited by Unknown User on
«134567…17

Comments

  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    While I don't disagree with your post above, I'd encourage you to consider the following question in order to understand the potentially false perception you have about the difference between science and religion:

    Can you prove that you exist?
  • Ahnimus
    Ahnimus Posts: 10,560
    farfromglorified wrote:
    While I don't disagree with your post above, I'd encourage you to consider the following question in order to understand the potentially false perception you have about the difference between science and religion:

    Can you prove that you exist?

    I'm not sure I understand.

    Let me just clarify that I'm talking about scientism and not science it's self.

    Yes, I can prove that I exist.
    I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
  • angelica
    angelica Posts: 6,038
    Ahnimus wrote:
    Although I've been called a "Scientismist" or something to that effect several times I fail to see the negativity associated with Scientism. Perhaps I'm ignorant as to the definition of scientism. So, I'd like to get some different perspectives on what it actually is and the positive or negative effects of scientism.

    Firstly, I don't consider it a religion. It's been suggested - and I rather like this model - that religion conveys fact and value by convergence into myth. In a religious text there will be stories, or myths, that convey a fact and a value, such as "Play with fire and prepare to be burned", this conveys a fact "Fire is hot" and a value "Meddling in aggressive behavior can backfire". However, this is simply my interpretation, the myth is entirely open to interpretation and personalization.

    In Scientism, from what I understand, there are no myths or stories, there is no convergence. Rather there is a direct linkage of fact to value. The facts are clearly stated and the proposed value is also typically well communicated. In reading a theory of scientism there is little room for interpretation or personalization. However, if by looking at the facts alone we draw our own values, then it's entirely personalized and open to interpretation. At the root of this "ideology" if we call it that, are facts or science, hence the name "Scientism".

    In classical religions the root source of both fact and value is a religious text of stories to which one must interpret both the fact and the value.

    So, I suggest that by this definition Scientism may be the ideal approach to convergence of fact and value into a personalized fact-value system. I think the preaching involved in scientism may be a means for some to rally support for their view, but not to the extent that religious preachers succeed. For religious preaching bases it's self in a myth and for those who cannot interpret the myth, they are highly submissive to the ideas of the preacher.
    When I use the term of "scientism" it does not refer to science. It refers to a bastardization of science. It's about distorting science principles and using them in an inaccurate way that is not about what science actually stands for. For example, religion cannot define science principles because religion is not based on the scientific method and therefore cannot enter a realm that it is not a part of. In the same way, science cannot define the realm of spirituality, or philosophy. When these boundaries are blurred and science has stretched beyond its actual parameters within the scientific method, scientism--a distorted inaccurate version-comes into play. That's how I use the term.

    *runs and hides* :)
    "The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr

    http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta

    Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    Ahnimus wrote:
    I'm not sure I understand.

    Let me just clarify that I'm talking about scientism and not science it's self.

    Yes, I can prove that I exist.

    How?
  • RolandTD20Kdrummer
    RolandTD20Kdrummer Posts: 13,066
    farfromglorified wrote:
    While I don't disagree with your post above, I'd encourage you to consider the following question in order to understand the potentially false perception you have about the difference between science and religion:

    Can you prove that you exist?

    That's just fucking hilarious...
    Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
    and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
    over specific principles, goals, and policies.

    http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg

    (\__/)
    ( o.O)
    (")_(")
  • Ahnimus
    Ahnimus Posts: 10,560
    angelica wrote:
    When I use the term of "scientism" it does not refer to science. It refers to a bastardization of science. It's about distorting science principles and using them in an inaccurate way that is not about what science actually stands for. For example, religion cannot define science principles because religion is not based on the scientific method and therefore cannot enter a realm that it is not a part of. In the same way, science cannot define the realm of spirituality, or philosophy. When these boundaries are blurred and science has stretched beyond its actual parameters within the scientific method, scientism--a distorted inaccurate version-comes into play. That's how I use the term.

    *runs and hides* :)

    Ok, well, I'd like to suggest that science and scientism are separate things. Science is the study of reality and produces facts with relative certainty. Scientism I would consider an interpretation of the values of those facts, rather than a "bastardization" or "distortion" of the facts. I think that Scientism doesn't actually change or distort facts, but rather tries to philosophically interpret them.

    Perhaps in some misinterpretations of facts Scientism does distort them. However, it is also true that religions manage to often misinterpret and distort facts as well. I don't think it's something exclusive to Scientism. And I just don't believe that Scientism by definition is distortion of facts, rather an interpretation of facts.
    I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:
    That's just fucking hilarious...

    Why?
  • Ahnimus
    Ahnimus Posts: 10,560
    farfromglorified wrote:
    How?

    I can prove that I exist through objective empirical evidence. I can make myself known to any living person and they can validate my existence.

    But please, before we go down this road any further, I'd like an explanation, I'm curious how this relates to scientism or religion.
    I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    Ahnimus wrote:
    I can prove that I exist through objective empirical evidence. I can make myself known to any living person and they can validate my existence.

    That would be circular logic that would presuppose you exist in the first place. An effect on me, by you, would require two presuppositions: that you exist in the first place and that I exist in the second place. Neither can prove your existence without first presupposing it.
    But please, before we go down this road any further, I'd like an explanation, I'm curious how this relates to scientism or religion.

    All science requires the law of identity. Without it, nothing scientific can hold meaning. I'm asking you to prove that law. You seem big on quizzes.
  • RolandTD20Kdrummer
    RolandTD20Kdrummer Posts: 13,066
    Maybe I'm just a floating brain in a jar, or a gelatinous mass of goo in some super gigantic dudes laboratory...maybe our entire universe exists in just the tip of an eyelash of something higher up...maybe were just a mere brief spark or flash of energy embedded into some structure of a higher and much greater dimension? Maybe all that goes on within us. Maybe all that or infinity can be found on the tip of our finger. well....righty...

    can we discuss free will now? :D
    Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
    and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
    over specific principles, goals, and policies.

    http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg

    (\__/)
    ( o.O)
    (")_(")
  • RolandTD20Kdrummer
    RolandTD20Kdrummer Posts: 13,066
    farfromglorified wrote:
    That would be circular logic that would presuppose you exist in the first place. An effect on me, by you, would require two presuppositions: that you exist in the first place and that I exist in the second place. Neither can prove your existence without first presupposing it.

    I'm amazed it only took you 7163 posts to completely lose your mind. :D
    Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
    and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
    over specific principles, goals, and policies.

    http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg

    (\__/)
    ( o.O)
    (")_(")
  • angelica
    angelica Posts: 6,038
    Ahnimus wrote:
    Ok, well, I'd like to suggest that science and scientism are separate things.
    This much is very true.
    Perhaps in some misinterpretations of facts Scientism does distort them. However, it is also true that religions manage to often misinterpret and distort facts as well. I don't think it's something exclusive to Scientism. And I just don't believe that Scientism by definition is distortion of facts, rather an interpretation of facts.
    Scientism is when science becomes distorted and steps beyond it's own boundaries, therefore distorted religion requires it's own term. I fully agree that most of what you despise about religion is a similar bastardization of the actual basics as defined by mystics. Absolutely.
    "The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr

    http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta

    Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
  • angelica
    angelica Posts: 6,038
    I am being very honest when I say I very much respect science. And that I feel it is very necessary. And that I believe that as long as we preserve the parameters of the scientific method, that is great.
    "The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr

    http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta

    Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    Ahnimus,

    You can continue to search for proof of your own existence outside of yourself, but I promise you that you will not find it. Perhaps this might encourage you to actually consider what I've been telling you for the past two months.

    -Jeff
  • lucylespian
    lucylespian Posts: 2,403
    angelica wrote:
    For example, religion cannot define science principles because religion is not based on the scientific method and therefore cannot enter a realm that it is not a part of.
    *runs and hides* :)

    You can run, but you can't hide !! LOL !!!

    This true, and it is why scientists and athiests get so upset when religions try to to muscle their way into school curriculae, to be taught alongside science. "Intelligent design" for example, is religion trying to enter the scientific realm, I think they actually DARE....*imagine red-faced righteous indignation*.....to call it Creation Science here.
    Music is not a competetion.
  • Ahnimus
    Ahnimus Posts: 10,560
    Ok, I wanted to get opinions before I read the wiki article on it. You all know how much I love wikipedia.
    wikipedia wrote:
    Scientism is a term often used today as a pejorative[1][2][3] to describe someone of holding the view that science has primacy over all other interpretations of life such as philosophical, religious, mythical, spiritual, or humanistic explanations. It has also been applied to the view that natural sciences have primacy over other fields of inquiry such as social sciences. Today, the term is often used by religious critics of evolution via natural selection[3] and also against the most vocal critics of religion-as-such.[4] In contrast with this was its usage in the early 20th century, which was as a neutral descriptive and roughly synonymous with logical positivism.[5] Contemporary descriptive usage of the term is limited but found in some places. The Skeptics Society founder Michael Shermer, for example, self-identifies as scientistic and defines scientism as "a scientific worldview that encompasses natural explanations for all phenomena, eschews supernatural and paranormal speculations, and embraces empiricism and reason as the twin pillars of a philosophy of life appropriate for an Age of Science."[6]

    Then would anyone suggest that my definition of Scientism is incorrect? If so, how does it differ from the wikipedia definition?
    I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
  • Ahnimus
    Ahnimus Posts: 10,560
    farfromglorified wrote:
    Ahnimus,

    You can continue to search for proof of your own existence outside of yourself, but I promise you that you will not find it. Perhaps this might encourage you to actually consider what I've been telling you for the past two months.

    -Jeff

    I'm not really sure what you are getting at. I'm not out to prove my own existence. I think, therefor I am. Or as one of my t-shirts says "I think... therefor I am single."

    In order to prove that an apple exists, the apple must first exist. I don't see this as circular reasoning.
    I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
  • angelica
    angelica Posts: 6,038
    Ahnimus wrote:
    Ok, I wanted to get opinions before I read the wiki article on it. You all know how much I love wikipedia.



    Then would anyone suggest that my definition of Scientism is incorrect? If so, how does it differ from the wikipedia definition?
    The key to my way of looking at scientism, which stems from philosopher Ken Wilber, is that science can only understand observable surfaces of things. Therefore by using a purely scientific view, one must collapse the depths, values and meanings, pretending that only the surfaces exist. For example in neurology/psychology. Neurology can describe the chemical reactions (observable surfaces). In order to get a full understanding one must have the complementary view of the person's personal experience -- for example for Ted Bundy's life, in order to understand more fully, we need to also have the cultural variables, including his interactions. being the inter-subjective view, the morals, values, language etc he was raised with. And of course, to balance out the brain chemical surfaces, and in order to complete the full picture, we need his subjective view, meaning we study his psychology as well. This can only be achieved by talking to him and eliciting this view. It cannot be gauged by surfaces.

    This covers the it/we/I realms. One level without the other is a partial look at the picture. Science is included in the "it" realm and half of the "we" realm, through sociology. The other aspects are subjective and are dependent upon the subjective view, which is not objective as in science.
    "The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr

    http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta

    Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
  • lucylespian
    lucylespian Posts: 2,403
    Back on topic, Ahnimus, I get the impression you are keen young insect studying med or nearoscience or something, did they ever teach you that flogging dead horses just gets you a face full of horsehair ???

    There are a few ideas floating around about why people anre anti-science. Most of them revolve around fear of poor outcomes. The Thalidomide fiasco was very prominent, and made worse by teh fact that the company hid the truth long after they fund out, and actually paid people to publish false studies.
    The nuclear arms race, and the associated fears were also responsible for people fearing science, meddling with things which do not concern man, and should remain the nprovince of God.

    I suspect you are too young to remember any of those things. People fear things they don't understand, and while we would agree that God cannot be understood, people are comfirtable thinking that teh priests are doing teh understanding for them, and smug in the knowledge that God is on their side, regardless of which side you are on. It's a simpler story and speaks more directly to prople. Science, on teh other hand, asks way more questions than it answers, and answers tend to just raise more questions. This upsets people.
    Music is not a competetion.
  • RolandTD20Kdrummer
    RolandTD20Kdrummer Posts: 13,066
    Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
    and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
    over specific principles, goals, and policies.

    http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg

    (\__/)
    ( o.O)
    (")_(")

Categories