
Scientism - jorangreef
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism
======
giftedbygod
And will you apply science to an angry mob burning US flags and killing
because of a movie?

You have so called "social sciences", but they are pretty much useless
otherwise there would be someone paying them a lots of money to figure out
what will happen next for example in the Middle East.

Sciences are very limited once you get a human being with free will into the
equation. And then you multiple that by culture than by genes then by
experiences and then by 6 billion.

I love history. And the main reason for my love of history is love of science
fiction. If Nazi Germany never happened, don't you think that the whole story
would make amazing science-fiction? How you apply scientific method to
history? You can analyze, but as soon as you do your results/opinions will be
different than anybody else's at least at some level. It's not like we all
know 2+2=4. Now try Why people voted for Hitler? Good luck with your fixed
narrow-minded analytical mindset to figure this one out. You can have debates
for years about it and still you won't know for sure anything. Science is for
people who want the right answer right away. Life is more complex than that
simplistic view.

~~~
TeMPOraL
> Science is for people who want the right answer right away. Life is more
> complex than that simplistic view.

A simplistic view is assuming that scientists (and for that matter geeks/math
guys/programmers) see things in 0-s and 1-s, strictly defined terms, etc. Math
and science are much better equipped to handle fuzziness and lack of precision
than any kind of "common sense" or soft whatever. It's just the other way
around - handwaving at things because they are fuzzy and complex is a
simplistic thing. Approaching them with combined might of all the advances in
understanding and technology is what scientists do (or at least should do).

------
drx
Obviously science is not the only way to find truths; there is also math.

~~~
dhimes
Math can yield many truths. Science is how you determine whether or not a math
truth corresponds to the universe we live in.

------
beeneto
"Michael Shermer ... defines scientism as a worldview that encompasses natural
explanations, eschews supernatural and paranormal speculations, and embraces
empiricism and reason."

I'd consider widespread adoption of that worldview to be the sign of a
culturally advanced civilisation, and it's opposite to be the sign of a
backwards one.

~~~
jorangreef
No, that's just naturalism, and there's nothing rational or advanced about it.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalism_(philosophy)>

~~~
beeneto
But in the definition I quoted, Michael Schermer defined scientism in part as
embracing reason. There's nothing rational about embracing reason!?

~~~
jorangreef
Naturalism and the scientific method are not at all the same thing. Which is
why it would be right to say that the definition quoted is an example of
"scientism", a pejorative term, and not science.

Science is just the study of the natural world as we observe it. Naturalism
precludes anything beyond the natural world, but does so on the basis of
speculation, for we have no tools of reason with which to make such an
assertion.

The tools of science and philosophy cannot be used to reach beyond the natural
world. They were never intended for it. They are not suited for it. By
definition, science would not presume to be interested in it, and philosophy
would fail to grasp it.

From our side, we can't rationally say that the supernatural exists, and we
can't rationally say that it doesn't.

Hence Carl Sagan:

"An atheist is someone who is certain that God does not exist, someone who has
compelling evidence against the existence of God. I know of no such compelling
evidence."

So we can be agnostics, but we can't be atheists, not rationally at least.

But while from our side, we can't reach out, that's not to say the
supernatural, should it exist, can't reach out and reveal itself in a way that
would make sense to us and give us a rational basis for belief, for instance
if the supernatural were to collide with our natural world in an extraordinary
event.

The tool to tackle this then would be history. As a Christian, I believe that
the right place to start digging is the historical accounts of those who saw
the life, death and resurrection of Christ, in history. Did it happen? What
does it mean?

~~~
beeneto
Relax, I just thought it was an ironic that some people think "You are
enlightened!" is an insult.

There are several definitions for scientism in the article, they are all
different, some are conflicting. My comment was about the definition in the
quote, I know that science and naturalism are not the same thing.

------
xk_id
Let me start by describing how the nervous system is structured in strata,
with lower, "thalamic" nerve centres which are closer to the outside world,
giving us sense impressions; and higher, "cortical" nerve centres which are
further away from the outside world, and process the nerve currents coming
from the lower nerve centres. It's a well known fact that it is the cortical
nerve centres that are engaged when operating with languages (including
scientific languages – physics, mathematics, etc.; and probably coding, too);
however, because of this structuring of the nervous system, cortical products
of abstraction are abstractions from the abstractions of the lower nerve
centres – in other words, it is natural to begin with sense impressions
(observations, facts, etc.) and proceed by producing generalisations, models,
formulations, ideas. If, contrary to that, we assign primary importance to
words and ideas, then, structurally, we are behaving similarly to people
suffering from hallucinations, illusions and delusions, word salad,
fanaticism, etc.

I hope not to be opposed by anyone if I suggest defining science as the
investigation of empirical structures, with the purpose of formulating
structurally-similar semantic representations using words and other symbols
(laws, theories, generalizations, formulae, etc). We readily see how science
is nothing else than the mature, appropriate behaviour of a healthy human
nervous system. Fundamentally, scientists are preoccupied with sanity, really:
day in, and day out, they spend their time co-ordinating ideas with facts.
Their job, their contribution to society is adjustment to facts.

Now, if, for example, we would repeatedly find ourselves stumbling, we would
turn to professional athletes for inspiration; it follows similarly that, for
the sake of sanity and adjustment, the methods, conduct and results of
scientists are of interest to us all.

The Wikipedia article doesn't really provide any clear, explicit, concise
argument against the so-called "scientism". In my opinion, the article
reflects the struggle of a curious group of people: people with an inflated
sense of self-worth, fuelled by a gratuitous use of words ("logolatry" is the
name for it, and it's always nice, btw, to discover that an ancestor
summarised personal observations of mine with a single word!).

In any case, I trust that one can only retard the natural functioning of his,
and others' nervous systems – never abolish it.

------
wwwtyro
Does anyone have a response to this position with respect to modern economics?
Specifically, when economists test their models, what are the control groups
that they use?

~~~
ovi256
None, because economists aren't big on testing, AFAIK, and empirical methods
beyond meta-studies. It's still a very soft science, correct me if I'm wrong.
Joke was that an economist that tests his hypothesis is a trader.

Econometrics and psycho-economics have just overturned the rational actor
model that was the mainframe of classical economics. Maybe they'll add more
empirical methods as well.

