Scientism cannot hide behind the Flag of Science forever
August 13th 2008 23:31
Scientism cannot hide behind the Flag of Science forever
Here is a reality check for all those that believe they have found the scapegoat in history: Who owns science?
Surprisingly the answer is no one owns it. Yet we have a myriad of people who would like to claim exclusivity of ownership just because they have chosen a particular ideological position. The problem is not that science is objective and devoid of mystical authority, the problem is that anyone can be scientific. You do not have to search very far to find scientists from all kinds of backgrounds, ideologies and theological beliefs with each contributing to their profession in equally scientific terms.
You may often hear the statement that is laced with prejudice that only atheists can be scientific because they are free of the constraints of a mystical overlord. Though such claims may seem attractive to those that make them the fail any rational reasoning and as a result cannot be scientific. Taken to its logic conclusion the statement claims that non-atheist scientists findings are less scientific than atheist findings. Again this is also an unprovable statement. Instead of promoting actual the claimants of sole Atheist ownership of science is in fact little more than a form of ideological rationalism often referred to as Scientism.
Scientism, for want of a better description, is not science but the blind belief that everything can be proven in scientific terms. Whilst some people might nod in agreement with happy sense that it must be true they are forgetting one of the most basic rules of science. How was this belief tested? Scientism is a belief system not a measurement or ration conclusion based upon volumes of data but rather just an opinion. Scientism is essentially an unscientific and irrational circular argument that tries justify itself with itself. To accept this circular reasoning requires some belief (or faith) like all ideologies and philosophical schools of thought it is competing with. Rationalists may want a rational explanation for things; existentialist may argue it is all perceptual; emotionalists may want to know about feelings and materialists may want actual material proof. All of which can seem like valid arguments in certain contexts but none by themselves can explain everything.
Whilst Jean Paul Sartre argues the Existence is above Essence, Fyodor Dostoyevsky counters that argument by asking if a man ‘believes’ he is in love or ‘knows it’. Neither can be tested scientifically because they are perceptual and require an amount of belief to accept. In fact we can often find truisms that are little more than prejudices. For example: ‘Modern Civilization is more civilized than it was 100 years ago.’ More civilized? It begs the question about how civilization is defined long before we can apply any measurements. A statement like: ‘This art is powerful and valuable to all of humanity’ should always be prefaced with ‘In my opinion.’ Scientism should also be prefaced with ‘In my opinion.’
It may seem alien to some secularist bigots that science does not exclusively belong to them. Yet despite their smug superiority complex we have scientific papers being presented every day without the slightest question of whether they were atheists or not. Rather such a question is irrelevant to the scientific process and instead belongs to less scientific endeavours like scandal mongering and back stabbing. The essential test of any scientific paper is the accuracy of its data gathering and the validity of its interpretation. Throwing up the question of a person’s religions is only a prejudice that neither proves nor disproves the argument scientifically. Yet in the world of secular political power struggles it is an important wedge issue designed to blacken a reputation with the ‘enemy of science’ tar brush.
Perhaps if there was more science dialogue that was based upon actually science rather than Rationalist and Naturalist ideological precepts the Secular Bigots would know where they are wrong. Yet I suspect that like many ideologues they will continue to fight tooth and nail for their own absolute dominance in society. It may seem attractive for now to throw up the word science whenever you have a controversial policy to promote but the moment someone claims that it is scientific just because they are Atheists or Secularists it ceases to be science and is instead Scientism.
Appendix:
From PBS.org Faith and Reason
Scientism
Unlike the use of the scientific method as only one mode of reaching knowledge, scientism claims that science alone can render truth about the world and reality. Scientism's single-minded adherence to only the empirical, or testable, makes it a strictly scientifc worldview, in much the same way that a Protestant fundamentalism that rejects science can be seen as a strictly religious worldview. Scientism sees it necessary to do away with most, if not all, metaphysical, philosophical, and religious claims, as the truths they proclaim cannot be apprehended by the scientific method. In essence, scientism sees science as the absolute and only justifiable access to the truth.
From Skepdic.com
scientism
Scientism, in the strong sense, is the self-annihilating view that only scientific claims are meaningful, which is not a scientific claim and hence, if true, not meaningful.
Dolly the sheep.
Here is a reality check for all those that believe they have found the scapegoat in history: Who owns science?
Surprisingly the answer is no one owns it. Yet we have a myriad of people who would like to claim exclusivity of ownership just because they have chosen a particular ideological position. The problem is not that science is objective and devoid of mystical authority, the problem is that anyone can be scientific. You do not have to search very far to find scientists from all kinds of backgrounds, ideologies and theological beliefs with each contributing to their profession in equally scientific terms.
You may often hear the statement that is laced with prejudice that only atheists can be scientific because they are free of the constraints of a mystical overlord. Though such claims may seem attractive to those that make them the fail any rational reasoning and as a result cannot be scientific. Taken to its logic conclusion the statement claims that non-atheist scientists findings are less scientific than atheist findings. Again this is also an unprovable statement. Instead of promoting actual the claimants of sole Atheist ownership of science is in fact little more than a form of ideological rationalism often referred to as Scientism.
Scientism, for want of a better description, is not science but the blind belief that everything can be proven in scientific terms. Whilst some people might nod in agreement with happy sense that it must be true they are forgetting one of the most basic rules of science. How was this belief tested? Scientism is a belief system not a measurement or ration conclusion based upon volumes of data but rather just an opinion. Scientism is essentially an unscientific and irrational circular argument that tries justify itself with itself. To accept this circular reasoning requires some belief (or faith) like all ideologies and philosophical schools of thought it is competing with. Rationalists may want a rational explanation for things; existentialist may argue it is all perceptual; emotionalists may want to know about feelings and materialists may want actual material proof. All of which can seem like valid arguments in certain contexts but none by themselves can explain everything.
A Geep
Whilst Jean Paul Sartre argues the Existence is above Essence, Fyodor Dostoyevsky counters that argument by asking if a man ‘believes’ he is in love or ‘knows it’. Neither can be tested scientifically because they are perceptual and require an amount of belief to accept. In fact we can often find truisms that are little more than prejudices. For example: ‘Modern Civilization is more civilized than it was 100 years ago.’ More civilized? It begs the question about how civilization is defined long before we can apply any measurements. A statement like: ‘This art is powerful and valuable to all of humanity’ should always be prefaced with ‘In my opinion.’ Scientism should also be prefaced with ‘In my opinion.’
It may seem alien to some secularist bigots that science does not exclusively belong to them. Yet despite their smug superiority complex we have scientific papers being presented every day without the slightest question of whether they were atheists or not. Rather such a question is irrelevant to the scientific process and instead belongs to less scientific endeavours like scandal mongering and back stabbing. The essential test of any scientific paper is the accuracy of its data gathering and the validity of its interpretation. Throwing up the question of a person’s religions is only a prejudice that neither proves nor disproves the argument scientifically. Yet in the world of secular political power struggles it is an important wedge issue designed to blacken a reputation with the ‘enemy of science’ tar brush.
Perhaps if there was more science dialogue that was based upon actually science rather than Rationalist and Naturalist ideological precepts the Secular Bigots would know where they are wrong. Yet I suspect that like many ideologues they will continue to fight tooth and nail for their own absolute dominance in society. It may seem attractive for now to throw up the word science whenever you have a controversial policy to promote but the moment someone claims that it is scientific just because they are Atheists or Secularists it ceases to be science and is instead Scientism.
Appendix:
From PBS.org Faith and Reason
Scientism
Unlike the use of the scientific method as only one mode of reaching knowledge, scientism claims that science alone can render truth about the world and reality. Scientism's single-minded adherence to only the empirical, or testable, makes it a strictly scientifc worldview, in much the same way that a Protestant fundamentalism that rejects science can be seen as a strictly religious worldview. Scientism sees it necessary to do away with most, if not all, metaphysical, philosophical, and religious claims, as the truths they proclaim cannot be apprehended by the scientific method. In essence, scientism sees science as the absolute and only justifiable access to the truth.
From Skepdic.com
scientism
Scientism, in the strong sense, is the self-annihilating view that only scientific claims are meaningful, which is not a scientific claim and hence, if true, not meaningful.
| 93 |
| Vote |
Shared on
Add To: 
Subscribe to this blog
Comment by Norm
Consumption Malfunction
Equal and Opposite
Arses and Elbows
Footy Power
We used to think, for instance, that we were the centre of the universe.
How times, Damo, have changed
Comment by Norm
Consumption Malfunction
Equal and Opposite
Arses and Elbows
Footy Power
the top of Dolly's hair looks like the top of Einstein's!
Proof God doesn't play bingo.
Comment by S.L.
The Political Brief
Comment by Damo
For the Sake of Argument
My Apologetics
Thanks for your comments.
It is good to see that you have not lost your sense of humour. (which seems to the habit in these waters)
I have absolutely no problems with science. I have made a good living out of science from time to time. First with Rocket Scientists (who are not as smart as you would think) and later from Biology Scientists who love to have their videos edited and their presentations cleaned up before applying for a grant or going on the overseas junket.(Damn I wish I studied harder at school.)
Comment by Damo
For the Sake of Argument
My Apologetics
Thanks for your comments.
Plenty of quackery existed in scientific circles after being shown to be false.
The winners of history write the books.
In the history of science it get rewritten too often.
Comment by Norm
Consumption Malfunction
Equal and Opposite
Arses and Elbows
Footy Power
That's a rocking and or rolling sentence.
I have no problems with things that have made me money over the ears, namely, Centrelink - except I hate Centrelink - so I'm confused, unsurprisingly.
Comment by Damo
For the Sake of Argument
My Apologetics
I like that quote too. Mostly because it came from the skeptic's website.
Hating Centrelink is an Australian rite of passage.
Call it Centrestink and you will feel better.
Comment by Cibbuano
20/20 Filmsight
Science News
Hunt Famous
Orble Post of the Day
Fat Cult
Techbreak
bwa ha ha!
These days, Damo, I'm getting surly with science, too. It's moved quite far from the lofty ideals it strives for.
Comment by Damo
For the Sake of Argument
My Apologetics
Thanks for your comments.
Loft ideals?
I think lofty ideals are not what they used to be.
Comment by Proctor
I wrote an article today about light being imprinted with the things it bounces off of, where light itself could carry information, like electrical dna, i hope you guys get a chance to read it because i would love to hear your insight on it about truth and love and stuff. Thanks in advance if you get a chance.
Comment by Clint Emry
Strategy and Solutions
The method is useful and should be updated and put to the test.
But some scientists are becoming very dogmatic. We must reach out and study what we can and challenge our paradigms.
We need real intellectual honesty.
Comment by Damo
For the Sake of Argument
My Apologetics
Thanks for your comments.
Thinking philosophically about science? Hmmm?
I would say that the thrust of my argument is that some people call their ideology a science in order to give it a veneer of respectability.
Some decade ago there was a populist movement trying to prove racial superiority as having a scientific basis. Today we call it Scientific Racism. I would personally class that as blatant scientism because it started with a false premise and selected the evidence to match it.
Clint
Thanks for your comments.
I agree that there are limits to what the clinical methods of science can do. It is a search for material truths yet few people I know would limit all truths to what is materially tangible. There is plenty of scope for the search for other truths.
Certainly there are a lot of people with axes to grind trying to hide their deep seated prejudices behind flag of science. Some of whom have very questionable scientific method themselves.
Comment by D. Armenta
The Florida Keys and Everglades
The Black Sheep Chronicles
What constitutes bad manners?
The male mystique
Debate Fan
L.A.M.P.
Exactly what I say, ad infinitum, just about every time I comment anywhere--substitute the word "Scientism" with any opinion stated as fact.
Comment by Damo
For the Sake of Argument
My Apologetics
Thanks for your comments.
That was easy. We are in agreement already.
I like it.
But seriously you are correct. Science just seems to this years meaningless buzz word.
"In the name of science I commend you to obey me."
)That is how I got dates)
Comment by Timothy Powell
subjective determinist
Bad men
meditations while in genetics lectures
Comment by Timothy Powell
subjective determinist
Bad men
meditations while in genetics lectures
Comment by Damo
For the Sake of Argument
My Apologetics
Thanks for you comments.
I think I saw that episode.