What constitutes "scientism"?

[kiwi_tea]

Lately a theist friend might have been accusing me of scientism, all in good humour, but it's worth thinking about. After all, it might be a bit true, right? I could easily be reading more into his comments than he intends and knowing me I probably am, but with or without the exchange, it always pays to ask ourselves questions. He didn't use the term "scientism", and he's mainly joking, but one definition of the term is "excessive belief in the power of scientific knowledge and techniques", and I sensed that might have been the thrust of his quips. When I replied that "Science is also a very small part of my life" my friend accused me of hypocrisy. It's all a bit true. A bit. Even the hypocrite part - here I am saying "Science is everywhere and it's so useful!", and at the same time saying "Science is on the sidelines in my day to day living". It's not true, because I do read scientific discussions daily, but it's not entirely untrue either. You see, science is too big and pervasive for me to occupy myself with all the time, and I'm not under any illusions as to science's limits.


Whether I really am guilty of scientism or not depends a lot on how we define science. This isn't a simple question, it's a long, drawn out argument that I can only touch lightly here. I haven't ever studied philosophy of science, and I only have a dabbler's awareness the history of science. I know vaguely the major players like Thomas Kuhn and know the skeletons of their positions. What I'm going to do is cheat and use Stephen Pinker's idiosyncratic but useful position that - in casual conversation - science is just the attitude that evidence should inform our decisions (in his words, "unreligion"). When I think of science most of the time, I use this broad folk definition. Recently when I sat down with a friend who is writing an essay about Katherine Mansfield's early Urewera journals, I said to her, "We can't make our arguments without evidence, in that sense what we're doing is just another science." I'm open to the argument that I'm devaluing the term "science", perhaps I'm conflating it with "reason", so raise your voice if you object, otherwise I'm running with it. I do agree with Pinker that science is indispensible for reasoning out our ethics but that it's not enough by itself. Science gives us the reasons to reason off of.


Science describes the world around us to the best of human ability, and so necessarily we end up with a scientific explanation associated with (if not actually for) most things. That does not mean, however, that science needs to occupy everybody's life all the time. Science is a toolset, but it's not always the most appropriate one - art is another handy toolset. Fiction has great critical power, and metaphor is moving. Animals like to feel, we love it. Fiction is where religious cosmogenies and magic can be almost real. In this sense, I think many people with creative impulses - myself included - are not going to be preoccupied with science. Science is indispensible, it is the framework within which art exists, and the materials by which art is made, but the artist can extend out creatively, inventing compelling fictions metaphors that are also very good criticisms.


Likewise, there are broad areas of anyone's lives that science is only beginning to explain. We are studying the effects and interactions of neurotransmitters precisely because we don't fully understand them yet. Without the hard data yet available, we tend more to rely on assumptions, on creative inferences, on inductive reasoning. It might one day be common for more of us to say things like "I suspect I'm low on serotonin, maybe I'll have a glass of wine", but we're not there yet. Science certainly matters in such cases, but we can't apply it yet. Science is certainly limited in how and where it can be applied. It's also limited in where we want to apply it. There is a complex science of love, for example. Love is neuroscientific. Love is explicable. Understanding the scientific arguments about love isn't a necessity though to have love, nor to use it. We benefit from the neuroscientific study of love, of course, it allows us to understand what is happening to us and how to manage it - perhaps how to sustain it too. But really, it's fun to be creative with our feelings. As long as we don't go crazy and start believing that love is seriously magical or spiritual when all evidence demonstrates it is not, then there is no harm in romantic narratives. We need not speculate about the neurochemical aspects of Romeo and Juliet's relationship, nor even often our own relationships. (Although I'm sure neurochemistry has a lot to contribute to specialised social fields like couples or grief counselling).


This does raise another problem though, a prejudice. A lot of us share the notion that science is unromantic and unpoetic. It's not a notion that I hold, but I think it's fair to say that most people hold it. Science does provide us with practical and meaningful knowledge, it's very down to earth. Science shows us how intricate and deep our world is, science allows our passions to be deeper and more meaningful than religion does. Science allows us to enjoy not knowing things that we do not know, and it can be incredibly beautiful. When I saw the pohutakawa in bloom this Summer I thought to myself, "Those are the scientist's stained glass windows, and so much more beautiful". Have you ever noticed that the bark of a pohutakawa tree parodies the soldering patterns on stained glass windows? (Probably not unless you're a Kiwi). I think physicist Richard Feynman described my attitude pretty well when he described a glass of wine thus:


'A poet once said, "The whole universe is in a glass of wine." We will probably never know in what sense he meant it, for poets do not write to be understood. But it is true that if we look at a glass of wine closely enough we see the entire universe. There are the things of physics: the twisting liquid which evaporates depending on the wind and weather, the reflection in the glass, and our imagination adds atoms. The glass is a distillation of the earth's rocks, and in its composition we see the secrets of the universe's age, and the evolution of stars. What strange array of chemicals are in the wine? How did they come to be? There are the ferments, the enzymes, the substrates, and the products. There in wine is found the great generalization; all life is fermentation. Nobody can discover the chemistry of wine without discovering, as did Louis Pasteur, the cause of much disease. How vivid is the claret, pressing its existence into the consciousness that watches it! If our small minds, for some convenience, divide this glass of wine, this universe, into parts--physics, biology, geology, astronomy, psychology, and so on—remember that nature does not know it! So let us put it all back together, not forgetting ultimately what it is for. Let it give us one more final pleasure; drink it and forget it all!'


And I do forget, blissfully and often, how involved science is in my life. I watch TV without a single thought to the functioning of the television. Up until this moment I hadn't reflected on my heartbeat, the activity of my brain, or the whirring of the computer's fan. I escape science all the time because, honestly, understanding All Things takes a bit more time than I'll ever have. I'm not a professional scientist, I'm just some guy who values science, so of course I have plenty else on my mind. I just have to be mindful I'm never escaping science - escaping the burdens of evidence - so as to believe a fiction. Am I guilty of scientism?

[ElementMK]

This isn't a simple question, it's a long, drawn out argument that I can only touch lightly here.You may want to rethink this statement. d:

I've never heard of "scientism", actually. Are people who believe in scientism called scientists? Jokes aside, your trust in science will vary dramatically depending on what you define science as.

Is science a verb, shorthand for "application of the scientific method"? If you follow this definition, it's nearly impossible to not be a "scientist". The scientific method is a fantastic way to understand just about anything. It takes some balls and quite a bit of ignorance to blatantly oppose it.

Do you believe science is a noun that subsumes the majority of human knowledge? Again, it's pretty much impossible to not be a supporter of learning.

Do you hold on to a vague concept of science, but love the fact that "it" gave us the iPad and glow sticks? Yeah, you're probably a fanboy. Stop it.

If I haven't really answered your question, I apologize. I read your entire post, but it simply didn't make very much sense to me. It's comprehensive but confusing, though I think it'd be great for discussion if you introduced your questions and ideas piece-by-piece throughout the thread.

However ...Am I guilty of scientism?Your science is bad and you should feel bad.

[Sunbee]

I've heard scientism used as a slur with the rough meaning of "You will believe anything a scientist says, without demanding evidence." (With the implication that this hypothetical scientist is talking about something outside his/her field.) Usually this is in retaliation against someone who has accused someone religious of believing everything a religious authority says (preacher, mullah, etc.) without thinking. Is this the usage you're thinking of?

[kiwi_tea]

DEBATE SUMMARY

OP - Kiwi_tea

Primary debate question:

+ What constitutes "scientism", beyond dictionary definitions? What constitutes an "over reliance" or "exaggerated trust" in science?

Related/dependent arguments:

+ Does Pinker's definition of science conflate "science" with "reason"? Is it a valid definition, or too broad and flabby?

+ What is an acceptable definition of "science" for the purposes of this debate? (This raises the "demarcation problem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demarcation_problem)")

+ It is valid to posit that emotions like "love" are governed by magic or spirituality given findings in the science of neurochemistry? (Could be a whole debate of its own, really).

+ Is the scenario that I have described - myself as the example - "scientism". Is the description insufficient to make that judgement? I will raise other examples.

+ What are the disadvantages of "scientism"? What are some alternative areas of criticism/investigation?

REPLIES

The problem so far seems to be that everyone here is on a similar page to me, so they don't see the conflict. Elemental Leaf even dismissed the opposing perspective with "It takes some balls and quite a bit of ignorance to blatantly oppose it", which up to a point I agree with. Up to a point. I do believe "scientism" exists, I just don't think almost a single person accused of it is guilty. "Scientism", to my mind, occurs when we start saying that science is prescriptive, eg. "Darwin's theory of evolution means that might is right". But once you start arguing that sciences prescribes rather than just informs ethical decisions you've already stopped being scientific. So is it still "scientism"? Is that the best word for it?

Edit: Or when people claim nothing matters except science. Eg. "Why would you waste time studying an Arts programme?"

I'd like to see intelligent theists/deists like iCad and fakepeeps7 pop in here and give the opposing view as they see it, it would certainly make this more of a debate. I certainly do think "what constitutes scientism" is a debatable proposition. Why isn't it?

@Elemental Leaf

It takes some balls and quite a bit of ignorance to blatantly oppose it.

I'm sure theistic apologists would argue that there are other ways of gaining knowledge. We'd have to look at the historical track record of whatever other ways came up. Balls I agree with, "ignorance" definitely sometimes... ...but perhaps there's more too it than *just* those.

Do you believe science is a noun that subsumes the majority of human knowledge?

This doesn't strike me as a satisfactory or useful definition though. Knowing all the words to The Walrus and the Carpenter is not science, but it is knowledge. How to we define what the majority of human knowledge is? I'm sure a lot of people would protest at this definition.

@Extensa5420

This thread doesn't really seem like a debate. [...] The term seems to be a little vague to me.

I agree, it does seem vague. Hence the debate. Author Chad Walsh reports that C.S Lewis "had noticed that the 'pure sciences' seem to have no dehumanizing effect on those who study them, but that the closer a science approaches to human affairs the more it tends to strip its specialists of their humanity; sociologists and psychologists are in greater peril than chemists and mathematicians." One immediately has to wonder what C.S. Lewis means. Lewis also called scientism "the disciplined cruelty of some ideological oligarchy."

The meaning of this term, when used by theists in particular (and they are usually the ones using it) really is ellusive. I'm looking for people who would apply the term "scientism" to someone such as myself to make the case as to how they understand the word, and also to argue that their understanding of the term is coherent. Again, the central question: "What constitutes scientism?"

Most of the questions you pose are exactly those I would like to see debated. I'll give my position on each.


Can you give some examples of "scientism"?
I think that would be best handled by those defending the concept of "scientism" as it is most commonly used. I'm really not certain how useful the term is, I just know that I've been accused of "scientism" often in debates.

Here's one example I've heard quite a lot. Theologians have often accused evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins of "scientism" because he argues in The God Delusion that we can investigate the possibility of deities using the scientific method in the same way that we can investigate the possibility of vampires using the scientific method. The evidence on vampires is lacking. There's lots of anecdote, but nothing consistent, and certainly no hard evidence. We conclude that vampires almost certainly don't exist. Dawkins also argues that the question "How did everything get here?" is a scientific question demanding a scientific response.

The argument seems to be that science is somehow insufficient, or that it cannot be applied to these questions.

What are the methods/attitudes typical of or attributed to a typical scientist?
This is highly contested in philosophy of science. Generally though, I'd say that science is testable, has predictive power (eg, evolution predicts we should find certain fossilised organisms, and we do find them), and relies on observations.

But then, this doesn't describe all that scientists do. It doesn't describe collection of data very well, it doesn't deal very well with all applied sciences. It's hard to define exactly what is science, it's easier to define what isn't science. Art isn't science. Intelligent Design isn't science anymore (but it used to be in the 17th/18th centuries).

There are lots of grey areas. Is "string theory" science? Sort of? Maybe. It's on the very edges of science because it's hasn't garnered lots of evidence yet.

Does that mean non-scientists do not think this way?
I would have thought it was self-evidenct that many non-scientists do not favour theories that are testable, reliant on observations, and have predictive power. Most people subscribe to theistic theories of some kind or other, and those theories have no such properties.

What is the exaggerated trust in the efficacy in the methods of natural science applied to all areas of investigation?
Good question.

Does that mean non-scientists cannot use the scientific method for inquiry of answers?
I don't even see how this question is related to this debate. "Scientist" and "non-scientist" aren't distinct categories. People can apply science selectively, and they do. Some people who are professional scientists are incredibly unscientific about particular topics. Many people who are not professional scientists (such as myself) learn and use science all the time.

Do you know any other method of acquiring information other than the scientific method?
Art is a good example, artistic knowledge can be reasonable without being scientific because it relies on the subjective a great deal more. And philosophy is another, although a lot of philosophy overlaps with science. Philosophy of thought, for example, is currently morphing into an extremely compelling field of science known as neurophilosophy.

I have taken Science classes, Humanities classes, Social Sciences classes before, and all of them require the use the scientific method. The scientific method becomes second nature to me, so I really don't know any other way to acquire information.
Perhaps you'd also be accused of scientism then.

@Sunbee

I've heard scientism used as a slur with the rough meaning of "You will believe anything a scientist says, without demanding evidence." (With the implication that this hypothetical scientist is talking about something outside his/her field.) Usually this is in retaliation against someone who has accused someone religious of believing everything a religious authority says (preacher, mullah, etc.) without thinking. Is this the usage you're thinking of?
Yes. That's one very common usage that I did have in mind.

[iCad]

I...have been summoned. ;) (Someone make me a card. ;) )

I must admit, kiwi, that I've not really given much thought to the issue at hand, so forgive me if my answer isn't all you might want. I will ponder the questions you've raised further, however, for they are interesting.

But off the top of my head...I think that as human beings incapable of individually understanding Absolutely Everything, everyone has to have some degree of faith. I'm not talking about religion, but more along the lines of simple trust, acknowledging and relying upon the gifts of others. For instance, I fly in airplanes all the time. I have absolutely no idea how or why they work, but I have faith that those who build them know what they're doing, that they understand the science behind them, and that they know how to build them such that they won't (generally :) ) fall out of the sky in a flaming ball of fiery flame.

Does this make me a "scientist?" I don't think so. Rather, I'm just...a part of a whole. I have knowledge about some stuff. Another person has different knowledge about different stuff than me and our knowledge can fill in each other's holes in order to create a better understanding. For a completely benign example, I'm a concert pianist. I have a Master's in Music Performance, Piano from Juilliard. I know pretty much everything there is to know about playing a piano. But a flute? The basics, yes, but no comprehensive knowledge. But I can get together with a competent flautist who in turn knows little/nothing about piano and make some awesome music, because we can rely on each other's talents and knowledge. I think that we, as in humanity as a whole, are much like that; in order to accomplish truly great things, we have to rely on each other and have faith in each other, despite our differences, because we each have our gifts, which I feel will be necessary in understanding Absolutely Everything, when and if we ever get to that point. Scientists, IMO, have only a piece of that pie, not the whole darn thing. But because I have faith in others, I can have faith that more-knowledgeable-than-me people can design airplanes that fly or can truly understand the vast complexity that is a single atom, when I can't do either of those things.

That said...and here's the part that you'll disagree with me about, no doubt :)...I do believe that human beings have something of a general need to have faith in something, something that tends to be abstract, something that they don't/can't really know about, and I'm NOT necessarily talking about any kind of religion. It just seems to be ingrained in most people, likely because we can't understand Absolutely Everything. For some people, that need does indeed get channeled into a religion of some kind, which generally involves seeking knowledge of Absolutely Everything via some sort of appeal to a Higher Power(s) of some sort. And for some people, I do think that the need does get channeled into Science (with a capital "S", by which I guess I mean to denote science as a more of a philosophy and/or as a faith-held expectation that it can/will explain Everything.) Such people seek knowledge of Absolutely Everything via science even though science by its nature can't adequately examine Absolutely Everything, and I believe that this sometimes results in "scientism." As in, science raised to the level of a quasi-religion, a deeply-held faith that it can/will explain everything, with a subsequent higher-than-normal faith that those who are learned in science know what they're talking about (even when they're talking about things outside of their field of expertise) and can be relied up to know and be right.

Ironically, this sort of "scientism" can be practiced by theists just as much as by a-/non-theists. Creationists, for example, put all sorts of faith in their scientists, many of whom ARE completely legitimate scientists complete with legitimate Ph.Ds from accredited educational institutions. Many of them are not actively "doing science," not publishing anything, but they are still scientists. It's just that in creationist circles they tend to address things outside of their area of expertise. My housemate is a creationist. I read the stuff she gets in the mail, "technical journal" articles and so forth. You'd be amazed how many creationist Ph.D geologists think that they are competent to address genetics or evolutionary theory or astrophysics. But the thing is that those who are creationists don't see this as a problem because, "They're scientists, particularly scientists who believe as I do, so they must know." That, IMO, is "scientism" at its finest. Even more fine than Dawkins's. ;) (Do note: I honestly don't know enough, or care to know enough, about Dawkins to know whether or not he is a "scientist." I only know that he is accused of it, particularly so by creationists who cherish their own brand of "scientism." Pot, meet kettle. ;) )

And to a certain extent, Western society since the Enlightenment has sort of encouraged that sort of "scientism." So-called "Great Scientists" are somewhat revered in our society now, much as religious leaders used to be (and still are in some cases, of course) because they are beacons of Almighty Knowledge, symbols of the triumph of the human intellect over the Unknown. People are now putting their faith in science/scientists where once they put their faith in their religion/religious leaders. Both attitudes can be equally in error, depending on the person in question.

And that's really the crux of the question, isn't it? And I'm not sure that I have an answer to the question at all. I can certainly go out and accuse someone of being a "scientist" in the above sense of elevating science to a sort of religion and/or using it as a replacement for religion/a need to have faith in something, but whether or not he actually is a "scientist" in that sense is wholly reliant upon what is in his heart, his true self and his true thinking beyond the words that he says. And that I cannot know, not really, just as I cannot know the heart of a person calling himself "Christian." Understanding science, having an interest in science, using the scientific method to acquire/weigh information, and relying on/having faith in the knowledge of scientists without demanding that they back up everything they do/say with "evidence" IMO does not necessarily make one a "scientist." (Or at least if it does, then I am one, too. A non-creationist theist "scientist." Go figure. ;) ) I'd say that, like religious faith, "scientism" (or not) is a "heart condition." And some people indeed wear their hearts on their sleeves for all to see. But most don't.

[Sunbee]

Well, I'm a Christian, but I'm probably not nearly as smart as iCad or Fakepeeps7. Still, the subject interests me.
At C.S. Lewis' time of writing there were a great many scientists supporting eugenics, both disability and race-based. If you dig into US history you can find a great deal of support of that up until the end of WWII. (I haven't studied British History in nearly the same detail, and of course Lewis was British, but it seems reasonable to suppose that there would have been similarities.)
There are things in our lives that the scientific method can't be used on. Certain experiences, for example. You can't repeat an experience such as your very first kiss, so you can't use the scientific method, which demands that anyone be able to replicate the event, on that sort of experience. (You can collect data on a wide variety of first kisses, but not repeat your personal first kiss.) Just as one cannot scientifically disprove the existence of God or vampires. You can only say that you can't see any data on their existence. My personal experiences of God are not repeatable, neither at my demand nor for you, and therefore the scientific method cannot be used on them.
My opinion is that scientism doesn't denote an over reliance on science so much as an over reliance on scientists, who are just as human and just as failure-prone as anyone else. I could give examples, but they'd be very close to home, so no. Scientists are just as likely as anyone else to engage in self-destructive behavior, though, and I'm pretty sure if you run through the scientists you know personally you'll see them doing things they know not to do.
There are people who engage in this form of scientism, and some of Dawkins internet fans do it fanatically. Dawkins is a bio guy, but they'll take his sociology claims without checking his assertions against any facts. He may be right, but the point is that they don't check. In many Christian churches, you're supposed to check. If the preacher says 'God wants you to do this,' you're supposed to check the claim against the Bible. Many don't, but you're supposed to. (Just look at the number disregarding "Love your neighbor as yourself.") So both groups behave contrarily to what they claim they believe.
Myself, I think that is a form of tribal behavior--do what the chief says--and while it may make for better odds of survival in a tribal setting, humans after all being tribal creatures, the mindless following of authority can get very ugly in our now mostly non-tribal societies.
You might want to look up the various permutations of Intelligent Design. I think you're referring to young earth creationism, or Genesis literalism, when you say it. I believe God is the originating cause of the Big Bang. This, of course, is non-testable because we can't 'see' before the Big Bang. (Think about what modern physics and bio-sciences would sound like in a language which has no words for the concepts. Yeah. Explains Genesis pretty well, to my way of thinking.) I have no problems with much of evolution, but it can be fun to irritate some by reminding them that both young earth creationists and atheists think that man comes from mud: they just disagree on the how of it. I do think God's given evolution a nudge now and then in the matter of causing the right mutations to occur (not entirely relevant: a really excellent book on the utility of such mutations as Type One Diabetes is Survival of the Sickest). But that's a matter of opinion or belief: I don't see any way to test something like that, either, even if we did have time travel. How would one determine if a particular mutation was caused by an act of God or by chance?
Or there's always the possibility that what we see as reality is just a big Sims game . . .

[iCad]

I think I covered as well as I could my thoughts on what scientism is in my first post, but I've pondered a couple of kiwi's "related arguments" a bit further, and here's what I've come up with:

Does Pinker's definition of science conflate "science" with "reason"? Is it a valid definition, or too broad and flabby?

Well, I certainly don't agree that evidence informing decisions is solely the province of science, nor that that is all that science is. (Of course, I'm sure you're paraphrasing, and I'm not familiar with the person in question, so I don't have any kind of context, and context is always important.) And I've known scientists in my time, whilst in academia. (In the Music department, not in any of the sciences, but I was friends with a good number of those in the sciences, since I have an avid and abiding interest in certain of the sciences.) Many of them had wacky theories (using that word in the vernacular sense, not the scientific one) that had very little to do with any kind of evidence. I also don't think that "evidence" of the type that is acceptable in scientific circles is the be-all and end-all. Because, really, there's all kinds of evidence, but science is picky about what it will or won't accept, as Sunbee touched on, and it's my belief that science will discount as a matter of course things that should actually be considered...although I acknowledge that it would be difficult to do so, given the scientific method's reliance on repeatability and falsifiability.

Really, overall, I think "science" has to a certain extent been put into a box, at least in the public consciousness. People think it's all about reasoning and the Holy Scientific Method, as if scientists are unfeeling and, as kiwi put it, unromantic little robots who exist according to strict scientific programming rather than living, breathing human beings, as if science is only about logic and reasoning. Really, science is also about entirely baseless speculation because one will not generally investigate something without first speculating about it, and one's first speculations about something are often baseless. And in order to speculate, one must first be able to imagine different possibilities. And imagination, in turn, requires creativity, often seen as the antithesis of logic/reasoning, particularly so if you're into the whole silly left-brain/right-brain thing. Science is not just -- and, IMO, shouldn't be -- the scientific method. And, as Sunbee quite rightly pointed out, the scientific method cannot and does not always apply to life situations. I do believe that experience is as important as evidence when attempting to understand the universe around us.

And yes, I do think "reason" and "science" are conflated (and not just in Pinker's definition) every bit as much as "faith" and "religion" are conflated. Really, in both pairs of terms, the latter term is but one application of the former term, a way to exercise a natural quality that all human beings have, for we all have the capacity to reason and we all have the capacity for faith. In fact, I'd go so far as to claim that it is exactly those two qualities (and perhaps nothing else) that separate us from the rest of the living creatures on the planet. And I daresay that most of us use both and sometimes at the same time. And you can find both in surprising places, too. I keep going back to the creationists. I'm sorry about that, but I can't help it. They as a group are just so iconic, and because I live with one -- and therefore argue, good-naturedly, with one often -- I know how they think.

To the general public, creationists seem to be iconic examples of the "religious," and therefore, to the general public's way of thinking they "must" therefore run more on faith than on reasoning because, you know, that's what "religious" people do. They never think, they only do/believe what their religious leader(s) tell them, they believe things blindly, and they can't possibly understand the wonders of logic and reasoning. This is especially true of out-in-left-field wacks like creationists. Right? Wrong. In reality, a creationist's "faith" is an ever-more-precarious yet still logical house of cards built on a premise that relies on interpreting Genesis 1 (and all accounts in the Bible that they have deemed "historical") as factual history, not allowing for, for instance, the concepts of allegory and/or symbolic storytelling. To their way of thinking, if the Bible does not contain a scientifically- and historically-accurate accounting of the world's inception, then the Fall never happened and there is/was no "reason for Jesus," so to speak, and therefore everything in the Bible is wrong/meaningless and God doesn't exist and our existence is meaningless and "just" a product of "random chance" and...Yeah. Big and very slippery slope. The alternative to their own theories (again I use that word in the vernacular sense, not the scientific one) is a very scary proposition for them, and it's why they cling so very tightly. Because, really, they are a hair's breadth from apostasy, precisely because there is NO faith involved in their beliefs whatsoever, just a big ol' tree of dry, coldly logical if/thens branching out from their initial premise. A creationist's entire "faith" in God is often, rather ironically, based more or less wholly on logical reasoning and an extrapolation from a certain interpretation of the evidence, misguided and misinterpreted as it may or may not be, and not on any real faith at all. Strange, but true.

And on the flip side, you have the "scientists," those who, as I said, have come to regard science more as an object of faith and less as an application of reason.

So really, faith, reason, science, and religion are all separate entities and they can mash themselves up in really surprising combinations. Frankly, my own personal view is that to allow only one of those four things to entirely or even mostly guide your life is...Well, I'd say that if one does that, one misses out on a lot. I tend to reject Gould's NOMA concept, actually; I believe that the "magisteria" should and in fact need to overlap and address each other in non-hostile ways, because I personally believe that understanding Absolutely Everything can/will only happen when they do...but that's not really relevant to the discussion at hand, is it? *laughs*

What is an acceptable definition of "science" for the purposes of this debate?

Ya got me. It's a broad term. I suppose that, to me, "science" means something like, "The consistent and rigorous application of a certain kind of reasoning -- namely, the scientific method -- in order to attempt to explain or understand some aspect of the natural world." As such, I don't think that it applies to everything. I disagree with Dawkins that it can be used to prove or disprove the existence of God. God is outside of nature, and I tend to think that science (but not reasoning) can only be applied to the natural, to things that can be quantified and observed, even if only backwardsly-observed, if you will, like the Big Bang, or observed through inference, like the progression of evolution over time.

In any case, I do agree that in order to have a debate on this subject at all, terms will need to be defined or else things will go exactly nowhere, with people arguing about things that are irrelevant to the subject at hand. (Especially if I'm involved; I'm a queen of irrelevant tangents. ;) ) Defining what science is for the purpose of the discussion would seem to be of paramount importance in that regard.

It is valid to posit that emotions like "love" are governed by magic or spirituality given findings in the science of neurochemistry? (Could be a whole debate of its own, really).

I know little to nothing of neurochemistry, and I doubt that I could edumacate myself well enough and quickly enough to discuss this question properly. *laughs* Is it really necessary to this particular discussion? I mean, I suppose it is in a way if you want to posit that there's a scientific explanation for everything. But it's beyond my knowledge, I'm afraid. I can only look at things from an historical perspective (because in many ways I'm more of an "historian" than a "scientist;" it's a much different way of looking at things and gathering/interpreting data) and say that our modern concept of romantic love as a basis for forming relationships and engaging in eventual procreation is in the grand scheme of things a very, very modern concept. So if that kind of love is "just" neurochemistry, it seemed to take a long while to assert itself. ;)

Is the scenario that I have described - myself as the example - "scientism". Is the description insufficient to make that judgement?

Skipping this one, pretty much, because I find it difficult to judge people in general; words are easy to formulate, but they are not always an accurate reflection of what a person truly believes. One human being cannot truly know another in that way. But in general, in order to attempt to judge this issue, one has to have an idea of what "scientism" is. It's another term to define, and that's the purpose of this discussion. (For everything in this forum is rather more of a discussion than a true debate. :) ) So, we have to have the discussion first. But even once that's done...Well, I always defer to what I said above: I can't really, truly judge. I can have a suspicion, just as I suspect that I won't be seeing Fred Phelps in heaven because no one can truly have Jesus and that much hate in one's heart at the same time, but I can't KNOW. I'm not qualified to judge. Really, no one is. The best we can do is have an opinion.

What are the disadvantages of "scientism"? What are some alternative areas of criticism/investigation?

I think the main disadvantage is that if observed or adhered to more or less strictly, it closes off options, as it rather limits one to only considering "scientific" explanations for things. Of course, some people are comfortable with that notion. I'm not. I'm an advocate of informed open-mindedness, which is my term for being open to considering anything from any perspective and then, indeed, considering it. Carefully. Rationally. Not necessarily blindly accepting any given argument, even if I agree with the arguer's point of view in general. Applying reason to the issue, etc. So I'm open to considering anything, from any viewpoint, but whether or not I will accept something is entirely another thing (and there, of course, my biases will come into play, if I don't guard against them). So I think that if one is locked into any one way or kind of thinking or of viewing the universe, be it having a "scientfic" view or a "classically religious" view or really anything in between, it's inherently limiting. And it can make one rather inflexible. (As in, as I said, the scientific method, in my opinion, is not universally applicable. But if that is one's chosen, go-to method of observing the universe and gaining knowledge, then one will be limited as to what one can observe and learn about.)

As to alternatives...Well, of course it will depend upon what is being investigated. Not all areas of learning/investigation have anything to do with science. There's viewing things from an historical or comparative-cultural perspective that is outside of science's rather rigorous hypothesize/observe/experiment/interpret/lather/rinse/repeat cycle. There's philosophical discussion and the Socratic method. There's just informally talking to other people, in general, especially those with different viewpoints, as we do here in this very forum. There's artistic learning, as you said. And certain things will always require science and scientific thinking.

So it's not that science or being "scientific" is bad, as far as I'm concerned. Science is inherent in life and always has been, even before it was classified and defined and codified as a specific discipline. But in my opinion it has both its limits and its place. It's a tool, a method of thinking and, in certain (but certainly not all cases) of arriving at what we can be reasonably sure is the truth. But it's not something that defines or directs my life, nor is it something that prevents or precludes me from exploring the spiritual realm that I very much believe exists, "unscientific" as that belief is. Its unscientific-ness troubles me not precisely because science and/or a demand for evidence is not the center of my life. I'm not at all afraid of faith.

(BTW, completely off-topic, @ kiwi: I had to GIS pohutakawa trees, and they are lovely. I must thank you for bringing them to my awareness. :) The flowers remind me of mimosa trees, which I love but which won't grow in the climate in which I now live. Mimosas are Chinese in origin, so I wonder if they might be related. But anyway...I now have a lovely pic on my desktop, since we're in the grip of winter here, albeit a somewhat mild one for us, so far.)

[Oaktree]

+ What is an acceptable definition of "science" for the purposes of this debate? (This raises the "demarcation problem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demarcation_problem)")


While I have some problems with Kuhn's ideology (specifically scientific anti-realism), I think his definition of science has some substance to it. He says that science is accurate, consistent, broad in scope, simple and fruitful. To elaborate, it has to line up with observations, it cannot contradict itself or other theories assumed to be true, it should have explanatory power beyond the initial question, it should follow Ockham's Razor, and it should lead to new knowledge.

His definition places less emphasis on experimentation than most theories, which I actually find to be appropriate. Most of our overarching scientific theories relied on very little actual experimentation before they were accepted as true. That's not to say that we should blindly accept whatever sounds good, but we should be open to "thought experiments", rational extrapolation, and strokes of genius. At some point, those hypotheses should be tested, but they should not be completely dismissed before there is opportunity to do so. To give an example: Linus Pauling extrapolated the secondary structure of proteins simply by considering hydrogen bonding. The technology to examine his hypothesis on the structure did not exist at that point in time, but I would still consider his process scientific. His hypothesis was later tested and found to be true.

As to the other questions you have posed in this thread, I am still considering my responses. There is quite a lot to process and quite a lot of philosophy in this topic. Much to consider. :)

[Oaktree]

Perhaps the most usable and safest definition of science is this: "Science is what scientists do." And you'll know a scientist when you see one. Sounds very unsatisfying I know, but again it seems the safest and least-confining definition, if we even need a definition. And by the way do we even need a definition?

I agree with everything else you said but this. If you define science as "what scientists do" that allows scientists to withhold validity from anyone they disagree with on a personal level. The community of scientists would have absolute control over how to define science and, should a majority of them hold a particular opinion, that opinion would become the opinion endorsed by the scientific community, invalidating the designation of the practices of scientists as science as we know it. Science would lose all objectivity. It is not safe and right to define a subject that should transcend humans by the humans who study it.

[ElementMK]

And you'll know a scientist when you see one.Hmm. That's an interesting proposal, though I don't think it'd work very well. How about we play a game?

Who's The Scientist?
http://i56.tinypic.com/21dhow2.png
Hint: It's not the cat.

[kiwi_tea]

Phew! Lots of reading, and now I have a LOT of replying to do. Forgive me if I don't get it all done in one post. I'll reply post-by-post rather than person-by-person so I don't get mixed up about the evolution of everyone's arguments.

@iCad (post one)

I do believe that human beings have something of a general need to have faith in something, something that tends to be abstract, something that they don't/can't really know about, and I'm NOT necessarily talking about any kind of religion. It just seems to be ingrained in most people, likely because we can't understand Absolutely Everything. For some people, that need does indeed get channeled into a religion of some kind, which generally involves seeking knowledge of Absolutely Everything via some sort of appeal to a Higher Power(s) of some sort. And for some people, I do think that the need does get channeled into Science (with a capital "S", by which I guess I mean to denote science as a more of a philosophy and/or as a faith-held expectation that it can/will explain Everything.) Such people seek knowledge of Absolutely Everything via science even though science by its nature can't adequately examine Absolutely Everything, and I believe that this sometimes results in "scientism." As in, science raised to the level of a quasi-religion, a deeply-held faith that it can/will explain everything, with a subsequent higher-than-normal faith that those who are learned in science know what they're talking about (even when they're talking about things outside of their field of expertise) and can be relied up to know and be right.

I should start by acknowledging that I agree with all you have said here. Our basic conflict arises from the fact that religion, unlike science, doesn't provide any unique positives in people's lives (unless they really are going to an afterlife, which seems highly unlikely given what happens to their "soul making organs" in death), and it also provides some very particular negatives in some of the ultra-rational sanctions it can provide. We clearly both agree that that science has limitations - one piece of the pie. I do consider art, philosophy, etc as parts of the pie because they're very nutritious modes of thought. I don't consider theology/religious faith part of the pie because they are not. They seem to be just an inedible object that was baked in by accident, at best harmless and at worst a choking hazard.

So while we are in agreement, the look of our pies is probably a bit different. :P

Ironically, this sort of "scientism" can be practiced by theists just as much as by a-/non-theists. Creationists, for example, put all sorts of faith in their scientists, many of whom ARE completely legitimate scientists complete with legitimate Ph.Ds from accredited educational institutions. Many of them are not actively "doing science," not publishing anything, but they are still scientists. It's just that in creationist circles they tend to address things outside of their area of expertise. My housemate is a creationist. I read the stuff she gets in the mail, "technical journal" articles and so forth. You'd be amazed how many creationist Ph.D geologists think that they are competent to address genetics or evolutionary theory or astrophysics. But the thing is that those who are creationists don't see this as a problem because, "They're scientists, particularly scientists who believe as I do, so they must know." That, IMO, is "scientism" at its finest. Even more fine than Dawkins's.

Well. Yes and no, right? Theists can extend science's arguments too far when they're acting as scientists, but all their theistic claims are distinctly unscientific, so we need to make a distinction. If a theistic scientist is arguing that we have nothing to learn about death from John Donne's poetry because science has that covered then they're guilty of scientism. But if a theist is arguing that their god is proved by science using pseudoscience I don't think that's "scientism", just pseudoscience. Creationism fails almost every formal definition of science that we care to name (except one lower in this thread that I reject - "science is what scientists do" which, believe it or not, has been suggested as a definition in philosophy of science). Creationism has no active research programme, it has no models, it makes no future predictions, and it's entirely untestable. Creationism isn't a scientific theory in any sense of the word, it's just a group of angry believers. They're not even applying the scientific method to their claims, hence I don't think we can say they're guilty of "scientism".

In political terms, lists of "Scientists who oppose Evolution" are almost always made up of engineers, geologists, etc. You don't see many biologists, hence: Project Steve (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Steve).

(iCad, you strike me as someone who would enjoy a Dawkin's book like The Ancestor's Tale or Climbing Mount Improbable, so forget what how the media portray him if you ever get the opportunity).

And to a certain extent, Western society since the Enlightenment has sort of encouraged that sort of "scientism." So-called "Great Scientists" are somewhat revered in our society now, much as religious leaders used to be (and still are in some cases, of course) because they are beacons of Almighty Knowledge, symbols of the triumph of the human intellect over the Unknown. People are now putting their faith in science/scientists where once they put their faith in their religion/religious leaders. Both attitudes can be equally in error, depending on the person in question.

I don't think this comparison can possibly stand. Religious leaders of the past offered speculation or supposedly "divine revelation". How these were gained, how they were reliable claims, was totally up for argument except that the leaders themselves imposed an authoritarian will on their followers. Theology is so much angels dancing on pinheads, whereas for all we can criticise science it is empirically accessible to most people. I can quote Dawkins here, actually: "Science replaces private prejudice with publically verifiable evidence." Hence good science is replicable. You can know when a scientist is making an erroneous scientific claim. You can't know when a religious leader is making an erroneous religious claim. The local Left-wing clergy's interpretation of a god is just as likely true as Osama Bin Laden's interpretation. What matters is only whether your prejudices lean one direction or another.

It strikes me that both attitudes are not equally in error. Trusting scientists to reveal the Unknown you can go wrong, you're still prone to hubris and confirmation bias and all the human errors that scientific method is built to combat. Trusting religion or faith to reveal the Unknown you can barely go right no matter how well reason is applied because: How would you know you were wrong? But that's really a question for the stickied threads.

@Sunbee
At C.S. Lewis' time of writing there were a great many scientists supporting eugenics, both disability and race-based. If you dig into US history you can find a great deal of support of that up until the end of WWII.
We need to look at this in historical context, though. Firstly, the churches were also pro-eugenics. When we think of eugenics today we think, naturally, of the Holocaust and other genocides. However most Victorian/Edwardian eugenicists were well aware the humane element of their beliefs - unlike Hitler, etc, they didn't want to slaughter people they only wanted to apply a certain (in retrospect un-)ethical conclusion using what science said at the time. They didn't have genetics, they didn't understand the heritability very well, their science was incomplete, but that is not the fault of science. The fault is in the eugenicist's ethics, their willingness to sacrifice individuals for God, King and country - which was a theme of throughout the Victorian/Edwardian era. Schoolboy fantasies revolved around going to "glorious" war. Sacrifice was very "in" during these decades, and our modern moralities and sense of individual rights was not as fully formed. Eugenics wasn't the fault of scientists, it was science misapplied by a whole society.

Today we still practice forms of eugenics, just benign ones. We abort severely deformed foetuses, and we discourage or sometimes prevent the heritably ill from breeding. We encourage the use of condoms and contraceptives, especially among those incapable of or unwilling to raise children. Eugenics still exists, it just doesn't have any victims.

There are things in our lives that the scientific method can't be used on. Certain experiences, for example. You can't repeat an experience such as your very first kiss, so you can't use the scientific method, which demands that anyone be able to replicate the event, on that sort of experience. (You can collect data on a wide variety of first kisses, but not repeat your personal first kiss.)
Absolutely. I agree. It would be "scientism" to declare that we could currently reasonably investigate the subjective experience of someone's first kiss. Not only would we need to simulate the entire environment, including the other person, but also the neuroscience of the "feeling" of the first kiss and the related thoughts. Everything that happened during that kiss was scientific, and yet the data are so enormous it is wholy outside the scope of scientific investigation and we tend, therefore, to deal with these enormously subjective experiences using reason, philosophy, emotions and art. People within their enviroments are unique, and minds are an interface that only deals with so much that there is (hence why we feel like we have free will).

Just as one cannot scientifically disprove the existence of God or vampires. You can only say that you can't see any data on their existence. My personal experiences of God are not repeatable, neither at my demand nor for you, and therefore the scientific method cannot be used on them.
This is a poor argument though. It is not someone's "experience of God" that science can investigate, only the existence of God. Science can hardly investigate someone's "experience of vampires" either. What if vampires only appear to Kelly and not to Kurt and Kris? What the data says is that there is no reason to take Kelly's claim too seriously.

"You can only say that you can't see any data on their existence."

I agree. I agree entirely. So we draw the only conclusion we can. Tentative dismissal, as we do with vampires. That was my whole point.

My opinion is that scientism doesn't denote an over reliance on science so much as an over reliance on scientists, who are just as human and just as failure-prone as anyone else. I could give examples, but they'd be very close to home, so no. Scientists are just as likely as anyone else to engage in self-destructive behavior, though, and I'm pretty sure if you run through the scientists you know personally you'll see them doing things they know not to do.
I think you're right on the money with this. I think this would definitely fit into a definition of "scientism". But a good scientist should know that they are fallible, given the scientific method is built to combat that fallibility to the best degree we can.

It's weird that the term "scientism" seems to describe attitudes so unscientific.

There are people who engage in this form of scientism, and some of Dawkins internet fans do it fanatically. Dawkins is a bio guy, but they'll take his sociology claims without checking his assertions against any facts. He may be right, but the point is that they don't check. In many Christian churches, you're supposed to check. If the preacher says 'God wants you to do this,' you're supposed to check the claim against the Bible. Many don't, but you're supposed to. (Just look at the number disregarding "Love your neighbor as yourself.") So both groups behave contrarily to what they claim they believe. Myself, I think that is a form of tribal behavior--do what the chief says--and while it may make for better odds of survival in a tribal setting, humans after all being tribal creatures, the mindless following of authority can get very ugly in our now mostly non-tribal societies.
Agree, and I see friends of mine engaging in this behaviour. Dawkins is wrong on plenty, even on some of his science, but he's a good writer with a broadly good stance. Similar to J.B.S Haldane before him, he needs to be read critically. He's a heck of lot more consistent than C.S. Lewis ever was, it's a shame he's not as beautiful a writer.

You might want to look up the various permutations of Intelligent Design. I think you're referring to young earth creationism, or Genesis literalism, when you say it. I believe God is the originating cause of the Big Bang. This, of course, is non-testable because we can't 'see' before the Big Bang. (Think about what modern physics and bio-sciences would sound like in a language which has no words for the concepts. Yeah. Explains Genesis pretty well, to my way of thinking.) I have no problems with much of evolution, but it can be fun to irritate some by reminding them that both young earth creationists and atheists think that man comes from mud: they just disagree on the how of it. All the permutations - young-earth and old-earth, Christian and Hindu - though, are intellectually dishonest covering ups of one conclusion: "My god(s) did it." Even intelligent design is only pushed by theists and deists, and "theistic evolution" is on uncomfortable soggy ground most of the time too, but hey, it allows theists their "My god(s) did it."

To say that "God is the originating cause of the Big Bang" simply doesn't survive Occam's Razor, especially with physicists increasingly advancing theories that the universe has always existed in a state of flux. "God is the originating cause of the Big Bang" suffers all the same problems as Creationism of any other kind. It makes a Big Guess that, if accepted, obstructs perfectly reasonable scientific inquiry (in this case physics, not biology).

Genesis reads absolutely nothing like modern science, even as a metaphor. That's been a major sticking point for theologians for centuries now. You're counting the hits (mud) and ignoring the many other misses (special separate creation of all species, global flood, two humans produced the human race rather than a population of proto-humans, the land was laid in the firmament, sea and sky are effectively the same stuff, second non-existent bottle-neck in human populations around Noah's non-existent flood).

I suspect theists are going be able to stay theists a lot more comfortably if they say their gods are not creator gods and that they are not physically involved with this universe at all. Adam and Eve are already metaphorical for sophisticated theists (after all, these characters are completely in conflict with evolutionary biology's take on human origins), it's just a matter of making the Bible a LOT more metaphorical. Like... ...almost entirely so barring the semi-historical bits that are confirmed in several other less fictionalised sources.

I do think God's given evolution a nudge now and then in the matter of causing the right mutations to occur (not entirely relevant: a really excellent book on the utility of such mutations as Type One Diabetes is Survival of the Sickest). But that's a matter of opinion or belief: I don't see any way to test something like that, either, even if we did have time travel. How would one determine if a particular mutation was caused by an act of God or by chance? Another claim that doesn't survive Occam's Razor. We could just as well say "Vampires psychic mind beams from another planet have influences mutations." But why would we? We already have a perfectly sufficient explanation for mutations in modern evolutionary biology, only the details of that explanation are in dispute.

I quote the scientist Jerry Coyne:

Scientists do indeed rely on materialistic explanations of nature, but it is important to understand that this is not an a priori philosophical commitment. It is, rather, the best research strategy that has evolved from our long-standing experience with nature. There was a time when God was a part of science. Newton thought that his research on physics helped clarify God’s celestial plan. So did Linnaeus, the Swedish botanist who devised our current scheme for organizing species. But over centuries of research we have learned that the idea “God did it” has never advanced our understanding of nature an iota, and that is why we abandoned it. In the early 1800s, the French mathematician Laplace presented Napoleon with a copy of his great five-volume work on the solar system, the Mechanique Celeste. Aware that the books contained no mention of God, Napoleon taunted him, “Monsieur Laplace, they tell me you have written this large book on the system of the universe, and have never even mentioned its Creator.” Laplace answered, famously and brusquely: “Je n’avais pas besoin de cette hypothese-la,” “I have had no need of that hypothesis.” And scientists have not needed it since.

And the feeling that creeps over me is that perhaps Coyne would be accused by someone like C.S. Lewis of "scientism" for saying that. And yet what Coyne says makes perfectly sense. What Laplace says makes perfect sense as well.

Is there some solid meaning in accusations of scientism, I'm sure there is, and that the term could be useful, but it seems to be used where it doesn't apply as a slur far more often. I should find some examples from Lewis and post them here for discussion.

Or there's always the possibility that what we see as reality is just a big Sims game . . .

Hehe! ... Actually. I hope nobody deletes the door any time soon.

[cont in next post... won't let me post the full thing, sorry for double posting]

[kiwi_tea]

[...cont]

@iCad (post two)

Because, really, there's all kinds of evidence, but science is picky about what it will or won't accept, as Sunbee touched on, and it's my belief that science will discount as a matter of course things that should actually be considered...although I acknowledge that it would be difficult to do so, given the scientific method's reliance on repeatability and falsifiability.

I think I touched on this to a degree with Coyne's quote, but I have to ask in case you mean something entirely different: Which other kinds of evidence and why should we consider these evidences reliable? (i.e. how reliable have these evidences proven in the past?)

Really, overall, I think "science" has to a certain extent been put into a box, at least in the public consciousness. People think it's all about reasoning and the Holy Scientific Method, as if scientists are unfeeling and, as kiwi put it, unromantic little robots who exist according to strict scientific programming rather than living, breathing human beings, as if science is only about logic and reasoning. Really, science is also about entirely baseless speculation because one will not generally investigate something without first speculating about it, and one's first speculations about something are often baseless. And in order to speculate, one must first be able to imagine different possibilities. And imagination, in turn, requires creativity, often seen as the antithesis of logic/reasoning, particularly so if you're into the whole silly left-brain/right-brain thing. Science is not just -- and, IMO, shouldn't be -- the scientific method. And, as Sunbee quite rightly pointed out, the scientific method cannot and does not always apply to life situations. I do believe that experience is as important as evidence when attempting to understand the universe around us.

I agree and disagree with so much you've said here, and I'm taking in so many different arguments that I'm worried I'm going to get further off the main arguments of this debate/discussion. I absolutely agree that science is a creative endeavour, but I deeply disagree with the claim that scientists engage in "baseless speculation". In science there is always a basis for speculation, even if that basis is anecdote. That said, there are areas of science where scientists posit hypothetical particles, but those hypotheticals are posited to make sense of otherwise working models, and to be abandoned (alongside much else) if disproven. Evidence is investigated within the context of experiences - investigation is a human project. I agree. The problem is that humans are massively unreliable at interpreting their experiences without a systematic approach like those offered by science or philosophy. I agree that scientific method can't be applied to explain all subjective experiences, nor do I think it should be applied thus.

"The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and all science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead: his eyes are closed."
- Albert Einstein

And yes, I do think "reason" and "science" are conflated (and not just in Pinker's definition) every bit as much as "faith" and "religion" are conflated. Really, in both pairs of terms, the latter term is but one application of the former term, a way to exercise a natural quality that all human beings have, for we all have the capacity to reason and we all have the capacity for faith. In fact, I'd go so far as to claim that it is exactly those two qualities (and perhaps nothing else) that separate us from the rest of the living creatures on the planet.

I think you need to be careful here. Isn't a mixture of faith and ill-defined reason all that a proto-linguistic non-human animal has? They are minds, operating on lots of the same principles as our own, having evolved (on different paths) just as long as us. The differences between them and us is in degree of reason and faith, not in either's presence.

To the general public, creationists seem to be iconic examples of the "religious," and therefore, to the general public's way of thinking they "must" therefore run more on faith than on reasoning because, you know, that's what "religious" people do. They never think, they only do/believe what their religious leader(s) tell them, they believe things blindly, and they can't possibly understand the wonders of logic and reasoning. This is especially true of out-in-left-field wacks like creationists. Right? Wrong. In reality, a creationist's "faith" is an ever-more-precarious yet still logical house of cards built on a premise that relies on interpreting Genesis 1 (and all accounts in the Bible that they have deemed "historical") as factual history, not allowing for, for instance, the concepts of allegory and/or symbolic storytelling. To their way of thinking, if the Bible does not contain a scientifically- and historically-accurate accounting of the world's inception, then the Fall never happened and there is/was no "reason for Jesus," so to speak, and therefore everything in the Bible is wrong/meaningless and God doesn't exist and our existence is meaningless and "just" a product of "random chance" and...Yeah. Big and very slippery slope. The alternative to their own theories (again I use that word in the vernacular sense, not the scientific one) is a very scary proposition for them, and it's why they cling so very tightly. Because, really, they are a hair's breadth from apostasy, precisely because there is NO faith involved in their beliefs whatsoever, just a big ol' tree of dry, coldly logical if/thens branching out from their initial premise. A creationist's entire "faith" in God is often, rather ironically, based more or less wholly on logical reasoning and an extrapolation from a certain interpretation of the evidence, misguided and misinterpreted as it may or may not be, and not on any real faith at all. Strange, but true.
I understand exactly what you're saying and why you are saying it. I had faith like yours once too, and might have said similar things. I think you're being unfair using language like "dry" and "coldly logical". Creationists are empassioned, and the distortions come about by trying to match faith with reality in a way that will not fit. But this is inevitable with faith based on religious texts so specific as the Bible. Reason alone can make faith coherent, but it's also an enemy of faith. Reason demands fluidity and agility, and faith demands a constant position on one particular proposition (eg. "I DID leave my wallet on the bench this morning" or "I DO have a relationship with God"). Creationists are just people who actually left their wallet in the car, just like, I strongly suspect, other believers in personal gods.

And me? My wallet was stolen and now the thief lives on my couch eating all the porridge. Damn him. True story.

I join you in rejecting Gould's NOMA, which is why I have to say that I think you're perpetuating a myth of "cold" and "logical" reason, when reason is almost always tied up with feelings alongside formalised systems - the only exceptions are computers. Reason is a restraint for prejudice (which is really just another word for faith). Reason must act on prejudice, just like science must inform religion. For the same reasons.

But (and here I may be accused of "scientism") what can religion offer science in return?

@Others soon... ...life calls

[RoseCity]

Lastly, what can religion offer compared to science? Lots of things but comfort is nothing to sneeze at. There's no athiest in a foxhole, and every baby needs to be held. Yes Virginia we do need a Santa Clause, so long as people keep Santa Clause in his place. The need for consolation, if nothing else, is a human need as real as any other. Could a child grow to adulthood having never been held? I suppose so, but I wouldn't want to meet that person; the result would probably be one messed up guy. Science can tell us what a comet is, but knowing what a comet is doesn't do much for you when your child has died, or when you are in great physical or mental pain of any kind. Without the "answers" and assurances that religion provides the bulk of humanity would live a very unsure and nervous existance, and that would destabilize society to a fatal degree.
Not every person needs the consolation of religion - I don't. But just because you don't believe in anything, doesn't mean that you then have to take science as your religion. Or that you then have to become a science evangelical and exhort religious people to see the error of their thinking. That's what I think 'scientism' is.

[kiwi_tea]

I don't have to time for a full reply but I want to point out that I equated "faith" with "prejudice" in the sense that both are a premature and uninformed judgements about something - it's the very meaning of both words. I did not intend to equate "religion", which is a broader system of doctrines, with "prejudice."

Also... ...there are, always have been, and will continue to be, plenty of atheists in foxholes. Jus' sayin. Religion isn't unique in providing love and comfort, on the occasions that it manages to muster even that. Religion isn't the source of human kindness, and arguably it only exploits that capacity for kindness. I hate to quote silly billboards, but... ...millions of people are good without gods.

[kiwi_tea]

Not the former, but certainly the latter. If we are to weigh the costs with the meagre benefits.

That is not to say I believe the world ever will be without religion. I don't believe it will. I guess I'm a bit of a pessimist in that, but credulity and prejudice does seem built pretty solidly into human cognition. As religions fall, new ones will arise. Sure. No doubt.

I just think... ...it's nice to be the critic of bitter tendencies, rather than the pusher of them, or the uninterested by-stander. And religions could be a whole heck of a lot nicer with a bit more sustained criticism. There's an unholy myth that people's religions should not be scrutinised or challenged. Heck, criticise religion these days and you're branded militant, as if you were lobbing grenades at people. Militant!

BUT... ...this is all beef for the stickied threads. It doesn't seem directly related to this topic here. Unless you're inclined to defend religion as offering something unique without which people may be deemed guilty "scientism". But I'd have no idea quite what that would be, if not some magical afterlife or reincarnation or mystic candyland just North of the Southern Cross where sugarplum bunnies nibble on gumdrop carrots under the lollipop moon.

Comments? Feedback? Please direct your responses to the appropriate thread (http://www.modthesims.info/showthread.php?t=420623&c=1&ht=&page=7&pp=25#startcomments) and we'll get back to you shortly.

[kiwi_tea]

Replied in the appropriate thread. Link above. In the meantime, are you saying you think I'm guilty of "scientism", or are we just making merry?

[kiwi_tea]

Speak of the Devil!

BioLogos, a "think" tank supposedly dedicated to reconciling science with religion have put out a fascinating mission statement that uses the word "scientism" in quite a mysterious sense. I thought it worth sharing in this debate for that reason alone. It seems to me that their "scientism" is a great big strawman. Where are these scientists who are advocating that we use scientific method to understand "such matters as beauty, history, love, justice, [and] friendship." What the hell are they even talking about? Scientists use philosophy for these, they feel them and the explore these using reason. And what does religion offer for these? Religion doesn't help us understand "beauty, history, love, justice, [and] friendship." Especially not history!

This whole thing strikes me as a meaningless slur against empiricism and an unjustified canonisation of theism (and specifically Christianity at that!). It really leaves me wondering what this term - scientism - is supposed to mean when it's applied to people?

Science and Faith

We affirm historic Christianity as articulated in the classic ecumenical creeds. Beyond the original creation, God continues to act in the natural world by sustaining it and by providentially guiding it toward the goal of a restored and consummated creation. In contrast to Deism, Biologos affirms God’s direct involvement in human history, including singular acts such as the incarnation and resurrection of Christ, as well as ongoing acts such as answers to prayer and acts of salvation and personal transformation.

We also affirm the value of science, which eloquently describes the glory of God’s creation. We stand with a long tradition of Christians for whom faith and science are mutually hospitable, and we see no necessary conflict between the Bible and the findings of science. We reject, however, the unspoken philosophical presuppositions of scientism, the belief that science is the sole source of all knowledge.

In recent years voices have emerged who seek to undermine religious faith as intellectually disreputable, in part because of its alleged dissonance with science. Some go further, characterizing religion as a “mind virus” or a cultural evil. While many of their ideas are not new, these voices are often identified as the New Atheists, and scientism undergirds their thinking.

In contrast to scientism, we deny that the material world constitutes the whole of reality and that science is our only path to truth. For all its fruitfulness, science is not an all-inclusive source of knowledge; scientism fails to recognize its limitations in fully understanding reality, including such matters as beauty, history, love, justice, friendship, and indeed science itself.

We agree that the methods of the natural sciences provide the most reliable guide to understanding the material world, and the current evidence from science indicates that the diversity of life is best explained as a result of an evolutionary process. Thus BioLogos affirms that evolution is a means by which God providentially achieves God’s purposes.

Accounts of Origins

We affirm without reservation both the authority of the Bible and the integrity of science, accepting each of the “Two Books” (the Word and Works of God) as God’s revelations to humankind. Specifically, we affirm the central truth of the biblical accounts of Adam and Eve in revealing the character of God, the character of human beings, and the inherent goodness of the material creation.

We acknowledge the challenge of providing an account of origins that does full justice both to science and to the biblical record. Based on our discussions, we affirm that there are several options that can achieve this synthesis, including some which involve a historical couple, Adam and Eve, and that embrace the compelling conclusions that the earth is more than four billion years old and that all species on this planet are historically related through the process of evolution. We commit ourselves to spreading the word about such harmonious accounts of truth that God has revealed in the Bible and through science.

(source (http://biologos.org/blog/the-biologos-foundations-theology-of-celebration-ii-workshop/))

The comments, though, are just insane:

"It makes me glad that my own field was medicine because nobody seemed to take offence if one took an interest in history, art, football, philosophy, family, politics and even religion: all those things that the real scientist, it seems, must eschew as lacking evidence. As do the posters above, if they are consistent."

That's right... ...apparently scientists can't play football because it lacks "evidence". What are these people on?

(Other replies to all still pending, and processing what you've each said carefully, there's a lot here. Curious about Oaktree's take on the likes of Popper.)

[Oaktree]

@kiwi_tea: I think there is a fine line to walk regarding falsifiability or lack thereof. I'll use modern theoretical physics as my case study, though it isn't a perfect one. Modern theoretical physics (M theory, some aspects of particle physics, that kind of thing) has little to do with empirical observation, yet the field of physics seems to me to be quick to take up these theories as great explanatory devices. I am not a physicist and most of my knowledge of these subjects comes from books aimed at the general population, but the impression that I get is that there is an overwhelmingly positive response to these theories, with little visible skepticism.

These theories are not strictly falsifiable. Most of the tweaks being performed on them are based on advanced mathematics, rather than new observational evidence. I am not opposed to these theories being pursued, but I think that the degree of confidence that people have in them is too great. By Popper's definition, they are not science. They are mathematics and metaphysics. Yet, these theories can be used to explain certain physical phenomena and may eventually be used to accurately predict other phenomena. They have a use in describing nature, which is the topic of science. Therefore, I think they can fall under the category of science without necessarily being falsifiable.

There is this fine line, though. Having a high degree of explanatory power does not necessarily mean that they form a completely true and accurate picture of objective reality. I do believe in scientific realism, though I think that there are some theories that can have explanatory power even without perfectly lining up with reality. Newtonian physics would be a good example. Newtonian physics provides a picture of physics that is more than vaguely accurate, but less than perfect. It is not the truth, but it can be used as a relatively (excuse the pun) accurate model under certain conditions. I think what we should ultimately be searching for in science is the truth. If we can never have empirical evidence of M theory or some other highly abstract model being true, I think we have failed at achieving the end we seek. I don't know that we'll ever achieve the end we seek, as there does seem to be a limit to the knowledge that we can gain. It may be that the ultimate nature of reality turns out to be a metaphysical question. We should certainly continue to pursue the question, but it may be that we never find the answer.

[kiwi_tea]

At this point, given that BioLogos' mission statement which presents a very recent and quite typical use of the term "scientism", I think there's a clear gap between how "scientism" is defined and how it is applied in arguments. I think that's interesting, and worth exploring. Scientism seems to be applied far more broadly than its definition would allow, raising some serious questions about how users are defining it. If scientism is an "over-reliance" on scientific method, it seems to be used more often to mean... ...well, it's hard to know what how BioLogos is using it. Are they using it to say "Unreligious"?

Do I think scientism is a bad thing? Yes. I certainly do think that by defintion an over-reliance is a bad thing. But what constitutes such an over-reliance? That's the question here.

As to talking in circles, I think this is progressing, as a debate. There are still some big gaps, we don't have a conclusive definition of science yet, and indeed perhaps this thread (given Oaktree and Extensa's comments) is about to erupt into an argument about the demarcation problem. I suspect it will. But that strikes me as necessary phase of this debate. After all, what is this science that "scientism" is over-reliant on?

No. I don't think this discussion, as meandered and full of tangents as it is, is even half as messy as you say. In fact, given the sniping about therapy and other pepperings of ad hom I'm wagering you just don't like me and the way I engage. That's cool. Different strokes. No need for a tantrum though, which is what that last post really was.

[kiwi_tea]

No. I haven't made up my mind. We haven't even touched on the demarcation problem yet. Am I over-reliant on science? Well, that depends. What is an "over-reliance" on "science"?

Moreover, while "Am I guilty of scientism" was the question I posed in the first post, I did go on to clarify a list of more general - less personally-focused - questions, the central one being: What constitutes "scientism", beyond dictionary definitions? What constitutes an "over reliance" or "exaggerated trust" in science?

Which was my initial intent for the debate question, hence the title. The OP was, I'll admit, clumsy and introspective. The example I chose - myself - was a poor one. No doubt. Especially now that you're using it for some bizarre campaign here. "Are you? Are you! What is this debate about!" you ask. Well, primarily, What constitutes "scientism", beyond dictionary definitions? What constitutes an "over reliance" or "exaggerated trust" in science?

And when you want to hear a tantrum from me young man you'll hear it, and you will know it, and will it be unforgettable. Believe me you have yet to hear a tantrum from this guy. So please, and I'm asking you nicely, to drop your patronizing and conceited, self-important psuedo-intellectual crap and tone and speak honestly and forthrightly. Succinctly if you can.

For the record, you're already being pretty unforgettable in these posts.

[kiwi_tea]

I just wish there was a button for "That was the best post ever in the universe".

(+20 bitch points to Kiwi_tea. Huzzah! :rofl: )

[CatOfEvilGenius]

Yes some people are perfectly capable of leading moral and well-ordered, well-adjusted lives without religion. Speaking as an athiest I believe that I do, and you probably do too. But there are alot of people out there who need a god of some sort for many reasons: For comfort, for structure, etc. It's morning in Tibet, we've waved the magic wand, and now everyone is an atheist. What happens? Maybe something good, but maybe the place turns into Thunderdome too. Alot of people need something or someone to be afraid of. The upright monkey can behave very badly when he has nobody to fear, and institutions like the law are often inadequate. Moreover an atheist government scares the hell out of me, and history shows that my fear is well-founded. What's to keep them in line? If god's not around then Stalin is god, and god help us all. Could a king who professes faith be bad news? Certainly, but without a god as the American framers realized, what final guarantor of human rights is there? If rights come from man then man can take them away. God-given rights are the only kind that can be inalienable. And if there is any scientific doctrine of human rights I'd love to hear it.
(bold added by me)

Has there been even one theocracy in the entirety of human history that has given people more rights, and been a better guarantor of rights, than, say, the current secular government of Sweden? I assume the Swedish government does not scare the hell out of you. Is there a religious document that lists more human rights than the UN does? Were my nation to turn explicitly theocratic, I would hightail it out of here.
[edited to be less confrontational]

I would trust a secular government, based on the conscience of decent, kind, caring human beings, far more than I would trust a theocracy led by religious people who only "act good" out of fear of some red dude with a poky pitchfork. Before anyone yells "bigot!", I would trust a theocracy led by people of good conscience far more than I would trust a secular government led by people of no conscience.

We do not need supernatural reasons to be good, we just need to care about our fellow human beings. I would prefer that people attribute love, empathy, fairness, altruism, to rational reasons, like species survival, but if they want to say God made us capable of love in His image, meh, whatever, it's a free country. Just so long as they strive to be good out of caring, not fear, fine with me. I would prefer that government govern based on reason, compassion, and the pursuit of the greater good. I think religious people can be as capable of this as anyone, but certainly NOT more capable of this than anyone. I believe some secular people can completely suck at it, but no more so than some religious. I have no problem with religious government officials, provided they don't try to legislate based purely on religious grounds.

People who "act good" out of fear (of the devil or the law or whatever), are the WORST qualified to be our leaders. Saying religion is useful because it keeps those sorts in line is a very narrow view of religion, and I bet it's very offensive to the religious. As a secular humanist, I believe that religion, at its best, can be an inspiration, a way to strive to better oneself, a call to serve others, a force that binds communities. I believe, in theory anyway, all that stuff could be gotten by anyone from secular philosophy. Too bad we've never had some inspiring figure to spread such a message to anyone other than to a few ivory tower types. (I consider myself ivory tower, so don't call me a towah hata.) I'm aware that the religious see religion, or more accurately their God(s), as something that gives meaning and purpose to life, and that defines right and wrong. To me, secular philosophy serves the same purpose. The religious would also speak about salvation of the soul / better karma / reincarnation, etc. Since the secular don't believe in any supernatural things, secular philosophy can't possibly provide answers about such things to the religious. But those last few things that secular philosophy does not address are not necessary to be good, nor to govern. Even some religious people say as much.

I realize this does not address the OPs original questions of "what is scientism" (some wacked notion made up by religous bigots?) and "am I too reliant on scientism". My apologies. Felt compelled to respond to the points I quoted.

----------------------------------

To get on topic, I can't imagine anyone, not even a crazy person, being "reliant on scientism". Nobody, I mean nobody, looks to science to answer questions about everything, especially stuff like subjective beauty. The fools who came up with "scientism" probably can't comprehend the difference between science and philosophy. They're probably the same people who don't know the difference between "gay" and "transgender". They probably have one big label for lots of disparate things that they don't like. They're probably taught "When someone tries to reason with you, yell SCIENTISM!!! really loudly until they stop". Please note, I speak only about those who go around accusing others of "scientism" (and probably "Darwinism" and probably "the gay agenda"). I'm certainly not speaking of all religious people.

[Oaktree]

To get on topic, I can't imagine anyone, not even a crazy person, being "reliant on scientism". Nobody, I mean nobody, looks to science to answer questions about everything, especially stuff like subjective beauty. The fools who came up with "scientism" probably can't comprehend the difference between science and philosophy.

I find it interesting that you use this example. There are some philosophers, Kant, for example, that do regard aesthetics as an objective thing. Objectivity doesn't necessarily mean that it is something able to be studied by science, but many people confuse objectivity with science. Now, there are a few scientists, or at least people who use science (Denis Dutton and Steven Pinker, for example), who believe that much of what we are is innately structured into our brains, and they argue that aesthetics are generally shared and have an evolutionary basis. I think that this may put a little too much weight on the nature side of nature vs. nurture, but I don't think they are necessarily entirely wrong. If you are interested in hearing Denis Dutton talk about evolutionary aesthetics, here is a link: http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/denis_dutton_a_darwinian_theory_of_beauty.html

In case you're wondering about my own thoughts on objectivity/subjectivity, I haven't really decided what I think on it yet. I see a lot of evidence that people generally share similar taste, but there is certainly a lot of wiggle room in that shared taste.

[CatOfEvilGenius]

Oaktree

While I have not yet read Dutton and Pinker (sounds quite interesting), I have heard of scientific rationales for why we find the colors green and blue pleasing. I'm aware of reasonable arguments for evolutionary reasons why we like certain facial features in potential mates or why we find some foods "yummy". I just have not heard any convincing arguments about why one person might like Emily Dickinson poems or Pollock paintings or Hendrix songs, while another finds them just awful. So in matters of aesthetics, at least when it comes to the arts, I lean very strongly towards subjectivity.

edit: I had not thought of the division of science and philosophy as you have described them, in terms of objectivity. I have always though of science and philosophy in terms of the areas of human experience and knowledge that they deal with. So in very broad general terms, philosophy deals with ethics, values, and such, science deals with natural phenomena (I know there's overlap). I was trying to say that those who accuse others of scientism seem to think science is encroaching on areas addressed by philosophy, when I haven't seen that to be the case.

I'm sorry if my post came off as too confrontational. The topic strikes a nerve with me because in my personal experience, people who throw around "scientism" arguments have tended to be very anti-reason and ignorant and bigoted about many things.

------------------

Sunbee

It was so nice to see your posts. They show we can be decent, rational people, look at the same world, come to different conclusions, and still get along fine and discuss things pleasantly with each other. World could use more of that kind of attitude. I don't see it nearly enough. (I don't practice it myself nearly well enough either.)