Comments
kompootor t1_jdiq9q4 wrote
Which article are you quoting? I can't find the "excessive belief" definition in the article OP linked, nor in the Metaphilosophy paper.
Also, the second quote about "'excessive' scientism" -- are you quoting "a pretty extreme view"? If so, you are paraphrasing -- please do not use quotation marks unless it's a direct quotation.
I'm not sure I understand your comment. The author says he's addressing one specific argument in a specific paper, not scientism in general. Furthermore, it's a blog post, not a scientific proof, and not a prescription.
YawnTractor_1756 t1_jdj1dpk wrote
"Excessive belief" definition is from the Oxford dictionary.
kompootor t1_jdj56bu wrote
I suppose you mean the OED and not the Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, which is in front of me with a very different definition. I'm not sure which should be considered "official", but iirc Scrabble requires Collins.
It actually doesn't matter, because neither definition is relevant, because the only definition that matters is the one that's defined in the author's paper. The author uses this to set up their argument's scope. (Oh hey, that's Oxford's very next entry! Although they only talk about it in terms of logic.)
YawnTractor_1756 t1_jdjfz5s wrote
Since you agree that author's definition of scientism differs from the definition in the dictionary, I don't see any disagreements between us. Have a good day.
theglandcanyon t1_jdics7e wrote
You're arguing about definitions. How about the substance?
Micheal42 t1_jdigb7q wrote
You can't successfully engage meaningfully with substance that presupposes something that is meaningless. Essentially if we can't agree on definitions then no meaningful speech can take place.
Rowan-Trees t1_jdii3hu wrote
The truth-statement that all truths can be empirically verified is itself empirically unverifiable.
That does not undermine empiricism, but it does show its reliance on truths outside its own toolbox. Science is instrumental to knowledge. But its own methodological scaffolding goes beyond science itself. To know that we can know anything, an epistemology is necessary. Every scientist relies in someway on truth-values outside scientific observation to interpret their data. The basic question, "what is truth?" points us to empirical reasoning, but cannot itself be answered by empiricism. I dare anyone to try.
Edited to improve clarity.
[deleted] t1_jdil0vr wrote
[deleted]
[deleted] t1_jdiv18a wrote
[removed]
BernardJOrtcutt t1_jdl6wqj wrote
Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:
>Argue your Position
>Opinions are not valuable here, arguments are! Comments that solely express musings, opinions, beliefs, or assertions without argument may be removed.
Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.
This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.
[deleted] t1_jdjhzu4 wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_jdjiuhd wrote
[removed]
BernardJOrtcutt t1_jdl6wn5 wrote
Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:
>Argue your Position
>Opinions are not valuable here, arguments are! Comments that solely express musings, opinions, beliefs, or assertions without argument may be removed.
Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.
This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.
WrongAspects t1_jdu00r0 wrote
The point is to keep those things to an absolute minimum. In effect this means that everything is subject to testing and verification including things like the fundamental laws of logic.
The anti science crowd loves to pounce on hard solipsism or simulation theory to shit on science so they can feel justified in their belief in some form of supernatural or another.
Luklear t1_jdubaf0 wrote
Well said!
Ok_Meat_8322 t1_jdwsl8s wrote
>The truth-statement that all truths can be empirically verified is itself empirically unverifiable.
To be fair, if this is stipulated as a definition rather than a truth-claim, then this issue disappears. This was the problem with the "yeah but can verificationism be verified?" objection to Ayer and the positivists: it only works if verificationism is taken as a proposition rather than a definition or criterion of meaning (which is precisely how it was posited, at least by Ayer).
But ironically enough, I think verificationism and this claim about truth fail empirically; it is a demonstrable matter of empirical fact concerning human linguistic practice that we use language to do things other than assert empirical truths, and there are truths and types of knowledge that are meaningful but cannot be empirically verified (truths about the self obtained via introspection, for instance, all truths that are generalizations, poetic/literary truth, etc).
radiodigm t1_jeciz3d wrote
Can't we just say that there's no such thing as truth? Our epistemology, at least for model-dependent realists, assumes that there's no such baseline -- there's no static reality against which we must measure the success of our perceptions. Reality is instead just valued against a floating relationship between the knowledge and the observation's moment in space-time, a function of the relationship itself as well as the necessity and utility that motivated the acquisition of that particular knowledge. Empiricism could indeed answer that sort of question, anyway. Instead of what is our foundation for truth, it only has to tell us what is the best way to arrive at knowledge that ends up being most reliable to suit the motive for the observation.
[deleted] t1_jed6skd wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_jdhy4dq wrote
[deleted]
PaxNova t1_jdifogw wrote
That's the problem with things that are defined as "excessive." They are, by definition, bad. If it's not a bad amount, it's not excessive, which means it's not scientism.
[deleted] t1_jdig69w wrote
[deleted]
Xavion251 t1_jdjietu wrote
Because scientism requires you to believe absolutely absurd things. It is literally worse than flat-earthism, for at least flat-earthers aren't required to ignore their own fundamental reasoning and experience of the world.
[deleted] t1_jdi02zn wrote
[removed]
lpuckeri t1_jdih6qa wrote
Susan Haack has some decent work on the subject.
I take issue with her arguments on demarcation and falsifiability a little bit, and I think she is a little guilty of nut-picking fallacies when talking about the extent to which at people hold to scientism.
That said, I think she does a good job explaining how we can have issues with science, and how some people view it. How we need to be aware of the intricacies of science, not just fall for anything labelled as science, and not forget that science it is susceptible to human error.
She also rebuts the common misconceptions of science and philosophy being separate, or science and religion being parts of separate domains.
People dangerously conflate anti-science with scientism as a way to avoid the tension between modern science and outdated beliefs(often religious or spiritual ones). But its key to remember science is simply the best philosophical method we have for discovering truth and knowledge. I would not say its the only way to knowledge, as thats too strong, and we run into serious definitional games and grey areas.
While i mostly agree with Susan's definition with scientism(kind of like gullibility for anything with the label science), I think most people who use the term are anti-science people who straw-man science or attempt a tu quoque fallacy to blissfully hold their unscientific beliefs on equal footing.
tele68 t1_jdi8ufl wrote
Iain McGilchrist has written a 3 volume tome that effectively and scientifically counters the current trend of left-brain dominance.
You cannot divorce science from philosophy. The hole created will fill with market currency.
zms11235 t1_jdk57z1 wrote
Can you prove science is the only way to truth via the scientific method?
Uh oh…
WrongAspects t1_jdu08hf wrote
Can you prove any other way of knowing?
zms11235 t1_jduaec2 wrote
Yes, reason, which is the precondition for science itself.
WrongAspects t1_jdubcsj wrote
How do you gain knowledge with reason alone?
zms11235 t1_je386qo wrote
Reason is the precondition for knowledge. The real question is, how do you get knowledge without reason? It's not possible.
WrongAspects t1_je3tews wrote
That doesn’t answer my question. How do you gain knowledge by using only reason?
zms11235 t1_je428ez wrote
By reasoning about ideas. Mathematics is a great example—you can gain knowledge with nothing more than first principles and numbers.
WrongAspects t1_je493dj wrote
So you can gain mathematical knowledge using only reason. Ok.
Anything else?
HamiltonBrae t1_jdmpzho wrote
I'm mostly convinced that criticisms of "scientism" are, for the most part, essentially about politics and have little meaningful to say about knowledge.
Ok_Meat_8322 t1_jdwrnnq wrote
Nonsense. Self-knowledge and introspection is a valid "way of knowing" that doesn't fall under the category of science in any meaningful way (introspection is essentially the opposite of observable empirical evidence). I also think its possible to encode or express truths about human experience in literature/poetry/art that isn't possible via the scientific method. Its also not clear that know-how (as opposed to know-that) is necessarily scientific.
That said, the accusation of "scientism" is almost always overblown and misapplied, and science certainly is our best and most reliable way of understanding the physical world. But it does have limitations, just like any other human intellectual activity, and there are methods of acquiring certain types of knowledge in areas where scientific methodology is less successful or even impossible.
RequirementMoist5360 t1_je4ogzl wrote
How is introspection a mode of knowledge generation though?
RelativeCheesecake10 t1_je2u1v3 wrote
>>In short, the definition of “scientism” that I would endorse is the following: there are no other ways of knowing apart from those used by the sciences (broadly construed, including history and the humanities). All valid modes of knowing are continuous to each other and rely on pretty much the same methods and modes of inference. If, on the other hand, someone presents us with a method that is completely detached from the ones used in science, like personal intuition or revelation or reading tea leaves, we can be confident that it’s rubbish.
I know I’m a few days late to this post, but I have to take issue here.
First, I think this “broad construal” of science to include history and the humanities makes “science” a meaningless term and is not really defensible. The end of the article names “personal intuition” as a “rubbish” way of knowing that is clearly detached from the methodological continuity of science. But what makes Hegelian dialectical idealism a methodologically continuous part of science that is not present in personal intuition (or, say, astrology)? You could say that it has to do with the lack of comparing notes with others and thinking rigorously, but people talk about and revise their personal intuitions based on empirical information all the time. It’s called gossiping. Is gossiping a science?
Second, I flatly disagree that something like personal intuition is an invalid way of knowing. If I’m a woman on a date and I’m noticing what could be red flags, getting bad vibes, etc, am I to reject that as an invalid type of knowledge, unfit to inform action?
Finally, I think by advocating for or spurring the adoption of this frame, you are legitimating and entrenching colonial epistemological frames. “The humanities” get to count as methodologically continuous with science and therefore valid ways of knowing, but I’ll bet you indigenous traditions don’t. Philosopher Gabriela Veronelli argues that colonialism operates along linguistic lines by separating true, sufficiently sophisticated languages from lower, brutish, pseudo-languages. Colonial subjects are facially excluded from the category of possible interlocutors because their linguistic milieu is thought to be fundamentally unconnected with the type of rationality necessary for “civilized” discourse. This view of what gets to count as a legitimate way of knowing, to me, seems to do much the same: if a person doesn’t have access to traditions that are methodologically continuous with science—or if they find particularly pertinent meaning or knowledge from a tradition that is not methodologically continuous with science—they are told this is an invalid form of knowing and whatever insight should be thrown out on the face of it, without consideration. Meanwhile, ideas emerging from methodological continuity with science like dialectical materialism are worthy of rigorous consideration.
radiodigm t1_je7wu8m wrote
If it’s a fallacy to argue for any non-regressive foundation of knowledge, isn’t it also odd to argue that scientism is a “best” path to knowledge? That is, the endpoint isn’t static, so there will be an infinite number of baselines to define what is the shortest or most accurate path. Scientism surely can’t always be the BEST path to a constantly moving target. And what are we saying about that degree of reliability if we agree that a discrete target doesn’t even exist until it’s observed?
I think it’s important to consider what knowledge really means when framing these arguments. Knowledge is mostly about utility, not possession of some singular truth. After all, we can’t prove that there’s any single truth of the state of reality, and what’s best for the owners of knowledge depends on their subjective and time-variant preferences. So it seems to me that all we can say is that Scientism is the most reliable path to a model of reality that’s eventually proven by accumulated verification. Anything further begs questions about the foundations against which we propose to measure this argument.
Sorry if I’m not making sense or committing some logical fallacy. I’m new, and I’m not a philosopher and barely a scientist. I do enjoy reading everyone’s ideas here, so thanks in advance for any help in following this conversation.
Maestroland t1_je9ck9z wrote
My observation is that, in the article written by the original poster, a figure is shown representing "quadrants". Two statements formed the basis and these two statements were further modified by replacing the word "only" with the word "best".
Reading through your post, I see that you may be suggesting a change to this quadrant which would increase the number of types of epistemological scientism from 4 to 9. Your addition of the phrase "most reliable" requires this expansion.
I think you are being quite reasonable here by pointing out that there is a context of knowledge which is driven by the unique circumstances of the owner.
[deleted] t1_jdhwyh6 wrote
[deleted]
[deleted] t1_jdhzegt wrote
[deleted]
Micheal42 t1_jdig1ss wrote
There are other ways, such as personal experience, you can know something about yourself. But scientific evidence is the best way to demonstrate a truth you have come across to others and so be able to more easily get them to act on it and organise with that truth in mind. Science, like democracy, isn't perfect, it's just the best solution to a problem we've come up with so far.
Xavion251 t1_jdjhoj8 wrote
Yes, but sometimes it isn't really possible to know things via the scientific method - so we must use other methods.
Science is only the best method when it is possible to apply it.
Micheal42 t1_jdjonv1 wrote
This for sure. Also you can use more of the scientific method than might occur in many situations too, for example you can record events and what you witness even when you can't control or perfectly describe what's happening. That's definitely not comparable to most scientific evidence we use in society now but it's still better than nothing for trial and error and more generalised wisdom and learning.
EatThisShoe t1_jdkiaed wrote
What are the other methods?
We certainly can't run controlled experiments on everything in our lives. But I think that even with the limitations of reality, our best ways to gain knowledge will resemble science, only with some looser restrictions out of necessity.
Xavion251 t1_jdlzgmh wrote
-Experience (which is inescapable, even science is filtered through our experience)
-Logical deduction
-Appeal to best/simplest explanation
-Intuitive comparison of patterns to what is already known
EatThisShoe t1_jdnfn0h wrote
Those are all things that science also does, so I guess I don't see them as being separate.
Xavion251 t1_jdno1ld wrote
They are used in scientific fields, but not every use of them is "science". You aren't "doing science" every time you make a simple logical deduction or appeal to the best explanation.
EatThisShoe t1_jdnvggi wrote
I see it as more of a gradient. There isn't a clear delineation between "doing science" and "not doing science." But when we do science we use all of those methods.
Let's say I make a logical deduction, which you claim is not science. But my conclusion becomes a hypothesis. Then, throughout my life I have experiences related to my hypothesis, and I recognize patterns in my experiences. Then I compare the patterns in my experience to my original logical conclusion. That's science.
Xavion251 t1_jdnwmjd wrote
If you push the definition of science to such a degree - then yes, you can mostly justify "scientism" (although I still think there a couple exceptions with experience).
However, if you push the definition that much - it becomes an almost meaningless term. Almost any form of learning and/or belief becomes "science".
This is not what people (like me) who oppose the mindset of scientism are targeting. And this is not what the people who promote scientism are saying.
EatThisShoe t1_jdo2k0w wrote
It's not meaningless, it's a gradient, not binary. Some methods of acquiring knowledge are more or less scientific, and of course some things are completely unscientific.
To simplify, we might imagine a scale from 0% science to 100% science, and different forms of learning or belief fall at different points on the scale. From that viewpoint scientism is the claim that knowledge perfectly correlates with that scale, and anti-scientism is the idea that there are forms of learning which are low, maybe even 0 on the science scale, yet high in knowledge.
Xavion251 t1_jdr0kku wrote
You're still basically just re-definining "science" into "good way of gaining knowledge". Saying a method is "more scientific" is then just a way of saying "better".
No offense, but this just seems like an ad hoc redefining of terms to preserve the idea that "science" is the be-all-end-all of everything. Why do that?
EatThisShoe t1_jds660l wrote
> You're still basically just re-definining "science" into "good way of gaining knowledge". Saying a method is "more scientific" is then just a way of saying "better".
I actually differentiated science vs knowledge. Science is a process, knowledge is a potential result. I am not defining all good ways of gaining knowledge as scientific, I am claiming that science includes all the component steps of the process. You can't do science without deductive reasoning, so either we claim deductive reasoning is scientific, or we claim it is necessary but insufficient.
So why would I go with a more permissive definition? Because the alternative requires some arbitrary threshold, a point at which logic and observation and pattern recognition switches from "not science" to "science". I do not believe that threshold is well defined, science has been performed in many different ways across different fields and across history. For example, plenty of science was done before the invention of statistics or double blind trials. defining science as a scale is a way to acknowledge that there isn't any threshold point, and yet still have a way to describe things as more scientific, less scientific, or unscientific.
So I didn't invent this definition to win an argument, but to better reflect how I do not view science as a binary concept. It is far too broad a term, encompassing too many factors to be so simplistically divided.
Xavion251 t1_jdsqvw6 wrote
>I actually differentiated science vs knowledge.
I didn't say you didn't. I said "You're still basically just re-defining "science" into "good way of gaining knowledge" ". In other words, you are essentially re-defining "science" to refer to all methods of gaining knowledge that work.
> am claiming that science includes all the component steps of the process. You can't do science without deductive reasoning, so either we claim deductive reasoning is scientific, or we claim it is necessary but insufficient.
Just because deductive reasoning is part of science doesn't mean that all deductive reasoning is scientific. To make a crude analogy - that's like saying that wheels are fundamentally vehicular because they are a part of vehicles.
I don't think it fits with how the term is used to describe every person's normal experiences, deductions, and intuitions as "scientific" simply because there are elements of overlap.
>So why would I go with a more permissive definition? Because the alternative requires some arbitrary threshold, a point at which logic and observation and pattern recognition switches from "not science" to "science".
I don't think a definition of "following the scientific method" for "science" is an arbitrary threshold.
It is a "hard" line, but not all things are spectrums. Not all things that aren't spectrums are "arbitrary". Sometimes (admittedly somewhat rarely), there are just hard binaries.
EatThisShoe t1_jdssgy6 wrote
> I don't think a definition of "following the scientific method" for "science" is an arbitrary threshold.
> It is a "hard" line, but not all things are spectrums. Not all things that aren't spectrums are "arbitrary". Sometimes (admittedly somewhat rarely), there are just hard binaries.
Well that's something that we can actually explore. What scientific method are we using though? Gathering data and testing hypotheses is very broad. Calculating statistical significance and running double blind experiments is much narrower. Does it need to be written down? Published in a journal? Does science done before the invention of statistics count as science?
If there is a hard line, then where is it?
Xavion251 t1_jdwzbfd wrote
I would say "setting out with the intent to create a hypothesis and test it (in some way) to determine the truth".
EatThisShoe t1_jdxgzzj wrote
Ok, I think that's a pretty reasonable definition. Working with that definition we could claim, for example, that logical deduction is not science because it doesn't actually test the conclusion as a hypothesis.
Tying this back into the original question, I would say that I would question whether logical deduction without testing against reality actually produces knowledge. A logical conclusion is true only if the premises are true, if we later tested that conclusion against reality we might find that it is false.
Xavion251 t1_jdy35dv wrote
Testing it is a way to confirm it, but ultimately not fundamentally necessary. Every logical deduction that turns out to be false will be falsd because there was some error in the logic (either a false premise or a conclusion that doesn't follow).
That means that a (obviously purely hypothetical) person who is 100% perfect at understanding and applying logic could always deduce the truth with perfect accuracy - without testing anything.
While the above hypothetical example is of course impossible - it's simply taking what is to an extreme. Showing that logic does and must work regardless of whether science is involved.
Science is a good thing, it works very well - especially at obtaining knowledge that leads to technology. But that doesn't mean it's the be-all-end-all.
It's possible to be too "pro" a good thing and too "anti" a bad thing.
EatThisShoe t1_jdybnc3 wrote
> That means that a (obviously purely hypothetical) person who is 100% perfect at understanding and applying logic could always deduce the truth with perfect accuracy - without testing anything.
This I cannot agree with. First you are assuming an infinite regress of provable premises, which you cannot logically prove to be true. Even the claim that all logical statements are true is not something that is proven, it is assumed to be true because it has not be demonstrated to be wrong.
The fact that even you admit this scenario is impossible is the exact problem. You cannot derive knowledge via an impossible process.
Xavion251 t1_jdzazg1 wrote
>The fact that even you admit this scenario is impossible is the exact problem. You cannot derive knowledge via an impossible process.
Taking real things to a hypothetical (but practically impossible) extreme is actually a very good way to logically work through something.
>Even the claim that all logical statements are true is not something that is proven, it is assumed to be true because it has not be demonstrated to be wrong.
It is impossible to understand anything (including science) if logic does not work. So we can't really even have a discussion on whether or not logic works, all conversation necessarily assumes that logic works.
>First you are assuming an infinite regress of provable premises,
No I don't. Eventually all premises boil down to direct, shared experiences that everyone (or almost everyone) can agree on. So does science. So does everything, really.
EatThisShoe t1_je41hjz wrote
> It is impossible to understand anything (including science) if logic does not work. So we can't really even have a discussion on whether or not logic works, all conversation necessarily assumes that logic works.
I didn't say logic doesn't work. I said that every logical conclusion is based on premises, and those premises are things that people take for granted, not things that are proven true with logic.
> No I don't. Eventually all premises boil down to direct, shared experiences that everyone (or almost everyone) can agree on. So does science. So does everything, really.
Experiences are subjective, even if you and I agree on something that does not mean it is true. And it is absolutely not the same as logically proving that it is true.
Logic can't get you out of the infinite regress. You appeal to a shared experience, which is not a logical argument. And even shared experience can be wrong. We have plenty of evidence that demonstrates how people's perception does not match reality. So how can you claim that a logical conclusion, that has not been shown to match reality is knowledge?
It fundamentally comes down to this: If your belief, or your logical conclusion, or our shared experience does not match reality, then which is correct?
Xavion251 t1_je526zc wrote
>It fundamentally comes down to this: If your belief, or your logical conclusion, or our shared experience does not match reality, then which is correct?
How would you know if those things don't match reality? You can't observe reality independently of these methods (experience, belief, logical conclusion, science, etc.).
>Experiences are subjective, even if you and I agree on something that does not mean it is true. And it is absolutely not the same as logically proving that it is true.
Fundamentally, experience is all we have. Even in science, everything boils down to an experience. You experience the data and the experimentation through your senses. Experience is inescapable, it is all we have, all we are.
> I said that every logical conclusion is based on premises, and those premises are things that people take for granted, not things that are proven true with logic.
All premises eventually go back to experiences we can all agree on. Even things as basic as "the world exists", "humans exist", etc. You can't transcend/escape that, even with science.
You can't leave your own subjective experience, that's ultimately the only way anyone can know anything. You wouldn't be able to know science works at all if you didn't experience it working.
EatThisShoe t1_je5lihe wrote
> How would you know if those things don't match reality? You can't observe reality independently of these methods (experience, belief, logical conclusion, science, etc.).
We don't do it independently of our experiences. We do it by having new experiences. Our experiences are not truth, they can be inconsistent.
> All premises eventually go back to experiences we can all agree on. Even things as basic as "the world exists", "humans exist", etc. You can't transcend/escape that, even with science.
I think we're in a greement here. The issue is that you said this:
> a (obviously purely hypothetical) person who is 100% perfect at understanding and applying logic could always deduce the truth with perfect accuracy - without testing anything.
That doesn't follow unless you assume that your experiences are always true, and that any logical conclusion drawn from your experience then must be true.
WrongAspects t1_jdu16xl wrote
How do you evaluate the premises of the argument without science?
Xavion251 t1_jdwz0ky wrote
Prior arguments and experience. Like people have done for all history.
WrongAspects t1_jdxa0t3 wrote
What do you think science is?
Xavion251 t1_jdy1njl wrote
Trying to obtain knowledge via the scientific method - which making and testing hypotheses.
That does not describe all arguments and premises that work.
Experiencing something isn't making and testing a hypothesis. Not sure what you're trying to get at.
WrongAspects t1_jdyw3n2 wrote
What do you think experiments are? Aren’t they experiences? Do you think science doesn’t involve reasoning? Do you think mathematics is not reasoning?
Do you have knowledge of things you never experienced?
Xavion251 t1_jdzafia wrote
>Aren’t they experiences?
All experiments are experiences, but not all experiences are experiments.
>Do you think science doesn’t involve reasoning?
All science involves reasoning, but not all reasoning is a part of science.
>Do you think mathematics is not reasoning?
Mathematics is logic, not necessarily reasoning depending on definition. Even so, not all reasoning is math.
>Do you have knowledge of things you never experienced?
Nope. Everything must be experienced in some form. If I learn something from reading a book, I still had to experience the book in some way (usually reading via eyesight).
WrongAspects t1_jdzbh0r wrote
You are so confused it’s not even funny. Look at how you are twisting the world to back your anti science stance.
Xavion251 t1_je0fq3x wrote
So...
"Not believing science is the be-all-end-all that the world should revolve around" = "anti-science stance"?
That's a very cult-like mindset.
Science is a very good methodology for gaining truths, particularly truths that lead to technological advancement. That doesn't mean it's a God we should all bow down too - which is how you seem to be treating it.
WrongAspects t1_je3tcm4 wrote
You are one denying that experiences are not experiments right?
Xavion251 t1_je511vl wrote
They're not. That can be, but they are not fundamentally.
WrongAspects t1_je6wf09 wrote
Every time you have an expectation it’s an experiment. All experiences are experiments. You have a world view in your head and you are trying to see if it matches reality.
BernardJOrtcutt t1_jdl705q wrote
Please keep in mind our first commenting rule:
> Read the Post Before You Reply
> Read/listen/watch the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed.
This subreddit is not in the business of one-liners, tangential anecdotes, or dank memes. Expect comment threads that break our rules to be removed. Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.
This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.
GSilky t1_jdouuty wrote
Hey, I learned a new term today!
Anyway, don't social studies pretty much do the tea leaf adoption? The definition I keep hearing from practitioners for what makes a science (paraphrase: a body of knowledge that agrees within itself in order to make predictions) is the same one Llewellyn George used in the early 20th century to show astrology is a science, and it actually works.
[deleted] t1_jdsy0yn wrote
[deleted]
YawnTractor_1756 t1_jdi6yze wrote
The meaning of the term "scientism" is "excessive belief in the power of scientific knowledge and techniques.". Yet the article says: "there is 'excessive' scientism, and 'not excessive' scientism, but no one holds that excessive scientism views, so we won't discuss them".
>...most attention has been focused on the most radical version (upper left corner), which states that the natural sciences are the only valid form of knowledge. This is a pretty extreme view, which would imply that all of the humanities and social sciences are just rubbish. I believe this version of scientism is relatively easy to knock down, but in fact barely anyone holds it
So not only the article perverted the meaning of the term, but after that they artificially pre-picked only 'good' meanings, and this way "proved" that scientism is therefore good for you. Very scientific way to "prove" things.