Tue Jan 26, 2010 at 16:48:12 PM EST
|
Gzodik asked vox humana a good question on that OOtvos diary:
Who are these "scientismists"? Names? Quotes from an actual practitioner of scientism, saying these things you (and your blockquote) are accusing them of saying?
by: @ Fri Jan 22, 2010 at 23:32:54 PM EST
Vox had found a definition from a perfectly reputable source, a PBS television series:
Scientism
Unlike the use of the scientific method as only one mode of reaching knowledge, scientism claims that science alone can render truth about the world and reality. Scientism's single-minded adherence to only the empirical, or testable, makes it a strictly scientifc worldview, in much the same way that a Protestant fundamentalism that rejects science can be seen as a strictly religious worldview. Scientism sees it necessary to do away with most, if not all, metaphysical, philosophical, and religious claims, as the truths they proclaim cannot be apprehended by the scientific method. In essence, scientism sees science as the absolute and only justifiable access to the truth.
And yet, no one during any of the eight long interviews found on that PBS Faith and Reason television series website ever uses the word 'scientism'. No scientismists were found, which backs up gzodik. So, where are these scientismians hiding?? Heck, it even has to be asked, by CFeagans (in 2006): Does Scientism Exist?
I think the answer's a big fat NOPE. . . . |
| fairleft :: Scientism doesn't exist |
CFeagans writes (emphasis added):
The topic of "scientism" keeps coming up in conversations with both those who criticize the rigorous demands of the scientific method as well as through a short monograph on the internet . . . with the title, Carl Sagan: Prophet of Scientism [David N. Menton, Ph.D., 1991, Missouri Association for Creation, Inc.].
Interestingly enough, the term scientism exists among scholarly references and refers to the notion that science and the scientific method can be used to explain all that can be observed or experienced in the universe. This is consistent with logical positivism, which holds that there is an objectively knowable universe.
However, a different use of scientism has been co-opted, which implies that there are those within science that are to be derided as extremists or, at the very least, alarmists who reject critical thought and reason by denying "both the special revelation of truth and the existence of a sovereign, supernatural and external being (Menton 1991)." The assumption here is that science generally accepts the supernatural and spiritual "revelations" as valid methods of obtaining truths.
More often than not, the sources of these implications and assumptions originate with theistic proponents of creation mythology. Some, however, tactically avoid the direct association with creation and supernaturalism as if to provide plausible deniability if directly called on either to produce evidence or supporting references. It is, after all, difficult to logically prove that which cannot be tested, and the intellectual and educated theist wisely avoids this. The tactic, instead, appears to be to assert that there is a subculture called scientism, which is a moral and extremist faction of real science.
The overall thesis of this assertion seems to suggest that scientism as an extremist faction of science is somehow a danger to society, perhaps with its rampant atheism and certainly with its naturalistic and materialistic views of the universe.
Menton's paper on the subject made Carl Sagan the focus of the anti-scientism movement . . .
What then is the purpose of criticizing notable figures of science with charges of "scientism" and of starting a "religion?"
For the theistic apologetics of creationism and it's guise under the form of "intelligent" design, this question's answer lies in an agenda to justify beliefs and promote doubt among believers. Indeed, the much talked about "wedge strategy" dictates, among it's goals, to seed doubt among lay persons regarding the validity of the science behind evolutionary processes in order to further the creationist agenda.
If there really is a conflict between religion and science, it is that some beliefs sustained by religious faith cannot be tested and proven or disproven making use of the scientific method. Faith and the scientific method are strangers to one another. In 2005 Spiked asked 250 well-known scientists and science educators If You Could Teach the World Just One Thing, and Lee Silver, Princeton professor of biology answered as follows:
The discipline of science is as far removed from faith as anything can possibly be
High-profile critics of science, from the left and the right sides of the political spectrum, often claim that science is just another form of faith - no different from any religion. Scientists, these critics say, have faith in the belief that science explains everything. The name attached to this supposed faith is 'scientism' . . .
Although scientific theories are usually constructed to explain previously unexplained results, they are only meaningful if they lead to empirical predictions of future events, or properties of the natural world that are not otherwise anticipated. Isaac Newton's laws of motion and gravity predict the dates of irregular lunar eclipses, which would otherwise be unexpected. Newton's laws are also used today, to predict an extraordinary number of ordinary daily events.
Theories that provide more accurate predictions and interpretations of the natural world eventually win, in the intellectual marketplace of scientific ideas. Sometimes, well-established theories - like Newton's - are superseded, not because they are fundamentally wrong, but because they express an approximation of the natural world that is later refined or generalised. So Albert Einstein's theories of relativity incorporate and go beyond Newton's laws, yet it is clear to physicists that these theories still do not represent the final word. When predictions do not pan out, an honest scientist must be ready to discard or modify their theory, no matter how dear the theory may be to their heart.
Steadfast belief in the truth of a proposition that is not supported by scientific theory or evidence - or, indeed, in the truth of a proposition that flies in the face of empirical evidence - is the definition of faith. Good science is an enemy of faith, and faith is an enemy of good science.
Don't get me wrong - I am a scientist with hopes and dreams. But I do not hold 'faith' in anything. Instead, I view the future in terms of probabilities. The Sun has come up every morning of my life, and I have every reason to think it will do so for the rest of my days. There is, however, a slight chance that I am wrong. I think my friends will come to my aid, if I need them in future, but again I might be wrong. Science and hope are different from scientism or faith.
Academic critics of science, as a discipline, are mostly irrelevant today. Instead, society is faced with covert religionists and spiritualists, who distort science and manipulate its language, to convince the public at large of the truth of their faith-based claims.
In the USA, the Catholic and Protestant fundamentalists who dominate George W Bush's national bioethics commission claim that 'scientific evidence' proves a newly fertilised embryo is a human being. As a result, these fundamentalists claim, human beings are murdered in the derivation of embryonic stem cells. In Western Europe, scientific theories and empirical data are routinely misrepresented or ignored by organic food enthusiasts, who hold steadfast to a faith in the goodness of Mother Nature and the danger of biotechnology. . . .
Lee Silver is author of books including Remaking Eden: Cloning, Genetic Engineering and the Future of Humankind? (buy this book from Amazon (UK) or Amazon (USA)), and Mouse Genetics: Concepts and Applications (buy this book from Amazon (UK) or Amazon (USA)). See his website.
Is anyone critical of Silver's point? On the same general topic, Richard Dawkins provides the following example:
At the present we think DNA really is a double helix. If ever that's found to be false we throw it out of the window and we start again, and we don't try to rediscover some inner symbolic meaning, which is exactly what they're trying to do with things like the Book of Genesis. They have thrown it out as historical fact, which is what it always was thought to be, and which many of its authors presumably intended it to be -- and they have now replaced it with a symbolic meaning: the true meaning of the Book of Genesis is this that or the other. You know the kind of thing I'm talking about. I think that it is a waste of time. I think it's nonsense.
Gzodik and CFeagans are right, 'scientism' is a red herring and hiding behind it is bringing creationism and other non-provable bullshit into science classrooms. Otherwise, I don't see what the big fuss is. Lighten up: disbelieve or believe but don't do either too deeply, blindly, or passionately. In that direction, read this: How to Spot Atheists and Report Them to the FBI. |
|
|
