The Folly of Scientism

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
User avatar
Parodite
Posts: 5643
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 9:43 pm

Re: The Folly of Scientism

Post by Parodite »

Nonc Hilaire wrote:
Parodite wrote:I think those ethical committees and standards are the result of sound scientific observation.
Observing Dr. Mengele?
Mengele certainly is a very interesting human specimen to observe and do science on, especially in the context of ethical committees and moral standards of sorts.

How would you arrive at ethical committees standards and moral standards without science also on psychopaths? On mirror neurons? On social phenomena like dehumanizing other groups of people that possibly desensitize mirror neurons and/or block the attached emotional centers in the brain.. how would that work?

On the question of animal sentience and emotion, notably mammals but also other species? Can they experience as much pain and distress as we do? how you do science on such questions? Is it possible, needed, helpful?

Somehow I think that just praying for revelations is not really the most helpful approach here.

Well, of course it matters what you want to label as science. Usually people associate science with a detached, cold, calculating, dissecting sort of activity not much different from forensic science on corpses. A surgeon may empathize with his patient.. but the moment he starts fixing body parts.. he has to shut down emotions of empathy in order to focus on what he is doing like a car mechanic.

So the question I like to throw in the air now that we are stuck in the mud in the middle of nowhere anyways:

1. Where does science start and where does it end?

Does science start when a surgeon stops observing his fellow human being on the level of normal eye to eye human interaction.. beginning to execute the technicalities of opening a body, checking the interiors cutting and stitching things?

Was it not science when Albert Einstein was walking in the park pondering in his mind questions and riddles using his imagination and devising thought experiments... but only science when he came up with a ready to test and falsifiable theory?

Does science end the moment a theory is empirically confirmed enough times.. or do those answers raise new questions.. that in turn require more pondering... free imagination... new experiments and models? Does this cycle ever end?

If all science starts with an observation... why would "just observing another human being" that is in distress and causing your mirror neurons to generate empathy not be a full and necessary part of the cycle of the scientific method.. namely the first step?

How, and this a good illustration I think of the fact-value distinction, would you separate fact and value here? The factin this example is that you observe somebody in pain or distress and feel empathy. You can try of course to separate yourself from what you observe.. but that is never factual, the separation just serves an analytical purpose and planning future action, like deciding on a MRI scan.. or an operation right away. Sometimes just a pat on the shoulder will do.

So this brings me to me second muddy question to throw in the air:

2. Can observation of fact be value free?

I would say no.. facts are never value free. What makes them facts.. is that they have intrinsic value. "Things without value" is a contradiction. As saying "facts have no meaning" is false. Everything "has meaning", or rather.. is meaningful, has significance.

Or as somebody (forgot who, David Bohm?) once said it: "Life has no meaning.. it is its meaning."

So I'll just say that all facts are always meaningful. How else could it be? CAVEAT: there are as many different types of value or meaning.. as there are different sorts of facts!

Poking in an anesthetized brain while looking at monitors with graphs and bleeps creates a different sort of fact alias meaning than talking to, observing the patient's behavior and facial expressions before the operation. Is one set of observations, of facts, of meaning.. part of the scientific activity... while another is not?

The reason that it is very hard to determine where science starts and ends.. is probably because it seamlessly builds on our natural modes of learning, of problem solving and tool-making.

Austin L. Hughes makes this important observation in his article where he is a 100% right:
The criterion of falsifiability is appealing in that it highlights similarities between science and the trial-and-error methods we use in everyday problem-solving. If I have misplaced my keys, I immediately begin to construct scenarios — hypotheses, if you will — that might account for their whereabouts: Did I leave them in the ignition or in the front door lock? Were they in the pocket of the jeans I put in the laundry basket? Did I drop them while mowing the lawn? I then proceed to evaluate these scenarios systematically, by testing predictions that I would expect to be true under each scenario — in other words, by using a sort of Popperian method.
Last edited by Parodite on Fri Aug 01, 2014 3:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Deep down I'm very superficial
User avatar
NapLajoieonSteroids
Posts: 8390
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2011 7:04 pm

Re: The Folly of Scientism

Post by NapLajoieonSteroids »

I focus my attention elsewhere for a few days and a party breaks out. :D
Parodite wrote:NapL, I promised to recap of why I think representational realism is of great relevance re science, and some of the worries re science as they were and are expressed in the form of a criticism of Scientism. I will let go however. You can find these arguments, ie the primer of them, in this thread already. Given that you summarized it the way you did with your initial entry in this thread, I now think that most likely it will turn out another waste of time from where I sit, as with Kmich and Nonc who simply refused to acknowledge some of the obvious.

Also given that you mentioned that to you the discussion about intent is way more interesting, gives me little hope our discussion will be fruitful. Many years ago I was on a list where all of these issues where in and out from left to right over and over again discussed with some big shot profis also participating. I found that the moment philosophers start to weave their flying carpets.. from "quantum consciousness" to sophisticated definitional-semantic constructs about "intent and consciousness", various other types of theories about consciousness, mind-matter relationships.. to me were not much more than castles of verbal sophistry, pieces of verbal art at best.

A good place to dig for this type of verbal art is the site of Dave Chalmers. Years ago I've been digging that stuff, but most of it really is just verbal knitting and juggling with concepts to no end. Just IMO of course, and nothing wrong with word knitting as an art form "an sich". See his collection of online papers on Intentionality. Not saying there are no gems in there... just saying my frontal lobes aren't able to process those cheese burgers anymore.
If you don't find it fruitful or enjoyable, it's the way it is and there is no need to continue. We aren't brokering world peace here. As for Chalmers, thanks, I am already familiar with his work.
User avatar
kmich
Posts: 1087
Joined: Mon Jan 27, 2014 11:46 am

Re: The Folly of Scientism

Post by kmich »

Probably one way to address the issues of scientific integrity and shake off the quasi scientific mud here is to offer a clarification on the intentions and limits of scientific inquiry.

From the last chapter of Karl Popper's The Logic of Scientific Discovery, a highly recommended work for anyone who is actually serious on this subject:
Science is not a system of certain, or well-established, statements; nor is it a system which steadily advances towards a state of finality. Our science is not knowledge (epistēme): it can never claim to have attained truth, or even a substitute for it, such as probability.

Yet science has more than mere biological survival value. It is not only a useful instrument. Although it can attain neither truth nor probability, the striving for knowledge and the search for truth are still the strongest motives of scientific discovery. We do not know: we can only guess. And our guesses are guided by the
unscientific, the metaphysical (though biologically explicable) faith in laws, in regularities which we can uncover—discover. Like Bacon, we might describe our own contemporary science—‘the method of reasoning which men now ordinarily apply to nature’—as consisting of ‘anticipations, rash and premature’ and of ‘prejudices’.

But these marvellously imaginative and bold conjectures or ‘anticipations’ of ours are carefully and soberly controlled by systematic tests. Once put forward, none of our ‘anticipations’ are dogmatically upheld. Our method of research is not to defend them, in order to prove how right we were. On the contrary, we try to overthrow them. Using all the weapons of our logical, mathematical, and technical armoury, we try to prove that our anticipations were false—in order to put forward, in their stead, new unjustified and unjustifiable anticipations, new ‘rash and premature prejudices’, as Bacon derisively called them...

The old scientific ideal of epistēme — of absolutely certain, demonstrable knowledge—has proved to be an idol. The demand for scientific objectivity makes it inevitable that every scientific statement must remain tentative forever. It may indeed be corroborated, but every corroboration is relative to other statements which, again, are tentative. Only in our subjective experiences of conviction, in our subjective faith, can we be ‘absolutely certain’.

With the idol of certainty (including that of degrees of imperfect certainty or probability) there falls one of the defences of obscurantism which bar the way of scientific advance. For the worship of this idol hampers not only the boldness of our questions, but also the rigour and the integrity of our tests. The wrong view of science betrays itself in the craving to be right; for it is not his possession of knowledge, of irrefutable truth, that makes the man of science, but his persistent and recklessly critical quest for truth.
User avatar
NapLajoieonSteroids
Posts: 8390
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2011 7:04 pm

Re: The Folly of Scientism

Post by NapLajoieonSteroids »

My intention about intention is that if we accept that we are intentional agents who as inter-subjective creatures communicate through shared inferences and rigorous intuitions, then we preclude the applicability of science (as generally understood) from law-like generalizations, quantifiable measurements or hard-science levels of predictability [again, generally. The specifics would be a long digression] Scientism, when it is spoken about with some sort of coherence and not mentioned in a half-baked essay like the Steven Pinker one much earlier in the thread, is merely an emotional push for more empiricism of some form or another in our lives. As the philosopher Alasdair MacIntyre once pointed out, there distinct difference between empiricism and what scientists do [he goes so far as to call them opposite and conflicting movements that merged with great confusion over the course of the 18th century]- even if one accepts that more scientists think of themselves as an order of empiricists. When this is promoted as scientism, or logical positivism, or naturalism or verificationism, or all the various ideas which have overlap on point here; it is no semantically different than a call for religious revival.
User avatar
Marcus
Posts: 2409
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2011 2:23 pm
Location: Alaska

Re: The Folly of Scientism

Post by Marcus »

NapLajoieonSteroids wrote:. . no semantically different than a call for religious revival.
As CS would say, "Quite."

Fundamentalists, like Joseph's coat, come in many colors . . ;)
"The jawbone of an ass is just as dangerous a weapon today as in Sampson's time."
--- Richard Nixon
******************
"I consider looseness with words no less of a defect than looseness of the bowels."
—John Calvin
User avatar
Parodite
Posts: 5643
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 9:43 pm

Re: The Folly of Scientism

Post by Parodite »

Science in general, included empirical science can be of great value and help if you want to answer moral questions and a host of other things. What is it with you guys being so allergic to it? Sounds like yer afraid of yer own shadows hiding under yer own beds. Religious revival? I'd say paranoid denial...
Deep down I'm very superficial
User avatar
Marcus
Posts: 2409
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2011 2:23 pm
Location: Alaska

Re: The Folly of Scientism

Post by Marcus »

Parodite wrote:. . science can be of great value and help if you want to answer moral questions . .
Give me a couple examples, please . .
"The jawbone of an ass is just as dangerous a weapon today as in Sampson's time."
--- Richard Nixon
******************
"I consider looseness with words no less of a defect than looseness of the bowels."
—John Calvin
User avatar
NapLajoieonSteroids
Posts: 8390
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2011 7:04 pm

Re: The Folly of Scientism

Post by NapLajoieonSteroids »

Now, on pg.2 or 3 of this thread Parodite defines scientism as an opinion that the scientific method produces the most reliable information about ourselves and the world we live in. He then suggests that this must be proven wrong and a better alternative explained in order to drop scientism. I don't see why the burden is to prove it wrong and suggest a better alternative- it is unreasonably high for something that is a mere 'opinion' but we'll get to that later. For the sake of argument, we'll use this definition of scientism.

To start off with, how is "the most reliable information about ourselves" defined? I think in order to determine that, we need to figure out what are the more important sciences when it comes to humans. Astronomy is great, Chemistry terrific, and we can't live as we do without them; but are the most important sciences to 'us'? How about biology, psychology, sociology, anthropology, climatology, ecology et al.? The sciences most near and dear to humans are of the soft-science variety and reasonably, if we are to apply more science to our lives, that scientific frontier is to be found in the social sciences where they do not presently monopolized the criteria of knowledge. The information here tells us most about ourselves because it is more intimately involved with us as us. This is where we must find the most reliable information But do we? It is no secret that these sciences do not produce the same level of law-like generalizations, quantifiable measurements or predictive capabilities near anything the hard sciences are capable. Many in these softer social sciences will either readily admit as much or argue that what they are doing is different and more probabilistic. I have no problem with the idea that they are doing something different that is currently falling under the umbrella of science, but it is certainly a stretch to accept that their work is on probability. There are many engineering jobs working on probability of applied sciences and they look nothing like the vague proclamations found in softer sciences. If science is supposed to lead to a diminution of errors over time, the softer sciences (especially the social sciences) are not doing a particularly bang-up job. We've about 300 years of various softer sciences, side-by-side with the harder variety, and the latter has outpaced the former manifold times. It isn't even close. So with this 300 year empirical record of general failure and very small progress; we are supposed to agree that this produces the most reliable information about ourselves?

But let's say we are optimistic it will work itself out and decide to take a 4000 year nap in the meantime. Upon awaking we greet a wonderful future where humans were able to predict and explain everything about ourselves with hard quantifiable measurements and data that could predict our next move, read our mind, and express our deepest desires better than we could. Well, it sounds like a great triumph of science but, it is not really telling us anything. Even with knowledge down to the minutiae of our biology, we would not cease to be those intentional agents carrying out our own thoughts and activities. When we ask for reasons and motives, we are not asking for causal explanations [in the scientific sense]. We are merely asking "is this good reasoning?" which needs not any further explanation since reasoning is not true or false but ostensively valid or invalid depending on the premises. So what is gleaned doesn't really interfere with us as actors, making it more superfluous than informative.

So we arrive to a third, even more abstract (but important) concern. I'm sure you [the plural you- the yous out there] find this as plausible as horse lavender. Alright, let's go back and say that intentional agency doesn't interfere like I said it does in either of the first two concerns. Contrary to my rambling, we are just around the corner from the social science revolution. There will be breakthroughs and progress galore. Well, okay; what happens in such a scenario? The men and women who make such a breakthrough will effectively render anyone without their knowledge and expertise predictable. Those that are predictable will for all intents and purposes lose their agency to the informed. The person who learns what antecedent conditions are required for a certain outcome, the rules can and will be observed to manipulate the uninformed in any situation where they are coupled. That manipulation need not be thought of as malicious and it is enough for the observer to merely focus on changing his own behavior. In and of itself, humans do precisely this all the time from playing card games to war- manipulate what is known and predictable against an opponent; make yourself more unpredictable to him or her. But the difference is that if coupled with the scientific method, as we have been discussing, we lose all referents of distinction between the observed and the observer. We lose the ability to distinguish when an agent is a real technique from the sciences of human behavior or rather a deceptive and self-deceptive social performance mimicking what such a technique may entail. This last area is perhaps why we have such trouble with some present day social sciences.

Bringing this back around, scientism as understood states the notion that the scientific method gives us the most reliable information about ourselves and the world around us and we need more of it in our lives. If there was anything wrong with that method, it would need to be proved and something else suggested. Well, we don't see why the burden falls on us to suggest something else. It's unimportant really, because the purpose isn't to denigrate the scientific method but to explore if scientism as understood gives us the most reliable information about ourselves and the world around us. So by starting with the criterion above and a presupposition of intentionality, let's apply my above concerns. We started by suggesting that the empirical comparison of present day softer sciences to the traditional, more rigorous, 'harder' stuff leaves us with no standards. In comparison, the softer sciences do not have as exacting standards, they are not as quantifiable, they do not suggest the same law like generalities in their conclusions, they are weak prognosticators. In theory they are supposed to be using the same scientific method but the results are not in the same league of reliability. That being said, we can't account for, if or when future, genius will correct this weakness- as of yet, it has a very unreliable record. So then we imagined a situation where those sciences were on par with the big boys and could be reliably applicable to our own benefit. The problem here is at least an analytic one. Even if the future genius occurs, as it very well may, it tells us a lot less than we could imagine. It would not be a new alchemical type breakthrough because there are two fundamentally different questions at heart here. When we ask a person for his or her reasons and motives, we are not making a scientific inquiry. We may perfectly well observe, predict and measure humans in the same sense as comets but there is still an actor whose reasons and motives are his or her own.
Finally, we looked at it from an opposite angle- what if we are wrong about the above, what then? It is easy to observe through present data that the scientific method, if applied to the soft sciences as applied to the hard sciences, would render the whole method dysfunctional. There would come a point where the agency of one class would make it difficult for the other classes (and themselves) to distinguish real from imaginary technique and data.

Where does this leave us? Well, it suggests that the scientific method, when applied to intentional agents such as human beings; has a track record for unreliable to poor prognostications; the facts themselves would not answer anything significant about our behavior; and it could possibly make the whole process useless because it would be hard to correct it from a becoming a type of superstitious custom.

All things considered, we may as well choose Scientology with results like that. It would leave you with the same puncher's chance at being right and you wouldn't have to suffer through all the schooling. :mrgreen:
User avatar
kmich
Posts: 1087
Joined: Mon Jan 27, 2014 11:46 am

Re: The Folly of Scientism

Post by kmich »

Thanks for the post, NapLajoieonSteroids.

To hopefully add briefly some definition to the discussion:

“Reliability,” as defined in science is about yielding the same or compatible results in different clinical experiments or statistical trials. It is a property reflecting coherence and correspondence of measurement. Since consistency of measurement between different investigators is a cornerstone of scientific method, stating that science is the most “reliable” way to investigate phenomena is true by definition, but meaningless in any discussion on the boundaries of science.

The real concern in such discussions is the issue of scientific validity, which is how well the measurement actually reflects the phenomena it is supposed to measure. This is where the boundaries of science lie. Validity is entirely dependent on the objects of investigation and the methods/measures selected for their investigation. The respective validities of measurements and methods vary from the comparably successful in determining relatively robust relations to the null hypothesis, but, in all cases, remain incomplete, tentative, and in constant refinement.

Science cannot be coherently understood as universally the “most valid” way to understand the world since “science” is a collection of evolving measurements, technologies, and methods and not some singular framework to approach the world. To claim that “science” is the most valid way to investigate phenomena is incoherent since science is a collection of constantly evolving methodological artifacts not some universal epistemological principle.

If people prefer such epistemological assertions, that is their business, but please do not call it "science," call it opinion.
User avatar
Marcus
Posts: 2409
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2011 2:23 pm
Location: Alaska

Re: The Folly of Scientism

Post by Marcus »

kmich wrote:. . stating that science is the most “reliable” way to investigate phenomena is true by definition, but meaningless in any discussion on the boundaries of science.

Science cannot be coherently understood as universally the “most valid” way to understand the world since “science” is a collection of evolving measurements, technologies, and methods and not some singular framework to approach the world. To claim that “science” is the most valid way to investigate phenomena is incoherent since science is a collection of constantly evolving methodological artifacts not some universal epistemological principle.

If people prefer such epistemological assertions, that is their business, but please do not call it "science," call it opinion.

Bingo . . . !
nail.jpeg
nail.jpeg (6.18 KiB) Viewed 896 times
"The jawbone of an ass is just as dangerous a weapon today as in Sampson's time."
--- Richard Nixon
******************
"I consider looseness with words no less of a defect than looseness of the bowels."
—John Calvin
User avatar
Marcus
Posts: 2409
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2011 2:23 pm
Location: Alaska

Re: The Folly of Scientism

Post by Marcus »

NapLajoieonSteroids wrote:. . Where does this leave us? Well, it suggests that the scientific method, when applied to intentional agents such as human beings; has a track record for unreliable to poor prognostications; the facts themselves would not answer anything significant about our behavior; and it could possibly make the whole process useless because it would be hard to correct it from a becoming a type of superstitious custom. . .
Bingo . . !
nail.jpeg
nail.jpeg (6.18 KiB) Viewed 894 times
Living things are illogical, unsystematic, unpredictable, uncontrollable. Studying dead things is a useful endeavor, and it is one of the great achievements of the West to give space to a sub-community devoted to science and given the right to 'systematic error.' ‚Rosenstock-Huessy
"The jawbone of an ass is just as dangerous a weapon today as in Sampson's time."
--- Richard Nixon
******************
"I consider looseness with words no less of a defect than looseness of the bowels."
—John Calvin
User avatar
Zack Morris
Posts: 2837
Joined: Mon Dec 26, 2011 8:52 am
Location: Bayside High School

Re: The Folly of Scientism

Post by Zack Morris »

kmich wrote: Science cannot be coherently understood as universally the “most valid” way to understand the world since “science” is a collection of evolving measurements, technologies, and methods and not some singular framework to approach the world.
You seem to be mistaking the current body of scientific knowledge for "science". Science is broadly defined as a rational inquiry of reality. It is the application of logic and reason, supported by factual evidence, toward understanding the world. Anything that falls within this domain will be considered science. It is by definition the most objective way of understanding the world.
User avatar
kmich
Posts: 1087
Joined: Mon Jan 27, 2014 11:46 am

Re: The Folly of Scientism

Post by kmich »

Zack Morris wrote:
kmich wrote: Science cannot be coherently understood as universally the “most valid” way to understand the world since “science” is a collection of evolving measurements, technologies, and methods and not some singular framework to approach the world.
You seem to be mistaking the current body of scientific knowledge for "science". Science is broadly defined as a rational inquiry of reality. It is the application of logic and reason, supported by factual evidence, toward understanding the world. Anything that falls within this domain will be considered science. It is by definition the most objective way of understanding the world.
Science is a practice, and it is not defined by its body of knowledge but by its questions and related methods. Its domain is not an epistemological given, but is bounded by its methodology. Whether an idea is objective, logical, or rational to the fashions of the age is not relevant; whether that idea is testable and falsifiable is. Methodological conventions in science are diverse, tentative, incomplete, and evolving, so science cannot make a claim that it is "by definition the most objective way of understanding the world" since such a statement is only an untestable, petitio principii.

Many scientific advances have been initially dismissed by contemporaries as irrational and illogical, from Faraday's electromagnetic fields to Marshall and Warren's work with Helicobacter pylori as a vector for gastric ulcers. Elevating science to a general standard of preeminent logic and rationality, in practice, often tends to suppress such creative scientific inquiries under the weight of the intellectual fashions and pretensions of the age.

Zack, if you want to make some universal, epistemological claim for what you consider "science," that, of course, is your right to do so. Medical science is simply something I do sometimes productively and sometimes not. I will not claim beyond that.

(back to work. beepers, beepers... :| )
Mr. Perfect
Posts: 16973
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am

Re: The Folly of Scientism

Post by Mr. Perfect »

Zack Morris wrote:
kmich wrote: Science cannot be coherently understood as universally the “most valid” way to understand the world since “science” is a collection of evolving measurements, technologies, and methods and not some singular framework to approach the world.
You seem to be mistaking the current body of scientific knowledge for "science". Science is broadly defined as a rational inquiry of reality. It is the application of logic and reason, supported by factual evidence, toward understanding the world. Anything that falls within this domain will be considered science. It is by definition the most objective way of understanding the world.
The defining characteristic of science is experiment; reason and logic had been used for millenia before with mixed results. What Bacon and Galileo did differently was experimentation.

Experimental results are often unreasonable and illogical to people at the time.
Censorship isn't necessary
User avatar
Typhoon
Posts: 27267
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 6:42 pm
Location: 関西

Re: The Folly of Scientism

Post by Typhoon »

Mr. Perfect wrote:
Zack Morris wrote:
kmich wrote: Science cannot be coherently understood as universally the “most valid” way to understand the world since “science” is a collection of evolving measurements, technologies, and methods and not some singular framework to approach the world.
You seem to be mistaking the current body of scientific knowledge for "science". Science is broadly defined as a rational inquiry of reality. It is the application of logic and reason, supported by factual evidence, toward understanding the world. Anything that falls within this domain will be considered science. It is by definition the most objective way of understanding the world.
The defining characteristic of science is experiment; reason and logic had been used for millenia before with mixed results. What Bacon and Galileo did differently was experimentation.

Experimental results are often unreasonable and illogical to people at the time.
I recall Jacob Bronowski's story about how Hegel, using his "pure reason", proved that there can only be five planets.

As JB tells it, the ink was not yet dry on Hegel's paper when the minor sixth planet, Ceres, was discovered followed by other planets.

Of course, this was experimental observation, astronomy using telescopes, rather than an experiment in a lab. Part of the scientific method and science.
May the gods preserve and defend me from self-righteous altruists; I can defend myself from my enemies and my friends.
User avatar
Marcus
Posts: 2409
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2011 2:23 pm
Location: Alaska

Re: The Folly of Scientism

Post by Marcus »

Zack Morris wrote:You seem to be mistaking the current body of scientific knowledge for "science". Science is broadly defined as a rational inquiry of [material] reality. It is the application of logic and reason, supported by factual evidence, toward understanding the [material] world. Anything that falls within this domain will be considered science. It is by definition the most objective way of understanding the [material] world.
Fixed it for you, Zack . . ;)
"The jawbone of an ass is just as dangerous a weapon today as in Sampson's time."
--- Richard Nixon
******************
"I consider looseness with words no less of a defect than looseness of the bowels."
—John Calvin
User avatar
kmich
Posts: 1087
Joined: Mon Jan 27, 2014 11:46 am

Re: The Folly of Scientism

Post by kmich »

Marcus wrote:
Zack Morris wrote:You seem to be mistaking the current body of scientific knowledge for "science". Science is broadly defined as a rational inquiry of [material] reality. It is the application of logic and reason, supported by factual evidence, toward understanding the [material] world. Anything that falls within this domain will be considered science. It is by definition the most objective way of understanding the [material] world.
Fixed it for you, Zack . . ;)
I don't think so, Marcus.

Once again, the boundaries of scientific validity are set by testable hypotheses and experimental methods not upon an a priori boundary based upon some predetermined quality such as "material." What is “material” or not has no clear definition in science anyway.
User avatar
Nonc Hilaire
Posts: 6168
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2011 1:28 am

Re: The Folly of Scientism

Post by Nonc Hilaire »

kmich wrote:
Marcus wrote:
Zack Morris wrote:You seem to be mistaking the current body of scientific knowledge for "science". Science is broadly defined as a rational inquiry of [material] reality. It is the application of logic and reason, supported by factual evidence, toward understanding the [material] world. Anything that falls within this domain will be considered science. It is by definition the most objective way of understanding the [material] world.
Fixed it for you, Zack . . ;)
I don't think so, Marcus.

Once again, the boundaries of scientific validity are set by testable hypotheses and experimental methods not upon an a priori boundary based upon some predetermined quality such as "material." What is “material” or not has no clear definition in science anyway.
Yes, productive science has been done on non-material things. Memory and aesthetics stand out immediately, but one can look almost anywhere in psychology or psychiatry and find valid research on non-material subjects.
“Christ has no body now but yours. Yours are the eyes through which he looks with compassion on this world. Yours are the feet with which he walks among His people to do good. Yours are the hands through which he blesses His creation.”

Teresa of Ávila
User avatar
Marcus
Posts: 2409
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2011 2:23 pm
Location: Alaska

Re: The Folly of Scientism

Post by Marcus »

Gotta disagree . . respectfully of course.
Last edited by Marcus on Wed Aug 06, 2014 12:24 am, edited 1 time in total.
"The jawbone of an ass is just as dangerous a weapon today as in Sampson's time."
--- Richard Nixon
******************
"I consider looseness with words no less of a defect than looseness of the bowels."
—John Calvin
User avatar
kmich
Posts: 1087
Joined: Mon Jan 27, 2014 11:46 am

Re: The Folly of Scientism

Post by kmich »

Marcus wrote:kmich & nonc,

Gotta disagree . . respectfully of course.

While the boundaries of scientific-type investigation are limitless, science itself is confined to the material/physical world. To assert that things like truth, beauty, and goodness* are scientifically definable/quantifiable is to confess, a priori, Philosophical Materialism

To each his own . .
I cannot speak for NH but, for myself, I never said or implied any of that. To each his own indeed.
User avatar
Nonc Hilaire
Posts: 6168
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2011 1:28 am

Re: The Folly of Scientism

Post by Nonc Hilaire »

You are muddying the waters, Marcus. Stick to memory for a clear picture.

Memories are not material, but they are systematically observable. The search for the engram was a failure, but that does not make memory scientifically unapproachable.
“Christ has no body now but yours. Yours are the eyes through which he looks with compassion on this world. Yours are the feet with which he walks among His people to do good. Yours are the hands through which he blesses His creation.”

Teresa of Ávila
User avatar
kmich
Posts: 1087
Joined: Mon Jan 27, 2014 11:46 am

Re: The Folly of Scientism

Post by kmich »

To interject here. To distinguish what is "material" from what is not material is such an ill defined and abstruse distinction that attempting clarification may only muddy the waters further. What is the "material" nature of the quantum state of a physical system, information in a system, a photon, or a gravitational singularity? Who knows? I sure don't. See no reason to bite on Marcus' "materialist" straw-man.
User avatar
Marcus
Posts: 2409
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2011 2:23 pm
Location: Alaska

Re: The Folly of Scientism

Post by Marcus »

no intent to accuse . . just sayin' . .
Last edited by Marcus on Wed Aug 06, 2014 12:25 am, edited 1 time in total.
"The jawbone of an ass is just as dangerous a weapon today as in Sampson's time."
--- Richard Nixon
******************
"I consider looseness with words no less of a defect than looseness of the bowels."
—John Calvin
User avatar
Marcus
Posts: 2409
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2011 2:23 pm
Location: Alaska

Re: The Folly of Scientism

Post by Marcus »

If the subject is more convoluted than plain common sense . . let me know, and I'll bow out . .
Last edited by Marcus on Wed Aug 06, 2014 12:26 am, edited 1 time in total.
"The jawbone of an ass is just as dangerous a weapon today as in Sampson's time."
--- Richard Nixon
******************
"I consider looseness with words no less of a defect than looseness of the bowels."
—John Calvin
User avatar
kmich
Posts: 1087
Joined: Mon Jan 27, 2014 11:46 am

Re: The Folly of Scientism

Post by kmich »

Marcus wrote: So, yes, memories are systematically approachable and observable, but memories are not scientifically quantifiable.
Really? Says who? Memory is a function, a process, not an object, and, as a function, it is regularly quantified using measurement tests and scales with normative data for age. Neuropsychologists apply these tools regularly in the diagnosis and research of memory disorders.
Marcus wrote:
kmich wrote:To interject here. To distinguish what is "material" from what is not material is such an ill defined and abstruse distinction that attempting clarification may only muddy the waters further. What is the "material" nature of the quantum state of a physical system, information in a system, a photon, or a gravitational singularity? Who knows? I sure don't. See no reason to bite on Marcus' "materialist" straw-man.
Straw-man? This from someone who admits an inability to define "material"?

"Material" is what's physical . . a rock, a strawberry bush, a bluebird, etc., etc. This isn't exactly brain surgery. What ever happened to common sense?

"Materialism" is equally simple . . it's the belief that the physical/material cosmos is all that exists.

If the subject is more convoluted than that . . let me know, and I'll bow out . . got better things to do than listen to accusations of muddying the water and putting up a straw-man.
There is no "straw man" in stating my inability to define "material," Marcus. I am not setting up some imaginary opposition for me to refute; I am only stating my lack of clarity on the issue. Since I have never stated or implied a materialist position, your introducing that as a supposed assertion in response to me is precisely that.

Now, as far as the definition of "material" goes, if you want to apply what you call "common sense" to the definition along with strawberry bush's and bluebirds and such, that is your prerogative, Marcus.

As I state above the definition, at least in modern science, requires a kind of operational and quantifiable clarity that is anything but evident. If, in response to that, you desire to take your ball and bat and go home, that is your choice.
Post Reply