The Folly of Scientism

[Nonc Hilaire]

An excellent, accessible longread on the necessity of both science and philosophy and the problems with Scientism.

http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publicati ... -scientism

[manolo]

An excellent, accessible longread on the necessity of both science and philosophy and the problems with Scientism.

http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publicati ... -scientism

Nonc,

That was a good piece and quite encouraging for the philosopher.

Alex.

[Parodite]

Interesting, thanks.

Just did a fast scan. Not sure what really is the point here. Maybe I missed it. Is he claiming that scientism on its own cannot produce a meaningful, useful moral system? That you'll always need some philosophy, religious or secular.. to make it work for us?

Aside.. I find the concept of scientism funny: a philosophy that says that science does not need philosophy.

His references to Sam Harris.. he sometimes misrepresents Harris I think. But it seems the question is: do you start with facts of life bottom up and construct a moral code along the way... or do you first project a moral code beyond the horizons of time and space.. and from there apply moral code back to the facts of life.

[Nonc Hilaire]

Interesting, thanks.

Just did a fast scan. Not sure what really is the point here. Maybe I missed it. Is he claiming that scientism on its own cannot produce a meaningful, useful moral system? That you'll always need some philosophy, religious or secular.. to make it work for us?

Aside.. I find the concept of scientism funny: a philosophy that says that science does not need philosophy.

His references to Sam Harris.. he sometimes misrepresents Harris I think. But it seems the question is: do you start with facts of life bottom up and construct a moral code along the way... or do you first project a moral code beyond the horizons of time and space.. and from there apply moral code back to the facts of life.

I think you got the gist. Scientism is using science as a religion/philosophy, and just as silly as using religion/philosophy as science. The scientific establishment is as corrupt as any other human enterprise.

[Parodite]

Interesting, thanks.

Just did a fast scan. Not sure what really is the point here. Maybe I missed it. Is he claiming that scientism on its own cannot produce a meaningful, useful moral system? That you'll always need some philosophy, religious or secular.. to make it work for us?

Aside.. I find the concept of scientism funny: a philosophy that says that science does not need philosophy.

His references to Sam Harris.. he sometimes misrepresents Harris I think. But it seems the question is: do you start with facts of life bottom up and construct a moral code along the way... or do you first project a moral code beyond the horizons of time and space.. and from there apply moral code back to the facts of life.

I think you got the gist. Scientism is using science as a religion/philosophy, and just as silly as using religion/philosophy as science.

It seems to me that all that scientism does, is claiming that the scientific method is superior to all other methods and modes of research. I happen to agree, but adding that doing science is much more than doing scientific research in a lab with a phd in your back pocket. We do science all the time on a more primordial level while we live, behave, feel, think and learn during the day. Here is a baby doing science already:

The scientific establishment is as corrupt as any other human enterprise.

That's a bit of a stretch.

[Nonc Hilaire]

Interesting, thanks.

Just did a fast scan. Not sure what really is the point here. Maybe I missed it. Is he claiming that scientism on its own cannot produce a meaningful, useful moral system? That you'll always need some philosophy, religious or secular.. to make it work for us?

Aside.. I find the concept of scientism funny: a philosophy that says that science does not need philosophy.

His references to Sam Harris.. he sometimes misrepresents Harris I think. But it seems the question is: do you start with facts of life bottom up and construct a moral code along the way... or do you first project a moral code beyond the horizons of time and space.. and from there apply moral code back to the facts of life.

I think you got the gist. Scientism is using science as a religion/philosophy, and just as silly as using religion/philosophy as science.

It seems to me that all that scientism does, is claiming that the scientific method is superior to all other methods and modes of research. I happen to agree, but adding that doing science is much more than doing scientific research in a lab with a phd in your back pocket. We do science all the time on a more primordial level while we live, behave, feel, think and learn during the day. Here is a baby doing science already:

The scientific establishment is as corrupt as any other human enterprise.

That's a bit of a stretch.

The author makes a good case for this. Some additional references:

“My strong suspicion is that the frequency of fraud is much greater today than it has ever been,” Relman said.

He cites two reasons for this trend: intensifying financial pressures – including the “domination of corporate interest and control of medical practice behavior and research by financial institutions” – and the fact that more and more clinical studies are being conducted every year.“The economic pressures on authors who conduct the studies are much higher.”

“The commercialization of medicine poses the greatest threat to U.S. health care,” Relman said.

Dr. Alan Blum, former editor of the Medical Journal of Australia and the New York State Journal of Medicine, agreed: “This whole popularization and commercialization of peer-reviewed medical journals is sickening. There are very few truly independent publications left – that is something that I think the public doesn’t understand.”

http://news.medill.northwestern.edu/chi ... ?id=156969

[kmich]

Science and religion should not conflict if they reside in their respective, appropriate domains. It is as damaging to the integrity of science to elevate scientific conventions to the parameters of a metaphysical world view as it is harmful for religions to anchor their faith in credulity on matters of scientific evidence and investigation.

Nonoverlapping Magisteria by Stephen Jay Gould

[Parodite]

It seems to me that all that scientism does, is claiming that the scientific method is superior to all other methods and modes of research. I happen to agree, but adding that doing science is much more than doing scientific research in a lab with a phd in your back pocket. We do science all the time on a more primordial level while we live, behave, feel, think and learn during the day. Here is a baby doing science already:

The scientific establishment is as corrupt as any other human enterprise.

You last statement may be right.. but whatsitgottodo with Scientism.

[Parodite]

Science and religion should not conflict if they reside in their respective, appropriate domains. It is as damaging to the integrity of science to elevate scientific conventions to the parameters of a metaphysical world view as it is harmful for religions to anchor their faith in credulity on matters of scientific evidence and investigation.

Nonoverlapping Magisteria by Stephen Jay Gould

Yes, it is often taken for granted and obvious.. that the two domains should nicely operate in their own respective domains and not piss over the fence. But isn´t that a weird situation...

[Nonc Hilaire]

It seems to me that all that scientism does, is claiming that the scientific method is superior to all other methods and modes of research. I happen to agree, but adding that doing science is much more than doing scientific research in a lab with a phd in your back pocket. We do science all the time on a more primordial level while we live, behave, feel, think and learn during the day. Here is a baby doing science already:

The scientific establishment is as corrupt as any other human enterprise.

You last statement may be right.. but whatsitgottodo with Scientism.

It was in the essay. Part of Scientism is an unfounded belief that science is ideologically pure, and that scientific errors are naturally self-corrected. People religiously accept media reports saying, " Scientists have found . . ." without critical analysis or comprehension of how science has been compromised by media, academic/corporate funding, and governmental control. Conclusions drawn from correlations or reporting the absence of evidence as evidence of absence are commonplace today and are taken as gospel when pronounced by the priests of Scientism. MMGW, nutritional health and psycho-pharmaceuticals are prime examples.

[Mr. Perfect]

His references to Sam Harris.. he sometimes misrepresents Harris I think.

A lot of that going around. A certain judge recently discussed.

[Mr. Perfect]

It's very odd how some of the loudest proponents of science understand what it is the least. Science is virtually/literally silent on almost everything outside the physical world.

Science is only to do with what can be determined by the scientific method.

[Parodite]

You last statement may be right.. but whatsitgottodo with Scientism.

It was in the essay. Part of Scientism is an unfounded belief that science is ideologically pure, and that scientific errors are naturally self-corrected.

Scientisim is right then: both scientific errors and corruption in the scientific community are falsified or exposed ultimately.

[Parodite]

everything outside the physical world.

Can you specify.. what that is supposed to be.

[Parodite]

Yes, it is often taken for granted and obvious.. that the two domains should nicely operate in their own respective domains and not piss over the fence. But isn´t that a weird situation...

Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind
~ A. Einstein

I think he wouldn’t have mind using imagination instead of religion in that quote. He rejected most of religious dogma but recognized that imagination is important in religion, and that it is important in science as well.

Imagination feeds and inspires science. Science, through observation and experiment, in turn feeds back and informs imagination. It is a feedback loop that cycles on and on and it is called: doing science.

I would argue that imagination is part of the scientific method and cycle. But not everything imagined is, becomes, or can be part of it. Some religious beliefs can be refuted by science, for instance a religious belief that the earth is a flat pancake or that the earth is only 6 thousand years old. Virgin birth and resurrection after death are also refuted (rendered extremely unlikely). There are plenty more.

Miracles like healing the sick by just blessing them or putting your hands on their heads would beg for proof today where sick people are healed in similar miraculous ways. Research is done on miracle-like recovery from illnesses that deserve scientific investigation. So that is not entirely beyond scientific reach.

I would also say that moral and ethical questions are not at all beyond scientific reach, for the simple fact already that a suffering person can be observed and investigated inside-out; i.e. a system of moral and ethical values can be informed by scientific observations.

But in all those cases mentioned.. religious imaginations became part of the scientific cycle and answers were produced: scientific observation and experiment have informed those religious imaginations about their validity or likelihood of being true. For extra-out-of- the-ordinary claims such as virgin birth and physical resurrection after death... extra-strong evidence is required, but it doesn’t seem forthcoming.

So what is the situation after science has cleaned out religion in this fashion? Will science continue its own cycle without input from religion because all its ideas that can become part of the scientific cycle have already been gone through the mill? Is religion thusly doomed to indulge in imaginations that can never become part of the scientific cycle only?

Or will it mean that religion re-focuses on our subjective experiences in life and the magic of consciousness? I mean.. no matter how hard, how smart.. with the most advanced quantum mechanical measurement nano-tech devices implanted in our brains… science will not find your conscious experience of the world in there. I think this is what all this is moving towards.

The facts of individual conscious experience will start matter more and more. Science sees electromagnetic wave lengths and correlation brain patterns.. but not the experiential color blue when you look into the sunny sky. Or anything else experiential.. which is.. the world as we know it. These are in fact the underlying two domains… that appear so mutually exclusive. The mind-versus-matter dichotomy. It is an old nut to crack.

[Nonc Hilaire]

You last statement may be right.. but whatsitgottodo with Scientism.

It was in the essay. Part of Scientism is an unfounded belief that science is ideologically pure, and that scientific errors are naturally self-corrected.

Scientisim is right then: both scientific errors and corruption in the scientific community are falsified or exposed ultimately.

No, if a scientist's research is not in the favor of the corrupt gatekeepers he is denied funding and/or their valid results are ignored. Science is controlled by corporate and governmental funding who enthrall the scientific establishment. It takes extensive effort by non-scientific organizations and whistleblowers to put cracks into that system.

Until now, cases of questionable research in other countries have gotten little attention in the United States. But international editors, shaken by scandal, are now publicizing them and expressing concern. This year, the July 30 issue of BMJ devoted four articles to the subject, asking on its cover: "Suspicions of fraud in medical research: Who should investigate?"

The articles discussed cases in which several publications, including BMJ, had stumbled in resolving serious doubts about the truthfulness of published studies done in Canada and India. The Canadian research claimed that a patented mix of multivitamins improved brain function in older people, and the Indian study said that low-fat, high-fiber diets cut by nearly half the risk of death from heart disease.

The BMJ said that it published its own version of the Indian research in April 1992 and that it had later investigated serious questions about the validity of the research for more than a decade before speaking out.

The difficulty, the editors said, was that journals could go only so far in fraud inquiries before needing the aid of national investigative bodies and professional associations that oversee scientific research. But in the Indian and Canadian cases, they added, such bodies either did not exist or refused to help, so "the doubts are unresolved." http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/20/scien ... TPxFk2xb7w

Look at the tobacco companies. They hid scientific evidence and it took whistleblowers and lawsuits to get that science out of the vault. We are seeing similar fraud repeated with Roundup Ready GMO seeds today and MMGW today.

[kmich]

I have no idea what NH’s problem is. I have known many scientists over the years, been to countless scientific meetings, and I have collaborated in numerous studies. I have found the vast majority of scientists and sponsoring institutions as serious about the integrity of their investigations. Even though they are not perfect and I have had many an argument with them over the persuasiveness of their findings and the clarity of their methodology, I have not experienced them as corrupt.

Criticizing the overreach of science in what has been termed “scientism” is justified and is supposedly the topic of this thread. Disparaging the scientific community as fraudulent is just more ignorant political axe grinding and is irrelevant to the discussion.

[Parodite]

Criticizing the overreach of science in what has been termed “scientism” is justified and is supposedly the topic of this thread. Disparaging the scientific community as fraudulent is just more ignorant political axe grinding and is irrelevant to the discussion.

Indeed. But I'm not sure about the overreach of "scientism". I would rather accuse them of under-reach (my spell checker objects to the term). But maybe I am speaking before knowing enough about scientism. In general I would say that many scientists that observe, study the world tend to forget they are moving around in an experiential reality.

This naïve error of believing that you look at the world directly, as-if you see it without a brain that creates the simulation/emulation, is called "direct realism". This is not always some conscious consideration.. but rather the consequence of the very convincing way the brain constructs the reality we find ourselves to exist in. As you would ask a kid if the ball is still blue when he doesn't look at it anymore... it will most likely say: "Yes.. of course!". Blue of course..is experiential blue.. a visual experience generated in the brain and not a property of the ball itself.

Direct realism argues we perceive the world directly

The question of direct or "naïve" realism, as opposed to indirect or "representational" realism, arises in the philosophy of perception and of mind out of the debate over the nature of conscious experience;[1][2] the epistemological question of whether the world we see around us is the real world itself or merely an internal perceptual copy of that world generated by neural processes in our brain. Naïve realism is known as direct realism when developed to counter indirect or representative realism, also known as epistemological dualism,[3] the philosophical position that our conscious experience is not of the real world itself but of an internal representation, a miniature virtual-reality replica of the world. Indirect realism is broadly equivalent to the accepted view of perception in natural science that states that we do not and cannot perceive the external world as it really is but know only our ideas and interpretations of the way the world is.[4] Representationalism is one of the key assumptions of cognitivism in psychology. The representational realist would deny that 'first-hand knowledge' is a coherent concept, since knowledge is always via some means. Our ideas of the world are interpretations of sensory input derived from an external world that is real (unlike the standpoint of idealism). The alternative, that we have knowledge of the outside world that is unconstrained by our sense organs and does not require interpretation, would appear to be inconsistent with everyday observation.
[...]

[Nonc Hilaire]

I have no idea what NH’s problem is. I have known many scientists over the years, been to countless scientific meetings, and I have collaborated in numerous studies. I have found the vast majority of scientists and sponsoring institutions as serious about the integrity of their investigations. Even though they are not perfect and I have had many an argument with them over the persuasiveness of their findings and the clarity of their methodology, I have not experienced them as corrupt.

Criticizing the overreach of science in what has been termed “scientism” is justified and is supposedly the topic of this thread. Disparaging the scientific community as fraudulent is just more ignorant political axe grinding and is irrelevant to the discussion.

Going back to the article, one aspect of scientism is a belief that a scientific expert in one field is an authority in all fields of science. The inverse is obviously true: scientists become more specialized and know less about details of other fields of study.

Kmitch, your experience may not reflect science in general. When the editors of JAMA and NEJM complain publicly about endemic and systemic corruption of scientific research I think those are probably valid observations. I'm guessing they have a higher viewpoint than you do, and the fact that they are making statements against their own vested interests adds to their veracity.

Not to pry, Kmitch, but is your research economically, politically or militarily important? Those seem to be the areas most affected by corruption. Not all science is corrupt and not all priests are child molesters, but you can't claim science is not subject to corruption because you have never experienced it in your particular corner of the scientific community.

[kmich]

I have no idea what NH’s problem is. I have known many scientists over the years, been to countless scientific meetings, and I have collaborated in numerous studies. I have found the vast majority of scientists and sponsoring institutions as serious about the integrity of their investigations. Even though they are not perfect and I have had many an argument with them over the persuasiveness of their findings and the clarity of their methodology, I have not experienced them as corrupt.

Criticizing the overreach of science in what has been termed “scientism” is justified and is supposedly the topic of this thread. Disparaging the scientific community as fraudulent is just more ignorant political axe grinding and is irrelevant to the discussion.

Going back to the article, one aspect of scientism is a belief that a scientific expert in one field is an authority in all fields of science. The inverse is obviously true: scientists become more specialized and know less about details of other fields of study.

Kmitch, your experience may not reflect science in general. When the editors of JAMA and NEJM complain publicly about endemic and systemic corruption of scientific research I think those are probably valid observations. I'm guessing they have a higher viewpoint than you do, and the fact that they are making statements against their own vested interests adds to their veracity.

To the credit of the scientific community, there are regular efforts to call attention to problems in the research as was addressed in the articles you indirectly referred to. I have been a peer reviewer and referee for medical journals and I know how that works. As far as NEJM and JAMA having a "higher viewpoint" than me, well, I am just going to have to write some of my colleagues who review for those journals lately and ask them for their opinion on that.

Not to pry, Kmitch, but is your research economically, politically or militarily important? Those seem to be the areas most affected by corruption. Not all science is corrupt and not all priests are child molesters, but you can't claim science is not subject to corruption because you have never experienced it in your particular corner of the scientific community.

I never claimed that science is not subject to corruption. Perhaps my parochial perspective is not as broad as yours and my research not important in the categories you mentioned. Whatever. No point in wasting my time here.

[Nonc Hilaire]

Kmitch, you were the one who who said I had a problem and then put your personal experience into the discussion without making any reference to the essay being commented on. You posts read (to me) as if you never read the essay and are blindly commenting on other's comments. Maybe not, but that's how it sounds coming from the tin can on my end of the string.

[Parodite]

Now here is a good contrasting article to the one Nonc posted in the beginning of the thread.

Science Is Not Your Enemy

An impassioned plea to neglected novelists, embattled professors, and tenure-less historians

By Steven Pinker

[.....]

The term “scientism” is anything but clear, more of a boo-word than a label for any coherent doctrine. Sometimes it is equated with lunatic positions, such as that “science is all that matters” or that “scientists should be entrusted to solve all problems.” Sometimes it is clarified with adjectives like “simplistic,” “naïve,” and “vulgar.” The definitional vacuum allows me to replicate gay activists’ flaunting of “queer” and appropriate the pejorative for a position I am prepared to defend.

Scientism, in this good sense, is not the belief that members of the occupational guild called “science” are particularly wise or noble. On the contrary, the defining practices of science, including open debate, peer review, and double-blind methods, are explicitly designed to circumvent the errors and sins to which scientists, being human, are vulnerable. Scientism does not mean that all current scientific hypotheses are true; most new ones are not, since the cycle of conjecture and refutation is the lifeblood of science. It is not an imperialistic drive to occupy the humanities; the promise of science is to enrich and diversify the intellectual tools of humanistic scholarship, not to obliterate them. And it is not the dogma that physical stuff is the only thing that exists. Scientists themselves are immersed in the ethereal medium of information, including the truths of mathematics, the logic of their theories, and the values that guide their enterprise. In this conception, science is of a piece with philosophy, reason, and Enlightenment humanism. It is distinguished by an explicit commitment to two ideals, and it is these that scientism seeks to export to the rest of intellectual life.

The first is that the world is intelligible. The phenomena we experience may be explained by principles that are more general than the phenomena themselves. These principles may in turn be explained by more fundamental principles, and so on. In making sense of our world, there should be few occasions in which we are forced to concede “It just is” or “It’s magic” or “Because I said so.” The commitment to intelligibility is not a matter of brute faith, but gradually validates itself as more and more of the world becomes explicable in scientific terms. The processes of life, for example, used to be attributed to a mysterious élan vital; now we know they are powered by chemical and physical reactions among complex molecules.

Demonizers of scientism often confuse intelligibility with a sin called reductionism. But to explain a complex happening in terms of deeper principles is not to discard its richness. No sane thinker would try to explain World War I in the language of physics, chemistry, and biology as opposed to the more perspicuous language of the perceptions and goals of leaders in 1914 Europe. At the same time, a curious person can legitimately ask why human minds are apt to have such perceptions and goals, including the tribalism, overconfidence, and sense of honor that fell into a deadly combination at that historical moment.

The second ideal is that the acquisition of knowledge is hard. The world does not go out of its way to reveal its workings, and even if it did, our minds are prone to illusions, fallacies, and super- stitions. Most of the traditional causes of belief—faith, revelation, dogma, authority, charisma, conventional wisdom, the invigorating glow of subjective certainty—are generators of error and should be dismissed as sources of knowledge. To understand the world, we must cultivate work-arounds for our cognitive limitations, including skepticism, open debate, formal precision, and empirical tests, often requiring feats of ingenuity. Any movement that calls itself “scientific” but fails to nurture opportunities for the falsification of its own beliefs (most obviously when it murders or imprisons the people who disagree with it) is not a scientific movement.

[...]

[Nonc Hilaire]

Good article, Parodite. I especially liked the observation about the contributions of science to aesthetics.

[Mr. Perfect]

everything outside the physical world.

Can you specify.. what that is supposed to be.

Human behavior. Metaphysics.

And I forgot to add the science is completely silent on things that cannot be observed, like dark matter and God. Science is silent on over 90% of currently believed existence.

[Mr. Perfect]

Yeah, on pure "Scientists" and all that.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/37 ... ek-reminds

Abuse from Climate Scientists Forces One of their Own to Resign from Skeptic Group after a Week: ‘Reminds Me of McCarthy’

On May 8, Lennart Bengtsson, a Swedish climate scientist and meteorologist, joined the advisory council of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, a group that questions the reliability of climate change and the costs of policies taken to address it. While Bengtsson maintains he’d always been a skeptic as any scientist ought to be, the foundation and climate-change skeptics proudly announced it as a defection from the scientific consensus.

Less than a week later, he says he’s been forced to resign from the group. The abuse he’s received from the climate-science community has made it impossible to carry on his academic work and made him fear for his own safety. A once-peaceful community, he says in his resignation letter, now reminds him of McCarthyism.

“I had not expect[ed] such an enormous world-wide pressure put at me from a community that I have been close to all my active life,” he wrote in his resignation. “Colleagues are withdrawing their support, other colleagues are withdrawing from joint authorship.”

His full letter:

Dear Professor Henderson,

I have been put under such an enormous group pressure in recent days from all over the world that has become virtually unbearable to me. If this is going to continue I will be unable to conduct my normal work and will even start to worry about my health and safety. I see therefore no other way out therefore than resigning from GWPF. I had not expect[ed] such an enormous world-wide pressure put at me from a community that I have been close to all my active life. Colleagues are withdrawing their support, other colleagues are withdrawing from joint authorship etc.

I see no limit and end to what will happen. It is a situation that reminds me about the time of McCarthy. I would never have expecting anything similar in such an original peaceful community as meteorology. Apparently it has been transformed in recent years.

Under these situation I will be unable to contribute positively to the work of GWPF and consequently therefore I believe it is the best for me to reverse my decision to join its Board at the earliest possible time.

With my best regards

Lennart Bengtsson