Blinded by Scientism (1 Viewer)

[Brennan77]

This is a subject I think is at the heart of disagreement in the modern world. Regardless of one's religious belief, the idea or presumption that science is the only source of objective observation and truth is ultimately absurd. It cannot stand up to its own criteria and is self-refuting. What's worse is that it leads to all sorts of ridiculousness in practice and puts us further from understanding the human experience and the nature of reality. I find that when I encounter large disagreements in worldview, it's often linked to this subject.

I'd like to submit a two part article by a Aristotelian / Thomist philosopher that I have enjoyed reading lately, Ed Feser. The article is now a bit dated but remains relevant. He's since come out with another book on the matter. Aristotle's Revenge, which I plan to attack soon.

Scientism is the view that all real knowledge is scientific knowledge—that there is no rational, objective form of inquiry that is not a branch of science. There is at least a whiff of scientism in the thinking of those who dismiss ethical objections to cloning or embryonic stem cell research as inherently “anti-science.” There is considerably more than a whiff of it in the work of New Atheist writers like Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens, who allege that because religion has no scientific foundation (or so they claim) it “therefore” has no rational foundation at all. It is evident even in secular conservative writers like John Derbyshire and Heather MacDonald, whose criticisms of their religious fellow right-wingers are only slightly less condescending than those of Dawkins and co. Indeed, the culture at large seems beholden to an inchoate scientism—“faith” is often pitted against “science” (even by those friendly to the former) as if “science” were synonymous with “reason.”

Despite its adherents’ pose of rationality, scientism has a serious problem: it is either self-refuting or trivial. Take the first horn of this dilemma. The claim that scientism is true is not itself a scientific claim, not something that can be established using scientific methods. Indeed, that science is even a rational form of inquiry (let alone the only rational form of inquiry) is not something that can be established scientifically. For scientific inquiry itself rests on a number of philosophical assumptions: that there is an objective world external to the minds of scientists; that this world is governed by causal regularities; that the human intellect can uncover and accurately describe these regularities; and so forth. Since science presupposes these things, it cannot attempt to justify them without arguing in a circle. And if it cannot even establish that it is a reliable form of inquiry, it can hardly establish that it is the only reliable form. Both tasks would require “getting outside” science altogether and discovering from that extra-scientific vantage point that science conveys an accurate picture of reality—and in the case of scientism, that only science does so.

Part I
Part II

 

[N.O.Bronco]

No, it isn't.

We know what gravity does but we have no real understanding of what it is.

And gravity is not the only mystery by any stretch. Mathematic explanations of the behavior of the universe fall apart inside black holes. The moment of the Big Bang defies the math as well, never mind what preceded the Big Bang.

The universe is accelerating outward, which is explained by theories of dark energy and dark matter, things we cannot detect. Science has a theoretical faith in the existence of these things because the universe is accelerating and something must be making it happen.

Science at its limits becomes very philosophical and must ultimately admit "we don't know".

I’d say theoretical, but the problem comes in if the next thing you are going to offer is that the explanations offered in faith therefore have an equally plausible hypothesis or chance of being real.

Which is typically where this goes.

The problem though is that there is a lot of circumstantial evidence pointing toward the existence of something described as dark matter or dark energy, there is zero empirical evidence in support of the creation myths or even the existence of a god.

 

[Archies Ghost]

I’d say theoretical, but the problem comes in if the next thing you are going to offer is that the explanations offered in faith therefore have an equally plausible hypothesis or chance of being real.

Which is typically where this goes.

The problem though is that there is a lot of circumstantial evidence pointing toward the existence of something described as dark matter or dark energy, there is zero empirical evidence in support of the creation myths or even the existence of a god.

You are making assumptions without evidence.

 

[N.O.Bronco]

You are making assumptions without evidence.

In part, correct, so what is your fully realized position on god’s existence or role in creating the universe so I no longer have to presume?

 

[SystemShock]

No, it isn't.

Yes, it is. If you describe the effects of something you are indeed explaining it.
I don't see the difference between describing how something works and explaining how something works.

Science has a theoretical faith

No.

Science at its limits becomes very philosophical

No. There is nothing philosophical about saying "I don't know". Having no knowledge of something doesn't require philosophy, it requires ignorance.

 

[Archies Ghost]

Yes, it is. If you describe the effects of something you are indeed explaining it.
I don't see the difference between describing how something works and explaining how something works.


No.


No. There is nothing philosophical about saying "I don't know". Having no knowledge of something doesn't require philosophy, it requires ignorance.

If you believe that describing the effects of something is an explanation of what it is, you do not have a fundamental understanding of basic science.

There are entire disciplines in physics devoted to trying to explain gravity.

You are a lot more religious than you think.

Home

Watch your favorite Discovery Channel shows and find bonus content on all things science, technology, nature, and more at Discovery.com.

curiosity.com

Gravitational Theories

ned.ipac.caltech.edu

Quantum Gravity (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

plato.stanford.edu

[0709.0408] Scalar theory of gravity as a pressure force

arxiv.org

 

[Archies Ghost]

In part, correct, so what is your fully realized position on god’s existence or role in creating the universe so I no longer have to presume?

All I have are questions when I get to the Big Bang and what was before.

 

[SystemShock]

If you believe that describing the effects of something is an explanation of what it is, you do not have a fundamental understanding of basic science.

You are a lot more religious than you think.

Oh, boy.

Can you do any better than this? This Hovindesque BS is boring.

 

[Archies Ghost]

Oh, boy.

Can you do any better than this? This Hovindesque BS is boring.

My religion comment was directed towards your belief without understanding.

Nothing to do with creationism or anything of that sort.

I am telling you that gravity is not yet explained.

That does not imply that I hold any sort of religious belief.

 

[JimEverett]

What is science concerned with - or better yet, according to "science" - how do we know?

It seems that the thread was started as an argument for the idea that while science is valuable because it sees knowledge as coming from observable phenomenon, there are other sources of knowledge as well.

But I am curious if everyone accepts the idea about science itself - that its basis lies in that it deals with and its sources of "knowledge" come strictly from what we observe?

Now, if you accept that, and I do, then what to make of theories that seek to explain observables by postulating unobservable entities?

It strikes me an important question regarding what is the intent of "science" - as a whole - in such an explanatory theory.

Is there anything un-"scientific" about being agnostic about such explanatory theories? And let's make clear that the explanatory theory adequately explains the observed phenomena

 

[N.O.Bronco]

All I have are questions when I get to the Big Bang and what was before.

Does this involve placing a biblical god as an equally probable causation?

 

[Heathen]

Science at its limits becomes very philosophical and must ultimately admit "we don't know".

Interesting..

So I do wonder, knowing what was said above, where do you fall on the spectrum of belief?

Does 'I don't know' lend more credence to the plausibility of a god/gods or anything that has no proof but is presupposed to exist based on culture?

 

[SystemShock]

My religion comment was directed towards your belief without understanding.

Nothing to do with creationism or anything of that sort.

I am telling you that gravity is not yet explained.

That does not imply that I hold any sort of religious belief.

I understand gravity and gravitational theory very well, thank you very much.

I don't know what religious belief you hold, but I can tell you, the "argument" you are making is very much the same "argument", buzz words and all, religious apologists make. They keep repeating the same thing, hoping that if they repeat it enough, it becomes true.

Flat-Earthers like to dip their toes into the gravity discussion as well.

There is a gazillion other things we could talk about in regards to scientific facts and laws, but since gravity is "just a theory", they can't help themselves.

Here is Lawrence Krauss giving a lecture at a university on gravity and gravitational waves. I would venture to say, he's explaining gravity and gravitational waves.




I don't know if you are trying to get in some sort of semantics spat, or just trying to troll.

 

[Archies Ghost]

Does this involve placing a biblical god as an equally probable causation?

Not really.

Hawking posited before he died that before the Big Bang there was no time, that all matter instantly existed in a proton sized object that then exploded at the beginning of time. I find that to be an unsatisfactory theory, that, since there was no time, there was nothing in existence. I do think it is possible that this universe is not the only one and consequently this frame of reference for time would not be the only one.

As I said, questions.

 

[Archies Ghost]

I understand gravity and gravitational theory very well, thank you very much.

I don't know what religious belief you hold, but I can tell you, the "argument" you are making is very much the same "argument", buzz words and all, religious apologists make. They keep repeating the same thing, hoping that if they repeat it enough, it becomes true.

Flat-Earthers like to dip their toes into the gravity discussion as well.

There is a gazillion other things we could talk about in regards to scientific facts and laws, but since gravity is "just a theory", they can't help themselves.

Here is Lawrence Krauss giving a lecture at a university on gravity and gravitational waves. I would venture to say, he's explaining gravity and gravitational waves.




I don't know if you are trying to get in some sort of semantics spat, or just trying to troll.

You really should watch the video.

A quote from the video

Gravity, we think, is also quantum mechanical

Again, we can describe the effects of gravity and even predict the existence of gravity waves but we still do not know precisely what gravity is. Science is getting closer but we are not quite there yet.

 

[SystemShock]

You really should watch the video.

I have. First watched it months ago. I like listening to Krauss.

Again, we can describe the effects of gravity and even predict the existence of gravity waves but we still do not know precisely what gravity is. Science is getting closer but we are not quite there yet.

Yes, we can describe the effects of gravity and even predict the existence of gravity.
In describing the effects of gravity, we are explaining how these effects affect everything around us, aren't we?

 

[JimEverett]

I don't think explaining the effects of gravity is what an "explanatory theory" is.

Two different theories of gravity are dealing with the same effects, trying to explain those effects, yet giving us completely different causations of the phenomena we attribute to gravity.

 

[surada]

I agree on principle, but I bet we come to vastly different conclusions
Science is obviously very important- we probably wouldn’t have 80% of our advancement without science/technology
We did not discover new lands bc of some spiritual quest, but bc we learned how to build boats
BUT
while science can provide us with the ‘how’ it does not do a great jump of explaining the ‘why’ - and the why is certainly part of the human experience
Brennan you obviously lean on religion for your WHY, while I tend to lean on “poetry”
Yours probably gives you answers that you find comfort in
Mine gives me questions that I find exciting

The Neolithic Ubaid culture of Mesopotamia built sailboats by 5500 BC. That was long before Genesis .. Religion can survive scientism.