Scientism and Scientific philoshopica

[Besimudo]

There is no doubt that science, as a discipline, has been the primary contributor to the relative well-being, and the greatest accomplishments, of our modern age. However this disproportionate contribution also brings problems of perspective with it.
Scientific "philoshopica" is used to denote the usefulness of current academia. Everything studied must have a use of industrial purpose for use in the market place... The familiar "what Job are you doing after you finish" may ring a bell. Essentaially this thread serves as a discussion of scientism i.e. Why is it that philosophy has been replaced in highschools with scientism & modern socialism such as evolutionary theory and history of revolutions. Many exit high school with a firm devotion to Darwin and Marx, who in reality, were very questionable individuals. (see modernism post).

One might argue that Western Thought justifiably gives a lot of credit to science. That may be so. In fact, one might say it gives it too much credit. To explain this, I must first define what I mean by science and scientism.

Science is that collection of disciplines which have one thing in common : they seek to describe and explain natural phenomena. The general method of science, although each discipline has its particular and numerous secondary methods, is called the "scientific method". It is a principle which states that when we observe a phenomenon that we need to explain, we must follow definite steps, like forming one or many hypothesis, seek to confirm or disprove them with objective experiments, see what predictions we could make on their basis and seek their confirmation, submit for peer review in various ways, and so on. This method is accepted because it works.

What do I call scientism then? The American Heritage Dictionary defines it as : "the belief that the investigative methods of the physical sciences are applicable or justifiable in all fields of inquiry". This is an appropriate definition for the phenomenon which seems endemic to Western thought. We see the success of science, and extrapolate that it must be the key to all problems. This is no doubt prompted by the apparent relative failure of philosophy.

The other side of Western thought that fulfills this role is religion. Many scientists, even in the Western world, give a lot of lip service to consilience between science and religion, although such a link is quite impossible. In the population at large, religion and science are both given a lot of lip service, but little else. This is why I say that the main struggle, and paradoxically the main fulfillment, of Western thought is between science and religion.

No doubt it is easy to recognize that scientism and humanism are in general better ideas than religions. Religious faith cannot bring anything, by its very nature, but grief and destruction. However, methods should not be chosen by a pragmatic "best fit", but rather by reality, and things just don't work that way. Science is a discipline with a definite field of application and limits.

We have to appreciate the limits of science in order to attain a true epistemic balance. As I said, science deals with tangible, natural phenomena - it cannot deal with all of the abstract or imaginary domain, such as disciplines like ethics, or ideas like supernaturalism. Its genesis and end is in measuring nature, and it can only discuss or refute things or effects which are grounded in concrete natural phenomena. Scientism is untenable because of this.

[Dr Unne]

Is there a better alternative? If so, what is it?

[Besimudo]

One could hold to empirical as opposed to philosophical science (such as evolution). Even the experts can not agree, so why should the public be forced to have a concern about such matters? People don’t apply theoretical physics to every day life so why theoretical biology should be so widely sensationalised? E.g. from Time magazine “Once again they are ignorant of evolution” … was run about a school that taught biology but omitted the scientifically flawed evolutionary history from the syllabus. From a biological perspective this is wonderful, as the students do not bare the burden of evolution theory when they empirically analyse data. Teleology and the human element are omitted, which is what science is about. The thing that both theoretical physics and theoretical biology have in common is that they change every 10 years or so – while metaphysics remains constant, from culture to culture in myth.

[fire_of_avalon]

I'm a little confused as to your point, forgive me. First you say religion and it's affiliated states of mind are dangerous to humanity because of their inconsistencies, but the only alternative you provide, science, cannot apply to all thoughts and ideas. I understand that part, but then you go back to say that science is bad because it's inconsistent and theoretical, and that's where the strength of metaphysics lay, a form of thought that by definition completely theoretical! I don't understand what you're arguing. Help!

[Dr Unne]

I was of the impression that all science is empirical, including evolution (fossil records, genetic experiments, etc.). I admit I know little about evolution, nor do I care about it. Science isn't science without empirical backing.

So what does this have to do with ethics? Are you saying ethics should be an empirical science as well? If so, I agree. Empirical observation + reason = good stuff. Either one by itself is bad. The absence of both is, well, religion, I guess.

[Skogs]

The thing about evolution is that it is crucial to our understanding of how biological systems work. It's not just about wholescale changes is species morphology. It is applied to the smallest of biological systems. 'Nothing in nature makes sense except in the light opf evolution'.

And our you saying that 'contraversial science' should be abandoned? I scientists can't agree on a topic they should drop it? What about the role of the hippocampus in object memory? Scientist are yet to reach a consensus over exactly what role the hippocampus plays. They've been producing arguments and counterarguments for the best part of forty years.

[Shadow Nexus]

Scientific "philoshopica" is used to denote the usefulness of current academia. Everything studied must have a use of industrial purpose for use in the market place... The familiar "what Job are you doing after you finish" may ring a bell.

That is a very interesting point, education not valuable for itself but only as a way to form workers. It is also a part of the whole instrumental reason phenomenon, that alienates thought to benefit, thus creating...uh...well, ever read Habermas? Charles Taylor? Horkheimer? Adorno? All of them make very interesting points again that kind of attitude, and I can say I agree with lots of them, so if you want to read more about it, I can hand you a bibliography.

Instumental reason is one of the worst phenomenons of capitalism, because it assasinates thought.

Why is it that philosophy has been replaced in highschools with scientism & modern socialism such as evolutionary theory and history of revolutions. Many exit high school with a firm devotion to Darwin and Marx, who in reality, were very questionable individuals. (see modernism post).

Oh, really? Thanks God that is not happening in Spain, because in that case I would have problem, since I am a philosophy student. Plus, Marx is studied here in philosophy, along with Comte, Hegel, Rousseau, Hobbes, Maquiavelo and all the others, and well, some people have a firm devotion for Darwin and Marx. As for Darwin, well, I believe in evolutionism, I am not a friend of creationism even if I do admit my knowledge in such area is scarce. I have read the problems creationists (All of whom are religious, big surprise) find in evolutionism and then the denying evolutionists give to those problems. As far as I know, the Berkeley University has released a document denying all the problems creationist find to the theory of evolution. As for my opinion, I guess I have my problem believing creationists, since they need to use the idea of a God- which I don't know if it exists, because I am agnostic- to explain how we are who we are. Sorry, I don't buy it. Plus, there's the whole past expriences behind us, such as Lactancius or Saint Agustin using the sacred texts to deny the spherical shape of the world, and then Martin Luther doing the same with the heliocentrist theory formulated by Copernicus just because in some part of the old testament Job says "Sun, stop". Vanitas vanitatum...

As for Marx, I do know the problems found in his theory, because it is accused of using scientifical methods in an attempt to explain history, thus falling into constructivism, as Karl Popper already critizized. I hate Popper's political theory though, I find it a weak justification full of pink-colored ideas about democracy, but this is not the time to critizize him. However, I am preety fond of Marx, I mean, I like him, but I don't like all those dogmatic marxists who tell me "I am an idealist burgeoise intellectual" because I like Immanuel Kant. I still see the problems in him.

Oh, and Darwin or Marx are not "questionable individuals". Rumsfeld is a questionable individual, Marx and Darwin have questionable theories, but their lifes or actions have little to do with that.

We see the success of science, and extrapolate that it must be the key to all problems. This is no doubt prompted by the apparent relative failure of philosophy.

Philosophy still has a lot of relevance today, and it will be a sad day when Nietzsche and Plato are no longer read, because above all, philosophy is a fight against alienation, or at least in most cases. As Habermas said, we cannot follow the same rules for sociological studies than, for example, physics, because sociology changes constantly. This leads to the question if we can really talk of tha capability to have ethical rules, because if such part is subjective, then any moral values can be considered "ethical". But of course, such conclusion is just cheap sophist subjectivist bulltrout, because there is a possibility of rationalization of ethics, and we all know that, there are universal principles and empirical information for a rationalization of ethical values. Of course there is a subjective matter to ethics, I can, for example, prefer Kant ethics to, say, Aristotle, but I can say most definately that killing innocent people is far from ethical.

So yes, science has it's limits, but this does not mean that the parts not reached by science because of the nature of it are to be fulfilled by religion. Sure, science can't explain- yet- the starting of time and space, and then you can guess there could be a res infinita or God, and that is religious. That is pure theology, and I believe it is acceptable until denied. Yet, ethical values cannot fall into religion, because religious ethics defend their rules are the rules of a divine being I don't know if it exists. To explain myself clearly, God may not exist, but I know the Bible and the Koran exist. However, if the Bible and the Koran are not God's will- and I will not consider them so until prooved wrong- then I find no reason to follow a set of principles I may not agree with. I may prefer, for example, Kant ehtics, or Popper, or Epicure, or my mother's.

Woah, what a long post.

[Clyde Arronway]

I was of the impression that all science is empirical, including evolution (fossil records, genetic experiments, etc.)

evolution is utterly philosophical. It was made in the enlightenment firstly by a man who wanted to eliminate a need for God. I'm not talking about darwin, darwin popularized evolution, but it was created by the french (no supprise. QVID BONVS POTEST VENERE AB GAVLO) It disregared most empirical evidence. Firstly, life is complex. while matter always goes from a state of higher order to lower order, life can go from lower complexity to higher complexity, but with incresingly low probabilities. Scientists created the first amino acids in the laboratory 50 years ago, and touted it as the triumphant fact proving evolution (There are two articles in a science periodical this month hailing it as the pinnacle of science) but they know math and probabilities, and the chances of those amino acids coming together properly exceeds the scientific definition of impossible by 10^39750! that's a big number. secondly, scientist grudgingly admit when cornered that the fossil record seems to indicate a monsterous flood, not millions and millions of years of layers of sedament. I have seen proof that it could not have been over millions of years with my bare eyes: tree trunks moving up through millions of years of sediment. I defy you to show me a 100 million year old petrafied forest on earth today. and fossil record dating is based in circular reasoning anyway, the layers are dated by what animals are in them, the animals dated by their levels. also interesting is the fact that every woman has the same mitochondrial dna. without going into specifics the experiment which collected dna from every major ethnic group on earth means that all women, from an old sweedish woman to a native american to an arab to a swahili woman all come from one woman convieniently placed around 7500-6500 years ago. Science tends to prove the judeo-christian bible to be literally and word for word accurate wherever science can be applied.