I wasn't defending Ant's position as much as I was trying to change the tone of the discussion. I find it more interesting when people try to find out where someone else is coming from rather than "labeling" them. I feel Pinker does some of this in his article although it certainly isn't as extreme as what Ant is doing. (And no, I still haven't read the article in detail so I may be misrepresenting Pinker).

March-Hare wrote:I wasn't defending Ant's position as much as I was trying to change the tone of the discussion. I find it more interesting when people try to find out where someone else is coming from rather than "labeling" them. I feel Pinker does some of this in his article although it certainly isn't as extreme as what Ant is doing. (And no, I still haven't read the article in detail so I may be misrepresenting Pinker).

I knew you weren't defending me, but its clear that the science community here gets highly defensive when anyone thinks critically/skeptically of science. It's okay to be a skeptic about everything else BUT science.

I'm not doing anything "extreme," either.

I do find your comment about "labeling" amusing. The timing is actually perfect because one poster here cried foul regarding labeling people and the silly need for labels. And yet it's totally justified to label me here as a "hater of science"

I can search for a handful of quotes where I've actually praised science. Maybe not as wild and horny as some here, but still, it was praise.
I just don't feel a need to pronounce Science as our modern answer to the Oracle at Delphi.

Thanks

It wasn't an ad hominem.

I was "using you as the argument", rather than "attacking you instead of the argument". Your actions are evidence to support my argument in this case. Don't let the similarity confuse you.

March-Hare wrote:I find it more interesting when people try to find out where someone else is coming from rather than "labeling" them.

Ant has 'praised science' in the past, then gone on to post anti-science threads. He likes to hide where he's coming from. I think there's a sort of cognitive dissonance going on, where he understands the benefits of science, but wants his religion also. The thread of all his science related posts are directed towards showing that science doesn't support atheism, or that science is faulty. I'm okay with that motive, we need ideological checks and balances. (But science isn't your enemy...)

Ant,

The "scientic imperialism" comment as well as some others of yours that people posted seemed extreme (at least in tone) to me.

Interbane,

Yes, it seems like there is a prior history to this exchange.

Massimo's response to Pinker's article, as I said, is well balanced. I for one can appreciate a scientist with credentials like his, who is willing to turn a critical eye on his own community.


Massimo Pigliucci:
Doctorate in Genetics from the University of Ferrara (Italy
PhD in Evolutionary Biology from the University of Connecticut
PhD in Philosophy from the University of Tennessee.


Massimo hits the nail on the head by implying Pinker's piece is mostly a whinny diatribe. It also is peppered with diversions from what scientism actually is. Pinker laughably engages in fantasy by dreaming of time traveling back to the days of enlightenment to share our current scientific understanding with the giants of the past, most of which were philosophers (natural or not) who I'd guess would not have declared philosophy to be "dead" like the scientism fanatic Stephen Hawking did some years ago. Actually, science has left to philosophy questions that it can not answer and perhaps need not involve itself with.

Dr. Massimo wrote:

Pinker claims that science couldn't possibly indulge in the excesses that its critics level at it because, you know, the whole process employs a series of safeguards, including open debate, peer review, and double blind experiments. Yes, and when the system works, it works really well. But Pinker seems to ignore much research in the history and sociology of science that shows that sometimes that system goes wrong, occasionally worrisomely wrong (e.g., a lot of medical research on drugs is seriously flawed, particularly - but not only - when the funding for it comes from the pharmaceutical industry). Not to mention that he entirely misses the point of the most frequent cases of scientism: they are not to be found in the technical scientific literature, but rather in popular science writings, when scientists (or people who claim to be interpreting science on behalf of the public) make claims that are simply disproportionate to the evidence (as in many recent instances of neurobabbling).

One thing worth mentioning is that scientistic imperialists never mention the concerns related to the peer review process and how consideration is being given to revamping the system, particularly, the bias suspected within prominent publishing Journals. There is no denying the safeguards of science are in place to promote advancement, but as in all human constructs, flaws and prejudices exist. The concern is that the prestige of science has grown to the extent that its findings are no scrutinized, particularly by laymen who like to use Science as an alley for an atheistic worldview. Science is itself a community (Kuhn). All Communities have their built in prejudices.

Scientism, IMHO, also exhibits extreme prejudice towards those that do not recognize or support its involvement in everything, nor looks to it for answers to everything (ie Evolutionary Psychology, which btw can never be falsified, morality, ethics, etc.)


Here is another interesting point made by Dr. Massimo (my emphasis, not his):

Pinker then moves to another predictable - and, again, largely irrelevant - point: science is under attack by fundamentalist religion, it needs to be defended! Indeed, and many in the humanities (particularly in philosophy) have lent a hand to that defense over the past several years (e.g., in debates about creationism and intelligent design). But bashing once again Stephen Jay Gould's (in)famous idea of two separate magisteria for science and religion, he commits the very same mistake that Gould made: (rational) morality isn't the province of religion, it is a branch of philosophy, and it is philosophers such as myself that have taken to task the scientistic excesses of Harris, Shermer, and co. See? Once again things are more complicated: I am a staunch ally of Pinker when it comes to defending science from religion, but that doesn't mean I cannot raise the issue of scientism when my allies themselves say silly or unsubstantiated things.

To broach the topic of FUNDAMENTALIST religion is indeed absolutely irrelevant to the discussion of scientism. Scientism does NOT include rancorous accusations of any kind by religious adherents. The very fact that Pinker feels a need to come to the defense of Science like a knight in shinning armor goes to the essence of his imperialistic attitude here. He is clearly off base and engaging in defensive scientism. If he would have moved to criticize religion in general, he would have engaged in offensive scientism, as do popular authors like Dawkins, Harris, Shermer, and Hitchens.

It is admirable that an ATHEIST (of all people!) like Massimo is willing to speak out against scientism. I agree with him 200% - I too would rise to defend the practice of Science if it is unjustly attacked by religion.

Massimo is an open-minded atheist that practices science but has the balls to be critical of it and its community members.