Page 1 of 8

What is scientism?

Posted: Tue Apr 17, 2012 11:32 am
by geo
Michael Shermer: Scientism is a scientific worldview that encompasses natural explanations for all phenomena, eschews supernatural and paranormal speculations, and embraces empiricism and reason as the twin pillars of a philosophy of life appropriate for an Age of Science.

http://www.michaelshermer.com/2002/06/s ... scientism/

Robert Wright, in his book The Evolution of God:

"I guess materialist is a not-very-misleading term for me. In fact, in this book I talk about the history of religion, and its future, from a materialist standpoint. I think the origin and development of religion can be explained by reference to concrete, observable things—human nature, political and economic factors, technological change, and so on."

Is there a distinction between scientism and materialism?

I asked this question in another thread. Humans are limited beings with limited sensory capability and limited imaginations. It seems preposterous to think that we could know everything. What other avenues besides science can we, as limited beings, use to pursue knowledge?

Re: What is scientism?

Posted: Tue Apr 17, 2012 1:32 pm
by ant
Nobel Prize winner Sir Peter Medawar, whom Richard Dawkins called, "The wittiest of all scientific writers", said in his book, "Advice to a Young Scientist"

...
there is no quicker way for a scientist to bring discredit on himself and his profession particularly when no declaration is called for, than to declare that science knows or will know the answers to all questions worth asking.
Medawar added that questions that do not admit a scientific answer should not be assumed to be non-questions.
"We must turn to imaginative literature and religion for suitable answers!"
Scientism is hubris.

Re: What is scientism?

Posted: Tue Apr 17, 2012 3:09 pm
by geo
ant wrote:Nobel Prize winner Sir Peter Medawar, whom Richard Dawkins called, "The wittiest of all scientific writers", said in his book, "Advice to a Young Scientist"

...
there is no quicker way for a scientist to bring discredit on himself and his profession particularly when no declaration is called for, than to declare that science knows or will know the answers to all questions worth asking.
Medawar added that questions that do not admit a scientific answer should not be assumed to be non-questions.
"We must turn to imaginative literature and religion for suitable answers!"
Scientism is hubris.
I think semantically we are world's apart, and we should spend some time clarifying definitions to make sure we're talking about the same thing.

I had never heard of the term "scientism" until you brought it up, ant. It's a remarkably awkward word. I prefer naturalism or materialism which I think means the same thing. But based on Shermer's definition, I am a scientistist. Just because someone chooses to look for naturalistic explanations first (remember Hume's "apportion belief to the evidence") doesn't mean they are against artistic expression or understand the power of the imagination. Is that what you're suggesting? This seems another attempt to broadly label and categorize people based on a solitary data point—lack of religious belief. Now that's hubris.

Science is merely a tool with which we can objectively study the physical world whereas religion is a means of personal spiritual exploration. Those who claim that religion or the Bible yields scientific answers are delusional. For example, Young Earth Creationists reject evolution because it conflicts with a literal interpretation of the Bible. But reasonable believers don't need to disparage science to make their religion more credible. They understand that the two pertain to completely separate domains.

Your Medawar quote is interesting. Again, it seems bizarre to me that anyone would suggest science knows or will know the answers to all questions worth asking. I'm always suspicious when I see it phrased like that. Neither Dawkins nor Shermer nor Hitchens has ever said such a thing.

By the way, I teach college-level literature. Shakespeare explores this theme of rationality versus the power of imagination in A Midsummer Night's Dream.

Re: What is scientism?

Posted: Tue Apr 17, 2012 3:17 pm
by ant
Scientism is a belief in the universal applicability of the scientific method and approach, and the view that empirical science constitutes the most authoritative worldview or most valuable part of human learning to the exclusion of other viewpoints.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism
I had never heard of the term "scientism" until you brought it up, ant. It's a remarkably awkward word. I prefer naturalism or materialism which I think means the same thing. But based on Shermer's definition, I am a scientistist.
Science is your preference when attempting to explain/make sense of the natural world. But, if I understand you correctly, you also acknowledge that human beings can not possibly hope to understand everything because their (our) intelligence has its limits. That is NOT the definition of scientism. IMO, your definition is not hubristic.

Shermer is attempting to redefine the word, no doubt.
For example, Young Earth Creationists reject evolution because it conflicts with a literal interpretation of the Bible. But reasonable believers don't need to disparage science to make their religion more credible. They understand that the two pertain to completely separate domains.
I agree 250% with the above.

Re: What is scientism?

Posted: Tue Apr 17, 2012 3:22 pm
by ant
By the way, I teach college-level literature. Shakespeare explores this theme of rationality versus the power of imagination in A Midsummer Night's Dream.
Hey! I didn't know that! That's really 8)

I'd love to explore Shakespeare one day! Really I would, but I've had a difficult time with it the few times I have tried. :(

But now I know who to go to when I try again one day :P

What would you recommend as being a good intro to Shakespeare?

Re: What is scientism?

Posted: Tue Apr 17, 2012 3:36 pm
by geo
ant wrote:
Scientism is a belief in the universal applicability of the scientific method and approach, and the view that empirical science constitutes the most authoritative worldview or most valuable part of human learning to the exclusion of other viewpoints.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism
I had never heard of the term "scientism" until you brought it up, ant. It's a remarkably awkward word. I prefer naturalism or materialism which I think means the same thing. But based on Shermer's definition, I am a scientistist.
Science is your preference when attempting to explain/make sense of the natural world. But, if I understand you correctly, you also acknowledge that human beings can not possibly hope to understand everything because their (our) intelligence has its limits. That is NOT the definition of scientism. IMO, your definition is not hubristic.

Shermer is attempting to redefine the word, no doubt.
My viewpoint is the normal viewpoint of the vast majority of freethinkers and skeptics and atheists or whatever you want to call us.

I suppose there are Scientistists out there who believe in science as dogma and to the exclusion of all other viewpoints. This is not your typical skeptic or free thinker and one should be careful not to think of them in such stark black-and-white terms. It would be like an atheist assuming all Christians are Young Earth Creationists. It doesn't really jive with reality.

Re: What is scientism?

Posted: Tue Apr 17, 2012 3:51 pm
by ant
This is not your typical skeptic or free thinker and one should be careful not to think of them in such stark black-and-white terms.
Oh no?
You've never been to a Skeptic "Free Thinker" lecture or conference in Calofornia then.

Ever hear of "The Brights?"

I chuckle at the phrase "Free Thinker"
I believe in a creator. Maybe not in the traditional sense, but I do.
Why am I not a "Free Thinker?"

Re: What is scientism?

Posted: Tue Apr 17, 2012 3:53 pm
by geo
ant wrote:
By the way, I teach college-level literature. Shakespeare explores this theme of rationality versus the power of imagination in A Midsummer Night's Dream.
Hey! I didn't know that! That's really 8)

I'd love to explore Shakespeare one day! Really I would, but I've had a difficult time with it the few times I have tried. :(

But now I know who to go to when I try again one day :P

What would you recommend as being a good intro to Shakespeare?
Shakespeare requires a lot of context, historical and otherwise. I always recommend reading a synopsis of the play first and a few good peripheral sources, such as the introduction in most college textbooks. The intro to Shakespeare in our Bedford textbook is excellent. Anything by Harold Bloom is gold. As a literary critic, he's really quite approachable. For that matter, Isaac Asimov wrote a wonderful guide which is sadly out of print, but can be found used for a few bucks.

http://www.amazon.com/Asimovs-Guide-Sha ... 0517268256

The Bevington (Necessary) Shakespeare is the best Shakespeare anthology I've ever seen. It contains the necessary plays and tons of background material.

http://www.amazon.com/Necessary-Shakesp ... 771&sr=1-2

When you sit down to read Shakespeare, you're going to be referring to the annotations quite a bit because many expressions and words in Shakespeare's time have fallen out of use. Also, we're not used to reading such poetic language. but after awhile you start getting used to it.

A Midsummer Night's Dream has the redeeming quality of being Shakespeare's shortest play. It's the Elizabethan version of a romantic comedy, but it has some serious themes as well. Most of us are at least familiar with Hamlet and that's also a great place to start. (Hamlet happens to be Shakespeare's longest play). But even so, all of Shakespeare's plays are written in five acts, and you can usually read an act in twenty minutes to a half hour or so. The language is so rich that you should savor the experience. I really like Macbeth mostly because of the witches.

After reading the play, it's fun to watch the movie version to further enrich your experience.

Here's Bevinton's intro to A Midsummer Night's Dream. It's just excellent.

http://www.wordcentrist.net/bevington_midsummer.pdf

Re: What is scientism?

Posted: Tue Apr 17, 2012 4:01 pm
by geo
ant wrote:
This is not your typical skeptic or free thinker and one should be careful not to think of them in such stark black-and-white terms.
Oh no?
You've never been to a Skeptic "Free Thinker" lecture or conference in Calofornia then.

Ever hear of "The Brights?"

I chuckle at the phrase "Free Thinker"
I believe in a creator. Maybe not in the traditional sense, but I do.
Why am I not a "Free Thinker?"
I like "free thinker" because Twain uses it in Puddn'head Wilson.

Watch out when like-minded people get together or, worse, start forming groups. Zero to Stupid in 60 seconds. Some skeptic groups are okay, but I wonder why they feel the need to get together with other like-minded people. Maybe not such free thinkers after all.

Yep, I've heard of the Brights. We had a thread going back a few years ago about that.

Re: What is scientism?

Posted: Tue Apr 17, 2012 4:08 pm
by ant
Watch out when like-minded people get together or, worse, start forming groups. Zero to Stupid in 60 seconds. Some skeptic groups are okay, but I wonder why they feel the need to get together with other like-minded people. Maybe not such free thinkers after all.
I've been attending most of these lectures

http://www.skeptic.com/lectures/

Great benefit to the community.

I do enjoy being in the company of people who think differently than I do.
It pushes me to see the world differently. It causes me to re-examine my belief system.
I can learn nothing from those who think precisely as I do.