The six signs of "Scientism"
Posted: Thu Jul 25, 2013 10:39 am
[pdfview]http://pervegalit.files.wordpress.com/2 ... 7-2009.pdf[/pdfview]
Quality books. Great conversations.
https://www.booktalk.org/
Other criteria have been proposed – that real science relies on controlled experiments for example (which, however, would rule out not only anthropology and sociology, but also – most implausibly of all – astronomy).
And does anyone actually disagree with the following:Again: for a long time Popper claimed that his criterion of demarcation excluded the theory of evolution; which, he wrote, is not a genuine scientific
theory but a “metaphysical research programme.” Then he changed his mind: evolution is science, after all.
There are many other valuable kinds of human activity besides inquiry – music, dancing, art, storytelling, cookery, gardening, architecture, to mention just a few; and many other valuable kinds of inquiry – historical, legal, literary, philosophical, etc.
Other criteria have been proposed – that real science relies on controlled experiments for example (which, however, would rule out not only anthropology and sociology, but also – most implausibly of all – astronomy).
Briefly and roughly summarized, they are:
1. Using the words “science,” “scientific,” “scientifically,” “scientist,”
etc., honorifically, as generic terms of epistemic praise.
2. Adopting the manners, the trappings, the technical terminology, etc.,
of the sciences, irrespective of their real usefulness.
3. A preoccupation with demarcation, i.e., with drawing a sharp line
between genuine science, the real thing, and “pseudo-scientific”
imposters.
4. A corresponding preoccupation with identifying the “scientific
method,” presumed to explain how the sciences have been so successful.
5. Looking to the sciences for answers to questions beyond their scope.
6. Denying or denigrating the legitimacy or the worth of other kinds of
inquiry besides the scientific, or the value of human activities other than
inquiry, such as poetry or art.
6. Denying or denigrating the legitimacy or the worth of other kinds of
inquiry besides the scientific, or the value of human activities other than
inquiry, such as poetry or art.
If you know __________ in real life, he's primarily an artist. A very good artist. I don't think your criticism is on point.This is an interesting one.
Perhaps maybe Geo has more of an appreciation for this than some hardcore guy like __________n
Interbane wrote:If you know __________ in real life, he's primarily an artist. A very good artist. I don't think your criticism is on point.This is an interesting one.
Perhaps maybe Geo has more of an appreciation for this than some hardcore guy like __________n
Interbane wrote:Briefly and roughly summarized, they are:
1. Using the words “science,” “scientific,” “scientifically,” “scientist,”
etc., honorifically, as generic terms of epistemic praise.
2. Adopting the manners, the trappings, the technical terminology, etc.,
of the sciences, irrespective of their real usefulness.
3. A preoccupation with demarcation, i.e., with drawing a sharp line
between genuine science, the real thing, and “pseudo-scientific”
imposters.
4. A corresponding preoccupation with identifying the “scientific
method,” presumed to explain how the sciences have been so successful.
5. Looking to the sciences for answers to questions beyond their scope.
6. Denying or denigrating the legitimacy or the worth of other kinds of
inquiry besides the scientific, or the value of human activities other than
inquiry, such as poetry or art.
The meme for militant atheism that wishes to promote the belief that religion is bad for society and that people of faith should be "deconverted" by quashing their beliefs in the public square can accomplish nothing more than polarization.“The meme for blind faith secures its own perpetuation by the simple unconscious expedient of discouraging rational inquiry.”