The six signs of "Scientism"

[ant]

[pdfview]http://pervegalit.files.wordpress.com/2 ... 7-2009.pdf[/pdfview]

[Dexter]

Ironic, since you were the one trying to demarcate the boundaries of science

The piece criticizes this view:

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).

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.

And does anyone actually disagree with the following:

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.

[ant]

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).

You're presuming I "rule out" areas of study that do not rely on controlled experiments.
You're hard-headed and completely ignore what my point is when we've had these conversations.

Don't you engage in scientism?

I know Popper went too far with claiming evolution is psuedo science. And I knew he said he did.
Also, I never made the claim that is not science.
That does not and has not devalued falsification as a means to leaving open hypothesis for development.

[Interbane]

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.

From her book "Defending Science."

[ant]

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.

This is an interesting one.
Perhaps maybe Geo has more of an appreciation for this than some hardcore guy like __________n

[Interbane]

This is an interesting one.
Perhaps maybe Geo has more of an appreciation for this than some hardcore guy like __________n

If you know __________ in real life, he's primarily an artist. A very good artist. I don't think your criticism is on point.

[ant]

This is an interesting one.
Perhaps maybe Geo has more of an appreciation for this than some hardcore guy like __________n

If you know __________ in real life, he's primarily an artist. A very good artist. I don't think your criticism is on point.

I'm sorry, the "n" was a straggler that should not have been included.
It was just a fill in the blank.

I'm glad your friend is an artist.

I think it's an interesting piece.
After all, I introduced the word "scientism" here on BT.
One of you never even heard of the word before I came along.

[ant]

Interesting

http://www.salon.com/2013/03/25/militan ... _religion/

[geo]

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.

Deepak Chopra is often cited for #2 especially (Adopting the manners, the trappings, the technical terminology, etc., of the sciences, irrespective of their real usefulness.).

I'm sure I veer off occasionally into "scientism," especially #4 above. But that's usually in response to real world claims made in the name of religion. Sometimes we take a harder line approach in response to hard line claims from the other side. It's probably good to check oneself in that regard.

There is often a gray area between pseudoscience and real science and, as it has been mentioned, sometimes pseudoscience becomes real science. That's why we should be skeptical, but not completely closed off to new ideas.

[ant]

Interesting

http://www.salon.com/2013/03/25/militan ... _religion/

Here is a quote from one of my favorite militant atheists, Richard Dawkins:

“The meme for blind faith secures its own perpetuation by the simple unconscious expedient of discouraging rational inquiry.”

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.