So, what the heck is Scientism?

Politics and Social Issues
61
Is any of that making any sense? -- CC
Perfectly, in a sense. I think the "talking past each other" that is going on is the difference between knowing what we know about our nervous system and acknowledging everything we don't know. This forum has a history of discussing determinism that I don't want say much about for fear of summoning those old demons. It's fun to try to talk about it for a while, but I have my limits. I think, that there is an argument out there about whether or not it is a "hard problem" or not, is enough to show that we don't know.

The average non-inquiring mind will just look at you funny and say, “look, I decided to move my hand, then I moved it. Case closed.” Sometimes, a person who says that is also perfectly fine with some quantum physics version of how they can change the world with their thoughts. Same token, people claim that something that happened 50 years ago does not effect anyone’s ability to get a job or have a bad encounter with the police, that it’s all self determined by your personal choices. So, the “Mindscape” idea is an improvement over all of that. Not sure how to give it any traction in the big world of ideas though.

62

CC, I say to you, keep sculpting that stone. The concept of Mindscape may yet reveal itself as a beautiful treasure.

Lausten, you said “…Behaviors are observable and quantifiable. I have a little trouble with them being predictable, and that would be a requirement for me if you are saying we know what the mind is.”

Well, I would say that behaviors ARE predictable, within parameters, if an analyst has access to the individual’s history of reinforcement.

And I would say, that since thoughts are often verbal, and since I know that verbal behavior is functional, then I can make predictions about that, also, if I also have some knowledge about the individual’s verbal history.

So again, I use intraverbals to make the point. I suppose that you learned Mother Goose Nursery Rhymes, as a young child. So I can predict the words you will think when you read these words: “Little Miss Muffett …”.

So if you thought the 4 short words that I predicted, (tell me, do you even know what a “tuffet” is? I assume it is like a stool with a cushion, but I don’t know if that’s right.)

63
I would say that behaviors ARE predictable, within parameters -- TimB
So, we're down to a matter of degree, which is pretty close to agreement. And even if we agreed on the error bars, there is still a matter of personal comfort with how narrow those are and how that translates to "predictable". I couldn't find the website, but I've been shown the predictive circumstances of children in "at risk" environments, and those are supposedly pretty good indicators of adult behavior. But, there is also the overriding factors of just a few adults who reinforce that child's belief that they are worthy, and can accomplish what they want, and show them how to accomplish it. For me, there are just too many variables, and too much judgment about what is a good role model and mentor to say these predictors really work.
64
For me, there are just too many variables, and too much judgment about what is a good role model and mentor to say these predictors really work.
I cannot do the calculations necessary to support landing a man on the moon. There are just too many variables, and so much necessary information and so much necessary knowledge to even know what to calculate.

But somebody (some people) did those calculations.

The complexity of the variables and of an individual’s history of reinforcement, make predictions of behavior to typically be crude. But the principle remains that behavior follows functional rules and can be subject to analysis that can lead to predictions of behavior, within parameters of probability. (In regard to specific individuals and regarding specific behaviors.)

If you want a behavioral approach to rescue “at risk children”, I would consider flooding their environment with positive reinforcement, including with a lot of caring statements and compassionate interactions.

(If they are at risk, it is often related to some sort of neglect &/or abuse. So change that part of the equation.) You do that, and I expect that one could predict a decrease in “at-risk” behaviors of concern.

65

Bringing it back to the OP. I started this thread as a part of looking into scientism, what it meant and how it might inform my own argument. Under a different heading I share the end result. Here I want to bring it back to Thomas Burnett and his essay. I was never happy with my summary quotes back then and have been cutting and refining them ever since, I like my current condensation much better, so here goes.

What is Scientism? By Thomas Burnett

American Association for the Advancement of Science

Dialogue Science, Ethics, Religion.

 

Scientism is a rather strange word, but for reasons that we shall see, a useful one. …

… Philosopher Tom Sorell offers a more precise definition: “Scientism is a matter of putting too high a value on natural science in comparison with other branches of learning or culture.” (2)

MIT physicist Ian Hutchinson offers a closely related version, but more extreme: “Science, modeled on the natural sciences, is the only source of real knowledge.” (3)

A HISTORY OF SCIENTISM

The Scientific Revolution

… Both Bacon and Descartes elevated the use of reason and logic by denigrating other human faculties such as creativity, memory, and imagination. … Descartes’ rendering of the entire universe as a giant machine left little room for the arts or other forms of human expression.

In one sense, the rhetoric of these visionaries opened great new vistas for intellectual inquiry. But on the other hand, it proposed a vastly narrower range of which human activities were considered worthwhile.

Positivism … The 19th century witnessed the most powerful and enduring formulation of scientism, a system called positivism. …

… Another weakness of the positivist position is its reliance on a complete distinction between theory and observation.

… W.O. Quine pointed out in his “Two Dogmas of Empiricism” that observations themselves are partly shaped by theory (“theory-laden”). (12) What counts as an observation, how to construct an experiment, and what data you think your instruments are collecting — all require an interpretive theoretica,

… it (undermines) the positivist claim that science rests entirely on facts, and is thus an indisputable foundation for knowledge.

SCIENTISM OF TODAY

… Whether one agrees with the sentiments of these scientists or not, the result of these public pronouncements has served to alienate a large segment of American society.

And that is a serious problem, since scientific research relies heavily upon public support for its funding, and environmental policy is shaped by lawmakers who listen to their constituents. From a purely pragmatic standpoint, it would be wise to try a different approach.

Physicist Ian Hutchinson offers an insightful metaphor for the current controversies over science:

… Hutchinson suggests that perhaps what the public is rejecting is not actually science itself, but a worldview that closely aligns itself with science—scientism (14).

DISTINGUISHING SCIENCE FROM SCIENTISM

So if science is distinct from scientism, what is it?

Science is an activity that seeks to explore the natural world using well-established, clearly-delineated methods.

Given the complexity of the universe, from the very big to very small, from inorganic to organic, there is a vast array of scientific disciplines, each with its own specific techniques. The number of different specializations is constantly increasing, leading to more questions and areas of exploration than ever before. Science expands our understanding, rather than limiting it.

Scientism, on the other hand, is a speculative worldview about the ultimate reality of the universe and its meaning.

Despite the fact that there are millions of species on our planet, scientism focuses an inordinate amount of its attention on human behavior and beliefs.

Rather than working within carefully constructed boundaries and methodologies established by researchers, it broadly generalizes entire fields of academic expertise and dismisses many of them as inferior. … Scientism restricts human inquiry.

It is one thing to celebrate science for its achievements and remarkable ability to explain a wide variety of phenomena in the natural world.

But to claim there is nothing knowable outside the scope of science would be similar to a successful fisherman saying that whatever he can’t catch in his nets does not exist (15).

Once you accept that science is the only source of human knowledge, you have adopted a philosophical position (scientism) that cannot be verified, or falsified, by science itself. It is, in a word, unscientific.

Thomas Burnett is the assistant director of public engagement at the John Templeton Foundation. As a science writer, Thomas has also worked for The National Academy of Sciences and the American Association for the Advancement of Science. He has degrees in philosophy and the history of science from Rice University and University of California, Berkeley.

———————-

  1. Sorell, Tom. Scientism: Philosophy and the Infatuation with Science. New York: Routledge, 1991.

  2. Hutchinson, Ian. Monopolizing Knowledge: A Scientist Refutes Religion-Denying, Reason-Destroying Scientism. Belmont, MA: Fias Publishing, 2011.

  3. Popper, Karl. Logic of Scientific Discovery. 1959)

  4. Hutchinson, p143

  5. Hutchinson, p109