Scientism? Is that really a thing?

[Bleak Morn]

So I was reading this "Mental Lever" (https://www.zeroaggressionproject.org/mental-lever/social-science-part-1/) at the Zero Aggression Project.

​Near the end it says:

 

The idea that you can apply the methods of science to whole societies is called scientism. It is a deeply dangerous intellectual error.

 

The article links to a Wikipedia article on scientism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism).

 

The way the article was written makes it seem like a concept dreamed up by superstitious people to misrepresent and explain away science.

 

For example, in the first sentence they put "authoritative" in quotes.  Then they conclude that science "excludes other viewpoints".

 

Anyway, I was just curious if anyone here had heard of "the intellectual error of Scientism" and had more to add than the seemingly biased Wikipedia article.

​If Scientism were valid, it might pose problems to the arguments supporting Universally Preferable Behavior.

[shirgall]

Scientism is supposed to be the misapplication of terminology to give a statement special authority, like when people say "Science tell us". It has evolved over the years but even the original Wikipedia article is pretty shallow: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scientism&oldid=577508

[ObserveandReport]

From what I remember it is the philosophical position that all but the empirical is nonsense. I believe there is a connection logical positivism which relies on the notion that that which can be put into language is meaningless. That which is unverifiable is without content. I googled it and it seems these camps are at least consistent.  So where Steven Hawking says "we may have equations which describe everything, but what breaths life into those equations" or what may be described as the "numinous," the mystery of consciousness, all these are mindless prattle. Think of it as an application of materialism such that one assumes all things can be explained via materialism.

[Cuffy_Meigs]

I first encountered the word in Karl Popper's philosophy. My recollection is that he used the term to mean the presentation of ideas with all the outward signs of science - such as graphs, statistics, journal publication, maybe even peer review - but with no scientific rigour and no sign of the scientific method being involved.

 

Given how prevalent this sort of stuff is, I think it is really rather a good word

[tasmlab]

Scientism is supposed to be the misapplication of terminology to give a statement special authority, like when people say "Science tell us". It has evolved over the years but even the original Wikipedia article is pretty shallow: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scientism&oldid=577508

 

What Shirgall said.

 

A modern example would be climate change alarmism, as described by a climate change skeptic.  E.g., the alarmists are using 'scientism' to claim their point.

 

Past examples might include phrenology and eugenics. Both were promoted as outcomes of science.

[Snafui]

"Scientism is a matter of putting too high a value on science in comparison with other branches of learning or culture." -Scientism: Philosophy and the Infatuation with Science by Tom Sorell, opening line in the preface.

 

"Scientism is the belief that science, especially natural science, is much the most valuable part of human learning -- much the most valuable part because it is much the most authoritative, or serous, or beneficial. Other beliefs related to this one may also be regarded as scientistic, e.g. the belief that science is the only valuable part of human learning, or the view that it is always good for subjects that do not belong to science to be placed on scientific footing." ibid, Chapter 1.

 

The issue of Scientism is where some have raised science to the level of deity. Certain buzzwords are heard and people fall down to praise at the alter of science whether it turns out to be true or not--an item is bad for you one day and good the next. Do you know people who guide their life by the most recent study?

 

There are mantras, "the science is settled," "correlation does not equal causation," "a study says," "my doctor said," "9 out of 10 doctors agree," and so on. They are just logical fallacies. Have you noticed how emotional people get when a supposed science based belief is shown to be false?

 

Science, not as a field of study per se but as an entity, e.g. using it as a term like government or society, is also contributing to the confusion. The book above conflates science as a subject and an entity quite often which was a bit confusing at first. Scientism is just another tool for those with political power having its own Inquisition. Have you seen the latest witch trials on "climate deniers?"

[ValueOfBrevity]

From the old wiki on Scientism:
 

An interesting example of scientism is the "Standard Model" investigated by particle physics. Despite the fact that this model keeps changing as experiments reveal new features and issues, the current state of the Model is always asserted as "the Standard", as if there could be no competing basis for comprehending the basis of physical reality, other than particles or waves. Other more stable models of what is physically real, such as the periodic table, or what is cognitively real, such as the cognitive bias of human beings, or more ethical constructs from theology, are consistently rejected by the scientific community itself. Perhaps it is simply saving its jobs?

 

How is the periodic table a rejection of physical reality? How is a study of cognitive bias not scientific?

Ethical constructs from theology are not really derived from mythology, but visa-versa (mythology is written to reflect the ethical ideas of the writer(s)).