Announcement

Collapse

Natural Science 301 Guidelines

This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.

As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Need Help With Reading Comprehension

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Adrift View Post
    Just for clarification's sake, Shook does appear to accept some definition of "scientism" that is something like the view that science is the only arbiter of truth (or reality), doesn't he? I don't really understand why shunya won't accept that or why he thinks there are vastly different definitions for "scientism". Or why you kind of seem to be tiptoeing around the fact that Shook does have definitions for what he believes scientism entails. The different types of scientism that Shook lists here http://naturalisms.org/science.htm all sound like they share that same general principle or theme:

    Eliminative Scientism demands that reality only consist of those things and their properties which are described by the physical science's best theories.

    Reductive Scientism demands that reality only consist of those things which are reducible to those things and their properties which are described by the physical science's best theories.

    Synoptic Scientism suggests that reality possesses multiple aspects that are not reducible to each other, but are explainable by the sciences.

    Perspectival Scientism suggests that reality has perspectival aspects which are experienced but not themselves directly knowable by the sciences.

    Exclusivist Liberal Scientism: the physical sciences supply explanations of all reality.


    The 2014 article just seems like a bit of quibbling over specifics. What precisely do those who use "scientism" in a derogatory sense mean? Well, he knows, in a round about way what they mean. He's not an idiot. He just wants them to narrow in. And by recognizing that there are critics of scientism, and in defending the view, he seems to be embracing the fact that scientism exists and is a useful categorization for a particular point of view.

    I don't know. I just get the sense that shunya has mentally shut down on the subject (which is normal, but whatever) and that you're sort of...well, to be honest, I'm not sure what you're trying to accomplish with shunya. I get to the point where I just have to shake my head at his posts because I know he'll never get it.
    I can certainly understand why you first thought that he was a proponent of scientism, and one could make the argument that the positions that he does accept are potential (elements of a) definition(s) of his particular brand of scientism, but I do not think this is the best understanding of his position, specifically because of how he differentiates his position with respect to M & N on the reducibility of the life sciences.
    M. A thing can’t have any reality unless it can be theoretically confirmed by one of the biological or natural sciences.

    N. A thing has no reality at all unless its existence is required by a theory of a single natural science enjoying the widest universality (physics). [1]

    [1] A defender of M but not N would hold that some kinds of biological matters will never be reducible without remainder to chemistry/physics. It may be the absence of a bridging law, or it may be about teleological explanation. Lots of matters involving consciousness or attentive reasoning, for example, may at last get their natural place with brain functionality, but they could remain invisible and unreal to physics. John Dewey affirms M but rejects N. As do I. The fault line between M and N is the one of the greatest, sharply dividing naturalists over the past 200 years, and I don’t foresee how it will vanish. N makes far vaster philosophical claims than just M.

    This does not fit his casual designation of scientism in 2007 and it seems to plant one of his feet firmly in the camp of perspectival pluralism rather than reductive physicalism, the two main types of naturalism he concluded his 2007 piece.

    Another of his comments seems to indicate that there are not many that he knows of who would positively accept this label: "the point of this list isn’t to identify what scientism truly means ... I would be greatly pleased, however, if defenders of science, and especially those who are willing to answer to charges of scientism, would at least be specific about what they are defending and what they aren’t." One could put a spin on this both ways, ie, that he has defined what he is willing to defend as he is asking other proponents of scientism to do, but, on the other hand, this is at best implied and I would have expected a much stronger statement or formal definition of scientism.

    As always, I could be wrong, and I did not do any extensive reading so if you were to find a piece in which is clearly and unambiguously identifies himself as a explicit proponent of scientism, I would not be crushed or greatly surprised, but I think he is happier to stick with a more traditional understanding of philosophical naturalism.
    Last edited by robrecht; 01-04-2015, 06:57 PM.
    βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
    ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

    אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

    Comment


    • Originally posted by robrecht View Post
      I can certainly understand why you first thought that he was a proponent of scientism, and one could make the argument that the positions that he does accept are potential (elements of a) definition(s) of his particular brand of scientism, but I do not think this is the best understanding of his position, specifically because of how he differentiates his position with respect to M & N on the reducibility of the life sciences.
      M. A thing can’t have any reality unless it can be theoretically confirmed by one of the biological or natural sciences.

      N. A thing has no reality at all unless its existence is required by a theory of a single natural science enjoying the widest universality (physics). [1]

      [1] A defender of M but not N would hold that some kinds of biological matters will never be reducible without remainder to chemistry/physics. It may be the absence of a bridging law, or it may be about teleological explanation. Lots of matters involving consciousness or attentive reasoning, for example, may at last get their natural place with brain functionality, but they could remain invisible and unreal to physics. John Dewey affirms M but rejects N. As do I. The fault line between M and N is the one of the greatest, sharply dividing naturalists over the past 200 years, and I don’t foresee how it will vanish. N makes far vaster philosophical claims than just M.

      This does not fit his casual designation of scientism in 2007 and it seems to plant one of his feet firmly in the camp of perspectival pluralism rather than reductive physicalism, the two main types of naturalism he concluded his 2007 piece.

      Another of his comments seems to indicate that there are not many that he knows of who would positively accept this label: "the point of this list isn’t to identify what scientism truly means ... I would be greatly pleased, however, if defenders of science, and especially those who are willing to answer to charges of scientism, would at least be specific about what they are defending and what they aren’t." One could put a spin on this both ways, ie, that he has defined what he is willing to defend as he is asking other proponents of scientism to do, but, on the other hand, this is at best implied and I would have expected a much stronger statement or formal definition of scientism.

      As always, I could be wrong, and I did not do any extensive reading so if you were to find a piece in which is clearly and unambiguously identifies himself as a explicit proponent of scientism, I would not be crushed or greatly surprised, but I think he is happier to stick with a more traditional understanding of philosophical naturalism.
      That's not really my point. Shook does clearly believe that such a thing as scientism does exist, and he does believe that the definition roughly means something like the view that science is the only arbiter of truth. Whether he holds to scientism himself or not, or whether he quibbles over the minutiae of what all the term should include, he himself does not think that when people cry "scientism!" they mean something completely arbitrary.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Adrift View Post
        That's not really my point. Shook does clearly believe that such a thing as scientism does exist, and he does believe that the definition roughly means something like the view that science is the only arbiter of truth. Whether he holds to scientism himself or not, or whether he quibbles over the minutiae of what all the term should include, he himself does not think that when people cry "scientism!" they mean something completely arbitrary.
        He seems to think of that when critics use it as a derogatory accusation it is rarely substantiated or well defined:
        "I’ve never heard a clear definition or consistent position on “scientism” taken by the religious, or the spiritual, or the protectors of whatever is so good and holy about cultural matters. ...
        ...

        Critics launching charges of “scientism,” despite their vagueness, often hint at some of these views, and even manage to hit upon one, sometimes inadvertently. The most careful of critics are worth the attention when they do precisely explain the kind of scientism that troubles them, and why it darkens their dreams. As for the rest of the critics, they would help everyone by explaining exactly where they are dipping their spoon into this alphabet soup of scientism.

        It would be even more helpful, and hence probably too much to ask, if scientism’s critics would explain how they think they are going to refute scientism."
        βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
        ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

        אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

        Comment


        • Originally posted by robrecht View Post
          He seems to think of that when critics use it as a derogatory accusation it is rarely substantiated or well defined:
          "I’ve never heard a clear definition or consistent position on “scientism” taken by the religious, or the spiritual, or the protectors of whatever is so good and holy about cultural matters. ...
          ...

          Critics launching charges of “scientism,” despite their vagueness, often hint at some of these views, and even manage to hit upon one, sometimes inadvertently. The most careful of critics are worth the attention when they do precisely explain the kind of scientism that troubles them, and why it darkens their dreams. As for the rest of the critics, they would help everyone by explaining exactly where they are dipping their spoon into this alphabet soup of scientism.

          It would be even more helpful, and hence probably too much to ask, if scientism’s critics would explain how they think they are going to refute scientism."
          But surely that's just a bit of hyperbole. He knows quite well what people mean when they cry scientism. He has a laundry list full of things scientism includes. He gets the general gist of what they mean at any rate.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Adrift View Post
            But surely that's just a bit of hyperbole. He knows quite well what people mean when they cry scientism. He has a laundry list full of things scientism includes. He gets the general gist of what they mean at any rate.
            Based on my limited experience, I agree with him that those who cry scientism do need to be challenged to better understand what science is. I think I have a clear enough sense of what is meant, but what is meant is, I think, oftentimes either not well intended or not pertinent or sophisticated enough to engender a good debate. It is not enough to have general idea of what the critic means. It is much more important that a critic engage at an appropriate level of discussion.
            βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
            ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

            אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

            Comment


            • Originally posted by robrecht View Post
              Thank you. Setting aside science for a moment, what do you believe to be the ultimate purpose of consciousness and the soul?
              Possibly worded as follows: The soul is the ultimate talisman of Creation and Revelation reflecting the image of God, and the constantly evolving journey of humanity through many worlds. Consciousness is the medium of communication of Revelation, the attributes of God and the evolving knowledge of Creation.
              Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
              Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
              But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

              go with the flow the river knows . . .

              Frank

              I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by robrecht View Post
                Based on my limited experience, I agree with him that those who cry scientism do need to be challenged to better understand what science is. I think I have a clear enough sense of what is meant, but what is meant is, I think, is either not well intended or not pertinent or sophisticated enough to engender a good debate. It is not enough to have general idea of what the critic means. It is much more important that a critic engage at an appropriate level of discussion.
                You don't think there are people who truly engage in a form of scientism? A view that sees some people take the stance that truth can only be acquired through science? Shook himself apparently sees little issue with the charge of scientism. He uses it in a number of his books to describe positions he believes others hold. In his Dictionary of Modern American Philosophers, he describes the limitations of Margaret Floy Washburn's scientism (pg. 2522). About Abraham Maslow, he notes that "he found it difficult to completely abandon the scientism of his youth. He continued to view science 'as a God' and looked to biology as a basis for psychology and ethics" (pg. 1634). On William James he notes that period that he worked in "in the late nineteenth century the scientistic attitude was dominant in both academic and popular circles." (pg. 1226).
                Last edited by Adrift; 01-04-2015, 08:12 PM.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                  Possibly worded as follows: The soul is the ultimate talisman of Creation and Revelation reflecting the image of God, and the constantly evolving journey of humanity through many worlds. Consciousness is the medium of communication of Revelation, the attributes of God and the evolving knowledge of Creation.
                  Interesting. I have never heard of the soul as a talisman.
                  βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
                  ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

                  אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Adrift View Post
                    You don't think there are people who truly engage in a form of scientism? A view that sees some people take the stance that truth can only be acquired through science? Shook himself apparently sees little issue with the charge of scientism. He uses it in a number of his books to describe positions he believes others hold. In his Dictionary of Modern American Philosophers, he describes the limitations of Margaret Floy Washburn's scientism (pg. 2522). About Abraham Maslow, he notes that "he found it difficult to completely abandon the scientism of his youth. He continued to view science 'as a God' and looked to biology as a basis for psychology and ethics" (pg. 1634). On William James he notes that period that he worked in "in the late nineteenth century the scientistic attitude was dominant in both academic and popular circles." (pg. 1226).
                    I think there are, but why shouldn't the people making the charge be scientifically literate and up to the challenge?
                    βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
                    ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

                    אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by robrecht View Post
                      I think there are, but why shouldn't the people making the charge be scientifically literate and up to the challenge?
                      What makes you think that they're not? Clearly his issue in the 2014 article isn't with people who make the charge of scientism in general (as he has no issue using the term himself), its with a specific type of person that he has issues with "the religious, or the spiritual, or the protectors of whatever is so good and holy about cultural matters." Obviously, though, there are religious people who make the charge of scientism who are philosophically and scientifically literate. So, he either has an issue with a certain subset of those people, and/or he's just being condescending to the religious in general.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Adrift View Post
                        What makes you think that they're not? Clearly his issue in the 2014 article isn't with people who make the charge of scientism in general (as he has no issue using the term himself), its with a specific type of person that he has issues with "the religious, or the spiritual, or the protectors of whatever is so good and holy about cultural matters." Obviously, though, there are religious people who make the charge of scientism who are philosophically and scientifically literate. So, he either has an issue with a certain subset of those people, and/or he's just being condescending to the religious in general.
                        Like I say, this is merely based on extrapolating from my limited experience of a few times seeing this charge being made and not thinking that the person making the charge was making a particularly effective argument.
                        βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
                        ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

                        אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Adrift View Post
                          ... Shook himself apparently sees little issue with the charge of scientism. He uses it in a number of his books to describe positions he believes others hold. In his Dictionary of Modern American Philosophers, he describes the limitations of Margaret Floy Washburn's scientism (pg. 2522). About Abraham Maslow, he notes that "he found it difficult to completely abandon the scientism of his youth. He continued to view science 'as a God' and looked to biology as a basis for psychology and ethics" (pg. 1634). On William James he notes that period that he worked in "in the late nineteenth century the scientistic attitude was dominant in both academic and popular circles." (pg. 1226).
                          It is interesting that Shook himself levels this charge. Does he go into any further detail in explaining what he means by it? With Maslow, it is 'viewing science as a God and using biology as a basis for ethics'. What else does he say about Maslow's view of science that might be relevant to this question? Just to be sure, he wrote the entries on Washburn and Maslow, right? I know Shook has a book of selections from William James, so something more might be found there.

                          For the characterization of the 19th century, in the entry on William James, a specialty subject for Shook, it is also worth noting here that the earliest use of 'scientism' listed in the OED was also for the characterization of the same age, but not of a philosophical school or specific individuals. An Irish poet, William Allingham, in 1877 was criticizing the overreaching effects of science vs dogmatic theology in the current age. Among those described in this way, were some who neither affirmed nor denied the existence of God, but whom he called atheists in the sense of an a-privativum, ie, they ignored God. Nonetheless, scientism was directly used to characterize an ‘age’, not to individuals or any school of thought designating themselves as proponents of scientism.
                          βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
                          ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

                          אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by robrecht View Post
                            It is interesting that Shook himself levels this charge. Does he go into any further detail in explaining what he means by it?
                            The contributors to the dictionary Ellen Kappy Suckiel and Kenneth Laine Ketner write, "the view which maintains that the methods and principles of empirical science provide the sole legitimate route to knowledge." (pg.1226) "Proponents of scientism advocate science as inquiry aiming at truths about classes, while denying any other source for useful human knowledge." (pg. 1910)

                            With Maslow, it is 'viewing science as a God and using biology as a basis for ethics'. What else does he say about Maslow's view of science that might be relevant to this question?
                            Source: Dictionary of Modern American Philosophers

                            "Echoing liberals such as Adam Smith, Maslow placed the autonomous individual at the center of his psychology and he argued that unobstructed self-interest was the best way to insure the public good. Although Maslow strenuously denied the charge, his approach appeared to condone an individualistic, self-seeking approach to life and a culture of narcissism. Feminist theorists have also suggested that the vision of self-hood as a hierarchy is itself a reflection of a Western male bias that privileges autonomy and independence at the expense of relatedness and reciprocity (Cullen 1994).

                            Maslow was not indifferent to such criticism and he commented pointedly on the Western, male values that are contained in the ostensibly neutral discourse of science. Despite his awareness of these issues, Maslow found it difficult to completely abandon the scientism of his youth. He continued to view science "as a God" and looked to biology as a basis for psychology and ethics (1979, p. 426). His stinging criticisms of the shortcomings of scientific psychology were accompanied by an unwavering biological essentialism where "truth, goodness beauty, [and] justice" would ultimately be explained through "biochemical, neurological, endocrinological substrates or body machinery" (1971, p. 22).

                            © Copyright Original Source



                            Just to be sure, he wrote the entries on Washburn and Maslow, right?
                            Shook is listed as the general editor of the dictionary, and the contributor of the Washburn entry, but upon closer inspection, Ian A.M. Nicholson is listed as the contributor for the Maslow entry.

                            For the characterization of the 19th century, in the entry on William James, a specialty subject for Shook, it is also worth noting here that the earliest use of 'scientism' listed in the OED was also for the characterization of the same age, but not of a philosophical school or specific individuals. An Irish poet, William Allingham, in 1877 was criticizing the overreaching effects of science vs dogmatic theology in the current age. Among those described in this way, were some who neither affirmed nor denied the existence of God, but whom he called atheists in the sense of an a-privativum, ie, they ignored God. Nonetheless, scientism was directly used to characterize an ‘age’, not to individuals or any school of thought designating themselves as proponents of scientism.
                            Interesting.
                            Last edited by Adrift; 01-05-2015, 08:16 AM.

                            Comment


                            • Excellent, thank you.
                              βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
                              ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

                              אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

                              Comment

                              Related Threads

                              Collapse

                              Topics Statistics Last Post
                              Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-18-2024, 12:15 PM
                              48 responses
                              135 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Sparko
                              by Sparko
                               
                              Started by Sparko, 03-07-2024, 08:52 AM
                              16 responses
                              74 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post shunyadragon  
                              Started by rogue06, 02-28-2024, 11:06 AM
                              6 responses
                              48 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post shunyadragon  
                              Working...
                              X