1. The improper usage of science or scientific claims.[8] This usage applies equally in contexts where science might not apply,[9] such as when the topic is perceived as beyond the scope of scientific inquiry, and in contexts where there is insufficient empirical evidence to justify a scientific conclusion. It includes an excessive deference to the claims of scientists or an uncritical eagerness to accept any result described as scientific. This can be a counterargument to appeals to scientific authority. It can also address the attempt to apply "hard science" methodology and claims of certainty to the social sciences, which Friedrich Hayek described in The Counter-Revolution of Science (1952) as being impossible, because that methodology involves attempting to eliminate the "human factor", while social sciences (including his own field of economics) center almost purely on human action.
2. "The belief that the methods of natural science, or the categories and things recognized in natural science, form the only proper elements in any philosophical or other inquiry",[10] or that "science, and only science, describes the world as it is in itself, independent of perspective"[5] with a concomitant "elimination of the psychological [and spiritual] dimensions of experience".[11][12] Tom Sorell provides this definition: "Scientism is a matter of putting too high a value on natural science in comparison with other branches of learning or culture."[13] Philosophers such as Alexander Rosenberg have also adopted "scientism" as a name for the view that science is the only reliable source of knowledge.[14]
Who's judging what is improper?The improper usage of science or scientific claims
Perceived by whom?when the topic is perceived as beyond the scope of scientific inquiry
Who says how much is 'sufficient' and how are they judging this?contexts where there is insufficient empirical evidence to justify a scientific conclusion
What is 'excessive'?an excessive deference to the claims of scientists
What does 'reliable' mean here?the view that science is the only reliable source of knowledge
It is a common stance amongst the secular intelligentsia, — Wayfarer
A coconut shy (or coconut shie) is a traditional game frequently found as a sidestall at funfairs and fêtes. The game consists of throwing wooden balls at a row of coconuts balanced on posts. Typically a player buys three balls and wins each coconut successfully dislodged. In some cases other prizes may be won instead of the coconuts.
Yes. You learn to expect that from Wayfarer.You mean select arguments that are easy targets and dodge them when you're faced with evidence that opposes your world-view? — Pseudonym
Facing the risk that you might become as hostile to me as you seem to be against Wayfarer, — Nop
Yes. You learn to expect that from him. — Harry Hindu
Science isn't suppose to address what is moral. Morality is subjective. — Harry Hindu
What do you think about my opinion on why Scientism has an "excessive" use of science? — Nop
So, What does Scientism actually mean? — Pseudonym
Properly grasping something in philosophy is necessarily to the extent of one's personal satisfaction. Arguments can persuade and not persuade, and the effect the argument has is defined by personal satisfaction. Subjectivity in this sense doesn't seem problematic to me, why do you think it is problematic — Nop
When I hear "Scientism", I think of the idea that the only reliable way of discovering truth is the method of science. — PossibleAaran
He seems to have taken an entirely reasonable logical route to get from his Physicalism to his conclusion that science can determine what is moral.
Physicalism makes a ontological claim, Scientism makes a epistenmelogical claim. — Nop
Physicalism doesn't imply Scientism, — Nop
His form of Utilitarianism is philosophically quite problematic. — Nop
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.