You mean select arguments that are easy targets and dodge them when you're faced with evidence that opposes your world-view? — Pseudonym

I remember I called Charleton a "dick" before. I can't remember if I ever called you one. Do you remember?

This is Scientism:

I think perhaps you are looking for something which doesn't exist. You ask for a neutral, non-polemical definition of Scientism. I don't think there are any philosophers who willingly accept "Scientism" as a description of their views. Usually "Scientism" is used as a name for views which, in the eyes of the critic, elevate science into an unacceptably special position. — PossibleAaran

Yes, exactly. @Pseudonym, you are overthinking this. There is no such philosophical school of thought as Scientism. It is just a pejorative label; it expresses a subjective attitude. If someone throws an accusation of "scientism" in a conversation, don't agree or disagree, but ask to elaborate.

So, What does Scientism actually mean?
Presuming it means something like the excessive use of science — Pseudonym

I would not say 'excessive'. As a science junkie myself, too much science is never enough!

Rather, I regard it as the claim that science should be used in areas where it is not applicable. A prime example is Sam Harris's claim that moral values can be deduced by science.

Other primary exponents of scientism are Stephen Hawking, with his claim that 'philosophy is dead' and that we should all just go to science to answer all our questions, and Laurence Krauss, who has said similar things.

The main reason I dislike the things people like that say (to say I was 'angered' by them might be going a bit far) is that they give science a bad name, and make it easier for the climate change deniers and anti-vaxxers of the world to gain traction for their claims that we should not trust scientists when they are talking about science. I feel that the anti-science ethos in US conservative circles is an example of the damage that scientism causes.

Laurence Krauss — andrewk

Someone posted it here before, but it is a perfect illustration of Scientism:


Scientism --> (i) negation of a priori knowledge + (ii) being completely oblivious of (i).

have you ever heard or read anyone actually making this claim — Pseudonym

Not anybody who is actually trained in Philosophy, no. Lawrence Krauss does say it in some of his debates, but he isn't a Philosopher- he's a Physicist. An old friend of mine claimed it, but he wasn't a Philosopher either - he was a Biologist.

for example Hilary Putnam's definition, the belief that "science, and only science, describes the world as it is in itself, independent of perspective" — Pseudonym

This is as good as you're gonna get it. Let us focus on this brief quote.
Notice how Putnam puts 'science' (the manner or method of explaining the world) ahead of the nature of reality.
The question then you should be asking is, First, what reality or world are we trying to describe? Why is science the default method of explanation given to whatever world we are trying to describe?
Oh wait, what? Is there not only "one world"?
Think about that. You, in fact, had already assumed there is just this reality, this one. Which one? Which reality are you trying to describe? Oh, it doesn't matter. Only science matters. It will explain whatever reality there is.
As you can see, science, as that quote would have it (and I'm only relying on that one quote, as a disclaimer) determines the reality-- instead of the other way around.
Explain to me how this happened. (I'm asking a real question)

You might find the review of Pinker's book ENLIGHTENMENT NOW in Quillette. Scientism is used here, as suggested above,"other people's views of science that you don't like". "Scientism" is pejorative. It's used the same way people who don't like post-modern methods use POMO--a pejorative.

"Scientism" isn't related to science, it's related to people's dislike of someone's use of science they don't like. Science and scientism have the same relationship that magic and religion have: "Magic is religion you don't like, religion is magic you do like."

I feel that the anti-science ethos in US conservative circles is an example of the damage that scientism causes. — andrewk

Similar to the way the creationist fundamentalism brings religion into disrepute. Scientism and fundamentalism are in some ways manifestations of a similar tendency.

the review of Pinker's book ENLIGHTENMENT NOW in Quillette — Bitter Crank

That's a good 'meta-review'. I don't share Pinker's materialist philosophy, but overall I would like to believe that his basic thesis is OK - that material, technological and economic progress are both possible and desirable, and that the among the consequences of Western technology and science are indeed longer life-spans, a better standard of living, and less diseases. So - very fair review, I agree that many of the critics of his latest book were pretty churlish.

It's only when evangelical atheists like Dawkins and Krauss appeal to science to 'prove there is no God', and other such nonsense, that 'scientism' rears its ugly head. Otherwise, science is indispensable, needed now more than ever, if Spaceship Earth is to have any kind of future.

Scientism and figures, such as Harris, are not really debated and taken seriously in acadamic philosophy (at least at my university), so non-academic philosophers might be more emotional when dealing with philosophy. — Nop

I'm not surprised no-one at your university debates Harris as he's a popular science writer and an academic neuroscientist (I would be surprised if no-one mentioned him in your neuroscience department though). That's not really the point. Nothing Harris is saying is new, as I say, he's a popular science writer, his job is to write scientific ideas in a way that lay people can understand, and often he does that job well, particularly within his expertise (the way we think).

I would be very surprised, however, if your university did not take his ideas seriously. That would mean never discussing Phillipa Foot, Bernard Williams, Rosalind Hursthouse, Martha Nussbaum ... Even luminaries like Gurtrude Anscombe. I know for a fact that Edinburgh do (or used to do) an entire module on Ethical Naturalism in their Ethics course, which covers biological influences, so either you go to a really weird university, or we're still not quite understanding each other regarding terms.

I remember I called Charleton a "dick" before. I can't remember if I ever called you one. Do you remember? — T Clark

Why, is it the sort of thing you're likely to do?

you are overthinking this. There is no such philosophical school of thought as Scientism. It is just a pejorative label; it expresses a subjective attitude. If someone throws an accusation of "scientism" in a conversation, don't agree or disagree, but ask to elaborate — SophistiCat

Curious contradiction I can't quite unpick, in the first half of the paragraph you say I'm over-thinking it, in the second half you advise asking the users of the term to elaborate. Is that not exactly what I'm doing here? Where is the line you think I've crossed between asking for elaboration and over-thinking?

Thinking about it, I think I understand scientism as a broad attitude of dismissal towards anything that doesn't take its bearings from science. As in, it's less a 'positive', well-developed point of view than a prohibitive or exclusionary one: it's a strategy of delegitimization that invalidates claims (any claims) because they are not based on scientific understanding. I'd say it differs from physicalism because where physicalism might make substantive claims about things - 'it's all physical' or somesuch - scientism doesn't actually care about the 'content' of the science - only that it is science from which claims are made. With respect to their attitudes towards philosophy, I think Krauss and Degrasse Tyson might fit this bill. although they might just be straight up against philosophy per se, and not other things.

This is entirely my own understanding of it though, and I don't speak for others who might use the label.

I would not say 'excessive'. As a science junkie myself, too much science is never enough!

Rather, I regard it as the claim that science should be used in areas where it is not applicable. A prime example is Sam Harris's claim that moral values can be deduced by science. — andrewk

It sounds like you're just moving the goalposts, rather than actually defining the accusation. You've avoided having to define 'excessive' by replacing it with 'not applicable', but this doesn't get us any further to resolving how (and who) to define what constitutes either term. Clearly, Sam Harris, Stephen Hawking and Laurence Krauss think science is applicable in the areas they speak about (or all areas in the case of Hawking), you think it isn't. Can you prove it isn't in some way so objectively demonstrable that others could not reasonably hold a different belief?

If you cannot, then I'm still failing to see how the view that science can answer these question is not just another serious philosophical viewpoint like any other, and yet is continues to be treated with derision. I find Solipsism inappropriate to the questions of existence, but I can't prove it is, so Its just another school of thought. I might make an argument outlining why I think it is an unhelpful way of looking at things, but I don't try to get it ousted from serious debate by applying pejorative labels.

Lawrence Krauss does say it in some of his debates — PossibleAaran

Thanks, I will trawl through some of his debates (although I find him quite unpleasant to listen to so will not make quick progress). I don't suppose you happen to actually have a quote to hand do you?

Can you prove it isn't in some way so objectively demonstrable that others could not reasonably hold a different belief? — Pseudonym

science does not have any comment on matters of quality, other than to say that no other approach can say anything meaningful on the matter either. — Pseudonym

Kind of stacks the deck, doesn’t it?

what reality or world are we trying to describe? — Caldwell

The one we experience. Why would we have any cause to describe any other?

Why is science the default method of explanation given to whatever world we are trying to describe? — Caldwell

Because it provides models which are useful for making predictions about it which is the only purpose I can see to understanding it better in an objective sense.

As you can see, science, as that quote would have it (and I'm only relying on that one quote, as a disclaimer) determines the reality-- instead of the other way around.
Explain to me how this happened. (I'm asking a real question) — Caldwell

I don't see at all how science is determining the reality, so I can't answer your question. Presuming a Realist, Physicalist position, reality is a thing, science makes models of it. How do you think it is determining it, from a Realist perspective?

"Scientism" isn't related to science, it's related to people's dislike of someone's use of science they don't like. Science and scientism have the same relationship that magic and religion have: "Magic is religion you don't like, religion is magic you do like." — Bitter Crank

A good analogy. Reminds me of a recent debate I took part in. Cut off a baby's earlobe, that's child abuse; cut off their foreskin, that's religion.

Here’s the context of the quote mentioned above, which makes Pseudonym’s views on the matter totally clear:

Science can talk meaningfully about an increasingly wide range of subjects because it can demonstrate the remarkable predictive power of its theories, and thereby show a remarkable justification for it's metaphysical presumptions in terms of utility.

Theology can say nothing meaningful about anything because its purview is entirely subjective. Nothing objectively verified in the world we share supports a theological view. That's not to say that no-one can believe in God, or fairies or solipsism, insofar as they come up with some theory as to how such beliefs fit with the sense-experiences we all share, but it is to say that such theories have no authority, they are qualitative, like artwork, no right, no wrong, just opinion. — Pseudonym

So, you said before you wanted some quotes which illustrate ‘the problem with scientism’. And this is a great example.

The epistemological issue here revolves around what is involved in analysis of objects of knowledge, versus judgements about matters that effect subjects.

The salient point is that human beings, in fact, any kind of sentient being, are not objects, as such, but are subjects of experience. Science proceeds by eliminating the subjective - just as you said. But then, extending scientific judgement to the subjects considered by the humanities, by philosophy, theology, and so on, is the very essence of ‘scientism’. It is reductionist in the extreme, precisely because it excludes from consideration the very reality of the subject, on the basis that it is ‘merely subjective’.

This is captured perfectly by the statement above that ‘Theology can say nothing meaningful about anything because its purview is entirely subjective.’ That is typical of the mischaracterisation of the subject that abounds in the pages of popular atheist writers, such as Dawkins and those of that ilk.

And it is why I declined to respond to your posts earlier in this thread. One can argue rationally with those of opposing views, but it’s pointless arguing against such predudicial polemics.

it's a strategy of delegitimization that invalidates claims (any claims) because they are not based on scientific understanding. — StreetlightX

I think that's not a bad definition, but what is it that you think people find so odious about that viewpoint? I mean, they're just saying that no other type of claim is valid, not that no-one can hold or talk about any other claims.

Obviously you might not agree with them in that, but I would commonly expect such disagreement to take the form "claims made using method X are valid because...", whereas all I hear in connection with the term Scientism, is the complaint that it denies claims of any other sort. Well, why shouldn't it? Surely, if one has at least a reasonable argument about epistemological claims, one is entitled to make it?

Curious contradiction I can't quite unpick, in the first half of the paragraph you say I'm over-thinking it, in the second half you advise asking the users of the term to elaborate. Is that not exactly what I'm doing here? Where is the line you think I've crossed between asking for elaboration and over-thinking? — Pseudonym

I mean that the term by itself expresses more of a speaker's attitude than a motivated stance, which is what you've been demanding. If you are after reasons and arguments, then ask your counterpart to give you that, instead of just giving you the attitude.

If you cannot, then I'm still failing to see how the view that science can answer these question is not just another serious philosophical viewpoint like any other, and yet is continues to be treated with derision. — Pseudonym

That it can (present tense) answer these questions is demonstrably wrong because there are no scientific answers to the questions. That it may, one day, be able to answer some of the questions is a tenable belief, but it is a belief of no interest, as there are no proposals for how it might happen - eg what sort of experiments one might do to detect consciousness, or to detect whether a certain action is right or wrong.

Further the Krausses, Harrises and Hawkings of the world don't stop at saying that science may one day be able to answer the questions. They pontificate that it's the only way to answer the questions, and that other approaches like philosophy should be discarded. Not only is that repellant, hubristic dogmatism, but it flies in the face of the observation that many people have found answers to these questions (questions like Kant's 'What Can I know? What must I do? What may I hope for?) in philosophy and/or religion, whereas nobody has found any answers for them in science.

Kind of stacks the deck, doesn’t it? — Wayfarer

Yes, but so what if it does? We're not setting out, in our joint investigation of our collective experience, to make sure that we maintain the essence of whatever viewpoints everyone started out with. Unless it is possible to eliminate some viewpoints we might as well not bother with any public investigation at all.

I think that's not a bad definition, but what is it that you think people find so odious about that viewpoint? I mean, they're just saying that no other type of claim is valid, not that no-one can hold or talk about any other claims.

Obviously you might not agree with them in that, but I would commonly expect such disagreement to take the form "claims made using method X are valid because...", whereas all I hear in connection with the term Scientism, is the complaint that it denies claims of any other sort. Well, why shouldn't it? Surely, if one has at least a reasonable argument about epistemological claims, one is entitled to make it? — Pseudonym

Perhaps (contradicting what I've just said - I am large) "scientism" is perceived as a certain philosophical obliviousness. It is when someone prejudges science to be the right tool for the any job without giving the question any critical thought - i.e. precisely without having a reason for it.

One can argue rationally with those of opposing views, but it’s pointless arguing against such predudicial polemics. — Wayfarer

Why is the position that Theology has something meaningful to say a reasonable one, but the position that it does not irrational prejudice?

I think that's not a bad definition, but what is it that you think people find so odious about that viewpoint? — Pseudonym

Well it's mostly quite clearly a heap of horseshit that doesn't even do justice to the science itself, but even more obviously no one likes to have their views dismissed on a priori bases.

That it can (present tense) answer these questions is demonstrably wrong because there are no scientific answers to the questions. — andrewk

I can run 27 miles, I know this because I have run several marathons. I never actually have run 27 miles, I've always stopped at 26, but I don't think anyone would dispute my claim that I can run 27 miles.

That it may, one day, be able to answer some of the questions is a tenable belief, but it is a belief of no interest, as there are no proposals for how it might happen — andrewk

This begs the question. Ethical naturalists claim to have a proposal for how science can answer questions of morality, you dismiss it out of hand by saying science is inapplicable to morality, and then you claim science has no proposals for how it might answer questions traditionally tackled by philosophy. It's just a self-fulfilling statement.

They pontificate that it's the only way to answer the questions, and that other approaches like philosophy should be discarded. — andrewk

Why is it that when scientists make arguments against certain philosophical approaches they "pontificate", yet when people like Heidegger write what many consider to be meaningless nonsense, they are great thinkers?

many people have found answers to these questions (questions like Kant's 'What Can I know? What must I do? What may I hope for?) in philosophy and/or religion, whereas nobody has found any answers for them in science. — andrewk

This is just nonsense. Either 'answers' are entirely subjective or not. If they are entirely subjective then people have obviously found such answers in science. If they are objective, then how are you judging who has 'found an answer' such that you know for a fact that no one in science has?

Why is the position that Theology has something meaningful to say a reasonable one, but the position that it does not irrational prejudice? — Pseudonym

I take it that in your statement ‘theology’ serves as a placeholder for the various forms of philosophy that are not science. Is this not the case?

It is when someone prejudges science to be the right tool for the any job without giving the question any critical thought - i.e. precisely without having a reason for it. — SophistiCat

I certainly think this gets close to what people who use the term are thinking, but how are they judging whether critical thought has gone into the judgement? It sounds a little bit like "if they didn't come up with the answer I think is right they mustn't have thought about it carefully enough".

Kind of stacks the deck, doesn’t it?
— Wayfarer

Yes, but so what if it does? — Pseudonym

Because, by saying that ‘science cannot ascertain a basis of values, but nothing else can either’, then you’ve essentially declared in advance that anything other than your preferred approach won’t be considered. It’s like ‘if I can’t have her, nobody else can, either!’