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
I would not say 'excessive'. As a science junkie myself, too much science is never enough!So, What does Scientism actually mean?
Presuming it means something like the excessive use of science — Pseudonym
have you ever heard or read anyone actually making this claim — Pseudonym
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
I feel that the anti-science ethos in US conservative circles is an example of the damage that scientism causes. — andrewk
the review of Pinker's book ENLIGHTENMENT NOW in Quillette — Bitter Crank
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
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
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
Lawrence Krauss does say it in some of his debates — PossibleAaran
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
what reality or world are we trying to describe? — Caldwell
Why is science the default method of explanation given to whatever world we are trying to describe? — Caldwell
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
"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
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
it's a strategy of delegitimization that invalidates claims (any claims) because they are not based on scientific understanding. — StreetlightX
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
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.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
Kind of stacks the deck, doesn’t it? — Wayfarer
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
I think that's not a bad definition, but what is it that you think people find so odious about that viewpoint? — Pseudonym
That it can (present tense) answer these questions is demonstrably wrong because there are no scientific answers to the questions. — andrewk
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
They pontificate that it's the only way to answer the questions, and that other approaches like philosophy should be discarded. — andrewk
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
Why is the position that Theology has something meaningful to say a reasonable one, but the position that it does not irrational prejudice? — Pseudonym
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
Kind of stacks the deck, doesn’t it?
— Wayfarer
Yes, but so what if it does? — Pseudonym
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.