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. — StreetlightX
it's mostly quite clearly a heap of horseshit.... — StreetlightX
Except of course if one's view is that scientific investigation is the only meaningful way to form public theories about reality, in which case it seems quite de rigueur do dismiss them out of hand. — Pseudonym
then you’ve essentially declared in advance that anything other than your preferred approach won’t be considered. — Wayfarer
At issue is not the formation of theories about objects of perception, but
treating science as a source of values rather than as a method for ascertaining facts. — Wayfarer — Wayfarer
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
Never hard to dog whistle an atheist on this forum. — Wayfarer
Questions of quality are of a different order to that. — Wayfarer
SO your response must be: how can you scientifically prove that they’re of a different order? What is the scientific evidence that questions of meaning and quality are of a different order to the quantitative? — Wayfarer
More particularly, how are you doing so in so absolutely a conclusive way that the alternative viewpoint need not even be considered? — Pseudonym
It's not necessary to support the claim that they are of a different order. The claim is that if they are of a different order, then we have no method for answering the questions posed in those areas. — Pseudonym
Again you’re basically arguing that all knowledge is empirical and then demanding empirical evidence as to why it isn’t. — Wayfarer
Someone posted it here before, but it is a perfect illustration of Scientism: — Kitty
That's quite some distance from you insulting caricature — Pseudonym
I'm not demanding empirical evidence as to why it isn't, any evidence at all will do. — 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
I just resent the idea that it's so wrong it can be dismissed out of hand. — Pseudonym
I wonder if the methods of science are the only ones that count as empirical?
I'm thinking for instance of Heidegger's phenomenological investigation (his "existential analytic") into the basic structures of human existence (Dasein) - and Being more generally - as being highly empirical if not scientific in the traditional sense. — Erik
OK - you’re stipulating any scientific evidence: — Wayfarer
I’m dismissing it because you yourself are stipulating, in advance, the only kinds of arguments that you are prepared to consider. — Wayfarer
I haven't heard any evidence.... — Pseudonym
Heidegger is not opposed to science per se insofar as he does not reject the human project of understanding nature. The most well-known basis for dismissing him as simply “anti-science” is the claim he makes repeatedly in Was Heisst Denken? that “science does not think” (WD, 4/8, et passim). But he also says often in this text that “most thought-provoking of all is that we are still not thinking” (WD, 2/4, et passim). His objection is not so much to science as to scientism, that is, the preclusion of other ways of thinking by the representational thinking of the sciences, and the marginalization, displacement, and devaluation of other methodologies and bodies of knowledge by the scientific standard of objectivity that has become epistemologically dominant in modernity.
...For Heidegger....this kind of scientism is the root of nihilism: a blind faith in science (like blind faith in God) means that people can all sink into the tiny worldviews of their immediate perceptual lives in the belief that someone or something else will take care of questions of value (moral meaning) at the same time as whatever-it-is satisfies material, teleological ends 1.
I'm not so sure, however, if the "existentials" he lays out - being-in-the-world, being-with, etc. - would be accepted as properly scientific since they represent ways of being (so to speak) rather than physical properties. — Erik
You won’t consider any arguments/ — Wayfarer
Lazy Google on Heidegger and Scientism:
Heidegger is not opposed to science per se insofar as he does not reject the human project of understanding nature. The most well-known basis for dismissing him as simply “anti-science” is the claim he makes repeatedly in Was Heisst Denken? that “science does not think” (WD, 4/8, et passim). But he also says often in this text that “most thought-provoking of all is that we are still not thinking” (WD, 2/4, et passim). His objection is not so much to science as to scientism, that is, the preclusion of other ways of thinking by the representational thinking of the sciences, and the marginalization, displacement, and devaluation of other methodologies and bodies of knowledge by the scientific standard of objectivity that has become epistemologically dominant in modernity.
...For Heidegger....this kind of scientism is the root of nihilism: a blind faith in science (like blind faith in God) means that people can all sink into the tiny worldviews of their immediate perceptual lives in the belief that someone or something else will take care of questions of value (moral meaning) at the same time as whatever-it-is satisfies material, teleological ends 1. — Wayfarer
I haven't said anything about Heidegger. I don't really understand him, but I am open to the idea that there is something very interesting there. If one day I get the time to read him seriously, I might find out.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? — Pseudonym
Like I said, science can tell us what morality is. Morality is the subjective perspective of another's influence on one's personal and group goals. Are you saying that science can tell us what is right or wrong? Aren't those value judgments? How can science make a value judgment? It makes observations and simply tries to explain those observations in a consistent way.I understand that such a position exists, but it is not proven to be the case, its a meta-ethical position, a matter for debate, and has been for thousands of years.
Are there people within "Scientism" who are actually claiming that science proves morality is objective, certainly Sam Harris hasn't claimed that (to my knowledge). His claim is that morality seems to be objective (a meta-ethical argument), and therefore, science can tell us what is moral. You might not agree, but I don't see what is wrong with the position such as to justify a pejorative use of the term. I just sounds like an old, well-travelled philosophical position to me. — Pseudonym
As to scientists pontificating, the reason I'm happy to use such a term is partly that they are unremarkable scientists, like Krauss or Hawking. — andrewk
Morality is the subjective perspective of another's influence on one's personal and group goals. — Harry Hindu
How can science make a value judgment? It makes observations and simply tries to explain those observations in a consistent way. — Harry Hindu
What is a moral dilemma, and why is it a dilemma?How do you know this? — Pseudonym
What is a moral dilemma, and why is it a dilemma? — Harry Hindu
Did Sam Harris provide the name of the scientific field that studies what is right or wrong? — Harry Hindu
What about any falsifiable theories on what if moral - did he provide any of that? — Harry Hindu
Certainly not. But with so many ideas around, we need to use some filter to decide which ideas to discuss. When we see somebody putting about an idea about a topic (philosophy) which they have not taken the time to investigate and of which they are patently ignorant, it fails the filter.Are we only to talk about the ideas of those who have made earth-shattering advances in their field? — Pseudonym
Yes, and so is the history of art, literature and most worthwhile human endeavours. Yet when celebrities that know little of art or literature say ignorant things about them, they are reported because they were said by a celebrity, then disregarded (I am reminded of when Elle MacPherson said she didn't think people should read books they haven't written themself). Nobody proposes to establish a research project to investigate the 'ideas' of the celebrity.The history of philosophy is so blindly aimless that to suggest there is some canon of work leading incrementally up to the positions held nowadays in some subject is stretching the point. — 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.