What the heck is “scientism�?

[nursebenjamin]

What the heck is “scientism�?

Wikipedia states that scientism is the idea that natural science is the most authoritative worldview or aspect of human education, and that it is superior to all other interpretations of life.

This "idea" is wrong; science has no authority over art, music, literature, philosophy, theatre. Wouldn't it be better to define natural science as an attempt to build and organize knowledge that is gained through observation and experimentation in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the natural world?

Science is authoritative when it comes to understand the natural world, but not with every aspect of human education. What am I missing?

[Slopeshoulder]

Nothing. You're right.
You use science porperly and reject scientism.

[Goat]

Nothing. You're right.
You use science porperly and reject scientism.

I don't know anybody what subscribes to it. It seems to me that as described, 'scientism' is a straw man that people who reject the conclusions of science (such as the TOE, and a 13-14 billion year old universe) came up with to throw at people who do accept science.

[Slopeshoulder]

Nothing. You're right.
You use science porperly and reject scientism.

I don't know anybody what subscribes to it.

I sure do.

It seems to me that as described, 'scientism' is a straw man that people who reject the conclusions of science (such as the TOE, and a 13-14 billion year old universe) came up with to throw at people who do accept science.

Please don't count me among their number!!

But no, scientism was come up with by philosophers and scholars, evan as it may be misused by science-denying conservative apologists.

[nursebenjamin]

I don't know anybody what subscribes to it.

I sure do.

Sorry, I must be dense. I don't get it.

So you subscribe to the idea that natural science is the most authoritative aspect of human education, including humanities such as art, music, literature, philosophy, theater, religion; and that science is superior to all other interpretations of life?

How can science have authority over literature? How how does one go about determining whether or not science is superior to art, or to music?

[Slopeshoulder]

I don't know anybody what subscribes to it.

I sure do.

Sorry, I must be dense. I don't get it.

So you subscribe to the idea that natural science is the most authoritative aspect of human education, including humanities such as art, music, literature, philosophy, theater, religion; and that science is superior to all other interpretations of life?

How can science have authority over literature? How how does one go about determining whether or not science is superior to art, or to music?

NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I'm not one of them.
But I know them. They are all over the place in Boston/Cambridge.
Good questions, ask them.

[McCulloch]

Science is authoritative when it comes to understand the natural world.

I agree. I don't quite understand what part of reality is not part of the natural world. The supernatural world? The subnatural world? The unnatural world?

Science has no authority over art, music, literature, philosophy, theatre.

Humans have not progressed very far in the scientific understanding of art, music, literature, theatre, cuisine, philosophy or ethics. But, being part of the natural world, why would these topic be in principle, out of reach for scientific study?

[nygreenguy]

theoposis and I had a discussion about scientism here.

[nursebenjamin]

Science is authoritative when it comes to understand the natural world.

... But, being part of the natural world, why would these topic be in principle, out of reach for scientific study?

[center]"To Tug Hearts, Music First Must Tickle the Neurons"[/center]

The other day, Paul Simon was rehearsing a favorite song: his own “Darling Lorraine,� about a love that starts hot but turns very cold. He found himself thinking about a three-note rhythmic pattern near the end, where Lorraine (spoiler alert) gets sick and dies.

“The song has that triplet going on underneath that pushes it along, and at a certain point I wanted it to stop because the story suddenly turns very serious,� Mr. Simon said in an interview.

“The stopping of sounds and rhythms,� he added, “it’s really important, ... If you just keep the thing going like a loop, eventually it loses its power.�

An insight like this may seem purely subjective, far removed from anything a scientist could measure. But now some scientists are aiming to do just that, trying to understand and quantify what makes music expressive — what specific aspects make one version of, say, a Beethoven sonata convey more emotion than another.

The results are contributing to a greater understanding of how the brain works and of the importance of music in human development, communication and cognition, and even as a potential therapeutic tool.
...

[center][/center]