Question for Opposes Scientism Group

[help3434]

I admit that I don't know much about the topic but is seems like a straw-man. Can you give some examples of scientism as it exists today and explain why it is a problem?

[Divine Insight]

I don't "oppose" Scientism. However, I do have personal reasons why I don't personally embrace it as a complete world view.

As far as Scientism being a "problem", I think it's only a problem in that it creates a false impression that science could, or should be able to describe all of reality completely. This is something that I personally thing can never be done.

So here's my position, mainly from the vantage point of actually being a scientist since science had been my lifelong interest, academic pursuit, and career.

So the first question to ask is "What is Science?"

Well science is built upon The Scientific Method or creating hypothesis, and then testing these hypotheses against physically observable and measurable phenomena.

That's all that science is. Science looks at the observable physical world and then attempts to describe that behavior in predicable and quantifiable ways using mathematical relationships.

This is all that science does, and all that science can do. If you can't measure it and quantify it, then you can't claim that it has a "scientific basis".

This notion broke down with the discovery of Quantum Phenomena. In Quantum Mechanics it was discovered that beneath a certain level of physical reality there exists a point where it no longer makes any sense to speak about physical properties existing in any definite and predicable way. On the contrary, Quantum Mechanics demands that at the foundation of reality the world behaves in totally random ways that can only be described as "Waves of Potentiality".

So the scientific method of inquiry breaks down at this level of reality.

What is far more interesting is that our current theory of a Big Bang birth of our universe also relies upon this random potential behavior of Quantum Mechanics.

So not only is the foundation of our universe out of reach of the scientific method of inquiry, but apparently so is the very nature of reality and the birth of our very universe.

We no longer have a rational reason to believe that science should ever be able to say anything about the true nature of reality.

So for this reason, I certainly wouldn't adopt Scientism as my "World View" when science itself is clearly unable to describe the world in its entirety.

Science has limitations and it's only intelligent to recognize and acknowledge them I think.

Now if you are to ask me what philosophy or method of inquiry we should adopt to go "beyond science" I cannot offer you one. But that's a moot point. Just because I can't offer a better method of determining the true nature of reality doesn't help science.

What may ultimately be true is that we'll just never know the true nature of reality. Unless, of course, we're lucky enough to discover that when we physically die we then wake up in an alternative reality. That's always a possibility that science certainly can't hope to rule out.

In fact, the "Many Worlds" interpretation of Quantum Mechanics is becoming increasingly favored by many famous scientists today. And the "Many Worlds" explanation for Quantum Mechanics actually suggests that consciousness itself must necessarily split with every quantum action. This would also imply that physical reality is truly consciously-created rather than the other way around.

And that may be the true nature of reality.

I personally don't care for the Many Worlds interpretation of QM. But even other interpretations suggest the same observer-created reality themes.

So this may be the true nature of reality. And ironically we arrived at these speculative interpretations of a consciousness-created reality based upon our scientific physical observations. Therefore, in a very real sense, science itself is pointing the way to an observer-created, or consciousness-created existence.

So in either case, it seems to me that Scientism is clearly too restricted to ever become a complete picture of reality. There's obviously something more going on. And, as I say, it's even science that has revealed this fact to us. So science certainly has that to be proud of. Science has no reason to feel defeated. It served its purpose in our quest to better understand reality.

[help3434]

Does anyone knowingly embrace scientism? It is a pejorative after all. I am just wondering if it actually is a problem or if it is just an imagined fear.

[Goat]

Does anyone knowingly embrace scientism? It is a pejorative after all. I am just wondering if it actually is a problem or if it is just an imagined fear.

I don't know if it is a 'fear' so much as some key words used by people that base a lot of their world view on heavy metaphysics.

[help3434]

[Replying to post 4 by Goat]

Not everybody though. One member of the group also belongs to Scientific Naturalist.

[Jester]

Thanks for the message; I would have missed this otherwise.

But, let's see...
The most obvious supporter of Scientism is Alex Rosenberg, who's book "The Atheist's Guide to Reality" promotes Scientism by that name.

It is a problem for any who feel that there are important things in life that Scientism excludes. Obviously, this would include all theists, but also anyone who believes in objective morality or free will.

As the idea that all of reality reduces to science, which in turn (so the argument goes) reduces to physics seems to be growing as of late, many are concerned to point out the reasons* why it is a poor philosophy.


(* It's off-topic, but I thought worth mention that I've been doing this more on my blog lately, rather than here.)

[Goat]

Thanks for the message; I would have missed this otherwise.

But, let's see...
The most obvious supporter of Scientism is Alex Rosenberg, who's book "The Atheist's Guide to Reality" promotes Scientism by that name.

It is a problem for any who feel that there are important things in life that Scientism excludes. Obviously, this would include all theists, but also anyone who believes in objective morality or free will.

As the idea that all of reality reduces to science, which in turn (so the argument goes) reduces to physics seems to be growing as of late, many are concerned to point out the reasons* why it is a poor philosophy.


(* It's off-topic, but I thought worth mention that I've been doing this more on my blog lately, rather than here.)

I'll have to read that, and see if what he says about 'scientism' and what you say about 'scientism' match.

[Jester]

I'll have to read that, and see if what he says about 'scientism' and what you say about 'scientism' match.

Indeed, that seems the reasonable approach.

I've been slowly responding to the book on my blog, actually, because I feel that it represents such a good reductio ad absurdum of materialism.

[help3434]

[Replying to post 6 by Jester]

Thank you for replying. I did not know that there was someone who considered himself a promoter of scientism. Does he have much of a following? According to Wikipedia his book was not very well received.

[Jester]

Thank you for replying. I did not know that there was someone who considered himself a promoter of scientism. Does he have much of a following? According to Wikipedia his book was not very well received.

I don't know. There are people leaving positive reviews on the Amazon page (along with those leaving negative reviews, to be sure).

As far as I can tell, those who are pleased with him also tend to be fans of the "New Atheist" books. Which is unsurprising, as the position they promote fits comfortably within scientism.