Scientism - Nothing But a Childish Insult?

by cofty 147 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Rainbow_Troll

  cofty
  Rainbow Troll - Thank you for your answer. I get the impression that the only example of things that cannot be known through empirical scientific evidence is pure mathematics. Is that correct?

  I used math because it is really the simplest example, but essentially I believe logic can address any question of metaphysics (which is mostly math, but also touches on things like theology and ethics) Logic can give us intuitions about physics as well (Einstein's thought experiments being a good example), but these intuitions should always be tested empirically when possible, since it is very easy to make logical errors when the subject is as complicated as what happens at light speed or how subatomic particles behave.
• 

  cofty

  So basically just maths then?
• 

  sparrowdown

  How much of knowledge has come about by tragic "woopsy didn't know that was dangerous" method. I just pity the poor bastards who lived in the periods of time when Drs didn't know shit. Thankyou to all those guinea pig patients and mentally ill people and soldiers and gay people who were subjected to medicinal "torture" in the name of advancing knowledge. Also thankyou to all the lives sacrificed so we could find out smoking wasn't actually good for health or asbestos was not such a great idea or lead was toxic or thalidimide was a total cock up and don't even get me started on the latest thinking carbs no carbs diets etc so on and so forth..... Fact:science gets it wrong sometimes.

  Absolute blind faith in anything and everything called science could be classed as an "ism" but I think anything has the potential to become an "ism."
• 

  slimboyfat

  So basically just maths then?

  Does history count as knowledge? For example.
• 

  John_Mann

  Does history count as knowledge? For example.

  Marxism is based on the idea that history is reduced to matter. Crazy idea called historical materialism. It's a kind of scientism.

  Everything must be material even beauty must be explained. Music is only matter and motion for instance.

  That's why modern art is so ugly.

  One characteristic of truth is beauty.
• 

  Rainbow_Troll

  cofty
  So basically just maths then?

  Math is the subject least prone to error, but logic, as a subset of math, can also help us with other questions that I don't think would be easily amenable to scientific experiments. Just off the top of my head:

  What is matter? What would its properties be if it could exist in a higher spacial dimension? Or what if we removed a dimension? Is matter infinitely reducible to smaller and smaller components or are their fundamental particles that cannot be reduced any further? And how does matter relate to consciousness? Is consciousness an epiphenomena of matter arranged in a particular configuration or is it essentially independent of matter? Can consciousness survive the destruction of the body? Is there a God? If there is, what would such a being be like?

  These questions are much harder to answer than any math problem. Most of them are actually interdependent on one another and so could not be answered in isolation; in fact, even a single wrong answer could through off the entire equation! But these questions are nonetheless amenable to a sustained exercise of logical deduction. I will not try to answer any of them here (that would require an entire book at least!) but I encourage anyone who is interested to read Aristotle's Logic, Plato's Dialogues, Plotinus' Enneads, René Descartes' Meditations on the First Philosophy, Baruch Spinoza's Ethica and Wilhelm Leibniz's Metaphysics and Monadology. I strongly recommend George MacDonald Ross' excellent survey of Leibniz's thought. His book, Leibniz, is long out of print, but can still be obtained via the interlibrary loan system. There is also a decent ebook on Leibniz available from Amazon by Mike Hockney: The Last Man Who Knew Everything. Hockney is a good enough writer and very brilliant, but in my opinion he wastes a lot of space criticizing anyone who disagrees with his views.

  There is a logical progression in the works of these thinkers and those who are patient and willing to think through the questions they raise, using their own powers of deduction, will find the answers to these questions and many more besides. None of these philisophers got everything right. They all made mistakes. But philosophy is not dogmatic like religion. Properly, there should be no Platonists, Aristotelians or Nietzschians. Don't read them looking for answers. Read them so you'll know which questions to ask so you can arrive at your own answers!
  
• 

  Ruby456

  yup logic and ethics gives us greater knowledge than science

  fiction gives us greater knowledge than science too - think about how much fiction we watch and read and make up - we owe our survival to fiction particularly when we knew we were making up stories

  imagine being stuck in a cave with nothing to do except draw on the walls and tell stories round a campfire
• 

  cofty

  All very interesting, a few things I agree with and a lot I disagree with. Bottom line is I still have never encountered anyone in this forum or elsewhere who thinks that way John_Mann.

  What sort of dullard would deny the importance and beauty of music, art, fiction, logic, maths and ethics?

  As I said in my OP to accuse anyone here of scientism is nothing but a cheap insult and a way of avoiding the burden of proof.
• 

  Rainbow_Troll

  I have read a lot of writers who are scientists, but I can't think of even one who's views could properly be considered 'scienticism'. Richard Dawkins comes as close as anyone, but even he admits that science can't answer every question. He has an enlightened disdain for Freud's psychological theories (which are empirically unprovable), but he doesn't reject the field of psychology or think it should be replaced with neurology.

  I do know one person who's views might rightly be described as 'scientism'. But he isn't a scientist and in fact knows very little about science (though he is good at math). I think his 'scientism', though, boils down to a hatred for religion. He hates religion so much that I can't make an allusion from the Bible or quote a saying of the Buddha's without hearing his objection to such nonsense. He roundly rejects the existence of anything that cannot be seen, touched and measured precisely because this is the last refuge of religion now that science has so thoroughly refuted all of its claims about the origin of humans and cosmology.

  Some lay people who don't understand science and have a chip on their shoulders when it comes to religion may very well be guilty of scientism, but I don't think they represent the mainstream in science. The late David Bohm wrote an extremely fascinating philosophical book, Wholeness and the Implicate Order. Roger Penrose and Douglass Hofstadter are at least two living scientists and writers who seem to be very comfortable with metaphysics. I'm certain there are plenty of others.
• 

  cofty

  I am deeply suspicious of a lot of what people label as metaphysics but I am nowhere close to being guilty of "scientism".