Talk:Scientism

Examples of non-scientific knowledge

Hi, I was reading this article because someone used the word in a debate and I hadn't been familiar with the term, and I found this article difficult to understand because of selections like "It is used to criticize a totalizing view of science as if it were capable of describing all reality and knowledge, or as if it were the only true way to acquire knowledge about reality and the nature of things;...". Could someone please provide for instance, some examples used by people who make that claim? I found it personally difficult to imagine any. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.156.104.178 (talk) 15:22, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure this is what the article but for example first peson experiences cannot be subject to third person neutrality therefore they lie outside the epistemiological domain of science. The same could be applied to things such as causality, which are intuitively correct but improvable through logic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.227.66.211 (talk) 16:36, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

First sentence

"Scientism is a critical term expressing a rejection of extreme expressions of logical positivism and the view that empirical science constitutes the most authoritative worldview or most valuable part of human learning."

The first sentence is somewhat ambiguous. It could be taken to mean "Scientism refers to a rejection of logical positivism, etc.". Surely that's wrong: when people attack "scientism", they are not attacking the rejection of logical positivism, etc. I propose that we reverse the order of the first two sentences (along with some appropriate rewording) so that the first sentence says something like "Scientism refers to the dogmatic embrace of scientific methodology and the reduction of all knowledge to only that which is measurable" and the second sentence says something like "The term is used to express a rejection of extreme logical positivism and the view that empirical science constitutes the most authoritative worldview or most valuable part of human learning". Unfortunately, I don't have access to the print sources that are cited for the first two sentences, so I'm afraid to make the change myself, lest I misrepresent the sources. --Phatius McBluff (talk) 14:35, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Some edits to preserve NPOV

Hi. I'd like to do some edits to preserve NPOV - to make it clear that the article isn't agreeing (or disagreeing) with those calling something scientism - and to remove some of the extensive quoting. However, Hgilbert seems to think that these goals are less important than avoiding "complex wording". Could the sense of what I wrote be written in a less-complex way? Allens (talk) 07:38, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with your goal, but i don't think what you did improved the clarity or neutrality of the article a great deal. Maybe you should try again? Or state more clearly here what changes you propose. Nobody 'owns' the article, so you can do what you like, but obviously edits may get reverted so it is best to try and get some form of consensus somehow. just my ten cents! Peter morrell 08:29, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

The preservation of a neutral point of view is all of our goal. No disagreement there. Citations and quotations drawn from a variety of sources are one of the best ways to achieve this, incidentally.

Presently, the article repeatedly uses the terms belief, view, etc. It's very clear that this describes a viewpoint, and makes no call on whether this is justified or unjustified. If there is an exception to this, do show it here and we can definitely improve this. Otherwise, it's not clear to me what the issue is. hgilbert (talk) 13:07, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

The "beef" clearly is that you reverted his good faith edit and you both therefore seem to be using quite different definitions of what NPOV is. Peter morrell 14:52, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Not clear, Peter. Compare the following and explain why one is more neutral than the other:

• The term is usually used by those critical of this viewpoint and of what they consider the more extreme expressions of logical positivism
• The term frequently implies a critique of the more extreme expressions of logical positivism
• the term is attempting to argue against both appeals to scientific authority and the conclusions of the scientific method
• the term is a counter-argument to appeals to scientific authority
• To refer to a claimed belief
• To refer to a belief

I only see more verbiage. hgilbert (talk) 15:25, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

OK point taken; I agree with you in fact and don't have a big problem with the current wording, but maybe s/he will weigh in with their own views? Just putting in more words does not, as you say, make anything more NPOV. Let's wait and see what the guy has to say. thanks Peter morrell 15:38, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Rationalization and Modernity

There is a quotation from Aldous Huxley which is not a sentence; indeed it consists only of a subject ("the world") and has no further comment or justification of it being included. Did an edit remove the commentary? It sets the stage portending some grand sweeping statement about the world being complex, fraught with a multitude of avenues of meaning for its inhabitants, and then ends in an elipsis without stating a point Is it supposed to be a meta-comment that the world has no meaning, or that we live our lives expecting to find out its meaning and then are cut off before that can occur?

Please clarify this quotation's relevance in this context, or delete it. Thank you. Pinkpedaller (talk) 04:14, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Demonym/Lede

Is one who embraces the charge of scientism as outlined in the current lede a "Scientist"? Is "measurable" in the given source? I'm looking to corner the epithet slingers by finding that what is in fact meant is "rationally understood". Period, not just "culturally" as stated in the last sentence. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 03:07, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

It's hardly demonizing, you might find this helpful: Olson, R. (2008). Science and scientism in nineteenth-century Europe. University of Illinois Press. ISBN 9780252074332. LCCN 2007005146. http://books.google.com/books?id=h8C7fe50J0AC&pg=PA1.  He argues, not unconvincingly, that it's not really all that bad.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 22:24, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

A demonym has nothing to do with demons, Machine Elf. Actually I don't think there is one and "logical positivist" is probably the closest. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 22:06, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, you learn something new everyday. I thought you were asking if a respectable "Scientist" would embrace the term. Of course, anything's possible, but it doesn't mean someone is therefore called a "scientist", maybe they're just a fan, or in fact, a mad scientist, (which needn't reflect poorly on their job performance). In so far as epithets are slung unfairly, it's meaningless in any case. Patricia Churchland had some rye comments about how a scientist might be expected to take such a “criticism”…

It's easy to miss, but a logical positivist would be a 20th century philosopher who inadvertently undermined hope that a logical foundation for science will be forthcoming.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 03:38, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Nietzsche

I've checked the Nietzsche reference; it discusses science's grounding in a moral act of faith, but does not say what the text here says it does. The text should be removed again. hgilbert (talk) 17:37, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

OK thanks I will check that quote again not sure where it came from. in good faith Peter morrell 18:20, 8 February 2012 (UTC)