Scientism & Philosophical Arguments

[SteveII]

It has come up when discussing philosophical arguments that arguments don't mean anything if we are trying to draw conclusions from science (or the absense of scientific knowledge). I think I am correct in pointing out that that is a result of scientism. When I mention it, I often get a confused reaction, deflection, or derision. For those that enjoy an intelligent debate, it might be productive to discuss. 

Scientism, also known as metaphysical or philosophical naturalism, is a worldview that believes only science and the scientific method can judge the truth of something. Click here for more info.

So, which is it? Is philosophy dead as Stephen Hawking claims? 

Or is scientism too restrictive a theory of knowledge and we discover truth through other means? Philosophical arguments can inform us.

[The Grand Nudger]

Well, philo and meta naturalism aren't actually scientism, nor are they the notion that only science can judge truth.  So..I guess that pretty much shits on your OP and I'm done on that count.

As regards the value of philosophy - you need some tool to decide whether or not your propositions are sound, and this is required by the system we've organized to describe proper or informative argumentation. We know that you don't get to vomit up any old statement, as you did above, and then claim to be approaching or seeking truth. We knew that long before we ever got into science, and science can't draw conclusions without reference to philosophy - as a largely inductive system itself. Science sans philosophy is a nonsensical statement, and philosophy without science is merely an exhibition of structural method. This, ofc..is what Hawking very clearly expressed. That philosophy, without hard data, is insufficient. Hardly a revelation.

[Anomalocaris]

It has come up when discussing philosophical arguments that arguments don't mean anything if we are trying to draw conclusions from science (or the absense of scientific knowledge). I think I am correct in pointing out that that is a result of scientism. When I mention it, I often get a confused reaction, deflection, or derision. For those that enjoy an intelligent debate, it might be productive to discuss. 

Scientism, also known as metaphysical or philosophical naturalism, is a worldview that believes only science and the scientific method can judge the truth of something. Click here for more info.

So, which is it? Is philosophy dead as Stephen Hawking claims? 

Or is scientism too restrictive a theory of knowledge and we discover truth through other means? Philosophical arguments can inform us.

Scentism? Yes, as oppose to the bullshit theory of knowledge which you are clearly trying to advocate?

[Faith No More]

I'm a naturalist, and I don't believe for a second that the scientific method is the only way to knowledge. It just happens to be the best.

I think your beef, SteveII, is with Hume and the skeptics that dismantled reason without evidence, which is clearly what you are proposing. And lo and behold, neuroscience has shown that the skeptics were right and that the human brain is not equipped to simply pontificate and come to some sort of truth. We're flawed beings with flawed brains that need a method to parse reality, not wishful thinking.

[Natachan]

I tend to be a philosophical naturalist and an empiricist. I have a hard time understanding claims that rely on abandoning these paths. I don't call this "scientism" because I think that's a silly term. Science is good for examining physical reality, but in terms of forming sound arguments or exploring the different models of thought philosophy and the softer subjects do have utility.

[The Grand Nudger]

It's not so silly a term, what's silly is Steve's (and it's opponents) mis-characterization of it.  Someone who subscribes to scientism would tell you that it's the best tool, as has already been expressed.  That "only system" bit is the language of it's critics, lol - everything sounds silly in the language of critics.  By placing ones hat in with science in such a manner, ala scientism, one is -explicitly- acknowledging the value of inductive reasoning, of philosophy.  The discord between the two is pejorative and manufactured. Someone is implying that one must choose between science and philosophy...which is gibberish. Generally, that someone is a "philosopher", lol.

[Aoi Magi]

Science is not the only way to truth, rather it is a necessary tool to validate truth

[Longhorn]

I'm a wafflist. You're all wrong. Peace

[SteveII]

The very first sentence in the link I gave: Scientism is belief in the universal applicability of the scientific method and approach, and the view that empirical science constitutes the most "authoritative" worldview or the most valuable part of human learning - to the exclusion of other viewpoints. The rest of the paragraph goes on to say the same things to varying degrees. 

No one has a problem with science and what it has discovered. The question is where does science stop? There is no way science can comment on what it means that it seems inextricable that life came from non-life or how incredibly complex the cell is. Science cannot comment on the existence of God, why the universe is fine-tuned, the existence of miracles, and a myriad of other things. Rhythm is right, it is a tool. It is not the source of all knowledge and certainly cannot be used to dismiss alternatives that may be true/probably/possible/not likely through other methods not conflicting with science.

[The Grand Nudger]

What has been excluded?  Not philosophy, obviously. "Faithing" for truth? When someone makes a truth claim regarding the nature of this or that..should we consult our oracles? Throw sticks? Cast bones? Read the cards? Check a magic book? Calculate the position of the stars? Slaughter a goat for it's entrails? Brew a cup of tea? Post a letter to the spirit world?

Get to the money shot.