It's become thoroughly unclear how either of those statements might manage to be unscientific. Though it's also become common to reach for emotional states as presumed counter-factuals. More on that in a second. To produce scientism we would have to go further. Some situation in which you claimed the above, but scientific methods conclude otherwise, and on the basis of that discard your professions of love and hate. Sure, you may say you love this and hate that - but your physiological response says you don't know shit about you.
Scientism is not the rejection of value of any kind, but a preference for one method in the context of a specific value. Truth. It exists as a reaction to what some see as the over-rationalization of western culture. This is why, in error, emotion was cast as foil to reason - as though emotional truth were antithetical to rational truth. Conceptually, there needs to be some area where scientific scrutiny is inappropriate. Some other domain. The broad utility of science in all domains of life argues very persuasively against scientisms principal complaint - but any mention of that will appear to be scientism to those compelled to make that objection. This makes it seem, to those afflicted, that a large number of people positively subscribe to scientism and just don't know it.
Your loves and hates are..in all likelihood, based on repeated observations and expectations. Others could probably divine, by scientific experimentation, that you hated bagpipe music and loved your wife. While the categories of likes and dislikes, what we love and what we hate probably aren't outside of science's domain, the statement made supposing that they are demonstrates that the criticism is incoherent on it's own grounds. A person who can make a statement like your own might not have the right domain in mind - but they obviously accept that there is or might be such a domain.
This is where it gets super meta. The most salient aspect of scientism-as-criticism, applied methodology, has been assumed by the scientific method. The heavy emphasis on falsification is a product of valid criticism. Popper famously argued that it was trivially easy to find evidence in favor of any theory, categorically rejecting induction as the characteristic method of science. Corroboration, then, as he calls it, should only count when it makes a genuinely risky proposition. One that could have conceivably gone pear shaped, lol.
Even in this view, falsification over positivism, our love and hate could be in the domain of science. One could make a risky prediction about how we respond to our wives, or to bagpipe music. We could even arrange for a standard array of observations and predictions, not banking on what we would do if we were in love, but what we would do if we were in hate or indifference. Not what we would do if we hated bagpipe music, but what we would do if we loved it. Popper argued (and I think he was right) that science is problem solving, and that like all other problem solving or biological activity..there was more than one singular applied methodology that it could (or did) use. Insomuch as scientism was defined in this context as the view that "pure observation", positivism and induction, were the appropriate methodology, and truth could only come from that methodology to the exclusion of others - that would be scientism....moot point today and for us, since this is not the view of science or of the layperson.
Scientism is not the rejection of value of any kind, but a preference for one method in the context of a specific value. Truth. It exists as a reaction to what some see as the over-rationalization of western culture. This is why, in error, emotion was cast as foil to reason - as though emotional truth were antithetical to rational truth. Conceptually, there needs to be some area where scientific scrutiny is inappropriate. Some other domain. The broad utility of science in all domains of life argues very persuasively against scientisms principal complaint - but any mention of that will appear to be scientism to those compelled to make that objection. This makes it seem, to those afflicted, that a large number of people positively subscribe to scientism and just don't know it.
Your loves and hates are..in all likelihood, based on repeated observations and expectations. Others could probably divine, by scientific experimentation, that you hated bagpipe music and loved your wife. While the categories of likes and dislikes, what we love and what we hate probably aren't outside of science's domain, the statement made supposing that they are demonstrates that the criticism is incoherent on it's own grounds. A person who can make a statement like your own might not have the right domain in mind - but they obviously accept that there is or might be such a domain.
This is where it gets super meta. The most salient aspect of scientism-as-criticism, applied methodology, has been assumed by the scientific method. The heavy emphasis on falsification is a product of valid criticism. Popper famously argued that it was trivially easy to find evidence in favor of any theory, categorically rejecting induction as the characteristic method of science. Corroboration, then, as he calls it, should only count when it makes a genuinely risky proposition. One that could have conceivably gone pear shaped, lol.
Even in this view, falsification over positivism, our love and hate could be in the domain of science. One could make a risky prediction about how we respond to our wives, or to bagpipe music. We could even arrange for a standard array of observations and predictions, not banking on what we would do if we were in love, but what we would do if we were in hate or indifference. Not what we would do if we hated bagpipe music, but what we would do if we loved it. Popper argued (and I think he was right) that science is problem solving, and that like all other problem solving or biological activity..there was more than one singular applied methodology that it could (or did) use. Insomuch as scientism was defined in this context as the view that "pure observation", positivism and induction, were the appropriate methodology, and truth could only come from that methodology to the exclusion of others - that would be scientism....moot point today and for us, since this is not the view of science or of the layperson.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
