Speechless

[madog]

Ok, so my cynical impression is that scientism seems to be butthurt contemporary philosophers and woo peddlers fearing for their relevance. It all smells like an elaborate way of whining about science being mean to their cherished beliefs. Meh.
Long gone are the days of Hume, it seems.

The above definition also kind of begs the question, saying that scientism is when science as a source of knowledge is emphasized too much.

I think that it is more about people who want to push science where it doesn't belong (category error). 

Begging the question requires an argument, definitions by their nature of defining something; I do find tend to beg the question if that is what you mean.

I actually consider that science doesn't give a shit about religion or any other myths ....

Its the religious that drag science into religion trying to prove their myths.

Then when the religious claim that science proves religion and then its debunked they cry that science has nothing to do with religion and should keep its nose out ....

And if you think I am wrong, take a look at the discovery institute, most of the religious on the AF forum, etc ...

[Alex K]

Ok, so my cynical impression is that scientism seems to be butthurt contemporary philosophers and woo peddlers fearing for their relevance. It all smells like an elaborate way of whining about science being mean to their cherished beliefs. Meh.
Long gone are the days of Hume, it seems.

The above definition also kind of begs the question, saying that scientism is when science as a source of knowledge is emphasized too much.

I think that it is more about people who want to push science where it doesn't belong (category error). 

Tell me some convincing examples where science has been pushed where it doesn't belong, that don't involve protecting religious feefees from critical inquiry

[The Grand Nudger]

We can discuss it if you would like,   but I would ask, that you let me speak for myself.  I don't think that your rash assumptions are very useful, well informed, or well thought out.

You could have taken that time to provide examples, rather than whine about what we both know is an eventuality. Where doesn't science belong?

[robvalue]

I'm really sick of this idea that "some other method" picks up where science leaves off. Either these other methods can demonstrate actual results, and so they are science, or they do not, so they are worthless.

Science is simply an umbrella term for a logical application of reason and evidence, to build models. It's not some fixed set of tools. If it works, and can be shown to work, it's science, basically. Abandoning science is throwing away all your tools, when discussing facts about reality.

History is of course a softer science, and the best that can be done is to estimate probabilities. But we start with what we have already learned about reality.

[LivingNumbers6.626]

I can identify. The anger will pass if you let it and once it passes you will definitely have reflashes. But honestly, arguing with believers is like trying to walk on water. You'll always drown in unreasonable claims with no end.

[RoadRunner79]

I think that it is more about people who want to push science where it doesn't belong (category error). 

Tell me some convincing examples where science has been pushed where it doesn't belong, that don't involve protecting religious feefees from critical inquiry

You can see scientism show in some critiques of philosophy or other epistemologies.  Requiring repeatability evidence for a historical claim, would be an example of a category error, found in scientism.
I would agree, that simply using the term "scientism" is not a get out of jail free card; and may be abused.  You cannot go to the extreme in the opposite direction either.

Below is an article, that includes a good discussion of the topic, and a number of examples - if you are interested:


http://pervegalit.files.wordpress.com/20...7-2009.pdf

{edit to add}  "Scientism" is not the same as "science", it is not an attack on this noble endeavor for knowledge and understanding.  It is about elevating this field beyond it's scope, or scientist; beyond what is reasonable.

[Alex K]

From the text in your link

These are the “six signs of scientism” to which my title alludes.
Briefly and roughly summarized, they are:
1. Using the words “science,” “scientific,” “scientifically,” “scientist,”
etc., honorifically, as generic terms of epistemic praise.

Huh. Does that ever happen outside of crappy advertising? From her elaboration, she seems to blame any misinterpretation of preliminary scientific results on "scientism".

2. Adopting the manners, the trappings, the technical terminology, etc.,
of the sciences, irrespective of their real usefulness.

kind of tautological

3. A preoccupation with demarcation, i.e., with drawing a sharp line
between genuine science, the real thing, and “pseudo-scientific”
imposters.

That she is complaining about that is very suspicious.

4. A corresponding preoccupation with identifying the “scientific
method,” presumed to explain how the sciences have been so successful.

Seriously? Trying to identify the scientific method in order to find an explanation why the sciences are so successful is a sign of scientism? Someone has an axe to grind here.

5. Looking to the sciences for answers to questions beyond their scope.

again a bit tautological

6. Denying or denigrating the legitimacy or the worth of other kinds of
inquiry besides the scientific, or the value of human activities other than
inquiry, such as poetry or art.

Ok, I've never seen anyone seriously do that. but ok.

She has this collection of a variety of problems and non-problems and red herrings she wants to summarize as "scientism", from misinterpretation of scientific results, to the use of inappropriate methods, to the mere mention that there is such a thing as a successful scientific method? This seems very forced. I'm far from convinced that there is a unified thing that can sensibly called scientism and that is actually a problem.

[robvalue]

Fucking bollocks.

Conflating facts and opinions is so dishonest. What counts as art, beauty, value and so on are opinions and as such can't be objectively studied. But neither can they be used as alternatives to the scientific method, to learn about objective reality.

[RoadRunner79]

Fucking bollocks.

Conflating facts and opinions is so dishonest. What counts as art, beauty, value and so on are opinions and as such can't be objectively studied. But neither can they be used as alternatives to the scientific method, to learn about objective reality.

I would agree, that was her weakest point... Poetry and Art was not a good choice, and even in the longer description, I think she could have done better