The Limits of Strong Scientism: Where Does Science End and Philosophy Begin?

[Druso]

Thread Title: 
Hi everyone,
I'm a strong advocate for science and empirical evidence, but I’ve been reflecting on the boundary between respecting the scientific method and falling into strong scientism (the view that only scientific knowledge is valid).
Here are three main areas where strong scientism hits a wall:

1. The Epistemological Paradox: Science relies on foundational philosophical assumptions (such as the reliability of our senses and the uniformity of nature) that cannot be proven through lab experiments. Using science to justify these assumptions creates a circular argument.
   
2. Ethics and Values: Science describes how the world works, but it cannot tell us how we ought to act. Moral duties, rights, and aesthetics fall outside empirical measurement.
   
3. Subjective Experience (Qualia): While neuroscience maps brain activity, it cannot fully capture first-person subjective experiences (what it actually feels like to experience pain or joy).
   

Questions for discussion:

• Does strong scientism hurt skepticism by making it look dogmatic to outsiders?
  
• Where do you draw the line between evidence-based thinking and unnecessary reductionism?
  

Looking forward to hearing your thoughts!

[The Grand Nudger]

I think that items 2 and 3 are more cultural conventions than hard fact. We might want to consider whether those things are dogmatic statements themselves. I don’t personally worry whether or not “outsiders” will think a certain thing. I think we can point to how objecting communities will say the things they say no matter what you do or say. Not knowing what unnecessary reductionism (or necessary reductionism) amounts to I couldn’t begin to draw a li e or know if there even is such a line. For example, I do t think you have to know anything about neural peptides or mating strategies to know about love. So in that sense it’s not necessary to apply reductionist thinking. You can love and be loved and have a valid opinion about love without any of that. OTOH it does seem like there’s plenty to understand about love that reductionist thinking can shine light on. Including…and particularly, both what it feels like to love or be loved…and why it feels that way.

[Fake Messiah]

but I’ve been reflecting on the boundary between respecting the scientific method and falling into strong scientism

From my experience, people who yell "scientism" do this and then try to answer scientific questions like whether god exists or not. So it's usually a red flag.

Science relies on foundational philosophical assumptions (such as the reliability of our senses and the uniformity of nature) that cannot be proven through lab experiments.

Saying that science only validates what can be proven in the lab is crude and incorrect.

Science describes how the world works, but it cannot tell us how we ought to act. Moral duties, rights, and aesthetics fall outside empirical measurement.

It seems quite opposite because science does tell us how to act and what is moral a lot of times, which then makes people deny science. Like science tells us not to pump more carbon into the atmosphere because it creates climate change, so people deny science's claim about climate change. Or science tells us to distance ourselves from each other during COVID, so people ignore that COVID exists. Etc.

While neuroscience maps brain activity, it cannot fully capture first-person subjective experiences (what it actually feels like to experience pain or joy).

It does tell us enough how people experience pain or joy so that medical science can intervene and that human rights can be shaped.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Thread Title: 
Hi everyone,
I'm a strong advocate for science and empirical evidence, but I’ve been reflecting on the boundary between respecting the scientific method and falling into strong scientism (the view that only scientific knowledge is valid).
Here are three main areas where strong scientism hits a wall:

1. The Epistemological Paradox: Science relies on foundational philosophical assumptions (such as the reliability of our senses and the uniformity of nature) that cannot be proven through lab experiments. Using science to justify these assumptions creates a circular argument.
   
2. Ethics and Values: Science describes how the world works, but it cannot tell us how we ought to act. Moral duties, rights, and aesthetics fall outside empirical measurement.
   
3. Subjective Experience (Qualia): While neuroscience maps brain activity, it cannot fully capture first-person subjective experiences (what it actually feels like to experience pain or joy).
   

Questions for discussion:

• Does strong scientism hurt skepticism by making it look dogmatic to outsiders?
  
• Where do you draw the line between evidence-based thinking and unnecessary reductionism?
  

Looking forward to hearing your thoughts!

This is less of an issue than you seem to think. Scientism is a self defeating proposition, because the statement, ‘Only scientific knowledge is valid’ is not itself scientific statement.

Boru

[Alan V]

1) Although science was built on foundations in philosophy, and uses many of its best tools, it doesn't "hit a wall" with what you call the epistemological paradox because it is provisional and based on probabilities rather than on the sought-after certainties of the philosophers.  For instance, science tests and observes when our senses can be trusted and when they can't.  Science tests and observes when nature is uniform and when it isn't.

2) Scientism seems to mix the fields of science and philosophy.  We use scientific information for many of the premises in our moral equations, but that doesn't make science into philosophy.  "If we want to survive and thrive, then we should use science to do so."  That avoids the is-ought problem.

3) Why would science want to "fully capture" subjective experiences when we all have them already?  Science can tell us when they are dependable and when they aren't, which is useful.  

This brings up the question of what other methods of learning knowledge are available to us, aside from using the scientific method.  Our senses are one method, or several methods, but have their limits, and are usually only good for individuals navigating their specific circumstances from moment to moment.  Scholarship is another useful but incomplete method.  Logic is another. Intuitions and inspirations, so-called, have been shown by science, experience, scholarship, and logic to be unreliable.

My answers to your other questions are as follows:

1) Strong skepticism, a philosophical stance based on the desire for absolutes, undermines science and seems dogmatic to outsiders.

2) Scientific naturalism can be either reductionistic or emergent.  Emergence avoids some of the problems of reductionism.