Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

The plague of scientistic belief (long article) Watch

    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Steevee)
    Logic alone does not make a statement sound or true. Think of all the answers of science, not a lot of them were logical before they were found experimentally. Science is the practical arm or logic, to make a very crude analogy. You must work logically, but there must also be that work to validate a premise or hypothesis, for Metaphysics or Logicians you must merely all agree that it makes sense.
    But wouldn't you need such elements in science, meaning that without metaphysics there wouldn't be a science?
    So science would be more applied, but still include things like the law of non-contradiction etc.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by there's too much love)
    But wouldn't you need such elements in science, meaning that without metaphysics there wouldn't be a science?
    So science would be more applied, but still include things like the law of non-contradiction etc.
    Yes, which I made allusion to in the beginning, Metaphysics is a forefather of science and natural philosophy before that. Of course there are still elements of it within Science, however it is not equal to science in a practical sense. That is to say, Science practices upon what are to an extent, 'proved' axioms and from there relies on Empiricism. As opposed to Metaphysics which ruminates on axioms but with no conclusion or answer based in anything but agreement from others, there is no practical application or answer possible within Metaphysics beyond agreement.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Steevee)
    Yes, which I made allusion to in the beginning, Metaphysics is a forefather of science and natural philosophy before that. Of course there are still elements of it within Science, however it is not equal to science in a practical sense. That is to say, Science practices upon what are to an extent, 'proved' axioms and from there relies on Empiricism. As opposed to Metaphysics which ruminates on axioms but with no conclusion or answer based in anything but agreement from others, there is no practical application or answer possible within Metaphysics beyond agreement.
    You know what I'm going to say in reply to that already, so I don't see much point in posting it, needless to say we're going round in circles .
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by there's too much love)
    You know what I'm going to say in reply to that already, so I don't see much point in posting it, needless to say we're going round in circles .
    I suppose it does. I just find it difficult to see the value of Metaphysics, but I suppose that's because I find it very difficult to think Metaphysically. I've always been more into political philosophy anyway
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Melancholy)
    That's simply not true though. When's the last time metaphysics was used to build an aircraft? Unless you're using "need" in an unintuitive way, your claim seems false to me.

    Science succeeds because it doesn't really aim at truth or articulate what truth might be, which is something philosophers tie themselves in knots over.
    That's about engineering, not Pure Science, they are on different levels.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Steevee)
    Logic alone does not make a statement sound or true. Think of all the answers of science, not a lot of them were logical before they were found experimentally. Science is the practical arm or logic, to make a very crude analogy. You must work logically, but there must also be that work to validate a premise or hypothesis, for Metaphysics or Logicians you must merely all agree that it makes sense.
    Indeed, but that isn't the same as stating that essentially anything goes without empirical science (which is what you did). Arguments still need to be logically consistent if nothing else.

    The problem with many scientists is they overstate the case for science as the exception by attempting to suggest that all other academic endeavours are entirely pointless. Hardly in the spirit of collegiate solidarity, nor in any way correct. Empirical science is on the same diaspora as other academic subjects, but at its most rigorous offers us unprecedented levels of objectivity not found elsewhere, but that doesn't mean it is the only route to knowledge.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChemistBoy)
    Indeed, but that isn't the same as stating that essentially anything goes without empirical science (which is what you did). Arguments still need to be logically consistent if nothing else.

    The problem with many scientists is they overstate the case for science as the exception by attempting to suggest that all other academic endeavours are entirely pointless. Hardly in the spirit of collegiate solidarity, nor in any way correct. Empirical science is on the same diaspora as other academic subjects, but at its most rigorous offers us unprecedented levels of objectivity not found elsewhere, but that doesn't mean it is the only route to knowledge.
    If you think that's what I stated then I apologise, it was not what I meant.

    Well, the scientific method offers us the most sound route of any to practical knowledge.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Steevee)

    Well, the scientific method offers us the most sound route of any to practical knowledge.
    I agree as long as by practical you mean 'concerning the physical universe' rather than 'useful' or 'valuable'.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChemistBoy)
    I agree as long as by practical you mean 'concerning the physical universe' rather than 'useful' or 'valuable'.
    Well yes, concerning anything that can be measured in any way. If we're talking the realm of pure thought, then obviously this changes somewhat.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Steevee)
    Well yes, concerning anything that can be measured in any way. If we're talking the realm of pure thought, then obviously this changes somewhat.
    Where do you stand on maths, because maths is surely a priori.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by there's too much love)
    Where do you stand on maths, because maths is surely a priori.
    Maths is proved by application is it not? Simple maths anyway, I'm not mathematician. But 2 + 2 = 4 by application.

    Though you may have me there, on the theoretical stuff, though I would argue that works from an applicable base.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Steevee)
    Maths is proved by application is it not? Simple maths anyway, I'm not mathematician. But 2 + 2 = 4 by application.

    Though you may have me there, on the theoretical stuff, though I would argue that works from an applicable base.
    Maths is a priori is my point. Every aspect of it is a priori. It can often (though not always as far as I know) be applied to the a posteriori, but in every variation of Hume's fork that I've seen, it's been firmly on the a priori side.
    Before I thought you were claiming that because science is a posteriori it was above metaphysics. However, physics is often said to be one of the purer sciences, and maths the purest.
    Which would mean you either have to say they're not all that important, or that a priori things matter, which would reintroduce us to metaphysics being very important.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by there's too much love)
    Maths is a priori is my point. Every aspect of it is a priori. It can often (though not always as far as I know) be applied to the a posteriori, but in every variation of Hume's fork that I've seen, it's been firmly on the a priori side.
    Before I thought you were claiming that because science is a posteriori it was above metaphysics. However, physics is often said to be one of the purer sciences, and maths the purest.
    Which would mean you either have to say they're not all that important, or that a priori things matter, which would reintroduce us to metaphysics being very important.
    In my opinion, such Metaphysical values are useful only insofar as they can be applied. Mathematics can be applied, it can be 'proved.' Again I'll say I'm only a layman when it comes to this branch of philosophy, but Maths works in application, therefore it has experimental value. The fact that it makes logical sense and is priori is independent of that, I understand. But if Maths could not be applied and proved it would have no value at all.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Steevee)
    In my opinion, such Metaphysical values are useful only insofar as they can be applied. Mathematics can be applied, it can be 'proved.' Again I'll say I'm only a layman when it comes to this branch of philosophy, but Maths works in application, therefore it has experimental value. The fact that it makes logical sense and is priori is independent of that, I understand. But if Maths could not be applied and proved it would have no value at all.
    The argument of course is that metaphysics is necessarily applied in everything that we do, it's just that we take it for granted, and that there might be other metaphysical theories we haven't thought of that work better.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SPB)
    You've completely missed the point of the article and fallen into the trap he was talking about: scientism and reductionism and the rejection of anything outside of 'science'. Metaphysical demonstration is just as if not more fundamental than scientific analysis. That's the starting point for all areas of inquiry. If you want to understand more of specific religious claims you'll have to start from the basics; not immediately jump in and ask why you should believe xyz. First, as the article suggests, get rid of your own scientism/materialism/physical reductionism. Then you can slowly build up from there. Edward Feser is the philosopher to look to here in discussing this. Read this part of his blog for his work on scientism etc.
    Science ain't absolute( no other claims are absolute neither), nor the only perspective and method to view things.
    Yet it's the best tool to examine and understand the physical world, not until it becomes another Religion. All scientists are humans and inevitably victims of cognitive bias, they need to cross-examine their works to ensure what they said is objective enough.
    But I don't think the criticism on scientism and reductionism makes Religious claim sound. Religious claims are just a junk of imagination and empty talks.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Most of us are laymans of Science, compared to those who study NeuroScience, Medicine, Physics, etc. We don't have the technique and equipments to examine their findings. So... it becomes another Religion to Authority.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Will_to_power)
    Most of us are laymans of Science, compared to those who study NeuroScience, Medicine, Physics, etc. We don't have the technique and equipments to examine their findings. So... it becomes another Religion to Authority.
    But one could argue that about any academic field of study. I'm not sure that telling people they 'don't know enough to understand' is acceptable. Certainly the excellent current movement in science communication demonstrates that it is possible to make lay-people understand science.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Will_to_power)
    Most of us are laymans of Science, compared to those who study NeuroScience, Medicine, Physics, etc. We don't have the technique and equipments to examine their findings. So... it becomes another Religion to Authority.
    I'm not sure I agree that epistemic dependence is the same as religion.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChemistBoy)
    But one could argue that about any academic field of study. I'm not sure that telling people they 'don't know enough to understand' is acceptable. Certainly the excellent current movement in science communication demonstrates that it is possible to make lay-people understand science.
    Even you could UNDERSTAND(like ether is the medium of transmission blah blah blah),
    if you don't believe and wanna do it all over again, how could we examine what they said by ourselves? We don't have the sophisticated tool and knowledge to do that.

    If it's not something that we examine by ourselves , that's equivalent of believing others findings. Of course, Scientists would cross-examine their researches and make them more accountable.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: May 17, 2013
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    What's your favourite Christmas sweets?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.