Thoughts in a Haystack

Here's what Wikipedia says about scientism.

The term scientism is used to describe the view that natural science has authority over all other interpretations of life, such as philosophical, religious, mythical, spiritual, or humanistic explanations, and over other fields of inquiry, such as the social sciences.

For the record, that's not my position. My position is that science is a way of knowing that's used by all disciplines (including law!). I expect historians and philosophers to think rationally, rely on evidence, and be skeptical in the practice of their discipline. Since that's the definition of science as a way of knowing, it follows that historians and philosophers are being scientific.

I'd be interested in learning about other valid ways of knowing that are practiced by social scientists—or by lawyers, for that matter.

I have never said that science as a way of knowing is restricted to the "natural sciences."

There are other definitions of scientism. Could you let me in one the one you use?

And once you define it, could you let me know whether you, yourself, are "guilty" of the sin of scientism?


 

For the record, that's not my position.

Good!

My position is that science is a way of knowing that's used by all disciplines (including law!). I expect historians and philosophers to think rationally, rely on evidence, and be skeptical in the practice of their discipline. Since that's the definition of science as a way of knowing, it follows that historians and philosophers are being scientific.

Ah, I see, you've decided you love your wife, daughter and granddaughter based solely on rationality, evidence and scientific dicipline? I think not. That doesn't make you a bad person (quite the opposite) but the question is how you parse the difference? You seem to think that not applying science to everything makes you less of a scientist. Do you want to show your consistency by giving the science you used to decide who you love?
 

P.S.:

There are other definitions of scientism. Could you let me in one the one you use?

No, that's a good enough one and the fact that you say that all disciplines (including law!) have to use it is sufficient to show your scientism. In fact, law does not rely on rationality and evidence (much of it depends on tradition and past experience) but that's not necessarily a good thing, just a fact of life.
 

"Ah, I see, you've decided you love your wife, daughter and granddaughter based solely on rationality, evidence and scientific dicipline? I think not."

Actually, in a way, I think I do; I think everyone does. With whatever definition of love we are usin, we observe that our feelings and responses match that definition reasonably well and conclude that we love them. We rarely do so explicitly but this is the process.

Now, how would I come to the conclusion that *you* love *your* wife and children?
 

Actually, in a way, I think I do; I think everyone does. With whatever definition of love we are usin, we observe that our feelings and responses match that definition reasonably well and conclude that we love them.

Really? You actually have to think about it before you know you're in love? Are you sure its love at all?

Now, how would I come to the conclusion that *you* love *your* wife and children?

Doesn't matter, any more than how I would conclude Ken Miller believes in God. The sole issue here is Larry's account of what it takes to be a scientist.
 

May not be new, but it's certainly interesting reading some very good commentators chew over the old ground.
Does J. J. Ramsey bog? If not, why not!?
 

That should be blog, not bog.

But if he want's to answer the question either way ...
 

"Does J. J. Ramsey blog?"

No, not anymore. I found that I kept neglecting my blog, so I turned it into a more static site, http://www.irrationalrationalist.com/.
 

I'm not John Pieret nor do I play him on TV, I'm surprised to see Larry Moran challenging his views being described as scientism. He's recently stated that he considers science to be the _only_ way of acquiring valid knowledge. That would seem to be clear scientism.
 

How did you know that the feeling you were having was properly referred to as 'love'?

Yes, Iam in love. The feelings I have correspond reasonably closely to that required for what I have learned as the de3finitiion of 'love'. How do you know that you are in love. Are you sure that it is *really* love?
 

Is it me or is one of the "cheats" of anti-accommodationists in how they define the word "science"? I've noticed in the past that they've used "science" to mean a "world view" or "attitude," and now what I'm seeing is Larry Moran use "science" to mean thinking rationally, while PZ Myers is now using "science" to mean anything that could be construed as an investigation, now matter how biased or informal it may be. Good grief, by Myers' own newly lax standards, the kinds of "investigations" that quacks use to "prove" their therapies are scientific!
 

Good grief, by Myers' own newly lax standards, the kinds of "investigations" that quacks use to "prove" their therapies are scientific!

As I've noted, PZ thinks cuddling counts as "empiric investigation."
 

Myers on cuddling: "it's empirical science!"

Meyers on Myers: "Darwinist / atheist validates ID methodology!"

or so it seems to me. YMMV.
 

Hmm that's very interessting but to be honest i have a hard time seeing it... wonder what others have to say..