Scientism: TOPICS & NOTES…By Swami, 120219, 120610

TOPICS:

- def.’s- positive vs. negative view- philosophy of science- sources of knowledge other than science?- scientific test for science? (or a presupposition?)- science vs. scientism- natural sciences vs. social/human sciences- hard science, pure science, fundamental science- beyond the “exact” sciences (humanities)- natural science (physical/material), social science (human behavior), formal science (math/logic), humanities (human condition)- epistemology/ontology/teleology/philosophy- Gettier problem (epistemology)- epistemology: Islam? Hinduism? Buddhism? Etcism?...- Sources of knowledge (ways of knowing)- psychological knowledge (e.g. faith) vs. epistemic knowledge (http://verbosestoic.wordpress.com/tag/scientism-101)- authoritative knowledge- intuitive knowledge- demonstrative knowledge- religious knowledge “making errors does not disqualify something from being a way of knowing as long as part of the methodology includes error detection and error correction.”- clairvoyance- science, scientism, and religion- scientific positivism- empiricism- reductionism- evidentialism (for justification)- coherentism (for justification)- reliabilism (for justification)- materialism- eliminative materialism- naturalism- rationalism- determinism- dogmatism- methodological naturalism (“judge the merit of a Beethoven symphony using an oscilloscope”)- scientific naturalism vs. scientism- science = reason?- deductive vs. inductive logic (reasoning)- “everyday reasoning”- “first principles”- reproducibility- measurement (gives “clarity”, but not all things are measurable)- TOE (Theory Of Everything)!- role of emotion (inside, + outside of science)

- religious view- proponents/opponents- history of- relation to (secular) humanism- post-modernism- arts/humanities- The Scientific Revolution… The Enlightenment (The Age of Reason)… The Industrial Revolution… The Information Age- history of Science (… Modern Science…)- ‘questions of ultimate concern’- Doxastic logic- reproducible (things exist that are not reproducible… name some…)- invariance to time and space- analysis model- “sensus divinitatus” (Plantinga)- private experience vs. public experience- Reformed epistemology- Biblical epistemology- absolute knowledge vs. uncertain knowledge (i.e. scientific knowledge?)- nominalism- science vs. pseudo-science?!- spiritual science, Christian science, - electrical/magnetic sense

NOTES:

“scientism”: Definitions…

"Belief that the methods of science are universally applicable."~The Phrontisteryhttp://phrontistery.info/s.html

"The belief that the investigative methods of the physical sciences are applicable or justifiable in all fields of inquiry."~American Heritage Dictionaryhttp://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/scientism

"an exaggerated trust in the efficacy of the methods of natural science applied to all areas of investigation (as in philosophy, the social sciences, and the humanities)"Note: "First Known Use of SCIENTISM: 1870"~Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionaryhttp://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/scientism

"a belief in the universal applicability of the scientific method and approach, and the view that empirical science constitutes the most authoritative worldview or most valuable part of human learning to the exclusion of other viewpoints."~SCIENTISM: Philosophy and the infatuation with science http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=103482537

"the belief that the scientific method has no (or few) limits and can successfully be applied to almost all aspects of life, and provides an explanation for everything. It is essentially a religion where its followers (Scientists) worship science its rituals, and its results."~Conservapediahttp://www.conservapedia.com/Scientismhttp://www.ashgate.com/default.aspx?page=1728&lang=cy-GB

"SCIENTISM: the WORSHIP of SCIENCE or claim that only scientific knowledge is VALID or TRUE knowledge."~Irivng Hexham's Concise Dictionary of Religionhttp://people.ucalgary.ca/~nurelweb/books/concise/WORDS-S.html

"Scientism is a scientific worldview that encompasses natural explanations for all phenomena, eschews supernatural and paranormal speculations, and embraces empiricism and reason as the twin pillars of a philosophy of life appropriate for an Age of Science."~Michael Shermer, 'The Shamans of Scientism'http://www.michaelshermer.com/2002/06/shamans-of-scientism

"Scientism is, first of all, a philosophy of knowledge."http://biologos.org/blog/monopolizing-knowledge-part-1-science-and-scientism

“scientism

Scientism is the belief that science is the only legitimate method of attaining the truth. According to scientism, only empirical concepts, ones that can be tested scientifically, can ever be considered truthful. As a result, all

metaphysical contentions must be disregarded and invalidated. It should be noted, however, that the idea of scientism is fundamentally flawed due to the very nature of its ideals. It cannot be scientifically proven that science is the only means by which the truth is attainable, and therefore the view is, in a sense, self-destructive.

Naturalized epistemologists, including Quine, have been accused of scientism when they explicitly or implicitly claim that epistemology can be replaced by scientific disciplines such as cognitive science. Many philosophers believe that a philosophical approach to epistemology which does not ignore the human condition and which does not approach knowledge reductionistically won't (and shouldn't) be eliminated.”http://www.rit.edu/cla/philosophy/quine/scientism.html

“Evidentialism is a theory of justification according to which the justification of a belief depends solely on the evidence for it.”http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidentialism

“empiricism”: “evidence of the senses”http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_justification

Epistemology portalhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Epistemology

Sources of knowledgehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Sources_of_knowledge

"However, in recent years, science has become increasingly atheistic,[2] rejecting God and his works in explanations of the world and all of human experience, instead readily embracing liberal logic and pseudo or junk science such as evolution, relativity, global warming and much of cosmology and geology based on a time frame which predates creation. Consequently the rigid logic of creation science is gaining in importance, enabling intelligent people to distinguish real science from atheistic secular junk science. ""Science differs from other methodologies of classifying knowledge in that a scientific theory is a description of the world which in principle is capable of being disproved; this is known as falsifiability. It is this property which distinguishes science from other possible methods of discovering knowledge."http://www.conservapedia.com/Science

Doxastic logic

Proponents of scientism(?)Jerry Coyne and Jason Rosenhouse

Scientism:

1. “(epistemology) The view (similar to reductionism) that the methods of the natural or physical sciences are universally valid, and therefore should apply to the social sciences and the humanities as well.

” http://www.ismbook.com/scientism.htmlEND OF DEFINITIONS.

“In his three-part essay “Scientism and the Study of Society” (reprinted in his book The Counter-Revolution of Science) and his book The Sensory Order, Hayek shows that the project of re-conceiving human nature in particular entirely in terms of the categories of natural science is impossible in principle.”http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2010/03/1174

“Any attempt to redefine the mind in “objectivist” terms, characterizing its elements in terms of quantifiable structural relations—an approach Hayek himself sketched out in The Sensory Order”http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2010/03/1174

“philosopher C. D. Broad said that ‘induction is the glory of science and the scandal of philosophy’.”http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_induction

No Free Lunch (Theorem(s)), NFLhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_free_lunch_theorem

Epistemology/Justification: “If we make it a necessary condition of justification that a belief arises of reliable belief-producing processes, we jeopardize our being justified in some of the beliefs God reveals to us.” WTF!?New Dictionary of Christian Apologetics, p. 239

“Doxastic - Pertaining to belief. Alternatively, also pertaining to states sufficiently like beliefs (thoughts, judgments, opinions, desires, wishes, fears).”http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doxastic_attitudes

“Reformed epistemologyPlantinga's contributions to epistemology include an argument which he dubs "Reformed epistemology". According to Reformed epistemology, belief in God can be rational and justified even without arguments or evidence for the existence of God. More specifically, Plantinga argues that belief in God is properly basic, and due to a religious externalist epistemology, he claims belief in God could be justified independently of evidence. His externalist epistemology, called "Proper functionalism," is a form of epistemological reliabilism.”http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alvin_Plantinga#Reformed_epistemology(See also, ‘sensus divinitatus’)- Basically, something is true “straight off” (“Clock” example).*Richard Feldman argues that Reformed epistemology doesn’t answer the Gettier Problem. Plantinga is attempting to revise his epistemology accordingly. http://www.archive.org/details/ZacharyMooreAtheismKnowledge (@~19:00) <== THIS IS AN EXCELLENT PODCAST!~“When added to true belief, ‘warrant’ gives us knowledge” Plantinga

“Knowledge” is inherently imperfect!

*Is science progressing asymptotically to absolute truth?(but never getting there, a la Sagan)

Knowledge: Justified true belief, that cannot be defeated.

“The word scientism was used first by biologist Félix Le Dantec who threw that word in an article published in 1911 in the Grande Revue:”http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=fr&u=http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientisme&ei=N4BOT5bxO6f9sQKnwZH_AQ&sa=X&oi=translate&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCcQ7gEwAA&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dhttp://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientisme%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Doff%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26hs%3DUZq%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26prmd%3Dimvns

« Je crois à l'avenir de la Science : je crois que la Science et la Science seule résoudra toutes les questions qui ont un sens ; je crois qu'elle pénétrera jusqu'aux arcanes de notre vie sentimentale et qu'elle m'expliquera même l'origine et la structure du mysticisme héréditaire anti-scientifique qui cohabite chez moi avec le scientisme le plus absolu. Mais je suis convaincu aussi que les hommes se posent bien des questions qui ne signifient rien.

Ces questions, la Science montrera leur absurdité en n'y répondant pas, ce qui prouvera qu'elles ne comportent pas de réponse »

“I think the future of science: I believe that science and science alone will solve all issues that have meaning and I think it will penetrate to the mysteries of our love life and she will explain even the origin and structure of the hereditary anti-scientific mysticism cohabiting home with the most absolute scientism. <snip>”(Google translation. GET TRANSLATION FROM NATIVE SPEAKER…)

I believe in the future of science: I believe that science, and science only, will solve all the questions that have meaning. I think it will reach the essence of our sentimental life and that it will even explain to me the origin and the structure of the hereditary anti-scientific mysticism that lives in me along with the most absolute scientism. But I am also convinced that men pose a lot of questions that don’t mean anything. Those questions, Science will show their absurdity by not answering them, which will prove that they don’t have an answer.

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientisme#Origines

“Back to Methuselah” [ref]by Bernard Shaw(Written from 1918 - 1920)"Preface: The Infidel Half Century"Chapter: "A Lesson from Science to the Churches"

"It is not that science is free from legends, witchcraft, miracles, biographic boostings of quacks as heroes and saints, and of barren scoundrels as explorers and discoverers. On the contrary, the iconography and hagiography of Scientism are as copious as they are mostly squalid.”-----

"I would challenge anyone here to think of a question upon which we once had a scientific answer, however adequate, but for which now the best is a religion one."~Sam Harris

Presupposition:

- “the act of presupposing; a supposition made prior to having knowledge (as for the purpose of argument)”http://www.onelook.com/?w=presupposition&ls=a

- “to require as an antecedent in logic or fact”http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/presupposition

- (v) “require as a precondition of possibility or coherence”http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/presuppose?view=uk

- “Tacitly assume at the beginning of a line of argument or course of action that something is the case.”https://www.google.com/search?q=presuppose&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a#hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&hs=FLw&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&q=presuppose&tbs=dfn:1&tbo=u&sa=X&ei=fENRT-HDMYqztwfDo7GnDQ&ved=0CCoQkQ4&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=3a4a1ec1a659434b&biw=1280&bih=603

- “require as a necessary antecedent or precondition”wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

- “To assume some truth without proof, usually for the purpose of reaching a conclusion based on that truth”en.wiktionary.org/wiki/presuppose

- “That which is believed in advance and which governs how information is interpreted.”carm.org/schooldemos/demo3/0_intro/terms.htm

- “A presupposition is a belief that is accepted as true and is foundational to one’s worldview.”http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/terms-to-know

- “In the branch of linguistics known as pragmatics, a presupposition (or ps) is an implicit assumption about the world or background belief relating to an utterance whose truth is taken for granted in discourse.”en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presuppose

Presupposition (philosophy)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presupposition_%28philosophy%29

Presupposition (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/presupposition/

Presuppositionalist Metaphysics (Conservapedia)http://www.conservapedia.com/Presupposition

“The proof for Christianity is that apart from the Christian worldview it is impossible to prove anything. God exists because of the impossibility of the contrary. In fact, even atheism presupposes theism.”http://gregbahnsen.blogspot.com

Supposition…

“early 14c., "to assume as the basis of argument," from O.Fr. supposer "to assume," probably a replacement of *suppondre (influenced by O.Fr. poser "put, place"), from L. supponere "put or place under," from sub "under" + ponere "put, place" (see position). Meaning "to admit as possible, to believe to be true" is from 1520s.”http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=suppose

- “something that you believe is true although you cannot prove it”http://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/american/supposition

(pre) http://wordinfo.info/unit/1744/s:pre-+ (sub) http://wordinfo.info/unit/2058/s:suppose + (pos) http://wordinfo.info/unit/1725/s:suppose…(under, below, beneath; used as a prefix as shown in various formats below)+ (o place, to put, to set; placement, positioning)+ (before [both in time and place])

PODCAST: The Emily Cragg Show : Being Safe In A Dangerous World“Looking at HOW scientific controversies and conspiracies impact and shorten our lives and hamper our children. Former teacher and techie, Emily looks at the philosophy and practice of ‘Scientism’ and how it affects our lives.”http://www.blogtalkradio.com/emily-cragg/2009/08/25/the-emily-cragg-show-being-safe-in-a-dangerous-world- Swine flu conspiracy (for money) – starts at 16:30… accusation (and misuse of “scientism”) at 17:05.- 22:40 - Dire Straits, “Brothers In Arsm” (great song!).

- 29:20 – NASA conspiracy rant begins… 30:00 – moon… 30:52 - moon in only size of S.F., 10 km dia. N fully populated;” human forms on every planet in this solar sys” … 31:3 0 - “scientism”- She called for prayer several times.http://www.abidemiracles.com/

“Hannah Arendt on Scientism” (good info on proponents/opponents)http://www.partiallyexaminedlife.com/2011/11/26/arendt-on-scientism/

“This view seems to have been held by Ludwig Wittgenstein in his Tractatus Logico-philosophicus (1922) when he said such things as ‘The totality of true propositions is the whole of natural science...’ He later repudiated this view.”http://www.skepdic.com/scientism.html

“scientism is most closely associated with the positivism of August Comte (1798-1857) who held an extreme view of empiricism, insisting that true knowledge of the world arises only from perceptual experience.”http://carbon.ucdenver.edu/~mryder/scientism_este.html--------------------

- theory: "an explanation based on observation and reasoning"http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=theory

- ‘God’ particle (and science)“Some tell us that science is about what can be proved. The wise tell us it is really about offering the best explanations of what we see, realising that these explanations often cannot be proved, and may sometimes lie beyond proof. Science often proposes the existence of invisible (and often undetectable) entities – such as dark matter – to explain what can be seen. The reason why the Higgs boson is taken so seriously in science is not because its existence has been proved, but because it makes so much sense of observations that its existence seems assured. In other words, its power to explain is seen as an indicator of its truth.”http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/8956938/Higgs-boson-the-particle-of-faith.html

HISTORY OF SCIENCE…

“Science is a body of empirical, theoretical, and practical knowledge about the natural world, produced by researchers making use of scientific methods, which emphasize the observation, explanation, and prediction of real world phenomena by experiment.…“While empirical investigations of the natural world have been described since classical antiquity (for example, by Thales, Aristotle, and others), and scientific methods have been employed since the Middle Ages (for example, by Ibn al-Haytham, Abū Rayhān al-Bīrūnī and Roger Bacon), the dawn of modern science is generally traced back to the early modern period, during what is known as the Scientific Revolution that took place in 16th and 17th century Europe. …

The Edwin Smith papyrus is one of the first medical documents still extant, and perhaps the earliest document that attempts to describe and analyse the brain: it might be seen as the very beginnings of modern neuroscience. However, while Egyptian medicine had some effective practices, it was not without its ineffective and sometimes harmful practices. Medical historians believe that ancient Egyptian pharmacology, for example, was largely ineffective.[14] Nevertheless, it applies the following components to the treatment of disease: examination, diagnosis, treatment, and prognosis,[4] which display strong parallels to the basic empirical method of science and according to G. E. R. Lloyd[15] played a significant role in the development of this methodology. The Ebers papyrus (circa 1550 BC) also contains evidence of traditional empiricism.…“The pre-Socratic philosopher Thales (640-546 BC), dubbed the "father of science", was the first to postulate non-supernatural explanations for natural phenomena,…“Plato and Aristotle produced the first systematic discussions of natural philosophy, which did much to shape later investigations of nature. Their development of deductive reasoning was of particular importance and usefulness to later scientific inquiry. Plato founded the Platonic Academy in 387 BC, whose motto was "Let none unversed in geometry enter here", and turned out many notable philosophers. Plato's student Aristotle introduced empiricism and the notion that universal truths can be arrived at via observation and induction, thereby laying the foundations of the scientific method.”http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_science

natural philosophers

“Modern notions of science and scientists date only to the 19th century (the Oxford English Dictionary dates the origin of the word "scientist" to 1834). Before then, the word "science" simply meant knowledge and the label of scientist did not exist.”http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_philosophy

“Scientific Revolution that took place in 16th and 17th century Europe”1543 (end of Renaissance) – late 1800’s

Age of Enlightenment~early 1600’s – ~1800(?)

“In short, the Enlightenment was a series of philosophical, scientific and otherwise intellectual developments that took place mostly in the 18th century – the birthplace of intellectual modernity.”

The Death of Science (or Scientism)- Full of facetious references to “science”, “scientists”, “global warming”, “global climate change”- “there is no other goal [than commercial gain] worth having in a godless world”- “Science has abandoned its belief in God.”- “If you misread the entire foundation of the universe, believing all to be a result of chance, then you’re going to have problems dealing with the pattern and order you actually find when your feet touch the ground. Science is showing the results of its crumbling foundation.”- “The fall of science is not grounded in technique, but rather belief. The only real antidote to the dark hordes of superstition has always been Judeo-Christian thought, not technique. Perhaps the world will learn this lesson before it plunges into another dark age.”http://thinkinginchrist.com/2011/08/25/the-death-of-science-or-scientism

Science and Politics: Deception and Dishonesty

- “What is actually being promoted here is not science but what is increasingly being called ‘Scientism”. Essentially a religion which preaches dogma and permits no dissent.”- “Scientism is a tool, useful to make political ideas carry the cachet of scientific fact. By draping their political theories in a cloud of scientific jargon, politicians can claim an unearned level of respectability and add weight to their ideas in order to confuse citizens and garner unwarranted support. The communists did the same thing with ‘Marxist theory’ and the Nazi’s did the same with genetic theories of the ‘Master Race’.”- “We are on the brink, and being led by the High Priests of Scientism to follow their lead directly over the edge.”http://revkharma.wordpress.com/2009/03/10/science-and-politics-deception-and-dishonesty

Scientism as Scientistic Belief

- scientism: “of a way of thinking in which the virtues, scope or benefits of science are exaggerated or extended to the point of cultishness, ideology or fanaticism.”- COMMENTs:-- the author is saying: “scientism is not a belief or a set of beliefs but a certain bias in reasoning”-- “I can only conclude that "scientism" is a term used to discredit ideas you disagree with for reasoning you don't accept.”-- “"scientism" is just an "almost" polite ad hominem that can be deployed to dismiss ideas, or more specifically, those who hold them”-- “Science is a child of philosophy. It informs and is still informed by its philosophical parent.”-- “scientism is evident in Dawkins' differential treatment of science and religion--science is good, thus nothing bad is a proper part of science; religion is bad, therefore nothing good is a proper part of religion.”-- “If one can be guilty of 'Scientism' - extending the methods or discoveries of science beyond its bound then is there also 'Philisophism' where philosophers extend there own discipline beyond its bounds?”http://rationallyspeaking.blogspot.com/2011/12/scientism-as-scientistic-belief.html

How Does Science Work? Three Views (Part 3-1)- This vid is based on a course taught by SisyphusRedeemer which uses BOOK: “Theory and Reality: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Science” by P. G. Smith- 3 (cooperating) views (plus more):1) Empirical (experience)2) Math (modeling)3) Social structure (cooperation, n trust in others)- “Science works.” But, HOW does it work?...- role of empiricism: key element of how to know (by experience)- science is NOT purely guided by data n evidence.- history: Pettenkofer vs. Pasteur’s germ theory of disease: Pett drank cholera infected water, but did NOT get sick, even tho it was truly the source of the outbreak. Lesson: simple empiricist picture is too simple.- “The human mind actually participates in many ways in the construction of its understanding of the world.” (5:50)- Galileo stated that math/numbers (math models) distinguish science from other ways of knowing, and account for its success.- Combine empiricism w/ math models to give more sophisticated, better view of science.- tension btwn reason and experience: seen as competitors- reason: Parmenides, Plato, Galileo, Descartes- experience: Heraclitus (Pre-Socratic), Aristotle (Plato’s student), Francis Bacon- a combo of both is best, but how to combine?...- consider that Darwin’s “science” required little to no math- the importance to science of “social structure” (“If I have seen far, it is because I have stood on the shoulders of giants.” ~Galileo)- peer review: keeps scientists honest; filters out “kooks”- “The Scientific Revolution developed groups to police, control, check & coordinate scientific work.”- Royal Society of London (Newton)- what to do when any combo of these views contradict (e.g. quantum: where empiricism and math seem to contradict)? Creates philosophical and scientific problems which r not easy to resolve. This leads to a study of ‘logical positivism’…

“The Rise and Fall of Logical Positivism”Classical Empiricism and Logical Positivism (Part 4-1)http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AlyBOcYUmts

The Rise of Logical Positivism (Part 4-2)http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Om8vaiAdjVk

The Fall of Logical Positivism (Part 4-3)http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K3ialyHnC_g

Classical Empiricism and Logical Positivism (Part 4-1) - dominated 20th cent. (followed by its moderate descendent “logical empiricism”)- but, decisively rejected by 1950’s/1960’s!- “classical empiricism”: idea that all knowledge comes from (and is justified by) sense experience: Barkley, Hume (Scottsman), John Locke.- was reaction to “classical rationalism”: knowledge comes from (and is justified by) pure reason, including metaphysical truths: Plato, Descartes- 1) How do you know?: answer must involve evidence thru some sort of experience.- 2) What are the limits of human knowledge?/What kind of instrument is the human mind?- Locke (father of British empiricism): attack on ‘Innate Ideas’. Locke asked, “How do you back up your idea?”- Stephen Pinker (anthropologically evidenced ‘universal’ ideas: several hundred. Check into this…)- Locke: “Tabula Rasa” (blank slate): only thru experience do we come to have ideas.- “Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance”: brain isolated in skull (from birth) from sensory input: does it have any thoughts? Leads to “sensationalism” and “skepticism”…- Sensationalism and Skepticism: - traditional empiricism leads to forms of ’principled’ skepticism (:we cannot have any knowledge at all).- ‘external world skepticism’ (can only know experience sensations, not the ‘world itself’). “problem of the “veil of ideas”: we can’t get outside our head to see the world as it “really is”. *This view would eviscerate science! We’re no longer studying objective nature, we’re just studying patterns in our own subjective experience.- ‘inductive skepticism’ (only have experience of past/present, so cannot know future will be like past). Relates to the problem of induction.

The Rise of Logical Positivism (Part 4-2)- The Vienna Circle (primarily Germans n Austrians: group that founded logical positivism after WWI: interested in scientific developments, mathematical logic, n philosophy of language. Conta to ‘German Idealism’ (e.g. Hegel, n Heidegger)- Place high premium on reason, clarity, n precision of language.- logical positivism and theory of language: analytic/synthetic distinction; and verifiability theory of meaning.1) Analytic propositions (mathematics n pure logic. true or false in virtue of their meaning alone. about word: “relations of ideas” according to Hume)2) Synthetic propositions (empirical and scientific. true or false in virtue of how the world is).

- 2+2=4 is true by definition as a stipulation: invented to talk about things we do experience. A convention by a linguistic community- The Verifiability Theory of Meaning: e.g. What is blue; and Agua es azul. Both have the same meaning. The meaning of a sentence is how you verify it. If there is, in principle, no way to verify it then it’s meaningless (not even false, but beyond false!) Only statements that are testable have any meaning at all, thus experience is the only source of knowledge and meaning.- “external world” is meaningless, since this cannot be verified: there is only “world”.- observational statements vs. theoretical statements: - observation: how about augmented sensing (microscopes, etc.). what if we can only observe evidence of a thing?- Context of Discovery, Context of Justification: - ‘It (relativity) was so beautiful it must be true’ ~Einstein- But the verification is more important than how it was discovered- positivists were solely interested in justification.

The Fall of Logical Positivism (Part 4-3) - Problems w/ the Verifiability Theory of Meaning (much of language is meaningless)- downfall of logical positivism…- poetry, ethics, theology aren’t verifiable- The Problem of Reflectivity: can’t verify the Verifiability Theory of Meaning- ARTICLE: “Two Dogmas Empiricism” (W.V.O. Quine): a game changer, and is considered a classic of modern philosophy. Testing n meaning are holistic: when you test one idea you test all others connected to it. We can never test all our assumptions.- The First Dogma (of empiricism): The Analytic-Synthetic Distinction: Quine argued there is no scientific way to make sense of the analytic-synthetic distinction. “web of beliefs”- Euclidean geometry was analytically thought to be true.- The Law of Excluded Middle (violated by “superposition” as illustrated by Schrodinger’s Cat thought experiment). Demonstrates that the analytic belief can be changed or thrown out! (so they are NOT necessarily true by definition!)- Logical Empiricism and the Hidden Structure of the World: “Scientific Realism”, but logical positivism is obligated to deny this! Since all science can tell us about is out experiences. Logical empiricism was an attempt to deal with this problem: no hidden world.- logical positivism died “the death of a thousand cuts”- the lesson to be learned are the limitations of empiricism and a caution not to be over-confident.

Positivismhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positivism

Logical Positivismhttp://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Logical_positivismhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_positivism

"William Lane Craig on Logical Positivism"http://youtu.be/URknwFd2n7g

Science and its Hypotheses (Philosophy of Science) http://youtu.be/4OzFth9aTiw

- “Any procedure that serves to systematically eliminate reasonable grounds for doubt can be considered ‘scientific’.” But all conclusions are provisional.- 1) no hypothesis is strictly falsifiable, as it’s possible to salvage a hypothesis by making changes to the auxiliary assumptions; 2) it doesn’t explain why we hold on to some hypotheses in the face of adverse evidence.- Other criteria play a role in evaluating a hypothesis: evidence alone does not determine which hypothesis or theory is most rational to choose.- Criteria of Adequacy (from book, “How to Think about Weird Things: Critical Thinking for a New Age” by Schick, & Vaughn): for comparatively evaluating hypotheses to find the best explanation. Best explanation = hypothesis that does more to increase our understanding. Criteria do not provide an algorithm or a formula for determining the relative superiority of a hypothesis. 1) Testability (in foresight), 2) Fruitfulness (predict unknown phenomenon), 3) Scope (amount of diverse phenomenon covered, e.g. Einstein vs Newton), 4) Simplicity (fewest assumptions, cf Ockham’s Razor), 5) Conservatism (fits best w/ established beliefs, e.g. perpetual motion machines are rejected by patent office)

Rationally Speaking podcastshttp://rationallyspeaking.blogspot.com/p/podcast.html54: The 'isms' Episode42: On the limits of reason41: Robert Zaretsky on Rousseau, Hume, and the Limits of Human Understanding35: What is Philosophy of Science Good For?04: The Great Atheist Debate Over the Limits of Science01: Why Be Rational?

PLAYLIST: “Scientism”…http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLBA7D8BBE725CCC2F

Science and Scientism - Ian Hutchinson at MIT http://youtu.be/nrqY2aG4GE4- science’s presupps limit its realm (e.g. arts, humanities, juris prudence,

Scientism: The Scientific Method And Bad Philosophy http://youtu.be/gqUkNal06kw- inductive logic: can only give a mere descriptor of what things are, not what they actually are.- methodological naturalism- evolution is ad hoc (after the fact: cannot explain abiogenesis). It’s a forensic science.- Plantinga against naturalism (EAAN)- deductive reasoning is required to conclude God exists.

What's Wrong With Scientism? http://youtu.be/xWSNBjVST-U(short anim)- Scientism is self-refuting

A brief response to dawahfilms http://youtu.be/4ryvtBFlpD4drpjones(PRO science, anti scientism, anti theism)- scientism = science is the arbiter of all truth and knowledge- scientism is about robbing us of beauty- “The League of Reason” website Check into this…- “If you can’t find out whether it’s true or whether it isn’t, you should suspend judgment” ~ B. Russellhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?list=PLBA7D8BBE725CCC2F&feature=player_detailpage&v=4ryvtBFlpD4#t=546s

Atheist Myth #1 Science can explain everything http://youtu.be/6aN1zf-G8MI

- Philosophical proposition: “Science can explain everything”- Science canNOT explain logic/math truths, ethics, consciousness, individual liberty, justices, metaphysical truths, and love.

Natural Science is not the only Science http://youtu.be/X08sZ38WgF0(See vid’s Description for more…)re: The Venus Project

- Hayek coined “scientism”. Related it to applying science to economics.- Martialine Utility (what is this?)- Mis-application of natural science to social science- A science is an exact discipline (e.g. computer science)- “natural” science = physical science- “each science has its own domain and its own methodologies”- “logical positivism” What is this?...

Should We Believe Only What Can Be Scientifically Proven (3 of 3) (Dr. William Lane Craig)http://youtu.be/K_iOtaksXZ4

- the continuum hypothesis underlies modern theories of space and time, but must simply be accepted- ‘one-way velocity of light’: light travels at constant speed in ONE direction, but could go out at one, then back at a slower speed.- scientific method itself cannot be scientifically proved: the problem of deductive reasoning.ABABABABABABABAB…ChaoticStarts!- Some things cannot be scientifically proven, but are “rational” to believe.- “faith” as “trust” or “commitment”.

RAII large 06 Scientism is false v04 http://youtu.be/LOoSbzu1vuU- yogic view: interesting, but flawed.

Reality As It Is_ Scientism is illogical http://youtu.be/lrOlaRI649Y- yogic view- “logic is the pattern of things that really happen.”- system of knowledge: based on axioms, but the axioms are outside of testing by the system.A pencil can write, but can’t write on itself.A knife can cut, but can’t cut itself.*They r designed to operate on things outside themselves.Similarly, science can’t be an object for itself.So, a whole category of things can exist outside of science!

*Watch other vids in the series…

Basic Para-Science and Scientism.mp4 (Intro to parapsychology course)http://youtu.be/lrOlaRI649Y

- “Science has long ago disproved spirits and gods.”- there’s a big diff btwn science n scientism- no final truths in science- science is done by ppl, originally, v religious ppl (as an act of worship)- physicalism/materialism: only physical/material objects and physical/material forces.- spiritualism: - scientism: obsession w/ material explanations (a truth not to be tested). Like a fundamentalist religion.- scientism: a dogmatic belief in Materialism as the only and complete answer- consciousness might survive death(?)…- “The End of Materialism” by the video maker, Prof. Charles T. Tart

The fallacy of Scientism (shockofgod)http://youtu.be/XLJBm3YrZoY

- 5 things not provable by science, but rational to believe(originally identified by WLC)1) logic/math2) metaphysical truths3) ethical beliefs4) aesthetic judgments5) science itself!

- adherents of scientism worship the creation more than the creator.- science as “the discovery of God’s creation”- what does science say about ”where we came from?”, “why are we here?”, and “where are we going?” ?- TheAmazingAtheist (check on YouTube…)- “Atheism is a bunch of crap!”

Scientism Schism http://youtu.be/m-Yeq_yKHWQ- mostly about criticizing creationism/ID.- Locke, Tracy, Stewart (materialists)- “Science cannot test nor invoke the supernatural, because anything supernatural is transcendent of all detection , and has only ever manifested from a lack of rational understanding in an attempt to explain natural phenomena.”

Fr. Barron on the error of "Scientism" http://youtu.be/gJosdqTRkgw

- “The first great heresy is ‘scientism’: the view that reality is restricted to what the sciences can explain.”- science is not very good at answering the question of ultimate meaning, truth, and casuality.- philosophy opens us to a dimension of reality that is real and important, but can’t be analyzed in the ordinary, empirical way.- God exists by the power of its own essence.- Arts get you in touch w/ reality, but not in an analytic, empirical way.- Scientism is a philosophical, intuitive claim.

Scientism - Twelve minutes more than it's worth. (by the SmilingSkeptic – I like this guy!)

http://youtu.be/pi1ilOkgNPQ- “if the testing is successful the scientist will begin using the theory for making predictions. The accuracy of those predictions attests to the strength of the theory, and further testing becomes a questionable use off resources at that point.”- “the equating of religious dogmatic protectionism in the scientific method is another fault…”- some claim that taking reason over magical thinking is a form of “absolutism”, and requires a “faith” in science.- science can’t answer all things, and SHOULDN’T answer all things- “non-overlapping majesteria”: science and religion have their own little sandbox. ( check into this…)- “They fight against this, because mystery is the only place left in which any God can reside.”http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&list=PLBA7D8BBE725CCC2F&v=pi1ilOkgNPQ#t=429s- “Magical thinking is really nothing more than the ignorance of reverence, or the reverence of ignorance.”- Do “scientists never overstate their discoveries, or the potential of their research, or the dominion of science”?No, but it’s rare, and not because of some organized belief system, but due to over exuberance and unguarded optimism, because scientists are emotional beings.- S. Harris: scientific basis for morality ( check into it mor…)- “No one religion has an exclusive claim on morality.”- “’Scientism’ allows you to villainize those evil scientists.”- “Science isn’t about having all the answers.” “It’s about how you pursue a question.” If your method is sound, your answer will be sound.- “’Scientism’ only exists in the minds of the wishful thinkers who want it to be true, much like their deity.”

The Religion of Atheism - Scientism http://youtu.be/dDme6a9HDIA-an uniformed, misrepresenting anti-atheist, anti-scientism sarcastic rant.

The Limitations of Science and "Scientism" (by VenomFangX)http://youtu.be/y184H70tM3o- VFX used a painting analogy (v interesting): problem of quantity vs. quality, ultimately concerning purpose.“If you quantitatively define a painting merely as matter, you can not see its design or purpose.”- If the Universe has a Creator and a purpose, science can’t detect it. The Creator must communicate such from Mind/Intelligence/message.

- Science is a limited thinking.- If God is outside the natural world, then your not going to find God by science in the natural world.

The Limitations of Science and Scientism (Essentially same as previous, but posted by VenomFangXSite, an independent, antti-VFX site reposting his vids for comment.)http://youtu.be/2_bv8UEyBlw

Venom's Claims of "Scientism" (by BionicDance)http://youtu.be/1QRhYFeZK-s- rebuttal to VFX.- the only way to experience God is thru our senses.- look up definitions for “quality” and “quantity”…- it’s lack of sufficient evidence to determine the author and intent of the painting, not a lack in science.- VFX: “What happens if we approach the world looking for the Creator?”BD: “Well, you’ve already gotten it wrong. … You shouldn’t be looking for a Creator. …That’s putting the conclusion before the evidence. What you should be doing is gathering evidence then seeing where that leads.”- purpose => intention => emotion => opinion, and opinions can vary, and can change.- how do we make a comparative value judgment of the various forms of life?- God is not an idea, so it should be detectable, somehow.- humans are not necessarily better than other animals.- one’s world is not entirely ruled by science: emotion plays a role (like, I like that movie).- God is a being, not just a feeling or impression, but a being that has interacted with the world.

Re: The Limitations of Science and "Scientism" http://youtu.be/CRV9ee8bpkc- we don’t use science to prove everything; it’s true.- the senses are not always reliable.- art about “interpretation”.- interpretation is different than science.

Responding to comments for The Limitations of Science and "Scientism" (VFX’s response to comments…)http://youtu.be/mVZ85yP-npw- Science can’t directly detect purpose, design, or Creator of the Universe.- PURPOSE: God created the Universe so that we (humans) can know Him.- “How do we know the Bible is the Word of God?”: We cannot know that thru science.- COMMENT: “Science isn’t meant to explain the subjective, it is meant to explain the objective. …The ‘value’ of something is entirely based on opinion, therefore, it’s subjective and science isn’t meant to measure it.”

VFX: The reason for painting it was not subjective. He reiterates that science cannot answer teleological questions. Naturalism will never lead you to a conclusion that life has an objective value.- COMMENT: “Purpose is a construct of the human mind.”VFX: But this excludes the possibility of “other” intelligences (e.g. transcendent minds, i.e. “God”).- COMMENT: “You can tell the painting is painted, regardless of who or what painted it. The same is not true of the universe” (i.e. we have nothing to compare it to).- If a/the Creator is unknown to one, why should the possibility be ruled out?-~ Atheists do not want there to be a God. ~VFX ( research this…)

RE: The Limitations of Science and "Scientism" http://youtu.be/9lh2HMoyChI- Just because the possibility of detecting a supernatural being may be outside the scope of science does not mean we should automatically assume one exists just outside the scope of our universe. Until there is an objective way to determine its existence, it is not unreasonable to not accept its existence.“How can we take anything that is not discernable by science to be objective if you are putting the particular ‘object’ of your philosophy outside the scope of our universe?”

Re: The Limitations of Science and "Scientism" http://youtu.be/HNo49gbmC3s- science is the best way of making predictions.- science: make observations, then drawing logical conclusions.- faith is not a valid method of acquiring knowledge.- the painting analogy is not extraordinary, as is the Creation claim, so they require different levels of assessment.

Re: The Limitations of Science and "Scientism" http://youtu.be/krIcTAj6zBc- pretty good ‘straight talk’.- If there were no God or Book, do you think atheists would not find aesthetic beauty (value) in things?- VFX, you have an agenda, a bias: to bring ppl to Christ, hence you attempt to degrade science in the process.- Atheism and science are not tied together the way VFX thinks.

Re: The Limitations of Science/Scientism http://youtu.be/nwor4vKfccw- “Science is designed to discover what things are, not what they ought to be.”Science acronym (by thunderf00t)…- PEARL: Physical Evidence And Reasoned Logic- We can scientifically discover why ppl act as they do (ethical, moral, etc.).

No to Atheistic Scientism, Says Papal Preacher

http://youtu.be/yggdL_JIkyY- “No to atheistic scientism, yes to science.”

Education and Scientism http://youtu.be/12ZgWNxKHNI- scientism: the attempt to apply the scientific method outside its philosophical context.- the problem of induction: (screwdriver example) how to ontologically explain how a screwdriver could be observed to fall 1000 times, but not do so the 1001th time?- science can’t address ethics, but it can inform it.- science can’t tell you that science is true: science assumes that induction is true.- math axioms cannot be proved: they are accepted as a priori.- kids are taught science facts well, but not really taught “science”: its metaphysical, ontological sense. Likewise w/ math facts vs. mathematics

Scientism and Catholicism (School project. HS?)http://youtu.be/R9iX89FQLnc- Pontifical Academy of Science ( look into it…)No lab work done there.Every 2 yrs meets w/ Pope.- “On interpreting the Bible”…Guy Consolmagno, Brother of the Jesuit Order (Society of Jesus)…- “The Church is adapting its teachings around science. The two are not fighting”

Blog: Why Evolution is True (Jerry A. Coyne)

What is “scientism”?: a guest post- “physics fixes all the facts” ~Rosenberg- “A successful accusation of scientism usually relies upon a restrictive conception of the science and an optimistic conception of the arts as hitherto practiced. Nobody espouses scientism.; it is just detected in the writings of others. Among the accused are P.M. and P.S. Churchland, W.V. Quine, and Logical positivism.”http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2011/12/04/what-is-scientism-a-guest-post

Claims of scientism:

“Scientism? Not So Much!” (A Christian view) [ref]by Scott Granger

"A Plea for Scientism" [ref]"Feyeraband and Scientism" [ref]by Dave Gosse (A Christian view: Lutheran)

"How To Defend Society Against Science" [ref]by Paul Feyerabend

document.doc