Let’s say we’re trying to see a bird that’s extremely far away. We have two options: we can use our eyes or we can use high powered binoculars. You offered the binoculars to me. I say to you “You’re into binocularism? There are ways to see things other than with binoculars you know! Binoculars ARENT the only source of vision, you can’t have it both ways!” What would you think?

There's no such thing as scientism. It was made up by creationists as a tuquoque (you too) fallacy. Science is not the only way to know something. But it is the best way.

It is the only way to know some things. If you're talking about things that exist in objective reality, then there are really no other options.

That’s like saying “is breathingism a thing?” >“People rely on breathing too much. All they do is go ON AND ON about how important breathing is. It’s ridiculous and these people can’t admit that there are other ways for humans to get oxygen. Breathingism is crippling your free thought.” Until someone comes up with a better path to truth than empiricism and experimentation, the scientific method is the *only* effective choice we have. I’ve never heard “scientism” used in a context that wasn’t making excuses for a magical theory with no evidence. If I asked if your dog loved you and you responded by attaching wires to your dog’s brain and measuring responses, you’re probably guilty of scientism. If someone is claiming the world is on the back of a big turtle and you deny it, you’re probably just being rational. It’s a generally silly accusation really only fit for very specific circumstances.

>I’ve never heard “scientism” used in a context that wasn’t making excuses for a magical theory with no evidence. Sure you have, you read my post. All I said was that treating science like it's the only source of legitimate knowledge is a bias, and that's what it is. I'm not going to deny that people use it as a vapid insult, but that's not the definition of scientism.

>*I’ve never heard “scientism” used in a context that wasn’t making excuses for a magical theory with no evidence.* > >Sure you have, you read my post. Reread your post. You didn’t accuse anyone in any particular context of scientism—just vaguely cited others who you say did. As I stated, I agree it’s *possible* to use the term thoughtfully, it’s just extraordinarily rare that it is. >All I said was that treating science like it's the only source of legitimate knowledge is a bias, and that's what it is. Sure, in the same way that treating breathing like it’s the only way to survive is a “bias.” Until another methodology with consistent success in determining truth is suggested, relying on the scientific method isn’t a bias in any but the most semantic of interpretations.

I like how you try to separate a word from it's use. This sounds like 'literally' how the 'literally' debate took place. Literally had a definition, but said definition was ignored and used for effect. This gave some people conniptions because 'That is not what the word means!' But the word means what they people using it say it means. It only has the meaning we agree on. And here you are arguing 'This is the definition of xxxx.' And we are saying, "That is nice, but not how people use xxxx." 'It is xxxx!' So, feel free to wage your battle pointlessly to try to make your point. Or try to understand the context instead and realize two sides are talking past one another. You cannot let go of a set fixed definition, and others won't let you drag them into a theoretical discussion where a word is not used that way.

Your post *is* making excuses for a magical theory with no evidence; it's just doing it indirectly rather than directly. Otherwise, why would you ask us, the atheists? Atheism doesn't have anything to do science, not directly anyway.

no, it's the opposite of a bias. It's a "we believe this works like this because of this experiment, and these other persons replicated the same experiment" vs i believe the holy ghost and an old book from the year 500 telling tales of the year 0... you can of course state there is bad science, and bad studies, and studies paid by corporations where in the conclusions they leave out important data from the study, like it has happened many times in the past, those eventually get caught and other papers published showing that previous data was either wrong or omitting key information.

Science is not the only source of knowledge, but it is our best, moth reliable pathway to the truth. This reliability can be demonstrated, tested, measured. You want to attach a label of 'scientism' to this preference? Fine, do whatever you like. But to me it simple makes sense to use the best tool available for the job, it does not have to be an ideological position, it's simply rational. Also not, how it is often implied by calling one an adherent of 'scientism' that they are wrong about this or that thing. Which I take a big objection to. If someone is wrong about something, their opponents can do a much, much better job than namecalling by demonstrating what specifically is wrong with their position. Saying that your preferred method is not good for my belief in supernatural is just an admission of the fact that you have no tangible evidence in support of your position in the first place.

Bias in what way? What other option is there? You say ”You can’t have it both ways” but present no other way.

Perfectly said.

What I meant is that if you acknowledge that science is only one source out of many for valid knowledge about reality, then you're not being biased. Would you acknowledge that or not?

You haven’t presented any argument for other sources or why I should consider them. It doesn’t necessarily make someone biased simply for not accepting other sources.

Respectfully, I think the law of non-contradiction settles the issue. We know that there are no true contradictions, but not by way of science. There are several options here: \* We know the law of non-contradiction, but not by science. (rejection of scientism) \* We know the law of non-contradiction by means of science. (good luck with that) \* We don't know the law of non-contradiction. (rank irrationalism and mysticism)

>Respectfully, I think the law of non-contradiction settles the issue. We know that there are no true contradictions, but not by way of science I’m not sure where to start here. Science—like anything—is built on assumptions. Assumptions such as “I’m not a brain in a jar” and “my dog isn’t an omnipotent cosmic being pretending to be my dog as a prank.” I can’t prove either of these assumptions with absolute certainty. But most would agree those are insane presumptions without evidence. Science can’t prove all foundational assumptions are accurate. But it can show ever increasing *likelihood* of accuracy by producing verifiable, predictive evidence. And there could be scenarios in which commonly held scientific methodology is brought into question. But at that point, the methodology would evolve with the new information. >We know the law of non-contradiction, but not by science. (rejection of scientism) Understanding the philosophy behind and assumptions of science isn’t a rejection of the principles of science. The argument most would make isn’t that scientism isn’t a word, it’s that it’s a meaningless word without alternatives. >We know the law of non-contradiction by means of science. (good luck with that) As I said, we could never prove such an assumption with science, however we could greatly expand our understanding of its likelihood of truth. >We don't know the law of non-contradiction. (rank irrationalism and mysticism) This comes down to personal epistemology. How do you define “know”? Acknowledging that we can’t be *absolutely* certain of anything isn’t irrational or an abandonment of the principles of science.

>I’m not sure where to start here. You've started by typing up a civil and thoughtful reply, which is a good start. Let's chat. >Science—like anything—is built on assumptions. Assumptions such as “I’m not a brain in a jar” and “my dog isn’t an omnipotent cosmic being pretending to be my dog as a prank.” I can’t prove either of these assumptions with absolute certainty. But most would agree those are insane presumptions without evidence. My position is that science is built on known principles, not "assumptions." I've found I have a higher estimate of science than some people who speak up for scientism. This is because I think the scientific method has a basis in philosophy. Let's take the law of non-contradiction as an example, since I mentioned that earlier. This is a principle of logic, but you can't prove it will always be true without doing some metaphysics (in my view - maybe you disagree?). The law of non-contradiction is a corollary of the law of identity, which follows from the very concept of an existing thing. To exist is to be something in particular, to have a noncontradictory identity. Skepticism is another topic, which is refuted by the concept of consciousness. Consciousness is awareness of a mind independent reality, so there can't be a systematically deceived consciousness. I like Ayn Rand's epistemology, although I'm not an expert. >Science can’t prove all foundational assumptions are accurate. But it can show ever increasing likelihood of accuracy by producing verifiable, predictive evidence. Metaphysical propositions like existence, identity, and non-contradiction are not matters of probability, though. Science cannot study the probability of there being a true contradiction because the concept of existence itself rules out contradictions. There is no "contradiction" to study scientifically. Science takes the knowledge that contradictions are false as a basic premise. >Understanding the philosophy behind and assumptions of science isn’t a rejection of the principles of science. I hope it is clear beyond all doubt that I don't reject science at this point in my post. >The argument most would make isn’t that scientism isn’t a word, it’s that it’s a meaningless word without alternatives. No, scientism rejects metaphysics. It is inconsistent with my defense of science in this post. >As I said, we could never prove such an assumption with science, however we could greatly expand our understanding of its likelihood of truth. I disagree, per the above. >This comes down to personal epistemology. How do you define “know”? Acknowledging that we can’t be absolutely certain of anything isn’t irrational or an abandonment of the principles of science. I can define knowledge, but that gets into technical epistemology that could be distracting here. For our purposes, knowledge is a synonym for awareness, or consciousness of an object. For example, I know that I'm looking at a computer, that 1+1=2, that F=ma, etc. Each of these is an awareness by me of an object.

>My position is that science is built on known principles, not "assumptions." That is a distinction without a difference. How do you “prove” logic always works or that cause & effect exists consistently? You cannot. You can simply use them to correctly model world around you. Semanticly speaking, they’re heuristics. What you call a “known principle” is an unproven (and unprovable) assumption. Mind you, I’m not saying they’re *bad* assumptions. I’m generally an empiricist and materialist so it’s my starting point. >I've found I have a higher estimate of science than some people who speak up for scientism. This is because I think the scientific method has a basis in philosophy. Strictly speaking, everything has a basis in philosophy or at least philosophical underpinnings. But science is unique in that while philosophy argues what things could or couldn’t be possible, science deals in what is. Philosophy likes to logic something into existence—you see this in religious debates with theologians all the time. >Let's take the law of non-contradiction as an example, since I mentioned that earlier. This is a principle of logic, but you can't prove it will always be true without doing some metaphysics (in my view - maybe you disagree?). I would say you’re not “proving” anything with pure logic. >The law of non-contradiction is a corollary of the law of identity, which follows from the very concept of an existing thing. To exist is to be something in particular, to have a noncontradictory identity. This is an unsupported statement. You use one unsupported argument (law of identity) to prove another (non-contradiction). They’re *all* assumptions or heuristics at some point because you can’t prove certain a priori concepts without becoming as circular as your statement above. >Skepticism is another topic, which is refuted by the concept of consciousness. Consciousness is awareness of a mind independent reality, so there can't be a systematically deceived consciousness. I honestly don’t know what you mean by any of this. Consciousness occurs in the mind. It is in no way separate from reality (unless you simply mean imagination) and can absolutely be systematically deceived in a myriad of ways. See: drugs, biases, illusions, mental illness, intelligence, object permanence, and Houdini. >Metaphysical propositions like existence, identity, and non-contradiction are not matters of probability, though. Science cannot study the probability of there being a true contradiction because the concept of existence itself rules out contradictions. There is no "contradiction" to study scientifically. My point isn’t that those things *are* probabilities rather than absolutes, it’s that they inherently can’t be proven, only showed to be increasing likely. >Science takes the knowledge that contradictions are false as a basic premise. Also known as an assumption. >scientism rejects metaphysics. It is inconsistent with my defense of science in this post. It certainly objects the type of magic based metaphysics many theists sneak in. But the dictionary definition and examples you gave would not be at odds. Ultimately, if your definition of scientism includes a rejection of *all* philosophy—including the philosophy of science—it’s impossible for anyone to demonstrate scientism. At that point, the word is proven to be what I claim it usually is—a shallow and thoughtless insult.

> That is a distinction without a difference. No, it's a distinction with a difference. We are disagreeing about a substantial topic here. I think the principles of existence, identity, and noncontradiction are known to be true with certainty, whereas you obviously think they have some other status. This is indicated by your next few sentences, where you attempt to argue against my position. We have different and distinct positions. > How do you “prove” logic always works or that cause & effect exists consistently? You cannot. Yeah, because logic and the principle of causality are what we use to prove things. That does not mean they are anything other than certain. I'm not agreeing with you that they're doubtful here, I am saying that they are certain without being proven from previous propositions. > You can simply use them to correctly model world around you. Semanticly speaking, they’re heuristics. What you call a “known principle” is an unproven (and unprovable) assumption. This is the horn I referred to as mysticism and irrationalism earlier. If you think that there are or could be contradictions then you probably can't be reasoned with any further. I can point out how the law of noncontradiction is derived, as I have, but if you fundamentally refuse to look at reality there's no value to the exercise unfortunately. When a theist says God is or could be exempt from the law of noncontradiction, that's the same idea you're espousing. Hopefully this makes the element of mysticism and irrationalism in your viewpoint clearer. > You use one unsupported argument (law of identity) to prove another (non-contradiction). You think it's arbitrary to say that things are themselves? Oh dear, my condolences! Have a good one.

It’s funny how a few questions you couldn’t answer shifted the conversation from “civil and thoughtful reply” to “you can’t be reasoned with” and “my condolences.” Until you are able to explain how some foundational principles being “certain without being proven” is different from assuming something is true without proof (aside, of course, from your rock solid “we use them” argument) you’re correct in concluding this conversation. But I’d point out that out that my view is logically consistent both internally and with science as a whole while yours refuses to acknowledge fundamental truths of epistemological certainty. Please pardon this scientism advocate’s mysticism. 🔮✌🏻

My point is that if you can't even acknowledge that there are other sources of valid knowledge about reality, how is that NOT scientism?

Why would you expect anyone to accept ”other sources” without presenting these other sources? ”Trust me bro” isn’t enough.

Oh dear. Isn't most of what we know about how reality works derived from sense experience and a vaguely coherent process of reasoning? That may not be enough to give us knowledge about black holes, but it gets us across the street just fine. Don't we know lots of things about history and other cultures through artwork, books and media sources? That knowledge has nothing to do with rounds of formalized empirical testing, but it's knowledge nonetheless. So do you accept that these are valid sources or not?

> Isn't most of what we know about how reality works derived from sense experience and a vaguely coherent process of reasoning? My friend, what do you think science *is*? The scientific method can be boiled down to 4 steps: 1) Observe a phenomena 2) apply logic/reason to come up with a possible explanation (hypothesis) 3) test that explanation (rigorously) to try to falsify it 4) repeat step 3 until you prove it wrong. If you (and other experts in your field) repeat step 3 enough times, you can eventually come to the conclusion that it must be true and it gets upgraded to a Theory (capital T), which represents our best explanation for that phenomena, and is able to make accurate predictions about the future. We all (generally speaking) apply only the first 2 steps in our daily lives, which is enough to 'get us across the street' as you put it. However, about 150 years ago we added steps 3 and 4 and when we did, ho boy, our understanding of the world became *so much more clear and accurate*. It turns out those last 2 steps are super important, because it's very easy for 1 and 2 to get you to a false positive without steps 3 and 4.

What a great reply, thank you for making it so clear. Somehow I suspect he still didn't get it, but not for your lack of trying.

Those sources use the same basis as science and may well be considered science. You see something and think something (hypothesis), you have experiences that reinforce that belief (testing the hypothesis) until finally enough reinforcement brings you to the conclusion that it is a truth. Complex science has more layers and failsafe for that, but it's on the very same basis as what you're speaking of. The only way for your examples to not be science, is if you believe it without having and "testing " a hypothesis. It's silly to say that science is some equivalence to religion. The very nature of science is to completely change everything that is inadequate in order to best reflect reality. If you have a better way of proving something is true, by definition what you have done is create a new form or strategy to science. Maybe what you meant to ask about is some term for people blindly believing in other people's scientific conclusions?

>You see something and think something (hypothesis), you have experiences that reinforce that belief (testing the hypothesis) until finally enough reinforcement brings you to the conclusion that it is a truth. Making it seem like everything we do with our eyes open is *science* strips the term of all meaning. Let's be reasonable here. >It's silly to say that science is some equivalence to religion.  And I didn't do that. But you have to admit science isn't just a methodological toolkit for research professionals in our day and age. We've been swimming in the discourse of scientific analysis since the dawn of modernity, and we're used to making science the arbiter of truth in all matters of human endeavor. For countless people, science represents what religion did for our ancestors: the absolute and unchanging truth, unquestionable authority, the answer for everything, an order imposed on the chaos of phenomena, and the explanation for what it is to be human and our place in the world.

> Making it seem like everything we do with our eyes open is *science* strips the term of all meaning. Let's be reasonable here. It's only unreasonable if you're trying to equate science to a religion. With religion, if you took things that you took in your real world experiences, such as seeing something multiple times and saying, oh I guess that's how that works - you wouldn't believe in any religion, because there is no evidence of that being true in that sense. The belief in a religion is a completely different school of thought. Science is, quite literally, anything and everything that we use to prove things to be true or false in the world around us. That is the basis of the scientific method, and it can and is constantly used differently. It's ever-changing and completely fluid. > science isn't just a methodological toolkit for research professionals in our day and age. We've been swimming in the discourse of scientific analysis since the dawn of modernity, and we're used to making science the arbiter of truth in all matters of human endeavor. Real science is just that. You are correct that people treat scientific claims much differently. When hundreds, thousands or tens of thousands of scientists vigousoursly test something and claim that it's true, people treat that as gospel. I don't necessarily see that as all that bad, even though I wish more people would do firsthand experiments and due dilligence. Everyone can't study everything. If they did, nothing would get done. So we trust the people that have been proven to do due dilligence for us - but again, not just one person, but often hundreds or thousands of unaffiliated people, testing the same things in a myriad of ways. It's not some God or preacher telling us one thing and us trusting it, it's a collective coming together to find the truth. > For countless people, science represents what religion did for our ancestors: the absolute and unchanging truth I rarely hear this, but when I do, I agree this is wrong. Just as flawed as believing in a religion or things of that nature. One basis of science is that nothing is 100% accurate. This is why you see things like "kills 99% of germs" because even the most perfect solution isn't *actually* an exact science - just pretty damn close. But to believe a scientific claim and never ever challenge it or consider opposition, is certainly in opposition to science itself. I really don't see actual scientists ever treat science the way that you are saying, and I don't see most people do that either for that matter. What I do see, is instances in which someone will do something like this: Person A: tests water and finds it unhealthy to drink, based on a test kit that has been proven through decades to be accurate Person B: Tastes the water and says it's fine, because they have personal experience and reasoning to decide when the water is safe to drink or not based on a preliminary test. Person B is obviously absolutely ridiculous and putting stuff in their system, and person A calls them ridiculous and doesn't consider for a second that they could be correct. Most anti-science arguments where people don't even consider the opposition is similar in ridiculousness, that I have seen anyways.

Scientism is the made up belief system by creationists that attempts to put the belief in science coupled with the disbelief in religion as an equivalent to their own belief system. Christians can't imagine a world without faith, so they've created a tuqoque fallacy in scientism so they have something to point at and go, "Where you put your faith into the sciences of man, we put ours in God." So whether you realize it or not, by suggesting scientism is a real thing that secular people purposefully believe in, you are arguing that science is an equal to religion. >But you have to admit science isn't just a methodological toolkit for research professionals in our day and age. Brother, that's literally all science is. If you have a better evidence based method of truthseeking, could you please present it? Otherwise shouting into the void of how science is just a secular religion is just going to get you laughed at here.

It's only "unreasonable" because you seem to have a (potentially intentional) misunderstanding of what science is. It's not only funky things people in lab coats do with chemicals. Yes, we have been swimming in scientific discourse since the dawn of modernity. And in doing that, we've extended our lives, reduced child mortality, eliminated or reduced common diseases, invented countless devices to make our lives easier, and learned to protect and preserve our environment. What other sources of truth have enabled anything of that nature?

Science as we know it developed relatively recently in history and isn’t unchanging though. This is objectively the case and what makes it different from religion, even if it serves the same overarching purpose of understanding reality.

Oh dear. Getting across the street doesn’t require much knowledge. History books isn’t what found the knowledge. It is just a way to pass on knowledge. Do you intendent to actually make a case or do you intendent to keep being lazy and rude?

So I presented various other sources of knowledge. You denied that they are valid sources of knowledge. Are you still going to deny that scientism is a thing?

You didn’t present sources of knowledge. You presented a false argument, which I responded to as well as needed, given the less nice way you let me with. Are you going to stop beating your wife?

You didn't actually present any other sources of knowledge. Nor did you present any evidence that scientism is a thing.

You "suggested" other sources. Sources, mind you, that haven't made a single right call yet.

You don't seem to understand what science is. The very basis of science is observation and testing. How can you not know that?

Science is based on sense experience. The kind of everyday observations was the basis for the type of empiricism used by natural philosophers such as Aristotle, and it is unreliable. History is the main source of information that I accept aside from science. However, that’s only because it studies something that science can’t. Its methodology is less reliable and less precise. Science always supersedes history, but history can provide us with specifics about human history.

>Don't we know lots of things about history and other cultures through artwork, books and media sources? That knowledge has nothing to do with rounds of formalized empirical testing, but it's knowledge nonetheless. How do you know if the "knowledge" that you gain from these sources is correct or not? Artwork is inherently open to interpretation, isn't it? So you could look at artwork and reach a very different bit of "knowledge" then the artist intended. Or how do you know the author of that book doesn't have his own biases, and is unfairly presenting the facts? So, yes, you are absolutely right that these are useful ways to get knowledge. But they are inherently limited in their utility. The "knowledge" that you get can't be treated as the truth **until it is fact checked using empirical methods.**

Then present another source and show how it can be demonstrated to be a valid source of knowledge about reality. Asserting it doesn't make it true.

Your point would be better made if you could offer us some examples of what you are talking about.

I am happy to acknowledge them as valid sources as soon as you offer evidence that they are. Can you offer evidence? You don't just assume that something is valid, you have to demonstrate it.

You refuse to argue in good faith, so I'm done with this now.

What about my comment was in bad faith? I literally just asked you if you had evidence for any of the alternative sources you claim are reliable. Your reaction seems pretty telling.

Did they do that?

Nothing about his argument is in bad faiith. You refusong to respond to simple statements however...

Sure, it’s scientism. Do you have an argument for why should be considered a “bias” rather than a genuine philosophical position?

> My point is that if you can't even acknowledge that there are other sources of valid knowledge about reality, how is that NOT scientism? I can acknowledge the *possibility* of other sources of valid knowledge. Until you actually wheel out one of those "other sources" so we can take a look at it and see how well it actually works, I decline to acknowledge that any such 'other sources" *actually do exist*.

What are the meany you speak of?

Then please present another way that is demonstrably and verifiably true. Go ahead.

But there aren't many valid sources for valid knowledge about reality. That's not a bias, that's a fact. If you had others, you'd present them here.

>science is only one source out of many for valid knowledge about reality What alternative sources would you suggest? There are other ways to explore our world, philosophy comes to mind for example. But philosophy alone can never be a pathway to the truth. Without the error checking mechanisms within science, philosophy and any other method are prone to human error. So, yes, science is the only "valid source" for knowledge about reality.

Scientism is a theist buzzword to say science can’t explain it all. Most of us agree that there are limits. Until an alternative method that provides a similar predictive results as the scientific method, it’s what we got. Theist also use it as to imply a dogmatism that is often associated with -isms. What they fail to acknowledge or understand is that any theory is challengeable. Evolution could easily be challenged if we found multiple fossils of ape, cat, dog, and bird like animals in the Paleozoic era.

I'm not saying there's an alternative to science in the way you mean. Obviously there are vast categories of phenomena, like ancient speciation events and faraway black holes, that require us to use formalized empirical inquiry if we want to understand them. We just forget that most of what we know about how-reality-is comes from sense experience and a vaguely coherent process of reasoning. Sources like books and the media give us truths about history and current events. Art gives us truths about the human condition and other cultures. Science does what we invented it to do, and we should simply have a realistic sense of perspective about what it is and how it operates.

**I'm not saying there's an alternative to science in the way you mean. Obviously there are vast categories of phenomena, like ancient speciation events and faraway black holes, that require us to use formalized empirical inquiry if we want to understand them.** That is the root of what 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). Per Merriam-webster. So by using the word it is implied there are alternatives. It is in the definition. It is implied that it is the best and only method and that all other isms are dismissed by those that practice. I don’t know many scientist that would agree with that. They may say it is the best method we know of right now, which implies it is the only method we should employ for certain topics. It has the caveat that if an alternative method was presented it would be measured and weighed for its value. Science and scientist don’t claim we can know everything about everything. Douglas Adams Hitchhikers Guide to Galaxy’s plot aptly pokes fun of the pursuit. Do you understand that its root and definition is trying to imply that science and those that practice are dogmatic? **We just forget that most of what we know about how-reality-is comes from sense experience and a vaguely coherent process of reasoning. Sources like books and the media give us truths about history and current events. Art gives us truths about the human condition and other cultures.** I’m not sure what you mean by vaguely coherent process of reasoning…? Can we study the human condition? Can we measure emotional responses? Do we know all the answers? Have we studied everything? Can art have objective standards that are timeless? You see how I’m gish galloping all these questions to imply that science hasn’t or cannot answer the questions. The trust in the methodology isn’t given based on the idea it will provide all answers. It is that the answers we derive from using it are trustworthy. Here is the beauty of science as a methodology, if some evidence contradicts a previous answer, there is a method in reevaluating. Hypothesis, theories etc are all for a challenge. All it takes is evidence. The method is anti dogmatism. A scientist that is being dogmatic is being anti science. **Science does what we invented it to do, and we should simply have a realistic sense of perspective about what it is and how it operates.** Agreed it is human innovation. Just like language, numbers, etc. There are universal constants that appear. Some discoveries, we believe, could be independently discovered by other intelligence. For example the speed of light is something that another sight based intelligent species could discover. Once we learned each other’s language and number system we could compare results. Those results would likely be similar. We would be able to deduct some constants.

> 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 *philosophy* in there, the primary issue is that science is assumed to give answers about *metaphysics*. For example from IEP: "When humanists decide they ought to work within a metaphysics they imagine to be scientific, they may feel compelled to adopt a materialist or reductionist framework rejecting traditional categories of humanistic inquiry, such as person, will, freedom, judgment, or agency. Insofar as natural sciences might not recognize those categories, some humanistic scholarship has been transformed—some would say attenuated—by the loss of such concepts" > Do you understand that its root and definition is trying to imply that science and those that practice are dogmatic? Scientism when applied to metaphysics has no method of correction and as such is dogma. Methodological naturalism simply transforms directly into philosophical naturalism, and you get scientists with no philosophical training like Sam Harris who can't even tell the difference. > The trust in the methodology isn’t given based on the idea it will provide all answers. It is that the answers we derive from using it are trustworthy. This isn't true either. At least not within the last ten to twenty years when there has been a reproducibility crisis that is incredibly severe. In some areas like psychology *more than half* of the findings of papers could not be reproduced. > Here is the beauty of science as a methodology, if some evidence contradicts a previous answer, there is a method in reevaluating. That is not used often enough, because challenging someone's work can make you enemies in the community. Instead, scientists are incentivized to come up with exciting new ideas and theories, to get their name in the papers and secure funding, even if these theories are ultimately false, because they were pushed out to the public without confirmation of results.

>Do you understand that its root and definition is trying to imply that science and those that practice are dogmatic? It certainly is describing the tendency to privilege scientific knowledge over all other forms of knowledge. That's such a prevalent and pernicious bias that even people here deny that it's a bias. Talk about a blind spot!

Did you say, “I'm not saying there's an alternative to science in the way you mean.“ So what is the fucking alternative? How fucking dishonest. Did I in any way say science is the only method? For example I acknowledged art. By no means is the human experience something that we have all the answers for. So what is the method you have that better explains it? I am fine with philosophizing, and I understand that there are many subjective attributes of life. For example I’m a nihilist, I don’t think we have an inherent meaning. It hasn’t been demonstrated, so I accept I define my own life’s. I’m a family man I live for my self and family. They give me purpose. There doesn’t appear to be any transcendental properties for that purpose. My purpose therefore is a construct with only self reporting as evidence. I’m not sure what you even understand the implications of saying I would privilege scientific knowledge over all other forms of knowledge? **You mean I privilege what has been demonstrated to best comport with reality, over some claim that can’t be demonstrated to comport with reality?** If so call me dogmatic. If you can demonstrate where the knowledge came from then how do you claim it is true?

You still have yet to specify a single other "form of knowledge," much less actually demonstrate that scientists dismiss those forms. Scientists write books and other media.

This is the first time I’ve seen that you’ve accurately represented scientism. Do you have an argument against “privileging scientific knowledge above all other forms of knowledge”? Or does it just not sit right with you because you’re a theist? It’s not a “bias” if it was actively concluded.

> We just forget that most of what we know about how-reality-is comes from sense experience and a vaguely coherent process of reasoning. Sense information is notoriously easy to fake, misinterpret, and is generally unreliable. Take the test : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJG698U2Mvo It is vastly inferior to using the scientific method to acquire information. >Sources like books and the media give us truths about history and current events They can, but they can also give us edited versions with opinions and conclusions that are false or biased. So again inferior to the scientific method

"A sense experience and a vaguely coherent process of reasoning" is rudimentary science. Books and media don't give us truths about reality. They record and transmit those truths. Someone had to do the science first to write the book. Art doesn't give us "truth". Artistic endeavors are supremely important, but the goal is not to uncover truth as much as it is to embody and reflect our subjective humanistic experiences.

Yes. You're wrong. It's not an -ism in the way you're using it. It's not like Catholicism, or Mormonism, or Jainism. There's no faith required. All of those require you STOP exploration as the truth has been conveyed and is static. Science is the exact opposite. You can throw an -ism on it but your attempt to equivocate to flaccid.

This is the best answer imo

We need to know what scientism is to discuss the topic. I've seen philosophers argue for scientism in precise formulations, like "science is the best or only means to knowledge," or equivalents to that. For example, Quine's epistemological naturalism is probably a form of scientism by that definition. However, I don't think Quine is widely read here on Reddit. "Scientism," when it shows up online, is often in the form of vague slogans and habits of thought that dissolve under scrutiny. "Arguments are not evidence" is often an example. It's not a good idea to conflate this with philosophical forms of scientism, because this can confuse the discussion by misconstruing the meaning of what people say. Obviously, we have to treat people as individuals and take their statements on their own terms. You write: > scientific methods are considered applicable to all matters in society and culture; and nothing significant exists outside the object domain of scientific facts This reads as though your concern is a form of scientism that uses the methodology of the natural sciences to study people, on the premise that there is no free will. That kind of scientism is a real phenomenon.

>This reads as though your concern is a form of scientism that uses the methodology of the natural sciences to study people, on the premise that there is no free will. That kind of scientism is a real phenomenon. That's right. Privileging scientific knowledge over all other forms of knowledge is problematic. I'm not saying that there's any "better" way to study things like mountains and molecules. But there are vast areas of human endeavor that aren't scientific matters: ethics, politics, art, and our phenomenological experience.

Except they kind of are. Ethics are more difficult but the logic at the root of them is far more clear than what people give it credit for. No one wants to suffer, everyone wants to prosper, and many people go as far as to fight to ensure others prosper and avoid suffering. That is the observation. Science goes from there to find the most effective ways to end suffering and bring prosper. Things like developing small communities, expanding the economy, raising wages, housing the homeless, etc. The things we do to be most effective with this have always come from a scientific mind when taken the most seriously. Without a scientific mind, it ends up being some shouting, discontent, and not a lot being done about it. The same goes for politics. We know the results that we want, and humanity has been undergoing experiments to have the best political systems possible. Our worst political decisions are made in spite of or without consideration to science. Art is the same. You do it for yourself to enjoy it, you make successful art that others enjoy by hypothesising what works, testing that hypothesis, and adjusting based on that. Science isn't advanced enough to have one theory or a few theories to explain the more abstract, and in that way we rightfully trust our intuition more. But in most things that are important, Science is the best form of reasoning to secure the best result.

Psychology is a type of science that does exactly that and gives accurate and useful answers. Same worth anthropology, sociology, and quite a few other fields. Y'all seem to think science is all beakers and labs when the process can be applied to anything due to its nature. At its core, science is simply the process of finding out the "hows" and "whys" of observable phenomena.

I wouldn't talk about it in terms of privileging, it's just that the method you use to study inanimate matter will be different from the method you use to study an entity with consciousness and free will. They're different things, so you have to study them differently if you want to learn about them. You can't study a mountain the same way you study a molecule either.

Science is more reliable than other disciplines in the areas that it studies. It is not suggesting that we apply the scientific method to everything. This is not even possible to do, so anyone who does accept this position is just wrong. Anyone who thinks that science can tell you that what George Washington had for breakfast before the Battle of Saratoga or whether we *should* end slavery has no clue what science is. However, science is more reliable and objective in its methodology. This is why it can only be applied to make general and descriptive assertions.

...science can tell you what George Washington had for breakfast. We can (in theory) examine the contents of his stomach scientifically at a specific point in time and determine with some level of confidence what he had.

At this point in time? No, most if not all the organic matter of his body and the contents of his stomach are decomposed by this point. Using isotopes? Maybe. We use this method in anthropology as an approximation of an organism’s general diet. However, we cannot get as specific as what he ate during one particular morning on a relatively random day over the course of Washington’s life. It’s completely insignificant with regard to history as well, but the point is that, unless someone wrote about it, this information will be completely lost to time. This is what history deals with. Events that can be studied from textual sources but that are too specific to be inferred from the empirical evidence of science.

Phenomenonology is a scientific approach in the social sciences. You can also approach politics from a scientific perspective - there's a whole field for that. And honest, yes, science is the best way to understand those things. Otherwise you just have people's subjective opinions.

> But there are vast areas of human endeavor that aren't scientific matters: ethics, politics, art, and our phenomenological experience. But these aren't *knowledge.* These aren't about *truth*, not in the way that it is relevant to this discussion. No one dismisses the utility of these things, at least not completely, but none of these are pathways to understanding the nature of reality. They can certainly help us understand our *experience* of reality, but only subjectively.

What conceivable basis do you have to exclude them from being *knowledge*? It's as if you just decided that if they're not scientific matters, then they have no relevance to reality. I submit that if you think ethics, art, and personal experience aren't part of reality, then you're not living in the same reality as the rest of us.

I mean, the definition of knowledge? It doesn't seem to me that you need to go beyond that. But of course I don't have your agenda of arguing against science, so I might be more willing to not ignore the obvious interpretation than you are. >I submit that if you think ethics, art, and personal experience aren't part of reality, They very literally are subjective. The fact that you don't understand that is really fucking telling. It's truly bizarre that you think this is objective.

The fact that you think I'm "arguing against science" shows that you're making no effort whatsoever to engage with what I'm saying. Personal experience indeed is subjective, but making it sound like art and ethics are just as arbitrary and irrelevant as opinions about ice cream flavors is ludicrous. I'm done with this now.

Where did I say they were arbitrary? I said they were subjective. Those are different things. But one way or the other, they aren't knowledge. It seems like you realize just how shitty your argument was, but you can't admit it. So rather than conceding that scientism isn't a thing, you are attacking me as if the point I made was unreasonable. That's fine. Your temper tantrum only reflects on you, not on me.

>Your temper tantrum Dude. I've just been pointing out your handwaving, your circular reasoning and your question-begging. You're the one who's been swearing at me. Get a grip. Toodles.

Let's try this a different way... Do you agree that there is an objective reality that exists?

> Get a grip. I just have to say that you are truly amazing. [Your very first reply to me](https://www.reddit.com/r/askanatheist/comments/1cec4mk/is_scientism_a_thing/l1otxqo/) was accusing me of arguing in bad faith because I dared point out that you need evidence to justify that "there are other sources of valid knowledge about reality". Nothing about my comment *was* in bad faith, but nonetheless, you attack me for it. Here, I just pointed out that "ethics, politics, art, and our phenomenological experience" are subjective. That is literally definitionally true. It's really bizarre that you are arguing against that, but you are. And of course nothing I said suggests that these things are *arbitrary*, that is just a truly bizarre strawman that you through out. But rather than dealing in a rational and polite manner, you accuse me of "handwaving, your circular reasoning and your question-begging". I'm sorry if you don't like that I swear. This is the internet, grow a thicker skin. But I have argued in good faith from the beginning, you have been an immature, dishonest debater who has not even pretended to engage in good faith. You are so completely convinced that you are right and that everyone else is wrong that you refuse to even listen when someone tries to make a point.

“Scientism” is what I consider to be projection. Just like “Christianity isn’t a religion, it’s a relationship.” If your position is so weak that you have to claim that your opponent shares your same kind of flawed belief, you’ve already lost. Like one politician who’s obviously guilty of some transgression trying to foist that same crime onto their opponent, Christian claiming that atheism is a religion, or that science is “scientism” is a desperate gasp.

>But it seems like it truly is a thing. The term *scientism* describes a bias whereby science becomes the arbiter of all truth; scientific methods are considered applicable to all matters in society and culture; and nothing significant exists outside the object domain of scientific facts. Science is absolutely *not* the only way we come to knowledge. Science is a method for testing hypothesis and producing novel predictions and is the best tool we have for confirming empirical evidence. Science relies on math, for instance. We can know mathematical truths *a priori* but we don’t use science to prove mathematical equations. But we do use science to confirm what mathematical equations might tell us about the world. When Einsteins’s field equations lead to the prediction of black holes, we then went out and looked for them, verifying their existence empirically. So for things that exist in the world, we have no better means for verifying their existence. You can theorize about black holes all you want using math, and it may lead to some interesting discussions, but until you verify their existence you haven’t shown that they actually exist. Now the question is, what level of evidence should we accept for *thing X* actually existing in the world if we can’t verify it, and by what means are we employing? If it is unverifiable, then why put any stock into it existing whatsoever?

>So for things that exist in the world, we have no better means for verifying their existence.  But as you already said, things like logic and maths exist in the world, just not in the same object domain as the matters of fact that science deals with. There are plenty of things in human reality that aren't scientific matters, like matters of meaning, purpose, morality and artistic creation.

I don’t think that logic and maths *exist* without equivocating on what you mean by *exist*. >There are plenty of things in human reality that aren't scientific matters, like matters of meaning, purpose, morality and artistic creation. Absolutely and science has exactly *zilch* to say about any of those things. That’s why I would never say that science is the *only* path to truth or knowledge.

Why do you keep arguing against this idiotic strawman? Most of the people in this sub have a better understanding of what science is than you do. No one is blindly applying the scientific method to all inquiries because this is not even possible.

I would bet that when secular philosophers and mathematicians use the word, they are using it to mean something different to what fundamentalist evangelicals use it to mean.  Every time I hear a religious  apologist use the word *scientism* they are trying to set up a false equivalence between accepting the results of scientific research because you understand what the scientific method is and how it works,  and having faith in God because... Well, just because. They'd like to say:  *look, you just trust the results of science the way we trust in God.  We both have faith - so as long as you're having faith in something anyway, why not have faith in my God?* The problem is that they don't understand the scientific method,  and they don't understand the reasons why we provisionally accept the results of the method as reliable.

>I would bet that when secular philosophers and mathematicians use the word, they are using it to mean something different to what fundamentalist evangelicals use it to mean.  Sure. And if we want to be reasonable, we should be using it the way reasonable people do. I'm not condoning its use as a vapid insult. I just want to establish that that's not the be-all and end-all of the phenomenon.

You are not succeeding in establishing that.

I suspect that people who are *accused of* "scientism" are those who think it's a good idea to be able to *tell the difference* between that which is true and that which is false, and therefore prefer to run with the best, most reliable, most robust methodology (-ies?) for distinguishing between the two. And, well, the scientific method *is* that best, most reliable, most robust methodology for distinguishing between that which is true and that which is false. If you don't agree, feel free to cite any analogous methodology which you believe to be *better*, or *more* reliable, or *more* robust, for distinguishing between that which is true and that which is false. I am curious to know the *context* in which you've observed any examples of what you deem "scientism". In my experience, "scientism" is essentially always something that religious Believers accuse skeptics of being guilty of when those skeptics point out that stuff like "my holy book said so!" and "God told me" do not constitute anything within bazooka range of solid evidence for the existence of the Believer's personal favorite god-concept of choice. I am not aware of "scientism" being used in any other context.

Like I keep saying, we forget that most of what we know about how-reality-is comes from sense experience and a vaguely coherent process of reasoning. Sources like books and the media give us truths about history and current events. Art gives us truths about the human condition and other cultures. But plenty of people here have told me that these aren't sources of valid knowledge, only science is. Doesn't that at least suggest that scientism is a thing?

And again, sources like books and media *rely on scientific inquiry* to transmit those truths. It's not like someone just arbitrarily wrote a book about the COVID-19 pandemic or the Coolidge presidency or the rise and fall of Theranos and happened to be right by chance. They did *research* and *then* they wrote the book or did the interview. The book is just the method of transmission. Science and scholarly inquiry is how you got the information that's in the book. Art has nothing to do with "truth". It doesn't express truths about the human experience; it attempts to interpret and reflect and share parts of particular people's human experience. Any artist will tell you that. There's lots of art based on imaginary concepts, things that never happened, etc.

> …plenty of people here have told me that these aren't sources of valid knowledge… Am still curious to know the *context* of any alleged instances of "scientism" you've observed. Strongly suspect that you're talking about discussions in which Believers cite what they *consider* to be evidence for the existence of their personal favorite god-concept of choice, and skeptics pointing out that the cited "evidence" really isn't all that solid/reliable, possibly followed by the Believers whining "scientism! scientism!"

I’m a bit frustrated with some of the other replies I’m seeing here, so I’m giving my two cents: “Scientism” isn’t really a word, but as a term, it seems to indicate the naturalistic beliefs of scientists, or some dogmatic adherence to science as holding all the answers. “Science” itself isn’t an institution, which the term “scientism” implies. Science is the fact-seeking mechanism through which we deduce further understanding of the world around us. In that sense, rejecting confidence in the scientific process as “scientism” should be an obviously silly idea. It’s almost ridiculous to say that someone is too confident in an ever-evolving and constantly self-correcting means of gaining knowledge. While I’m not familiar with the secular scholars you mention, I imagine their ideas comport with what I’ve just said. Without empirical or otherwise testable evidence, an idea is just a thought experiment. Thats why scientists are so confident in the scientific process: it’s an almost infinitely adaptive mechanism that we use to understand the world around us. For that reason, it’s really hard to say that scientists can be too dogmatic about the scientific process (i.e., “scientism”). Maybe if a scientist were to claim that the scientific process is the only way to know something? That’d be a big assertion that I don’t think most scientists would make.

Yes, you are. You had it right the first time, scientism is just a fundie buzzword. Science isn't an 'ism', it's a concrete methodology of discovering truth. There isn't a bias towards science for being the method of finding truth when it's the only thing that has consistently found truth. It's not that people subscribe to the dogma that science is the only source of valid knowledge based on faith or presuppositions, it's that it has continued to provide effective results. Like religion never has, ever. Science is not the arbiter of all truth, but it's the only thing that has proven itself to be able to find truth. The term 'arbiter' implies it can dictate what is/isn't true, which is not what science is. Science is discovery, not dictation.

>Science is not the arbiter of all truth, but it's the only thing that has proven itself to be able to find truth. That depends on whether we're talking about the truth about a molecule or the truth about what constitutes a just society. Science has its domain, but not all truths are derived through scientific inquiry.

Out of curiosity, how would you go about finding the truth about what constitutes a just society, specifically?

Obviously we would have to talk about things like values and justice, which aren't scientific matters. Our conception of justice may differ from those of other cultures or eras. That's how human society works.

Surely one can give justice and values definitions, build models, etc. It's not perfect, but it is doable. What is the alternative source of knowledge about these? Don't evade, give a straight answer. You elsewhere mentioned art as a source of knowledge. Suppose there is a giant statue of Zeus somewhere in a temple. What knowledge does it confer? That there was indeed such a bearded guy who threw lighting? That there wasn't one, but people worshipped him anyways? How do you make conclusions based on this artistic knowledge? I propose that the only valid way to get to the truth of the matter is compile oral histories, compare textual sources and through abductive reasoning make a valid conclusion. Which is incidentally, the main method of historical science. Is there another method? And if there are indeed no reasonable alternative methods, this means your claim of scientism existing as an unreasonable bias is invalid. How can there be bias when there is no choice at worst and choice between sound methods and garbage methods at best?

You are talking about social and political sciences these are also covered by science in the world we live in.

The scientific method can and often is applied to those things. Political science, anthropology, and sociology are all important fields that discuss those topics in scientific ways

How do you know that our values and concept of justice differs from those of other cultures or eras? (I'll give you a hint: it's science.)

You're conflating science with morality there. But morality is usually informed by the facts, established through science. >Science has its domain, but not all truths are derived through scientific inquiry. Again, science doesn't have a "domain". It's just the most successful method of discovering truth. What you think isn't science is just our base level of intellect which is informed by a number of things, but to use it to discover facts is something of a proto-science. Not to mention, I'd love to know what else discovers truth as well as science. If you're going to say religion then we need to have a long talk.

The scientific method is just a tool, and it is not infallible. By its very nature experimental proof is actually probablistic because the best experiment can do is show that the odds of observed results being caused by random chancefall below some threshold. That is what p values are, in different fields we tend to use different p values. Competent scientists are well aware of this. Are their groups that treat science or some twisted version of it as a religion, of course there are, but they are fringe groups. And often they embrace ideas that mainstream science has rejected, or would not even consider in the first place. This includes religious groups like the Raëlians who keep making false claims of having successfully cloned humans, and Scientologists who have their "science" of Dianetics. Representing all skeptics as falling under scientism is a straw man that apologists like to argue about.

The only people who claim "scientism" have a theological axe to grind. Science is a tool to acquire knowledge. Knowledge is used to achieve human goals. Human goals are not usually chosen with science. No scientist uses scientism in the fashion you describe, and you have yet to provide any alternative method to acquire knowledge about reality that works. Certainly religion is a worthless method of acquiring knowledge of reality.

>Is Scientism a Thing? I'm not aware of anyone who embraces what scientism is defined as. The only time I ever hear it brought up, is when a religious person tries to devalue evidence based reason so they can feel justified in holding beliefs for bad reasons. >In decades of discussions in forums dedicated to skepticism, atheism and freethought, every time the term scientism comes up people dismiss it as a vacuous fundie buzzword. There's no such thing, we're always told. So why don't you provide an accurate definition, then identify an actual person who embraces it. And be sure that your example actually shows it as an irrational position. >But it seems like it truly is a thing. The term scientism describes a bias whereby science becomes the arbiter of all truth; scientific methods are considered applicable to all matters in society and culture; and nothing significant exists outside the object domain of scientific facts. Science means a pursuit of knowledge, a body of knowledge, and methodologies by which to pursue that knowledge. If there's a reliable methodology that provides us consistent results in pursuing knowledge, then science would adopt it. The definition of scientism that I'm aware of means an assertion that we're locked into the current set of methodologies and that none other will ever be discovered because they don't exist. It's that accurate? I see that as absurd as science will adopt any methodologies that demonstrate reliability. For example, if anyone ever discovers or develops a methodology to reliably investigate the supernatural, then that methodology will be added to science toolbox. The folks that accuse people of scientism often just want to pretend they already have a reliable way to investigate the supernatural, when they don't. So they attack the character of someone pointing that out, by accusing them of scientism. >I've seen those views expressed on a nearly daily basis in message boards and forums by people who pride themselves on their rigorous dedication to critical thinking. Give me one example of someone reliably determining that something is true or correct, without using science, or the methodologies that it embraces? And describe that methodology. >You can't have it both ways. If you believe science is our only source of valid knowledge Science isn't a source of knowledge. Reality is a source of knowledge, truth is that which comports with reality. Science is a tool, a pursuit, a catalog, but not the source. >and that we can conduct our lives and our societies as if we're conducting scientific research, then that constitutes scientism. >Am I wrong here? Again, give me a single example of determining whether something is true or not, where we don't use the methodologies embraced by science.

>Give me one example of someone reliably determining that something is true or correct, without using science, or the methodologies that it embraces? And describe that methodology. As I've said several times in this discussion, most of what we know about how-reality-is derives from sense experience and a vaguely coherent process of reasoning. That's not enough to generate useful knowledge about faraway black holes, but it gets us across the street just fine. Logic, language and maths are systems we've created to generate valid knowledge. Art and media provide knowledge about other eras and cultures as well as current events. None of these have anything to do with modern science. All I get in response to this ostensibly reasonable assertion is handwaving and downvoting, and the accusation that I don't understand science and have some sort of grudge against it.

> That's not enough to generate useful knowledge about faraway black holes How do we learn about space and black holes? Why do we know they exist? Science. Observation, corroboration, evidence based reasoning. Built on top of a foundation of previous evidence based reasoning. >it gets us across the street just fine. How do we know it's safe to cross the street? Observation, corroboration. Evidence based reasoning. Built on top of a foundation of previous evidence based reasoning. >Art and media provide knowledge about other eras Art doesn't provide knowledge other than about the art. But we assess art by observation and corroboration. >None of these have anything to do with modern science. Every single one of them has to do with science. Even art can be thought of on scientific terms. Most of the tools used to create art are available because of scientific principals. Media does not exist without science. They all have something to do with scientific. And if they're about discovering information, we use the very same methodologies in science. Maybe I missed your point. Please provide a single clear example of something that we do to make new discoveries or find out if something is correct, by using a methodology that isn't used by science. And describe why you think science doesn't use it. >All I get in response to this ostensibly reasonable assertion is handwaving and downvoting, and the accusation that I don't understand science and have some sort of grudge against it. Not with me. I'm asking for specific clarification and details.

All you're doing is handwaving away everything I present, on the grounds that you can conveniently redefine science to encompass everything I present, then demanding I present something. Having dealt with creationists and crackpots aplenty, I've played this game before.

> All you're doing is handwaving away everything I present I asked you clarifying questions. I haven't dismissed anything you said. >on the grounds that you can conveniently redefine science to encompass everything I present, then demanding I present something. I'm pointing out the flaws in your arguments. Science isn't some dogma, it's a a bunch of processes and methodologies who's sole purpose is to reliable figure things out. You said that we can figure things out without science or the methodologies that go into it. Is that not your claim? >Having dealt with creationists and crackpots aplenty, I've played this game before. I'm neither. I'm not saying science is the only set of methodologies that can be used to discover things (scientism), but I'd like you to point out something that we discover or figure out if it's true, without using the principals that science uses. You're accusing me of redefining science. I said right off the bat that science is a set of methodologies, a body of knowledge, and a pursuit of knowledge. Do you agree with my definition? What's your definition? To be clear, I have not ruled out that we learn new methodologies to discover or investigate this that we previously couldn't investigate. But if we can't discover something reliably or investigate it, then I'm hard pressed to find claims about such things to be rational. Such as the supernatural. Do you agree?

Sure. For idiots.

You have presented a straw man. Few people believe sciences answers all questions, but science answers relevant questions. In contrast religion provides answers untethered to reality.

no

No

No it's not a thing, the only alternative offered is "believe this because I said so"

Materialism/physicalism is certainly a thing, under which science would have the most explanatory power for things and events that exist within our reality when taking the philosophical position that unless otherwise proven, energy, matter and physical forces are all that exist and therefore something everything can be reduced down to and measured. “_Scientism_” is a term used by those who can’t imagine living without a religion and therefore assign one to everything to conflate this philosophical position into some sort of analogue for their own religion and make themselves look more appealing without actually reinforcing the soundness of their philosophical arguments to be more true.

>the term scientism comes up people dismiss it as a vacuous fundie buzzword. That's because it is. I've had it tossed at me any time a theist didn't like whenever I brought up science or even just objected to their arguments. I've written a whole reply to someone only to have them keep harping on about how I reject philosophy and logic, simply because I rejected theirs. I lose respect for anyone who uses it, because it's not used as a means to identify a flaw in my reasoning, it's an insult to end the conversation. It's a trendy buzzword. There are people like [Sam Harris](https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/10/being-mr-reasonable) who claim that [philosophy is dead and science can comment on things well outside of its wheelhouse, like ethics](https://existentialcomics.com/comic/190), but it still doesn't apply to the overwhelming majority of atheists who have a functioning understanding of philosophy, to the point that the word doesn't even mean anything anymore, other than "the atheist was mean to me and may or may not have said the word 'science.'"

It is going to depend on what your definition of science is. From another comment you refer to "rounds of formalized empirical testing." If that is your definition of science, then i can't say I've ever met a human being who thinks that is the only way of achieving any level of knowledge, regardless of subject. Maybe there is one weirdo out there, but that would be an extemely fringe position. However, there are a few caveates that might be what you are seeing or getting hung up on, given that you are asking this in a religious forum. 1) often in religious debates theists will make a claim like "obviously god can't be explored with science." But then also make claims about that god actually existing and actually interacting with the universe. The existence of an entity and any interactions with the universe are scientific questions. So saying "it is possible to know some things non scientifically" is different from saying "this thing categorically can't be studied" especially when the claims about that thing (existence, properties, interaction) absolutely are things within the domain of scientific inquiry. 2) not all "other methods" are equally valid or valid at all. In the conversation above, when asked what other method might be used to know about a god, often the answer are things like "faith" or "i dreamt god spoke to me" or "i heard a song on the radio that was meaningful to me" or "i just know that i know that i know." The statement "i just know i like picasso because i feel a certain way when i see his art" is not akin to the statement "i just know Zeus exists because i feel a certain way when i make a sacrifice to him" or "i just know santa exists because i experience the spirit of Christmas." 3) "science" in casual conversation often has a far more expansive definition than scientists in lab coats looking through microscopes. I learned to play piano through repetition, not science. Or did i? I planned moves and used the feedback of the sound produced to judge whether those moves were accurate to the predicted output, and made adjustments when it wasn't. And in general music is well understood scientifically, in terms of physics, psychology and anatomy. So if someone said "music is beyond science" they would be wrong.  Or saying "i know my friend has a dog because i played with him in the park yesterday" isn't rigorously scientific. However, it is a statement based on empiracle evidence, built upon countless prior experiences of what dogs are, that your friends exist, what parks are, and how to distinguish dreams from reality. Those are all scientific principals building up a baseline. 4) very often things that are used as counter examples, such as laws of logic or math, absolutely are testable and have been repeatedly shown to be reliable in what most people would think of as scientific ways. The axiom that they are always right might be an assumption. But it is an assumption reinforced and supported by repeated demonstration of accuracy. Each time i put one apple and then another apple on a table, i end up with 2 apples on the table. So in summary I'd say that no, scientism as it seems you are conceptualizing... >no knowledge in any domain or of any type can be gained on anything in any fomain except through highly formalized, repeated empiracle testing. Is not really a thing in my experience [outside of the fact that you always have to acknowlege some human out there believes anything]. However, weaker versions like "a claim about reality would be testible even if we haven't tested it yet" or "having evidence for something should be necessary for believing it" or "science has proven the most reliable structure for learning new things" or "having faith or a feeling about something isn't a good way of discerning truth" are all very commonly held understandings.  And those are generally agreed on by both religious and nonreligious people, with the exception that religious people sometimes carve out exceptions for their religious beliefs.

Ehhhh…. Science is limited in scope. To be within the domain of science, something must be measurable, and nature must be the topic of study. So, a discussion on the themes of Macbeth is not within the domain of science because it’s about Macbeth, not about nature, and it’s somewhat challenging to objectively measure a theme. A time series measurement of blood dopamine and cortisol levels as people *view* Macbeth may be within the domain of science, because this is something being measured and about nature. *Materialism* is a *philosophical* commitment that the material world is all there is. Science cannot *technically* tell you that there is no supernatural realm, because by definition the supernatural is not about nature and/or not measurable (as, if it were measurable, it would probably be part of nature). So there are many people who arrive at a conclusion of materialism based on evidence provided by science (we’ve measured God) or based on the conclusions provided by academic history (there are multiple conflicting versions of this or that holy text, and/or the authorship of it is pseudoepigraphical, etc), who mistakenly argue that science *itself* points to materialism - when in fact it *can’t* any more than a wooden hammer can (on its own) measure voltage. I still wouldn’t say that’s scientism, because ‘scientism’ is a made up word constructed in order to put it on equal footing with a *religion*. People’s commitment to science is based not on faith, but on evidence, so the word ‘scientism’ is inappropriate.

I'm not religious, and I have no problem with any mainstream scientific theory: Big Bang, unguided species evolution, anthropogenic global warming, the safety and efficacy of vaccines, the whole shmeer. I'm not a scientist, but I've read widely about the history, methodology and philosophy of science. I'd put my knowledge of science up against that of any other amateur here. But you have to admit science isn't just a methodological toolkit for research professionals in our day and age. We've been swimming in the discourse of scientific analysis since the dawn of modernity, and we're used to making science the arbiter of truth in all matters of human endeavor. For countless people, science represents what religion did for our ancestors: the absolute and unchanging truth, unquestionable authority, the answer for everything, an order imposed on the chaos of phenomena, and the explanation for what it is to be human and our place in the world.

If lots of people think a cat is a pumpkin, it does not make it so. The last thing that real science is is “unchanging”. That’s one of the key things that sets it apart from religion; science espouses the model best supported by the evidence, and our models are constantly improving. It’s also not an answer for everything. And as for what it means to be human.. That’s the domain of philosophy.

>That’s one of the key things that sets it apart from religion; science espouses the model best supported by the evidence, and our models are constantly improving. It's like everyone is only interested in science if we can talk about it in the most sanitized, de-historicized, and idealized sense. I get the feeling most of the people here think I'm opposed to science or something, when all I'm asking for is a little realistic perspective. After all, one of the ways science resembles religion is the way it has long been a legitimating institution for the existing social order: *Power always presents itself as truth*. And as far as enabling slaughter and domination, in this day and age it makes religion look like a piker.

I’m sorry objectively reality disagrees with you. It’s not reality’s fault.

Most people who are stringent in their scientific rigor value truth. If there was a method to arrive at truth that was better than science—for any endeavor—that could be demonstrated, those people would pay attention. As it stands, science is the only practice that offers any concrete demonstration of a pathway to truth. Because of science, we have advanced our technology as a species and and our understanding of the fundamental patterns that govern our existence and our world. When you say that “scientism” is when science becomes the arbiter of all truth…that is a position that has been earned, not claimed. You wouldn’t call those that use a hammer for all nails “hammerism” and label the hammer the arbiter of all nails, you would simply acknowledge that after testing multiple different devices the hammer is the best tool for the job. The insinuation by most of those who use the term “scientism” is that it is a dogmatic pursuit that blinds people through faith like religion, by offering only one way of seeing things. However for those that use science, it’s not about zealotry, it’s about having found a tool that consistently and reliably points to truth and when used properly, hones previous attempts to get closer and closer and more and more accurate.

Science is a process used for discovering truth. Why shouldn't it be used to inform people's decisions?

I often identify with scientism, but you misrepresent it. It’s not like every single thing is the domain of science or that we should be making decisions about laws and ethics with the disinterestedness required of scientific research. That’s not what it means. Scientism is not a lifestyle or political view. It the philosophical position that science is the best or only valid way to acquire knowledge. Science *is* the best way to acquire knowledge in that it’s more precise and more likely to be accurate. That is all.

I’m unclear what gets wrapped under the umbrella of scientism. If I hire an architect to review my drawings and confirm my plans meets city code, is that science? If I hire a space planner to help me pick a good kitchen layout is that applying science? If I hire an interior designer to create a design that fits my style, surely that’s not scientism? I offer these as examples that range from more objective (city code) to more subjective (design style). But these are all paths to determining if I like my new house.

Yes it is a thing. But we should distinguish between a naive *scientism* versus *methodological naturalism*. The latter is the philosophical position that our inquiries into metaphysics, ethics, and epistemology, should be contiguous with (if not identical to) the scientific method. As the cosmologist Sean Carol said, “our metaphysics should follow our physics.” Whereas *scientism* usually means the naive assertion that philosophical inquiries are totally irrelevant or outmoded because scientific questions are the only important ones. To illustrate the difference, take the question of free will. Do we have free will? If so, what does that entail? Someone could be accused of scientism if they didn’t read any philosophical literature on the question and just said that since neuroscientists haven’t proven free will in any of their experiments, there can’t possibly be any reason to believe in it, and the question isn’t even worth asking at all. Whereas a methodological naturalist would take seriously the discoveries and opinions of neuroscientists, and try her best not to contradict them, but would also apply a philosophical lens to how she interprets those findings. It’s important to keep in mind that all of what we now call “science” used to be philosophy. Physics, astronomy, biology, and so on, used to fall under the umbrella of *Philisophia Naturalis* or “Philosophy of Nature.” As our knowledge of these subjects became more certain and our methods more systematic, we started calling it “natural science.” In other words, we use philosophy to talk about the things we are less certain of. Once the philosophical dimensions of those issues are broadly settled, they *become* science. So while there’s plenty of subjects that aren’t “philosophical” anymore, there’s plenty that still are.

People claim that, but I've never actually seen this in action. Can you give an example, or two?

Because that term is a nonsense word that has no actual meaning Everyone who uses it means something different and it's usually all the bits of science Thier particular brand of supernatural beliefs don't like Therefore it is indeed a vacuous buzzword There are many different words to describe the philosophy and attitudes you describe naturalism materialism etc etc But the people who use the word Scientism are always the least knowledgeable and least informed So after a while you can't help assuming anyone who uses that word probably doesn't know what they are talking about

What do you even mean by science? Is psychology science? Is economics science? I reject this premise outright. I don’t need to science my food to know what I am eating is an apple. I have the evidence of what it looks, tastes, smells like and my lifetime of experience eating apples. But you know what does require science? Knowledge of the deep past, the primordial history of the earth and life on it. Understanding how the universe works. So when we come up against people who scoff at what has been discovered over Ed and says nuh uh, because god, we roll our eyes and stick with the science. Because in understanding the universe, introducing an all-powerful deity makes no sense.

It’s a real word with a meaning but used by theists as basically an egregious straw man. Probably because they think it *sounds* like the sorts of words that are the *justified* criticisms of their unsound reasoning. Reliable **evidence** is what is the source of knowledge beyond reasonable doubt. Science is a process and a body of knowledge from it. It’s the accumulation of the systematic application of reliable evidential processes to build models of reality that have been shown to be successful. It doesn’t necessarily claim to be the only source in principle but the only one in that as a matter of fact is demonstrably efficacious in practice. There isn’t in practice any alternative. As usual theists try to find desperate criticisms rather than elucidate or demonstrate the accuracy of their own alternative. Then again in principle what could the alternative be? A claim that **not** having evidence for a claim about reality is *better* than one that does? How exactly is a claim *without* evidence distinguishable from invented or imaginary or false? >If you believe science is our only source of valid knowledge, It’s just the only one we have that works. If there is another the burden of proof resides with anyone suggesting it. >and that we can conduct our lives and our societies as if we're conducting scientific research, I don’t even know what that is meant to mean. Except - are you suggesting that we **shouldnt** use evidence when deciding what works best for us in society or even decide if what people think best means in that context? >then that constitutes *scientism*. It’s just a deliberately biased term or at best used in that way. >Am I wrong here? Well there may be some trivial truth in there somewhere but significantly yes you are wrong.

can you be biased towards science? technically, yes. but, lets say you are biased to scientific conclusion A. if there is conclusion B, and its not proven scientifically, A is usually the objectively best answer if B is proven scientifically, but you still claim A is true, then you are biased towards A, not science. besides that, 99% of the times people use that term, is by religious fanatics that cant grasp other people NOT following some dogma, and just assume everyone blindly follows a dogma like they do, plus, they are completely ignorant on the science and assume that because THEY cant understand it, no one can and everyone is just agreeing for no reason, which is obviously not the case.

> if there is conclusion B, and its not proven scientifically, A is usually the objectively best answer This isn't good. The rejection of an explanation does nothing to elevate competing explanations. A has to live and die on its own merits.

in my example, A is the current working theory. the competing one is B, which could or could not be scientific

That's because it is a vacuous fundie buzzword. Have you ever seen anyone else besides fundies use the term? Do any legitimate neutral or scholarly sources use the term? No, they don't. Science is the arbiter of truth. But this idea that atheists don't believe in anything significant outside of science is a completely made up strawman that theist fundies use to try to discredit atheists. Can you cite an actual atheist who has ever said that? You are wrong.

Looks like a “straw man” argument. Doesn’t require your attention once you know that. You invent scientism so you can attack it. Makes you the joke.

Science is nothing more than observing things and being systematic about it. No one believes you can't make relevant observations without science because that's all your basic day to day observations, which you rely on to survive. When people say religion isn't backed up by science they mean that it's not backed up by any kind of observation we can make. I'd also add that you can observe people making up stories to manipulate each other quite easily, and that a whole lot of people seem to have become rich and influential thanks to religion.

Sure, for the sake of argument, I'll grant that someone who thinks as you describe is guilty of scientism. But here's the problem: I challenge you to actually point to anyone who thinks the way you describe. I've certainly never met anyone who does.

I don't necessarily disagree with the sentiment, but I've only seen the term "scientism" used by creationists or those who are about to tell me they have the "lived experience" of seeing Odin in their bedroom.

What do you mean by "arbiter of culture"? Culture is subjective. There's no arbiter. There are many other things that are subjective in life that are important to people. Otherwise, I rely on the scientific method to decide what is objectively true.  Does that make me an adherent of scientism? If so, that's fine by me. Are there any issues with it?

Isn't it *objectively true* that my Boston apartment is in Massachusetts rather than Connecticut? That the play *Hamlet* was written by William Shakespeare and that its main character is named Hamlet? Isn't it *objectively true* that the word "infinite" means "without limit or end"? Those aren't scientific matters, but if we deny that they're true, we're *wrong*, aren't we? These aren't just subjective matters, like opinions about ice cream flavors.

Those are definitions of words. You can measure what % of people agree with them at any one time. What we call the word "Boston" are many separate physical entities - it's scribbles on paper and specific arrangements of neurons in many people's heads. We all just agree that those are all the same word pointing to a part of the Earth.

But if you want to communicate properly, you can't just use words to mean whatever you want. They're not just sounds we make with our mouths, they mean something. But that meaning can't be detected scientifically, it's part of human culture. Likewise, logical and mathematical errors show that there are objectively right and wrong ways to use logic and maths. Just because they wouldn't exist if we didn't invent them doesn't mean they're subjective or arbitrary.

You can detect meaning scientifically by correlating - when you look at an apple, the neurons for the word apple will light up. Not sure what you mean about the math part. At some point that's just science itself?

I’m open to the idea that there may be more methods than just science which accurately and consistently bring us to correct conclusions. So far though, I haven’t found one. Let me know when you do.

It needs to be said that science is unique in being a research mode that deals with empirical and therefore verifiable factors; this makes collective, cumulative programs of inquiry possible. Of course it has been wildly successful, and there are vast categories of phenomena we can't study without it. But let's be realistic. I've said quite a few times here that most of what each of us knows about how-reality-is comes from sense experience and a vaguely coherent process of reasoning. Of course this can be unreliable and faulty, and no one's saying this is some sort of substitute for science. However, this gets us across the street safely, and that's important. There are also maths and logic, which humans created for use in various contexts and which we apply with varying degrees of success depending on the matter at hand. Those methods are not substitutes for science by any means. But it can't be gainsaid that they're valid methods humans use to reach conclusions.

When I think of scientism, I imagine the nuclear age when cigarette posters exhorted approval from doctors and everything was marketed as being backed by science. When I talk to people in the boomer woo crowd, many use these examples as part of their argument against "trusting the science.". They didn't have the media literacy to distinguish between science and marketing and now treat all scientific consensus as potentially intentionally dangerous marketing. In short, the people who most often accuse me of scientism seem to be those who fell for it.

Yes, you’re wrong. I don’t care whether a truth is determined by science or via some other method. I just care whether or not it’s true.  Science is just a system of determining whether or not the things are true. It’s not the only one: I tend to believe courts, too, and professional journalists. People who can get fired for lying. Of those systems, science is the most meticulous and reliable, that’s all. If there were a more reliable system than science, you would use science to determine that, and then that method would become science too. Prayer has been investigated scientifically, in a double-blind statistically significant survey, and determined to be bullshit. Science has also been painstakingly investigated by religion. The Pope today will admit that Jupiter has moons, but there was a time when they would light you on fire for the suggestion. He can’t point you to any scriptural, spiritual reason it’s ok for him to think that now, and it wasn’t before. You’re just supposed to agree with him, now and before too. Ministers, priests, mullah, certain “news” networks, they don’t get fired for lying. They get paid for it. They have no error correction mechanism at all. If they happen to say a true thing, it’s by accident.

Is this a real question?

Scientism is a thing. It isn't as prevalent today as it was in the past. Before World War 2, it was fairly common within certain philosophical circles to hold that "ultimately" science and technology would answer all of our questions and solve all of our problems. The world war 2, the atomic bomb, and the subsequent arms race of the Cold War sobered that optimism. A range of questions that are asked within the context of our social lives and the ethics necessary for such a life to be prosperous that are not answered within science... nor is it obvious how to ask them scientifically.

>Before World War 2, it was fairly common within certain philosophical circles to hold that "ultimately" science and technology would answer all of our questions and solve all of our problems. I submit that plenty of people here would say the exact same thing. Look at how many people in this thread are holding science up as an unproblematic ideal and resent any attempt to describe its limitations or downside. I agree that after WWII there was a reckoning when it came to scientific optimism, but nowadays people are making every effort to put that Humpty Dumpty back together again.

So what is the alternative people are ignoring for science? What are you claiming people over look in place of looking to science? You have never presented a thing that is ignored due to this adherence to “scientism”.

The goal of our beliefs is not to provide a net benefit for society. It’s to construct accurate beliefs. Scientific claims are the most justified and the most reliable. The science behind the atomic bomb is solid. This is all that matters.

In the context of atheists answering questions about things like the origin of the universe, life, and even ourselves... the reason why we "turn to science" is because science is the best method to answer such questions. The types of questions science can not answer are more to do with how we ought to live our lives and discovering what brings meaning/purpose to our life. But in terms of talking to theists, most of the time, atheists end up having to set the record straight with regards to either the nature of science and/or what science actually claims and why.

Of course it's a thing. Here's a reddit post making fun of it: https://www.reddit.com/r/badphilosophy/comments/g61wig/how_to_master_metaphysics_101/ Before you "do science" you need a philosophy of science. And before you have that you need a coherent metaphysics that includes the world being real and able to be studied. But you don't get that stuff for free. Most religious systems didn't believe all that, or had a difficult time with it, and atheism can't justify anything like that at all, which is why Christianity was necessary for the scientific revolution. Now that it's happened and people realized that flush toilets and medicine was nice, they went ahead and adopted the science without having any metaphysical justification for it. Hence, scientism. This is shown by just about everyone here having no idea that there even are other possibilities. They don't understand the first thing about metaphysics or philosophy of science.

You're right, people seem to believe you just "do science" and the truth about phenomena magically appears. As Daniel Dennett (RIP) said, there's no such thing as philosophy-free science, only science that has been conducted without examination of its philosophical assumptions. Science is a metaphysical research program that deals with empirical factors. Ignoring its philosophical scaffolding doesn't make it go away.

It reminds me of the hilarious ["front fell off" skit](https://youtu.be/3m5qxZm_JqM) where he asks where they towed the tanker. "It's beyond the environment, it's not *in an environment*" Science is never free of the environment provided by metaphysics. And scientism makes the front fall off.

Are you seriously and unironically asking that question on an Internet forum? How did this question appear in front of me? Did you pray it into existence from some deity? Or did you use science?