07-08-2019, 02:37 AM
Let us make sure that we have our terms defined. Most of us prefer science to superstition and the whims of people in authority. Science is less capricious than almost everything else.
Here's the introduction to the Wikipedia article:
Scientism is an ideology that promotes science as the only objective means by which society should determine normative and epistemological values. The term scientism is generally used critically, pointing to the cosmetic application of science in unwarranted situations not amenable to application of the scientific method or similar scientific standards.
In the philosophy of science, the term scientism frequently implies a critique of the more extreme expressions of logical positivism[1][2] and has been used by social scientists such as Friedrich Hayek,[3] philosophers of science such as Karl Popper,[4] and philosophers such as Hilary Putnam[5] and Tzvetan Todorov[6] to describe (for example) the dogmatic endorsement of scientific methodology and the reduction of all knowledge to only that which is measured or confirmatory.[7]
More generally, scientism is often interpreted as science applied "in excess". The term scientism has two senses:
It is also sometimes used to describe universal applicability of the scientific method and approach, and the view that empirical science constitutes the most authoritative worldview or the most valuable part of human learning—to the complete exclusion of other viewpoints, such as historical, philosophical, economic or cultural worldviews. It has been defined as "the view that the characteristic inductive methods of the natural sciences are the only source of genuine factual knowledge and, in particular, that they alone can yield true knowledge about man and society".[15] The term scientism is also used by historians, philosophers, and cultural critics to highlight the possible dangers of lapses towards excessive reductionism in all fields of human knowledge.[16][17][18][19][20]
For social theorists in the tradition of Max Weber, such as Jürgen Habermas and Max Horkheimer, the concept of scientism relates significantly to the philosophy of positivism, but also to the cultural rationalization for modern Western civilization.[7][21]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism
Most of us hold science in high esteem. Science is more likely to get a right answer on the nature of reality. Science is far more reliable than superstition, pure guesswork, or the dictate of some authority figure. Even in a humanistic activity such as linguistics, scientific methods of scholarship can winnow out nonsense from reliable conclusions.
Science generally self-polices as other activities do not.
Republicans found that they could win more votes by appealing to anti-intellectual populism. The GOP used to be the party in which engineers and scientists felt more comfortable -- but that is over. Scientists and engineers typically did not need labor unions to protect their economic interests, and the GOP stayed clear of attacks on formal education.
LGBT rights are a moral choice in the same sense that the dignity of dark-skinned people is a moral choice. Such is no more scientific than is establishing some optimum in the level of taxation.
Obviously there is more to college education than is scientific and technical training, such as the promotion of the humanities as a sort of completion of the educated person. Note well that the GOP has been appealing to people who hold science in contempt -- including religious fundamentalists who consider science a tool of the Devil for exploitation and abuse of people who think themselves innocent due to their ignorance. (Never mind that ignorance is not innocence, as one can know about horrific crimes while holding such crimes and their perpetrators in deep contempt.
Among academics have been some decided conservatives such as Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman in economics, people who recognized the idea that unfettered markets are far more effective than is central planning in achieving prosperity and equity. Then there are arch-conservatives who teach at colleges (often academically-suspect "bible schools") that push arch-conservative ideology as the supposed will of God. To be sure, professorial hacks in suspect schools have little influence upon America's economic and administrative elites, few of which have any respect for bible colleges that put more emphasis on certainty of faith than upon academic rigor.
On the other hand, it could be that academics end up with liberals because liberals are less prone to see profit as an unqualified virtue. In much private enterprise, it is wise to have political values consistent with the GOP and the John Birch Society (which are now hard to distinguish in ideology. In much of corporate America, no human suffering can ever be in excess so long as it turns or enforces a profit on behalf of the shareholders. I cannot be certain that American executives and shareholders would reject the opportunity to exploit helpless people as German executives and shareholders did when the Nazis made the offer of ultra-cheap labor that could be worked to exhaustion on starvation rations. Such exploitation was profitable, and anyone foolish enough to not use such labor would get subnormal profits.
The profit motive is not a great moral principle. Of course one can define 'socialism' if one wishes, to include any compromise of the profit motive. I have seen arguments that the abolitions of both peonage and slavery were 'socialist'.
Here's the introduction to the Wikipedia article:
Scientism is an ideology that promotes science as the only objective means by which society should determine normative and epistemological values. The term scientism is generally used critically, pointing to the cosmetic application of science in unwarranted situations not amenable to application of the scientific method or similar scientific standards.
In the philosophy of science, the term scientism frequently implies a critique of the more extreme expressions of logical positivism[1][2] and has been used by social scientists such as Friedrich Hayek,[3] philosophers of science such as Karl Popper,[4] and philosophers such as Hilary Putnam[5] and Tzvetan Todorov[6] to describe (for example) the dogmatic endorsement of scientific methodology and the reduction of all knowledge to only that which is measured or confirmatory.[7]
More generally, scientism is often interpreted as science applied "in excess". The term scientism has two senses:
- The improper usage of science or scientific claims.[8] This usage applies equally in contexts where science might not apply,[9] such as when the topic is perceived as beyond the scope of scientific inquiry, and in contexts where there is insufficient empirical evidence to justify a scientific conclusion. It includes an excessive deference to the claims of scientists or an uncritical eagerness to accept any result described as scientific. This can be a counterargument to appeals to scientific authority. It can also address the attempt to apply "hard science" methodology and claims of certainty to the social sciences, which Friedrich Hayek described in The Counter-Revolution of Science (1952) as being impossible, because that methodology involves attempting to eliminate the "human factor", while social sciences (including his own field of economics) center almost purely on human action.
- "The belief that the methods of natural science, or the categories and things recognized in natural science, form the only proper elements in any philosophical or other inquiry",[10] or that "science, and only science, describes the world as it is in itself, independent of perspective"[5] with a concomitant "elimination of the psychological [and spiritual] dimensions of experience".[11][12] Tom Sorell provides this definition: "Scientism is a matter of putting too high a value on natural science in comparison with other branches of learning or culture."[13] Philosophers such as Alexander Rosenberg have also adopted "scientism" as a name for the view that science is the only reliable source of knowledge.[14]
It is also sometimes used to describe universal applicability of the scientific method and approach, and the view that empirical science constitutes the most authoritative worldview or the most valuable part of human learning—to the complete exclusion of other viewpoints, such as historical, philosophical, economic or cultural worldviews. It has been defined as "the view that the characteristic inductive methods of the natural sciences are the only source of genuine factual knowledge and, in particular, that they alone can yield true knowledge about man and society".[15] The term scientism is also used by historians, philosophers, and cultural critics to highlight the possible dangers of lapses towards excessive reductionism in all fields of human knowledge.[16][17][18][19][20]
For social theorists in the tradition of Max Weber, such as Jürgen Habermas and Max Horkheimer, the concept of scientism relates significantly to the philosophy of positivism, but also to the cultural rationalization for modern Western civilization.[7][21]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism
Most of us hold science in high esteem. Science is more likely to get a right answer on the nature of reality. Science is far more reliable than superstition, pure guesswork, or the dictate of some authority figure. Even in a humanistic activity such as linguistics, scientific methods of scholarship can winnow out nonsense from reliable conclusions.
Science generally self-polices as other activities do not.
Quote:Posted by Bill the Piper - Yesterday, 01:49 PM When did the Democrats become the party of Scientism? Today's Democrat appeal to science quite a lot. LGBT rights and environmentalism are supposed to be scientific.
In the Past Democrats were a populist workers' party, so when did the shift happen?
Republicans found that they could win more votes by appealing to anti-intellectual populism. The GOP used to be the party in which engineers and scientists felt more comfortable -- but that is over. Scientists and engineers typically did not need labor unions to protect their economic interests, and the GOP stayed clear of attacks on formal education.
LGBT rights are a moral choice in the same sense that the dignity of dark-skinned people is a moral choice. Such is no more scientific than is establishing some optimum in the level of taxation.
Obviously there is more to college education than is scientific and technical training, such as the promotion of the humanities as a sort of completion of the educated person. Note well that the GOP has been appealing to people who hold science in contempt -- including religious fundamentalists who consider science a tool of the Devil for exploitation and abuse of people who think themselves innocent due to their ignorance. (Never mind that ignorance is not innocence, as one can know about horrific crimes while holding such crimes and their perpetrators in deep contempt.
Quote:Posted by Warren Dew - 6 hours ago Academics have always tended toward socialism, and starting with boomer academics, have had no problem with using their professorships to brainwash their students.
Among academics have been some decided conservatives such as Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman in economics, people who recognized the idea that unfettered markets are far more effective than is central planning in achieving prosperity and equity. Then there are arch-conservatives who teach at colleges (often academically-suspect "bible schools") that push arch-conservative ideology as the supposed will of God. To be sure, professorial hacks in suspect schools have little influence upon America's economic and administrative elites, few of which have any respect for bible colleges that put more emphasis on certainty of faith than upon academic rigor.
On the other hand, it could be that academics end up with liberals because liberals are less prone to see profit as an unqualified virtue. In much private enterprise, it is wise to have political values consistent with the GOP and the John Birch Society (which are now hard to distinguish in ideology. In much of corporate America, no human suffering can ever be in excess so long as it turns or enforces a profit on behalf of the shareholders. I cannot be certain that American executives and shareholders would reject the opportunity to exploit helpless people as German executives and shareholders did when the Nazis made the offer of ultra-cheap labor that could be worked to exhaustion on starvation rations. Such exploitation was profitable, and anyone foolish enough to not use such labor would get subnormal profits.
The profit motive is not a great moral principle. Of course one can define 'socialism' if one wishes, to include any compromise of the profit motive. I have seen arguments that the abolitions of both peonage and slavery were 'socialist'.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.