Xavion251 t1_jdno1ld wrote
Reply to comment by EatThisShoe in Scientism Schmientism! Why There Are No Other Ways of Knowing Apart from Science (Broadly Construed) by CartesianClosedCat
They are used in scientific fields, but not every use of them is "science". You aren't "doing science" every time you make a simple logical deduction or appeal to the best explanation.
EatThisShoe t1_jdnvggi wrote
I see it as more of a gradient. There isn't a clear delineation between "doing science" and "not doing science." But when we do science we use all of those methods.
Let's say I make a logical deduction, which you claim is not science. But my conclusion becomes a hypothesis. Then, throughout my life I have experiences related to my hypothesis, and I recognize patterns in my experiences. Then I compare the patterns in my experience to my original logical conclusion. That's science.
Xavion251 t1_jdnwmjd wrote
If you push the definition of science to such a degree - then yes, you can mostly justify "scientism" (although I still think there a couple exceptions with experience).
However, if you push the definition that much - it becomes an almost meaningless term. Almost any form of learning and/or belief becomes "science".
This is not what people (like me) who oppose the mindset of scientism are targeting. And this is not what the people who promote scientism are saying.
EatThisShoe t1_jdo2k0w wrote
It's not meaningless, it's a gradient, not binary. Some methods of acquiring knowledge are more or less scientific, and of course some things are completely unscientific.
To simplify, we might imagine a scale from 0% science to 100% science, and different forms of learning or belief fall at different points on the scale. From that viewpoint scientism is the claim that knowledge perfectly correlates with that scale, and anti-scientism is the idea that there are forms of learning which are low, maybe even 0 on the science scale, yet high in knowledge.
Xavion251 t1_jdr0kku wrote
You're still basically just re-definining "science" into "good way of gaining knowledge". Saying a method is "more scientific" is then just a way of saying "better".
No offense, but this just seems like an ad hoc redefining of terms to preserve the idea that "science" is the be-all-end-all of everything. Why do that?
EatThisShoe t1_jds660l wrote
> You're still basically just re-definining "science" into "good way of gaining knowledge". Saying a method is "more scientific" is then just a way of saying "better".
I actually differentiated science vs knowledge. Science is a process, knowledge is a potential result. I am not defining all good ways of gaining knowledge as scientific, I am claiming that science includes all the component steps of the process. You can't do science without deductive reasoning, so either we claim deductive reasoning is scientific, or we claim it is necessary but insufficient.
So why would I go with a more permissive definition? Because the alternative requires some arbitrary threshold, a point at which logic and observation and pattern recognition switches from "not science" to "science". I do not believe that threshold is well defined, science has been performed in many different ways across different fields and across history. For example, plenty of science was done before the invention of statistics or double blind trials. defining science as a scale is a way to acknowledge that there isn't any threshold point, and yet still have a way to describe things as more scientific, less scientific, or unscientific.
So I didn't invent this definition to win an argument, but to better reflect how I do not view science as a binary concept. It is far too broad a term, encompassing too many factors to be so simplistically divided.
Xavion251 t1_jdsqvw6 wrote
>I actually differentiated science vs knowledge.
I didn't say you didn't. I said "You're still basically just re-defining "science" into "good way of gaining knowledge" ". In other words, you are essentially re-defining "science" to refer to all methods of gaining knowledge that work.
> am claiming that science includes all the component steps of the process. You can't do science without deductive reasoning, so either we claim deductive reasoning is scientific, or we claim it is necessary but insufficient.
Just because deductive reasoning is part of science doesn't mean that all deductive reasoning is scientific. To make a crude analogy - that's like saying that wheels are fundamentally vehicular because they are a part of vehicles.
I don't think it fits with how the term is used to describe every person's normal experiences, deductions, and intuitions as "scientific" simply because there are elements of overlap.
>So why would I go with a more permissive definition? Because the alternative requires some arbitrary threshold, a point at which logic and observation and pattern recognition switches from "not science" to "science".
I don't think a definition of "following the scientific method" for "science" is an arbitrary threshold.
It is a "hard" line, but not all things are spectrums. Not all things that aren't spectrums are "arbitrary". Sometimes (admittedly somewhat rarely), there are just hard binaries.
EatThisShoe t1_jdssgy6 wrote
> I don't think a definition of "following the scientific method" for "science" is an arbitrary threshold.
> It is a "hard" line, but not all things are spectrums. Not all things that aren't spectrums are "arbitrary". Sometimes (admittedly somewhat rarely), there are just hard binaries.
Well that's something that we can actually explore. What scientific method are we using though? Gathering data and testing hypotheses is very broad. Calculating statistical significance and running double blind experiments is much narrower. Does it need to be written down? Published in a journal? Does science done before the invention of statistics count as science?
If there is a hard line, then where is it?
Xavion251 t1_jdwzbfd wrote
I would say "setting out with the intent to create a hypothesis and test it (in some way) to determine the truth".
EatThisShoe t1_jdxgzzj wrote
Ok, I think that's a pretty reasonable definition. Working with that definition we could claim, for example, that logical deduction is not science because it doesn't actually test the conclusion as a hypothesis.
Tying this back into the original question, I would say that I would question whether logical deduction without testing against reality actually produces knowledge. A logical conclusion is true only if the premises are true, if we later tested that conclusion against reality we might find that it is false.
Xavion251 t1_jdy35dv wrote
Testing it is a way to confirm it, but ultimately not fundamentally necessary. Every logical deduction that turns out to be false will be falsd because there was some error in the logic (either a false premise or a conclusion that doesn't follow).
That means that a (obviously purely hypothetical) person who is 100% perfect at understanding and applying logic could always deduce the truth with perfect accuracy - without testing anything.
While the above hypothetical example is of course impossible - it's simply taking what is to an extreme. Showing that logic does and must work regardless of whether science is involved.
Science is a good thing, it works very well - especially at obtaining knowledge that leads to technology. But that doesn't mean it's the be-all-end-all.
It's possible to be too "pro" a good thing and too "anti" a bad thing.
EatThisShoe t1_jdybnc3 wrote
> That means that a (obviously purely hypothetical) person who is 100% perfect at understanding and applying logic could always deduce the truth with perfect accuracy - without testing anything.
This I cannot agree with. First you are assuming an infinite regress of provable premises, which you cannot logically prove to be true. Even the claim that all logical statements are true is not something that is proven, it is assumed to be true because it has not be demonstrated to be wrong.
The fact that even you admit this scenario is impossible is the exact problem. You cannot derive knowledge via an impossible process.
Xavion251 t1_jdzazg1 wrote
>The fact that even you admit this scenario is impossible is the exact problem. You cannot derive knowledge via an impossible process.
Taking real things to a hypothetical (but practically impossible) extreme is actually a very good way to logically work through something.
>Even the claim that all logical statements are true is not something that is proven, it is assumed to be true because it has not be demonstrated to be wrong.
It is impossible to understand anything (including science) if logic does not work. So we can't really even have a discussion on whether or not logic works, all conversation necessarily assumes that logic works.
>First you are assuming an infinite regress of provable premises,
No I don't. Eventually all premises boil down to direct, shared experiences that everyone (or almost everyone) can agree on. So does science. So does everything, really.
EatThisShoe t1_je41hjz wrote
> It is impossible to understand anything (including science) if logic does not work. So we can't really even have a discussion on whether or not logic works, all conversation necessarily assumes that logic works.
I didn't say logic doesn't work. I said that every logical conclusion is based on premises, and those premises are things that people take for granted, not things that are proven true with logic.
> No I don't. Eventually all premises boil down to direct, shared experiences that everyone (or almost everyone) can agree on. So does science. So does everything, really.
Experiences are subjective, even if you and I agree on something that does not mean it is true. And it is absolutely not the same as logically proving that it is true.
Logic can't get you out of the infinite regress. You appeal to a shared experience, which is not a logical argument. And even shared experience can be wrong. We have plenty of evidence that demonstrates how people's perception does not match reality. So how can you claim that a logical conclusion, that has not been shown to match reality is knowledge?
It fundamentally comes down to this: If your belief, or your logical conclusion, or our shared experience does not match reality, then which is correct?
Xavion251 t1_je526zc wrote
>It fundamentally comes down to this: If your belief, or your logical conclusion, or our shared experience does not match reality, then which is correct?
How would you know if those things don't match reality? You can't observe reality independently of these methods (experience, belief, logical conclusion, science, etc.).
>Experiences are subjective, even if you and I agree on something that does not mean it is true. And it is absolutely not the same as logically proving that it is true.
Fundamentally, experience is all we have. Even in science, everything boils down to an experience. You experience the data and the experimentation through your senses. Experience is inescapable, it is all we have, all we are.
> I said that every logical conclusion is based on premises, and those premises are things that people take for granted, not things that are proven true with logic.
All premises eventually go back to experiences we can all agree on. Even things as basic as "the world exists", "humans exist", etc. You can't transcend/escape that, even with science.
You can't leave your own subjective experience, that's ultimately the only way anyone can know anything. You wouldn't be able to know science works at all if you didn't experience it working.
EatThisShoe t1_je5lihe wrote
> How would you know if those things don't match reality? You can't observe reality independently of these methods (experience, belief, logical conclusion, science, etc.).
We don't do it independently of our experiences. We do it by having new experiences. Our experiences are not truth, they can be inconsistent.
> All premises eventually go back to experiences we can all agree on. Even things as basic as "the world exists", "humans exist", etc. You can't transcend/escape that, even with science.
I think we're in a greement here. The issue is that you said this:
> a (obviously purely hypothetical) person who is 100% perfect at understanding and applying logic could always deduce the truth with perfect accuracy - without testing anything.
That doesn't follow unless you assume that your experiences are always true, and that any logical conclusion drawn from your experience then must be true.
WrongAspects t1_jdu16xl wrote
How do you evaluate the premises of the argument without science?
Xavion251 t1_jdwz0ky wrote
Prior arguments and experience. Like people have done for all history.
WrongAspects t1_jdxa0t3 wrote
What do you think science is?
Xavion251 t1_jdy1njl wrote
Trying to obtain knowledge via the scientific method - which making and testing hypotheses.
That does not describe all arguments and premises that work.
Experiencing something isn't making and testing a hypothesis. Not sure what you're trying to get at.
WrongAspects t1_jdyw3n2 wrote
What do you think experiments are? Aren’t they experiences? Do you think science doesn’t involve reasoning? Do you think mathematics is not reasoning?
Do you have knowledge of things you never experienced?
Xavion251 t1_jdzafia wrote
>Aren’t they experiences?
All experiments are experiences, but not all experiences are experiments.
>Do you think science doesn’t involve reasoning?
All science involves reasoning, but not all reasoning is a part of science.
>Do you think mathematics is not reasoning?
Mathematics is logic, not necessarily reasoning depending on definition. Even so, not all reasoning is math.
>Do you have knowledge of things you never experienced?
Nope. Everything must be experienced in some form. If I learn something from reading a book, I still had to experience the book in some way (usually reading via eyesight).
WrongAspects t1_jdzbh0r wrote
You are so confused it’s not even funny. Look at how you are twisting the world to back your anti science stance.
Xavion251 t1_je0fq3x wrote
So...
"Not believing science is the be-all-end-all that the world should revolve around" = "anti-science stance"?
That's a very cult-like mindset.
Science is a very good methodology for gaining truths, particularly truths that lead to technological advancement. That doesn't mean it's a God we should all bow down too - which is how you seem to be treating it.
WrongAspects t1_je3tcm4 wrote
You are one denying that experiences are not experiments right?
Xavion251 t1_je511vl wrote
They're not. That can be, but they are not fundamentally.
WrongAspects t1_je6wf09 wrote
Every time you have an expectation it’s an experiment. All experiences are experiments. You have a world view in your head and you are trying to see if it matches reality.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments