Forum:The Science Delusion

< Index | General discussion

www.tricycle.com/feature/science-delusion

I would be very interested to hear what the RW community thinks of this. I would voice my many grievances myself but it's 2:35 and I am exhausted.^{— Unsigned, by: Swerve / talk / contribs}

Well it repeats the modo hoc fallacy, which isn't something science actually tells us. So that's sort of an own-goal. Brianpansky (talk) 17:25, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

More detail please? ^{— Unsigned, by: 68.38.180.115 / talk / contribs}

I was referring to where the article says:

In White’s view, once scientism rewrites our story so that the things human beings care about—like love, wonder, presence, or play—are reduced to atoms, genes, or neurons, human lives become easy prey to corporate and political interests. We become “mere functions within systems.” White wants us to wake up and recognize that this view is not scientific discovery, it is ideology. Mistaking one for the other has profound consequences, “not just for knowledge but even more importantly for how we live.”

But White is wrong, it is indeed scientific discovery that love, wonder, and all the good stuff is nothing other than atoms. (Well, certain arrangements of atoms and their activity)

The fallacy of modo hoc is saying that, since all this stuff is nothing other than atoms, it therefore isn't valuable or anything! That's a non-sequitur. It is this fallacy which is actually the ideology. Apparently White's ideology. So his ideology is the very cause of the problem, not science. Own goal. Brianpansky (talk) 04:57, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

This is effectively the Argument from beauty. (c.f. autumn foliage). Or, in other words, a PRATT. Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 10:48, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

@Brianpansky Thanks! You said the exact problem that I had with his view, I just wasn't familiar with the term, ¨modo hoc¨. This has always baffled me; why does the fact that love and relationships are the result of natural functions scary or wrong seeming? Why does that deprive them of their value? To me, this concept/reality makes these feelings more beautiful and miraculous. ¨Wow! This feeling of love that I have for my partner is the result of thousands of years of natural selection and functions within systems? That's incredible! The world is a wonderful place!¨. Plus, the obvious fact that White is an English professor rather than a scientist puts a few dents in his credibility.

Without the benefit of reading his whole text it seems to me that White misunderstands (fears?) two things...

First, he seems to rail against "reductionism." In this sense he fails to appreciate the value of choosing an appropriate level of abstraction- appropriate to the context or question. Arguably it may be true that "scientism" as a methodology tends to "drill down" for causality. This in fact may be entirely appropriate. For example, it may be more appropriate- more effective- to treat an emotional disturbance (depression, e.g.) as the product of gene/ environment interaction or even faulty receptor regulation than as a product of lost love, "bad mothering," etc. On the other hand, a romance novel that simply talked about oxytocin spikes, cortical activation or whatever would not exactly be an engaging tale- in that case, quite appropriate to talk about loves and losses! Looking at it another way, there are emergent properties (love??) that are not necessarily predictable by looking at the components, so again it is important to choose the right level of abstraction for the context. In any event, I agree with the above comments that investigating the components does not in any logical or inevitable manner diminish any value attached to the operation of the system as a whole. Besides, I would argue that "reductionism" is far from a universal trend in "scientism." Ask any ecologist, computer scientist, psychologist...

I am also dismayed by his use of the word "ideology." It is an amusing exercise to research an exact definition for this word. I recall one professor (yes, years ago) stating simply that any ideology is a "vision of the good life." It seems to me that "ideology" carries connotations of rigidity and directing efforts to a (not necessarily desirable) goal. As such- a perfect word for propaganda! Just label anything an "ideology" and voila! instant straw man! Again, without the benefit of a full reading of his work it seems to me that he uses this word in a poorly operationalized, propaganda- like manner. Anyways- just a few of my thought... Socdoc (talk) 23:04, 3 April 2015 (UTC)