| There is no RationalWiki without you. We are a small non-profit with no staff – we are hundreds of volunteers who document pseudoscience and crankery around the world every day. We will never allow ads because we must remain independent. We cannot rely on big donors with corresponding big agendas. We are not the largest website around, but we believe we play an important role in defending truth and objectivity. If everyone seeing this today donates $5, we will meet our goal for 2019. |
Fighting pseudoscience isn't free. We are 100% user-supported! Help and donate $5, $20 or whatever you can today with |
Talk:Scientism
Contents
Edit break + tangent[edit]
Yeah, needs a lot of work. I think it should be broken into two sections -- legitimate uses and straw man use. Eugenics, for example, was a clear case of scientism. Nassim Taleb is famous for pointing out the scientism in economics and finance (though I don't think he uses the word specifically). Generally, cases of scientism seem to have an element of using "sciencey" methods (think "scientific socialism") to rationalize a pre-existing belief (aka crankery) or massively overgeneralize conclusions based on preliminary or conflicting data. In the second, straw man case, it's usually bandied about by cranks who don't like the fact that science has proven them wrong and want to sound philosophical and high falutin' while calling things like evolution and global warming "pseudoscience." Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 02:01, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
- Just adding, "Scientism is a refusal to acknowledge the real limitations of the scientific method." That pretty much nails it (the non-crank use at least). Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 02:03, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Lab Coated tv sales[edit]
Question: is "scientist" also part of the background for the "i'm in a white lab coat, so you should just trust I know what I'm saying when I say buy this cat litter or that brand of deodorant". Cause if it is part of teh same thing, that side of "science" or rather, the media marketing science for its own good, is probably worth talking about.
GodotI smell roasted chestnuts. droollllllll. 19:31, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
- Fucking sellouts.
narchist 20:34, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Fixed it[edit]
I changed it by introducing it as a philosophical term and then moving onto mis-usages of the term. It's a simple, stylistic edit, but if you have any problems with it, please delete and/or fix what I wrote because I don't want to ruin anything here. <font size="1" color="purple"><b>[[User:Tesseract|Tesseract]]</b> </font> (talk) 21:22, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- Its primary use these days is pejorative; this needs to be stated early - David Gerard (talk) 19:41, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Heesoon Bai crank or not?[edit]
Hi.
I notice this filed under "crank":
"But it is the hegemony of the habits of mind that manifest pervasively in education that privilege science education, career, and research over other modes and branches of learning and knowing that I have problems with."
Unfortunately it's a very expensive book, but is this really crank? I notice that in the first part of this very RationalWiki page that it mentions that there are legitimate concerns about limitations of scientific method dealing with, e.g. things like morality, arts, poetry, and other such humanities/non-scientific subjects, and that this can be reasonable. What is Heesoon Bai actually talking about here? As if he's referring to things like that (e.g. that we should not just push a "STEM" education that excludes those other subjects), it seems like one could potentially make a reasonable claim for it although of course not one that would be beyond any dispute, but at least reasonable enough it might not be crank. On the other hand, if his "other modes and branches of learning" includes stuff like psychic powers and other thoroughly-disproved bullshit then yes, it is crank, but then this should be clarified in the article. What is it? (I do not want to spend that much $ on this book to find out, especially when its status as valid argumentation is in question.) 216.98.225.42 (talk) 03:49, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
- Meh. I haven't read the book, but from the expanded quote his criticism is [1] that science's knowledge products often exclude "mythical" (etc.) knowledge products, which seems bullshit because science is demonstrably better at truthfinding than mythical or humanistic experiences, and [2] that people are pushed into STEM when the soft sciences also matter, which is very fucking reasonable. Cømяade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 06:30, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Hoisted by your own penchant...for cheerleading[edit]
You provide a fine definition of scientism that encapsulates its failings, then go on to make the arrogant presumption to discredit a Christian Biblical textualist for maintaining that divine agency can act through natural means and supersede them when necessary. There is nothing in this that contradicts scientific principles. In fact, it would be impossible to study a miracle because one couldn't elucidate the source reliably unless God allowed this to be done. If they did, if the miracle was supernaturally inspired, there would be no natural laws governing it to observe or measure; the mechanisms would confound physical principles. If it was bound by the laws of nature, it could be explained through those laws inasmuch as the interplay of each instrumentation of those laws is observable and quantifiable and yet would be frustrated if so much as one link in the chain of causality was not. This would almost assuredly be the case for someone to attribute miraculous status to that phenomenon. If dead sea life routinely produced bounteous victuals through the surrender of the sea to a specific inhabited portion of coastline at the same time on the same date, that would probably be considered a miracle. Scientists would attribute some theory or another to account for the missing data. A theist would countenance divine manna provision. All this perspective argues is that natural objects were set in motion at a time and via a method that transcends ordinary causation. Science, transcends naturalism. It isn't the atheist or naturalists to appoint, especially when actual naturalistic science has had such tarring and feathering over the past ten years when so much of it has run up to the limits of what can be verified through falsification (to say nothing at all of abuse.)
Either specify what you're talking about or keep your rivalries to yourself. This quote - which, like this article, is not germaine to politics whatsoever (a politically active person does not make exclusively political speech) - is flanked by a political quip in non sequitur dress and a perfectly justifiable opinion by a sensible individual (who has been demoted in credibility because he doesn't hold the reactionary opinions, lamentably predictable and vacuous Youtube style grandiose pretensions of Serious Adultiness and self-annointing appointment of the author with red pilled Reasonistas.— Unsigned, by: 162.207.68.254 / talk / contribs
- On talk pages, please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking on the sign button:
on the toolbar above the edit panel. (You can indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line.) Thank you.
- I sort of understood the first bit but the rest was total word salad, do you mind clarifying what you're trying to say? Christopher (talk) 08:05, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
Six signs of scientism: but there is only one one determining factor.[edit]
"Scientism is a term generally used to describe the cosmetic application of science in unwarranted situations not covered by the scientific method." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism. If we look at the list of "signs" below the aforementioned definition is equivalent to sign number 5. The rest are either redundant or actually irrelevant. What the author of the list appears to be doing is constructing a tool to defend the epistemic status of non-scientific texts.Ariel31459 (talk) 19:39, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
"1. Using the words “science,” “scientific,” “scientifically,” “scientist,” etc., honorifically, as generic terms of epistemic praise. 2. Adopting the manners, the trappings, the technical terminology, etc., of the sciences, irrespective of their real usefulness. 3. A preoccupation with demarcation, i.e., with drawing a sharp line between genuine science, the real thing, and “pseudo-scientific” imposters. 4. A corresponding preoccupation with identifying the “scientific method,” presumably to explain how the sciences have been so successful. 5. Looking to the sciences for answers to questions beyond their scope. 6. Denying or denigrating the legitimacy or the worth of other kinds of inquiry besides the scientific, or the value of human activities other than inquiry, such as poetry or art."