Scientism

[BioBeing]

How I despise the word "scientism"!

Usually, whenever it is used in a forum such as this, it is used to belittle scientists, and to try to make out that science is just as much of a faith as religion.

Jerry Coyne doesn't like the word either, and has figured out why (http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2011/04/11/scientism/):

No, when used as a derogatory adjective, “scientism” means this:

the practice of applying rationality and standards of evidence to faith.

For religious people and accommodationists, that practice is a no-no. That’s why the adjective is pejorative.

He is talking about a blog post at NPR where a theoretical physicist, Gleiser, asks Can scientists overreach? (http://www.npr.org/blogs/13.7/2011/04/06/135160725/can-scientists-overreach).

The answer is yes, of course they can, by overextending their conclusions to anything not specifically addressed by their experiments. But that isn't what this guy apparently means. He is basically praising author Marilynne Robinson who says that scientists are too sure of their certainty, but that science is based on uncertainty, so how can they know anything???

Unlike religion, of course, which is based off of pure wishful thinking and fantasy. And yet (as Coyne points out) how often do your hear a theist point out the tentative nature of their belief in God?

In the NPR blog, the future Templeton Prize winner writes:

In 2006, Robinson wrote a scathing review of Dawkins's The God Delusion for Harper's Magazine, "Hysterical Scientism: The Ecstasy of Richard Dawkins."

"So bad science is still science in more or less the same sense that bad religion is still religion. That both of them can do damage on a huge scale is clear. The prestige of both is a great part of the problem, and in the modern period the credibility of anything called science is enormous. As the history of eugenics proves, science at the highest levels is no reliable corrective to the influence of cultural prejudice but is in fact profoundly vulnerable to it."

What I like(!) here is that she starts to say how both science and religion can do huge damage, then goes on to berate science, but not religion.

Coyne finishes with

It’s really sad that a brilliant novelist like Robinson uses her brainpower to denigrate science in a public attempt to buttress her faith. At the end, Gleiser parrot’s Robinson’s accommodationism:

Frontal attacks on religion and its practices will only produce more animosity. Fundamentalism leads to further entrenchment, not to conciliation. Perhaps a better approach is to teach science as it truly functions, constantly engaged in a two-way exchange with the culture of its time.

Perhaps a better approach is to teach religion as it truly functions, constantly engaged in lying to children and retooling its dogma as science and secular morality advance. Why do we need conciliation?

hear hear!



[I'm putting this here, although it could also maybe go in LU&E or Religion...]

[Politesse]

I don't use the term, out of deference to those who are offended by it, but I think you are mistaken about the motivations of those who do. For one thing, no one who actually dislikes or devalues science or scientists has any reason to use it, as to a fundamentalist, "scientism" and "science" are both just "Science" and swiftly to be rejected.

[toker]

How I despise the word "scientism"!

Usually, whenever it is used in a forum such as this, it is used to belittle scientists, and to try to make out that science is just as much of a faith as religion.
Well, then they are using the word wrong. See Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism) or even just a regular dictionary.

[Xero]

From wikipedia

Scientism is the idea that natural science is the most authoritative worldview or aspect of human education, and that it is superior to all other interpretations of life.[1] The term is used by social scientists such as Friedrich Hayek,[2] or philosophers of science such as Karl Popper, to describe (and criticize) what they see as the underlying attitudes and beliefs common to many scientists, whereby the study and methods of natural science have risen to the level of ideology.[3]

umm....Biobeing...?

[BioBeing]

Xero and toker, I'm not talking about how it used by philosophers per se (so maybe I should have put it in Religion), but, as I said, by people in forums such as this to belittle science and scientists. As Coyne put it (and I quoted) "No, when used as a derogatory adjective..."

Are y'all denying that it is ever used as a derogatory adjective? Politesse seems to admit that it can be viewed as such, hence he does not use it.

[BioBeing]

btw - is it scientism to ask that faith provide some form of evidence?

[Roo St. Gallus]

btw - is it scientism to ask that faith provide some form of evidence?

But of course! 'Evidence' is evidently in the eye of the beholder. I tend to think that various evidences have variant quality, or lack thereof. I think you may be referring to tangible, or palpable, or even testable, evidence....which is, of course, an anaethema to faith. By definition.

[Eudaimonist]

I love science. My father was a Ph.D. research scientist in the field of chemistry, in particular biochemistry. I'm very pro-science.

However, I despise scientism. What is scientism? It's the overapplication of science, i.e., the application of science to fields were it does not belong, such as certain issues in philosophy.

From Wikipedia:

The term is used in either of two equally pejorative directions:

1.To indicate the improper usage of science or scientific claims in contexts where science might not apply, such as when the topic is perceived to be beyond the scope of scientific inquiry; or there is insufficient empirical evidence to justify scientific conclusions. In this case it is a counter-argument to appeals to scientific authority.

2.To refer to "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," with a concomitant "elimination of the psychological dimensions of experience." It thus expresses a position critical of (at least the more extreme expressions of) positivism.

Scientism is one of my pet peeves. And this in no way belittles proper scientific endeavor, nor does it open up doors to supernatural beliefs or theology, because it isn't the case that where science doesn't apply that "anything goes" with epistemology.


eudaimonia,

Mark

[Ozymandias]

There is no such thing as the "overapplication" of science. If a topic is "beyond the scope" of science it is intrinsically worthless because one cannot test any of its conclusions or apply them with surety that they are correct. If there is "insufficient empirical evidence to justify scientific conclusions" then you need to go collect more evidence - your lack of data doesn't invalidate the scientific method.

[toker]

Guy is definitely advocating scientism, and such views deserve pejorative labels.

There's lots of advice we can give our kids about love and relationships, little if any of it depends on the scientific methods. Such advice is intrinsically worthless?

Lots, maybe most, of our knowledge of history was not learned by using the scientific methods. Such knowledge is intrinsically worthless?

Esthetics are mostly beyond the scope of science. So art is intrinsically worthless?

Politics doesn't depend on the scientific methods. Politics are intrinsically worthless?

Oh crap, I think I just crashed my own argument. :D

[Ozymandias]

All of these things can be studied scientifically. And I am sure that doing so would provide much more useful insight than the usual wishy-washy touchy-feely method would.

[toker]

False dichotomy, Guy. There are lots of legitimate methods of inquiry other that the scientific methods. Take history, for example. Do you believe that all our knowledge of history involved the scientific methods?

[Wizofoz]

False dichotomy, Guy. There are lots of legitimate methods of inquiry other that the scientific methods. Take history, for example. Do you believe that all our knowledge of history involved the scientific methods?

Absolutely! Gather data, form hypothesis, teat hypothesis- That's EXACTLY how history is researched!

[Rie]

Bullshit euda. Overapplication of Science? Science means knowledge of something. And science is not an area of thought apart from real life. We still have quite a few layers of the onion of knowledge of things outside our ken to peel off.

It follows absolutely that a scientific approach is an approach of an open mind. We're so up ourselves these days. We truly and unbelievably to me , think we have it all down.

Oh, sweet mystery of life.... where art thou?:rolleyes:

[toker]

False dichotomy, Guy. There are lots of legitimate methods of inquiry other that the scientific methods. Take history, for example. Do you believe that all our knowledge of history involved the scientific methods?

Absolutely! Gather data, form hypothesis, teat hypothesis- That's EXACTLY how history is researched!
The study of history uses standard historiographical methods (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_method), not the scientific methods. The past doesn't exist anymore, so it isn't available for testing.

It seems that you want any pursuit that involves logic and reasoning to be called science. Let's try some other examples. Does political knowledge depend on the use of the scientific methods? How about esthetics, like art or music? edit: Or how about mathematics (http://secularcafe.org/showthread.php?p=211601#post211601)?

[trendkill]

It seems that you want any pursuit that involves logic and reasoning to be called science. This is as common as the misuse of the word "scientism", IMO. Of course it's true that religionists use the term as a bludgeon. But I can't count the times I've read on the Internet statements to the effect that science is the only basis for justified beliefs.

[toker]

Alexander the Great was flaming gay. Cochise was a hermaphrodite. Hitler was a pedophile. What laboratory experiments can we build to test those hypotheses? I believe there are none, because historical knowledge isn't derived from the scientific methods.

[Wizofoz]

Grasping at straws there, toker.

You don't have to equate Evidence withLaboratory.

You are taking a deliberately narrow view of the idea of science.

The hypothesis that Hitler was a pedophile is not supported by, and is largely falsified by the preponderance of evidence. Thus, it cannot be considered a viable theory.

The hypothesis that Hitler was straight IS supported by the preponderance of evidence, and is therefore a workable theory. One verified picture of him buggering a ten year old, however, would falsify the theory.

The methodolology you link to is absolutely a scientific process to gather and asses evidence, and reach theories based on the evidence.

[Ozymandias]

The study of history uses standard historiographical methods (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_method), not the scientific methods. The past doesn't exist anymore, so it isn't available for testing.

It seems that you want any pursuit that involves logic and reasoning to be called science. Let's try some other examples. Does political knowledge depend on the use of the scientific methods? How about esthetics, like art or music? edit: Or how about mathematics (http://secularcafe.org/showthread.php?p=211601#post211601)?

Since you are quoting Wikipedia, let me quote them too: "Historical research is embodied in the scientific method." In other words, the "historical method" you mention is just a reformulation of the scientific method to fit the language of historical research. So instead of observables, they have sources, and testing a hypothesis means looking for evidence of the hypothesis in the historic record (and quantifying the reliability of this evidence).

So this only supports my thesis: all worthwhile enquiry can be done with application of the scientific method.

Edit: Cross-posted with Wizofoz (nice post btw)

[toker]

Since you are quoting Wikipedia, let me quote them too: "Historical research is embodied in the scientific method." In other words, the "historical method" you mention is just a reformulation of the scientific method to fit the language of historical research. So instead of observables, they have sources, and testing a hypothesis means looking for evidence of the hypothesis in the historic record (and quantifying the reliability of this evidence).
Wow, Guy. Find a quote somewhere, certainly not from the article I used to support my claim, and use it out of context, and that works for you!

So this only supports my thesis: all worthwhile enquiry can be done with application of the scientific method.
And then you build a strawman! We use the scientific method even when studying history. Carbon dating comes to mind. That doesn't contradict any of my points. Science always has something to say about everything. So what? The scientific methods are useful, therefore no other methods have value?

Ignore the questions about math, politics and art. Wouldn't want to upset your world-view. :eek:

[Ozymandias]

Wow, Guy. Find a quote somewhere, certainly not from the article I used to support my claim, and use it out of context, and that works for you!


Sorry - I should have linked. In the intro: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research


So this only supports my thesis: all worthwhile enquiry can be done with application of the scientific method.
And then you build a strawman! We use the scientific method even when studying history. Carbon dating comes to mind. That doesn't contradict any of my points. Science always has something to say about everything. So what? The scientific methods are useful, therefore no other methods have value?

Ignore the questions about math, politics and art. Wouldn't want to upset your world-view. :eek:

How is it a straw man? I was responding to your statement that "There are lots of legitimate methods of inquiry other that the scientific methods." I don't see any. Perhaps you could explain these other "legitimate methods of inquiry"?

[toker]

Grasping at straws there, toker.

You don't have to equate Evidence withLaboratory.
Okay, that's a fair point. Unless our world can be our laboratory.

You are taking a deliberately narrow view of the idea of science.
I wish you'd left out the word "deliberately". I take the view gathered from an unbiased look at the state of affairs. Science, the scientific methods, are a tool we use. We have other tools as well. Scientism claims that only the science tool has merit. I oppose that claim. Math, history, politics, and art are all examples showing that in fact, the scientific methods are not the only worthwhile and well-established methods of gaining knowledge that we use.

The methodolology you link to is absolutely a scientific process to gather and asses evidence, and reach theories based on the evidence.
The methodology I linked to does not involve the scientific methods. You're in denial. Dogmatism sucks, Wiz. Scientism and theism are on the same page.

[Wizofoz]

The methodology I linked to does not involve the scientific methods.

Probably, at this point, an outline of what you understand the scientific method to be would be helpful.

And are you really saying art is a path to knowledge?

[toker]

Sorry - I should have linked. In the intro: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research
Found it on my own, but thanks. I know you are hyper-cynical, but I've never thought you were overtly dishonest. Your response here is good, Guy. I'll listen to you.

Perhaps you could explain these other "legitimate methods of inquiry"?
I already did, re history.

Hey Guy, people learned shit long before the scientific methods were dreamed of. Doesn't that suggest at least the possibility that the scientific methods are not the only valid methods for learning knowledge?

[toker]

The methodology I linked to does not involve the scientific methods.

Probably, at this point, an outline of what you understand the scientific method to be would be helpful.
101? It would insult your intelligence to spell out the simple steps we teach the children. Try Google.

And are you really saying art is a path to knowledge?
Yes. Art has never moved you, never given you insights to our world? You should take Guy out for some ice water.

[Ozymandias]

Art is only a very poor way of communicating ideas. That is not a method of discovery - it is a method of communication. The person who had these ideas originally did not come up with them via art.

[toker]

Good point, Guy. You admit original ideas may have come from the person. Did the person necessarily use the scientific methods to get them?

Art is an awesome way of communicating ideas. Older than science, and far more in use during our times.

[toker]

Art is only a very poor way of communicating ideas. That is not a method of discovery - it is a method of communication. The person who had these ideas originally did not come up with them via art.
Did they use the scientific method to come up with their original ideas, Guy?

art v knowledge (http://secularcafe.org/showthread.php?p=211642#post211642)

[Wizofoz]

The methodology I linked to does not involve the scientific methods.

Probably, at this point, an outline of what you understand the scientific method to be would be helpful.
101? It would insult your intelligence to spell out the simple steps we teach the children. Try Google.

And are you really saying art is a path to knowledge?
Yes. Art has never moved you, never given you insights to our world? You should take Guy out for some ice water.

But being "Moved" or "Communicating an idea" is not the same thing as gaining knowledge.

I recently took my kids to the Louvre and came back with a shed load of reproduction Monets and Van Goughs.

I like them- they envoke emotion.

But I don't know anything after looking at them than I did'nt before.

[toker]

But being "Moved" or "Communicating an idea" is not the same thing as gaining knowledge.
Yeah, that's a good point.

So what? Which of my points are contradicted?

[toker]

Art is only a very poor way of communicating ideas. That is not a method of discovery - it is a method of communication. The person who had these ideas originally did not come up with them via art.
Btw, your new avatar, it makes me grin. I like it.

[Wizofoz]

But being "Moved" or "Communicating an idea" is not the same thing as gaining knowledge.
Yeah, that's a good point.

So what? Which of my points are contradicted?

I would have thought this one:-

There are lots of legitimate methods of inquiry other that the scientific methods.

No one is saying art is worthless- but it is not a method of enquiery.

I asked about your definition of the Scientific method because I still maintain the scholarly study of history conforms to it.

In what way do you think it does not?

[toker]

But being "Moved" or "Communicating an idea" is not the same thing as gaining knowledge.
Yeah, that's a good point.

So what? Which of my points are contradicted?

I would have thought this one:-

There are lots of legitimate methods of inquiry other that the scientific methods.

No one is saying art is worthless- but it is not a method of enquiery.

I asked about your definition of the Scientific method because I still maintain the scholarly study of history conforms to it.

In what way do you think it does not?
I gave the methods we use to study history. As a fact, those methods do not involve the scientific methods. Its like my straight lost to your flush, but you haven't shown your cards.

[Wizofoz]

Gather evidence,rate quality os evidence, form hypothesis, test hypothesis, form theory, if theory is falsified, abandon and stat again.

That SEEMS to be exactly the method you linked to.

Where does it vary?

[Ozymandias]

Did they use the scientific method to come up with their original ideas, Guy?


I am willing to admit that there are ways of obtaining ideas and knowledge that are not explicitly the scientific method. But I would argue that these methods are implicitly using the scientific method by accident without being aware of them.

Wisofoz's description of historical research is like this. Even if the researchers don't think they are using the scientific method, they really are, because they form hypotheses and test these hypotheses against evidence.

I would take this further and say that you cannot come up with any mechanism for obtaining knowledge that is not based on observation. Observation is the first step in the scientific process. Now, you could just say that the observation itself is knowledge (as in "event x happened at place y and time z") without trying to form any hypothesis, but this knowledge is still based on observation, so implicitly based on the scientific method.

[BioBeing]

Art is an awesome way of communicating ideas. Older than science, and far more in use during our times.

I must ask - just what do you think science IS, exactly? How old is it? AFAIAC, science is, at its core, simply trial and error. Humans have been doing it since before we were human. Its only recently been codifed as "The Scientific Method (TM)".

[toker]

Art is an awesome way of communicating ideas. Older than science, and far more in use during our times.

I must ask - just what do you think science IS, exactly? How old is it?
Oh. I'm fine with Wikipedia which says Science (from Latin: scientia meaning "knowledge") is an enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the world.[1][2][3][4]

Historical knowledge makes no predictions, and isn't testable.

AFAIAC, science is, at its core, simply trial and error. Humans have been doing it since before we were human. Its only recently been codifed as "The Scientific Method (TM)".
I think that view disrespects science. Ant colonies use trial-and-error all day long.

[Wizofoz]

Historical knowledge makes no predictions, and isn't testable.



Really?

Is paleontology history or science?

[toker]

Historical knowledge makes no predictions, and isn't testable.



Really?

Is paleontology history or science?
I knew something like that was coming. :p

Both, I'd guess. It doesn't really make predictions, but it definitely depends on or involves other sciences.

Paleontology lies on the border between biology and geology, and shares with archaeology a border that is difficult to define. It now uses techniques drawn from a wide range of sciences, including biochemistry, mathematics and engineering. (Wiki)

[BioBeing]

Art is an awesome way of communicating ideas. Older than science, and far more in use during our times.

I must ask - just what do you think science IS, exactly? How old is it?
Oh. I'm fine with Wikipedia which says Science (from Latin: scientia meaning "knowledge") is an enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the world.[1][2][3][4]

Seems to me you are limiting science to modern science. I see science in a broader sense.

Historical knowledge makes no predictions, and isn't testable.

Not necessarily. You might hypothesize that, say, Ancient Egyptians kept loads of slaves to build the pyramids. Then you test that hypothesis by looking for slave quarters in your excavations. You don't find them, but instead find evidence of paid work gangs. Hypothesis has been tested and is ruled out.

AFAIAC, science is, at its core, simply trial and error. Humans have been doing it since before we were human. Its only recently been codifed as "The Scientific Method (TM)".
I think that view disrespects science. Ant colonies use trial-and-error all day long.

But I said "at its core", not "in its totality". Ants only do trial and error.

[Wizofoz]

It doesn't really make predictions,

I'm sorry, but sciences like paleontology, geology and anthropology most certainly do make predictions.

"If homonid A is a descendent of homonid B, we can expect to see this gene sequence and theorise that homonid C must have existed at some time in period X"

Discovery of homoid D then blows that prediction out of the water.

This was much the case with "Lucy", Australopithecus afarensis . Up her discovery, theory predicted increased brain size would pre-date upright stature. Her discovery showed that our descendents actually started walking upright BEFORE larger brain capacity evolved- and this changed a lot about our understanding of what defined us as Human.

I do think you think of science as being restricted to disciplines like physics and chemistry, looking at basic principles of existence, but it has a much wider reach than that.

[nygreenguy]

If a topic is "beyond the scope" of science it is intrinsically worthless because one cannot test any of its conclusions or apply them with surety that they are correct.


I think the problem in this statement is you presume all "topics" (what does that really mean?) have conclusions or some sort of "application". So, what do you mean by "topic"?

[Ozymandias]

If a topic is "beyond the scope" of science it is intrinsically worthless because one cannot test any of its conclusions or apply them with surety that they are correct.


I think the problem in this statement is you presume all "topics" (what does that really mean?) have conclusions or some sort of "application". So, what do you mean by "topic"?

I presume no such thing. I assert that "topics" (feel free to choose any meaning you like) have no worth unless they have conclusions or some sort of application.

[nygreenguy]

I presume no such thing. I assert that "topics" (feel free to choose any meaning you like) have no worth unless they have conclusions or some sort of application.

Sitting on my porch.

Playing video games.

Reading a book.

Painting a picture.

etc....

All make no conclusions, and have no applications yet most would agree they have worth.

[Ozymandias]

They have worth (to you) if they give you pleasure, which is an application.

[nygreenguy]

They have worth if they give you pleasure, which is an application.

This is a bit of goalpost moving.


There is no such thing as the "overapplication" of science. If a topic is "beyond the scope" of science it is intrinsically worthless because one cannot test any of its conclusions or apply them with surety that they are correct. If there is "insufficient empirical evidence to justify scientific conclusions" then you need to go collect more evidence - your lack of data doesn't invalidate the scientific method.

Nothing that I mention can fit into what you claim here. My playing video games or sitting on my porch has nothing to do with science. There are no conclusions, and there is nothing to apply.

[Ozymandias]

Nothing that I mention can fit into what you claim here. My playing video games or sitting on my porch has nothing to do with science. There are no conclusions, and there is nothing to apply.

I think you are looking at it wrongly. We understand very well that the body needs rest and there have been plenty of scientific studies done on things like stress reduction. So the benefit of playing video games or sitting on your porch are perfectly well within the realms of science. Also, reading the bible might have a similar effect - providing mental calm and assurance.

But it becomes woo when you claim effects beyond those explained by science, by saying (for example) that reading the bible will get you into heaven, or sitting on the porch will enhance your Zen enlightenment. You can look at the world (all phenomena) in a scientific way, or in a woo way, but only the scientific way is legitimate and justified.

[toker]

By "scientific way", he must mean "by using logic and reason".

But of course science has no corner there. Scientism is just another cult.

[toker]

Science makes no claims about heaven or enlightenment, but you'll never notice that fact if you listen to the cultists.

[Wizofoz]

Geez Toker- Did a scientist jilt your Mum or something?

Science has proven to be the most reliable system to apply to problems in order to solve them and increase knowledge.

That's it.

Where is there a cultish angle to that?

What claims do YOU make about Heaven and Enlightenment, and what evidence can you proffer to support them?

[toker]

Geez Toker- Did a scientist jilt your Mum or something?

That's cute, but you reveal that you see no difference between being a scientist, and adhering to scientism. I do. Take a half-step, okay? At least try.

Science has proven to be the most reliable system to apply to problems in order to solve them and increase knowledge.
Oh, bullshit. It depends on the problem. Science is not the only legitimate source of knowledge, and that is fucking obvious, since we gathered knowledge long before we invented science, and we don't use science exclusively today to gather more knowledge.

That's it.
I advocate science, but oppose scientism.

Where is there a cultish angle to that?
The dogmatism does it, I guess.

What claims do YOU make about Heaven and Enlightenment, and what evidence can you proffer to support them?
Enlightenment really does happen. It's a type of insight. We gain insights by using the methods of science, but we also gain insights without using those methods.

[toker]

Art is an awesome way of communicating ideas. Older than science, and far more in use during our times.

I must ask - just what do you think science IS, exactly? How old is it?
Oh. I'm fine with Wikipedia which says Science (from Latin: scientia meaning "knowledge") is an enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the world.[1][2][3][4]

Seems to me you are limiting science to modern science. I see science in a broader sense.
Sort of. I pin science on systematic methodical experimentation, so it's maybe 400 yrs old. There are good reasons that pre-modern experimentations aren't considered modern.

Historical knowledge makes no predictions, and isn't testable.
Not necessarily. You might hypothesize that, say, Ancient Egyptians kept loads of slaves to build the pyramids. Then you test that hypothesis by looking for slave quarters in your excavations. You don't find them, but instead find evidence of paid work gangs. Hypothesis has been tested and is ruled out.
I get that point (and saw it coming). But in fact all we have (concerning ancient Egypt) is a body of evidence, and you're talking merely about interpreting that evidence. That isn't science knowledge, it is history knowledge - and as a matter of fact history knowledge depends on an entirely different set of methods than science uses.

AFAIAC, science is, at its core, simply trial and error. Humans have been doing it since before we were human. Its only recently been codifed as "The Scientific Method (TM)".
I think that view disrespects science. Ant colonies use trial-and-error all day long.
But I said "at its core", not "in its totality". Ants only do trial and error.
Okay, good point. So flesh it out. Science involves trial-and-error, plus...?

[toker]

And I don't need the 'plus' part to win my point. I love my kids, and I didn't discover that by trial-and-error, I sure the hell didn't use the scientific methods to learn that fact.

[Wizofoz]

Oh, bullshit. It depends on the problem. Science is not the only legitimate source of knowledge, and that is fucking obvious, since we gathered knowledge long before we invented science, and we don't use science exclusively today to gather more knowledge.



Name a system of thought that has proven more reliable.


And I don't need the 'plus' part to win my point. I love my kids, and I didn't discover that by trial-and-error, I sure the hell didn't use the scientific methods to learn that fact.

Sure, but do have a hypothesis as to WHY we automatically love our kids?

[Xero]

Oh, bullshit. It depends on the problem. Science is not the only legitimate source of knowledge, and that is fucking obvious, since we gathered knowledge long before we invented science, and we don't use science exclusively today to gather more knowledge.



Name a system of thought that has proven more reliable.


And I don't need the 'plus' part to win my point. I love my kids, and I didn't discover that by trial-and-error, I sure the hell didn't use the scientific methods to learn that fact.

Sure, but do have a hypothesis as to WHY we automatically love our kids?

See the problem (which I'm starting to see rather often in your posts) is that Toker has said "we don't use science exclusively" [to gather more knowledge], and what you have told yourself he said is something to the effect of "science isn't the the prevailing authority on gathering knowledge", and then extrapolated from that "he must think there's something "better" than science". Do you see where your line of reasoning has gone awry?

Also, you are trying to make science fit the philosophy mold with the "hypothesis [for loving our kids automatically]". How then do you gather empirical evidence that the love exists, or for that matter, what love is.

[DMB]

Also, you are trying to make science fit the philosophy mold with the "hypothesis [for loving our kids automatically]". How then do you gather empirical evidence that the love exists, or for that matter, what love is.

Interesting question that might perhaps lead to another thread. How do we know that love exists or what it is (assuming its existence)?

Many claims are made about it, but it becomes obvious with time that they are quite likely to be false.

[Ozymandias]

We need to remember that science is a system for testing a hypothesis, and refining that hypothesis to better reflect reality. It is not a method for making the observations itself (though it does contain guidance on interpretation of observations).

Some people here seem to be saying there are other ways of making observations (thereby "gaining knowledge") other than science. But what does this even mean? If I look out of my window, I am making observations, and gaining knowledge (e.g. that it is raining). No-one is suggesting that we need a science education (or the scientific method) to tell that it is raining. The important point is that if I want to achieve some insight into the mechanisms at work that have led to this observation, then I must use science.

[DMB]

Of all the posts in this thread, I would most like to have an enlargement of Eudaimonist's. What does "scientism" mean to you?

I find "scientism" a rather lazy term typically used by theists to beat atheist scientists. For example, in one of the links from the OP Richard Dawkins is labelled with it, but in TGD Dawkins explicitly details why he thinks claims about the existence of a supreme being are scientific claims and therefore deserving of scientific scrutiny. I'd like to see his critics address the detail of that argument before applying the label.

[Wizofoz]

Oh, bullshit. It depends on the problem. Science is not the only legitimate source of knowledge, and that is fucking obvious, since we gathered knowledge long before we invented science, and we don't use science exclusively today to gather more knowledge.



Name a system of thought that has proven more reliable.


And I don't need the 'plus' part to win my point. I love my kids, and I didn't discover that by trial-and-error, I sure the hell didn't use the scientific methods to learn that fact.

Sure, but do have a hypothesis as to WHY we automatically love our kids?

See the problem (which I'm starting to see rather often in your posts) is that Toker has said "we don't use science exclusively" [to gather more knowledge], and what you have told yourself he said is something to the effect of "science isn't the the prevailing authority on gathering knowledge", and then extrapolated from that "he must think there's something "better" than science". Do you see where your line of reasoning has gone awry?

Also, you are trying to make science fit the philosophy mold with the "hypothesis [for loving our kids automatically]". How then do you gather empirical evidence that the love exists, or for that matter, what love is.

The problem I'm seeing rather often in your posts is that you will paraphrase someone you agree with in a manner that makes their points seem more reasonable, while extrapolating positions from those you DON'T agree with to seem less reasonable.

For instance, Toker says this:-

Oh, bullshit. It depends on the problem. Science is not the only legitimate source of knowledge, and that is fucking obvious, since we gathered knowledge long before we invented science, and we don't use science exclusively today to gather more knowledge.


This would seem to me to be a pretty adament declaration that science is only one of a number of competeing systems of thought that are legitimate for the furthering of knowledge.

No one has said science is the only method of gathering knowledge, just the best. This seems to envoke a pretty vehement deniel from Toker.

And you....

Do you think studies of things like emotion, social bonding, group behaviour and family instincts are not legitimate lines of enquirery?

Do you think they aren't science?

[Xero]

This would seem to me to be a pretty adament declaration that science is only one of a number of competeing systems of thought that are legitimate for the furthering of knowledge.

Yes, Toker is saying that it is ONLY ONE of a NUMBER of systems (why do they have to be competeing? Toker didn't say that, in regards to what you quoted)


No one has said science is the only method of gathering knowledge, just the best. This seems to envoke a pretty vehement deniel from Toker.

Where did he say he denied this? Vehemently to boot? Interesting extrapolation. Even if this is what he thinks, he hasn't said it or inferred it yet as I am aware.

[Wizofoz]

Me:-

Science has proven to be the most reliable system to apply to problems in order to solve them and increase knowledge.

Toker:-

Oh, bullshit.

Me:-

No one has said science is the only method of gathering knowledge, just the best. This seems to envoke a pretty vehement deniel from Toker.

Xerox:-

Where did he say he denied this? Vehemently to boot? Interesting extrapolation. Even if this is what he thinks, he hasn't said it or inferred it yet as I am aware.

So I guess "Oh, Bullshit" has a different meaning qwhere you come from???

[BioBeing]

Sort of. I pin science on systematic methodical experimentation, so it's maybe 400 yrs old. There are good reasons that pre-modern experimentations aren't considered modern.

Well yes, things that are not modern are not modern.

I don't think it correct to say that science magically started 400 years ago. All that happened then was the codification of a certain set of principles. Or rather, certain sets of principles, as there is not one specific scientific method anyway.

I get that point (and saw it coming). But in fact all we have (concerning ancient Egypt) is a body of evidence, and you're talking merely about interpreting that evidence. That isn't science knowledge, it is history knowledge - and as a matter of fact history knowledge depends on an entirely different set of methods than science uses.

Which are...?

Okay, good point. So flesh it out. Science involves trial-and-error, plus...?
Plus... building on that trial and error and trying new things. Passing that knowledge on to subsequent generations.

An ant follows a chemical scent and sees if it is getting stronger of weaker to lead it to food. A human learned to grow food - by trial and error, and refining what worked. One is scientific, the other isn't. See if you can figure which is which ;)

[Xero]

Me:-

Science has proven to be the most reliable system to apply to problems in order to solve them and increase knowledge.

Toker:-

Oh, bullshit.

Me:-

No one has said science is the only method of gathering knowledge, just the best. This seems to envoke a pretty vehement deniel from Toker.

Xerox:-

Where did he say he denied this? Vehemently to boot? Interesting extrapolation. Even if this is what he thinks, he hasn't said it or inferred it yet as I am aware.

So I guess "Oh, Bullshit" has a different meaning qwhere you come from???

No it means the same thing, but where I come from, we read the rest of the post too.

[Wizofoz]

No it means the same thing, but where I come from, we read the rest of the post too.

You mean the bit where he says this:-

It depends on the problem. Science is not the only legitimate source of knowledge, and that is fucking obvious, since we gathered knowledge long before we invented science, and we don't use science exclusively today to gather more knowledge.



In reponse to me saying this?

Science has proven to be the most reliable system to apply to problems in order to solve them and increase knowledge.

Where he implies I said science is the only legitimate sourse of knowledge, when I said no such thing?

yes, I read that, did you?

[Wizofoz]

Toker,

Xerox univitedly taking your side and making you look prattish by association aside (YOU'VE conducted a discussion with great grace and politeness, you just seem to have attracted a rather ungracious fan. I think a brief examination of his motivations for being anti-science would provide some valuable insight!), i still think we are simply arguing semantics as we have never actually agreed on a definition of science, much less even agreed on the EXISTENCE of "Scientism" (is there a Mathism or Archelogyism??).

You may be to polite, but I'm NOT to proud to put up the "101" definition:-

Science (from Latin: scientia meaning "knowledge") is an enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the world.

Note that it further states:-
An older and closely related meaning still in use today is that of Aristotle, for whom scientific knowledge was a body of reliable knowledge that can be logically and rationally explained

Aristotle live in the 300BC era, so the concept of scientific inquiry hugely pre-dates your 400 years.

It also should be obvious that many things you've thrown up as counter-methods to science clearly fit the standard definition of what it actually is.

for instance, when you say:-

I get that point (and saw it coming). But in fact all we have (concerning ancient Egypt) is a body of evidence, and you're talking merely about interpreting that evidence. That isn't science knowledge, it is history knowledge - and as a matter of fact history knowledge depends on an entirely different set of methods than science uses.

I think you are simply wrong. History involves gathering evidence, and organizing it such that it can be interpreted and conclusions (which must be testable and falsifiable) made- though those conclusions are always open to modification should better information become available. It clearly fits the definition of science.

Think of it this way- even as "pure" a science as physics is no more than an extension of history- Physicists are simply trying to figure out laws of the universe that came into being 13.7 billion years ago!!

[kowalskil]

[QUOTE=toker;211600] ... Of course it's true that religionists use the term as a bludgeon. But I can't count the times I've read on the Internet statements to the effect that science is the only basis for justified beliefs.

Justified beliefs can be based on science or on theology. Scientists investigate our material world while theologists investigate our spiritual world. Belief in God, for example, is justified on the basis of what one learns from theologists. Belief in evolution, by contrast, is justified in terms of what one learns from scientists.

As I wrote before, we live in two worlds and each world has a different methodology of validation/refutation. Methodology developed for claims in one world should not be used in the other world. That is my opinion.

Ludwik Kowalski (see Wikipedia)
Professor Emeritus,
Montclair State University, NJ, USA
.
.

[munnki]

I think there's a weakness here in the sense that I don't often hear 'scientism' used as a a methodological/philosophical word all that often. If we are thinking about what methods we might use to approach problem solving in the world then often we use larger terms. In this sense I would classify myself as a 'rational materialist'.

There are many day to day problems which I do not solve using 'scientific' approaches - What should I have for lunch? What colour jacket should I wear? Which way should I walk? But I may well use reason in each of those cases to help me decide.

I find the word 'scientism' slightly absurd...

[Wizofoz]

Justified beliefs can be based on science or on theology.

While plenty of people may HAVE theistic belief, it's a stretch to say they are "Justified", if something being true is a basis for justification.

How can mutually exclusive beliefs be justified if it means at least one of them must be false?

we live in two worlds and each world has a different methodology of validation/refutation.

No, we LIVE in one world. we can FANTASIES as many as worlds as we choose...

[toker]

Justified beliefs can be based on science or on theology.
Yes. I read somewhere that there are three types of justification: logical, physical, and emotional.

[toker]

..., if something being true is a basis for justification.
It isn't, thankfully, since we aren't omniscient.

How can mutually exclusive beliefs be justified if it means at least one of them must be false?
By using different standards of evidence, of course. Even within science, different standards are used, and they do lead to contradiction. QM v relativity, for example.

[Wizofoz]

It isn't, thankfully, since we aren't omniscient

I disagree. A justifide belief can be shown to be true. Otherwise it is simply a belief.

By using different standards of evidence, of course. Even within science, different standards are used, and they do lead to contradiction. QM v relativity, for example.

Neither QM nor Relativity are false. Both can be demonstrated. Can you demonstrate the factual nature of theistic belief?

[lpetrich]

Seems to me that "scientism" is a dirty word used by those who don't like "science" directed against some of their pet beliefs.

[Wizofoz]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

This.

It's a bit like a post I saw where someone didn't like calling himself an Atheist and prefered "realist"....

As if ANYONE didn't consider what they personally believed to be "Real"

[toker]

It isn't, thankfully, since we aren't omniscient
I disagree. A justifide belief can be shown to be true. Otherwise it is simply a belief.
Well, then we have a point of contention, something worth exploring though with some mutual respect? Maybe we have differing views on what "true" means. Math facts are true, since they depend on the set of rules we decide to apply. Historical facts (eg) are always open to new information and new ways of interpreting information - and so only an omniscient being can declare them to be absolutely 'true'.

By using different standards of evidence, of course. Even within science, different standards are used, and they do lead to contradiction. QM v relativity, for example.

Neither QM nor Relativity are false. Both can be demonstrated.
And yet they contradict each other. Here's your chance to grow a light bulb over your head. :evil:

Can you demonstrate the factual nature of theistic belief?
You move the goalposts. The question used to be whether theists could have justification for their beliefs.

[toker]

Seems to me that "scientism" is a dirty word used by those who don't like "science" directed against some of their pet beliefs.
Therefore scientism should be accepted? :bang:

[Wizofoz]

and so only an omniscient being can declare them to be absolutely 'true'.

Agreed. But, as it is impossible to establish absolute truth, shouldn't we at least go for "Most likely to be true"? Is something for which there is evidence more likely to be true than something for which there is none?

And yet they contradict each other.

They show that different rules apply to different situations, macro v sub atomic. It's true that the "Why" part of that is still being explored. What would you think the best methodology to explore this?

Here's your chance to grow a light bulb over your head.

This being your idea of mutual respect? If I put a "Fuck you" in here, is it mitigated if I follow it with a smiley?

You move the goalposts. The question used to be whether theists could have justification for their beliefs.

Would "give ANY reason to think these beliefs might be true" count as justification? Give a definition of what you consider makes a belief "Justified".

[Wizofoz]

Therefore scientism should be accepted?

You've yet to demonstrate that it exists.

[Ozymandias]

Which way should I walk?


I recommend walking upright on two feet.

[Xero]

Toker,

Xerox univitedly taking your side and making you look prattish by association aside (YOU'VE conducted a discussion with great grace and politeness, you just seem to have attracted a rather ungracious fan. I think a brief examination of his motivations for being anti-science would provide some valuable insight!), i still think we are simply arguing semantics as we have never actually agreed on a definition of science, much less even agreed on the EXISTENCE of "Scientism" (is there a Mathism or Archelogyism??).

You may be to polite, but I'm NOT to proud to put up the "101" definition:-

Science (from Latin: scientia meaning "knowledge") is an enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the world.

Note that it further states:-
An older and closely related meaning still in use today is that of Aristotle, for whom scientific knowledge was a body of reliable knowledge that can be logically and rationally explained

Aristotle live in the 300BC era, so the concept of scientific inquiry hugely pre-dates your 400 years.

It also should be obvious that many things you've thrown up as counter-methods to science clearly fit the standard definition of what it actually is.

for instance, when you say:-

I get that point (and saw it coming). But in fact all we have (concerning ancient Egypt) is a body of evidence, and you're talking merely about interpreting that evidence. That isn't science knowledge, it is history knowledge - and as a matter of fact history knowledge depends on an entirely different set of methods than science uses.

I think you are simply wrong. History involves gathering evidence, and organizing it such that it can be interpreted and conclusions (which must be testable and falsifiable) made- though those conclusions are always open to modification should better information become available. It clearly fits the definition of science.

Think of it this way- even as "pure" a science as physics is no more than an extension of history- Physicists are simply trying to figure out laws of the universe that came into being 13.7 billion years ago!!

Get over yourself. I am not anti-science and you are using the same tired immature, lame ass tactic, of attacking me personally to discredit me. "Uninvitedly taking your side"? Grow up. Perhaps when you show some respect you will get some in return.

[Wizofoz]

Toker,

Xerox univitedly taking your side and making you look prattish by association aside (YOU'VE conducted a discussion with great grace and politeness, you just seem to have attracted a rather ungracious fan. I think a brief examination of his motivations for being anti-science would provide some valuable insight!), i still think we are simply arguing semantics as we have never actually agreed on a definition of science, much less even agreed on the EXISTENCE of "Scientism" (is there a Mathism or Archelogyism??).

You may be to polite, but I'm NOT to proud to put up the "101" definition:-

Science (from Latin: scientia meaning "knowledge") is an enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the world.

Note that it further states:-
An older and closely related meaning still in use today is that of Aristotle, for whom scientific knowledge was a body of reliable knowledge that can be logically and rationally explained

Aristotle live in the 300BC era, so the concept of scientific inquiry hugely pre-dates your 400 years.

It also should be obvious that many things you've thrown up as counter-methods to science clearly fit the standard definition of what it actually is.

for instance, when you say:-

I get that point (and saw it coming). But in fact all we have (concerning ancient Egypt) is a body of evidence, and you're talking merely about interpreting that evidence. That isn't science knowledge, it is history knowledge - and as a matter of fact history knowledge depends on an entirely different set of methods than science uses.

I think you are simply wrong. History involves gathering evidence, and organizing it such that it can be interpreted and conclusions (which must be testable and falsifiable) made- though those conclusions are always open to modification should better information become available. It clearly fits the definition of science.

Think of it this way- even as "pure" a science as physics is no more than an extension of history- Physicists are simply trying to figure out laws of the universe that came into being 13.7 billion years ago!!

Get over yourself. I am not anti-science and you are using the same tired immature, lame ass tactic, of attacking me personally to discredit me. "Uninvitedly taking your side"? Grow up. Perhaps when you show some respect you will get some in return.

Not that what I did both above and in my reply to you was address the actual points made by you and Toker.

What you have done here is made an unsupported Ad Homminem attack.

Your comments on my post to Toker where disrespectful, you recieved it in knid.

Get over yourself.

[toker]

New age woo misuses the word "energy" FAR more than they misuse the word "holistic". So if someone rejects holism because of woo connotations, then to be consistent they should reject the concept of energy as well. But they don't. That tells me the objections are based on unreasoning bias rather than rational freethought.

[Wizofoz]

So if someone rejects holism

Who did that?

So if someone rejects holism because of woo connotations, then to be consistent they should reject the concept of energy as well.

Absolutely no logic in that conclusion.

If someone rejects Fairies and Pegasus because of "Woo connotations" should they also reject the concept of winged flight?

That tells me the objections are based on unreasoning bias rather than rational freethought.

No, rationality simply requires you provide evidence before you can conclude existence.

Believe what you will, but without evidence that belief is not rational.

[toker]

Here's your chance to grow a light bulb over your head.
This being your idea of mutual respect? If I put a "Fuck you" in here, is it mitigated if I follow it with a smiley?
Ouch. I do not have strong social skills, so I fuck up a lot. I thought (and still do) that I made a point that is able to give insight, and I thought (but not anymore) that I expressed it with a non-offensive and humorous image. I'd definitely appreciate it if I were granted some slack.

[toker]

So if someone rejects holism because of woo connotations, then to be consistent they should reject the concept of energy as well.
If someone rejects Fairies and Pegasus because of "Woo connotations" should they also reject the concept of winged flight?
I don't reject fairies and pegasus because of "woo connotations"; I reject them because of lack of evidence. Can you agree that the mere fact that woo likes holism is no reason to reject holism? Because that was my point.

[toker]

No, rationality simply requires you provide evidence before you can conclude existence.

Believe what you will, but without evidence that belief is not rational.
There is voluminous unending evidence for holism.

[Wizofoz]

Here's your chance to grow a light bulb over your head.
This being your idea of mutual respect? If I put a "Fuck you" in here, is it mitigated if I follow it with a smiley?
Ouch. I do not have strong social skills, so I fuck up a lot. I thought (and still do) that I made a point that is able to give insight, and I thought (but not anymore) that I expressed it with a non-offensive and humorous image. I'd definitely appreciate it if I were granted some slack.

Granted with pleasure!

No, you are a pleasure to converse with, the light-bulb crack surprised me. please ignore mine.

[Wizofoz]

There is voluminous unending evidence for holism.

Well, could you first supply a definition of what there is evidence for?

As a concept, if we are talking about the same thing, I neither dispute the idea of Holism, while not seeing how it is relevant to the topic.

Indeed, the study of the inter-connectedness of systems is yet another area where scientific inquiry is a useful tool.

[BioBeing]

Just a friendly reminder: please try to keep things civil.

[toker]

Reductionism is easy - even cave-folk realized the value in tearing things apart to see how they work. Holism is harder, and by the time we realized that systems do work, reductionism was so ingrained into our thinking that even today lots of people believe that systems work only because of reductionistic principles. I believe that the more sophisticated our understanding becomes, the more we'll realize that both bottom-up and top-down analysis has fundamental merit.

[toker]

There is voluminous unending evidence for holism.

Well, could you first supply a definition of what there is evidence for?

As a concept, if we are talking about the same thing, I neither dispute the idea of Holism, while not seeing how it is relevant to the topic.

Indeed, the study of the inter-connectedness of systems is yet another area where scientific inquiry is a useful tool.
I think I forgot what thread I'm in. :o

Rational thought must agree that science is a useful tool (there's an understatement :)).

Scientism is the idea that natural science is the most authoritative worldview or aspect of human education, and that it is superior to all other interpretations of life.[1] (wiki)

I find that idea to be clear nonsense. There's probably a better def somewhere - if you have one, the time is ripe.

[Ozymandias]

Scientism is the idea that natural science is the most authoritative worldview or aspect of human education, and that it is superior to all other interpretations of life.

I couldn't agree with this more, and frankly I don't see how anyone with half a brain could disagree.

[toker]

Scientism is the idea that natural science is the most authoritative worldview or aspect of human education, and that it is superior to all other interpretations of life.

I couldn't agree with this more, and frankly I don't see how anyone with half a brain could disagree.
G'morning, Guy! The less-than-half-brained people invented social science, which includes psychology, and if you want to understand your kids (or anyone else) then you're better off not limiting your understandings to natural science.

[Ozymandias]

Scientism is the idea that natural science is the most authoritative worldview or aspect of human education, and that it is superior to all other interpretations of life.

I couldn't agree with this more, and frankly I don't see how anyone with half a brain could disagree.
G'morning, Guy! The less-than-half-brained people invented social science, which includes psychology, and if you want to understand your kids (or anyone else) then you're better off not limiting your understandings to natural science.

You are not "limiting your understandings to natural science" by acknowledging it as the best, just as I would not be restricting my diet to steak by saying it is my favourite food.

[toker]

You are not "limiting your understandings to natural science" by acknowledging it as the best, just as I would not be restricting my diet to steak by saying it is my favourite food.
Best at what? Natural science is next to useless for understanding some things. Like wives or art. Or architecture, or history, or politics, or gaming. Or math. Or home decoration, or any other style and fashion, or even mere driving skills.

[Ozymandias]

Best at understanding things of value.

[Wizofoz]

Best at what? Natural science is next to useless for understanding some things. Like wives or art. Or architecture, or history, or politics, or gaming. Or math. Or home decoration, or any other style and fashion, or even mere driving skills.

Disagree totally.

All of the above either do use or would be better off using what fits as the general definition of science, with the possible exceptions of art (as it does not seek to be rational) and Wives (As they possitivley seek to be irrational, but are probably more fun that way!!)

[BioBeing]

Scientism is the idea that natural science is the most authoritative worldview or aspect of human education, and that it is superior to all other interpretations of life.[1] (wiki)

As written there, I don't think that is scientism. The scientific method is superior to all other methods when it can be used. I think it becomes scientism when you apply the scientific method to the exclusion of all other methods.

Where people often disagree is where the line should be drawn between where it is acceptable to use the scientific method and where it isn't. I, for example, think that it is perfectly acceptable to subject claims of faith to the scientific method. To examine them and see if they are rational, logical, verifiable, reproducible etc etc. Others see this as an over extension of the scientific method; hence scientism.

[BioBeing]

Reductionism is easy - even cave-folk realized the value in tearing things apart to see how they work. Holism is harder, and by the time we realized that systems do work, reductionism was so ingrained into our thinking that even today lots of people believe that systems work only because of reductionistic principles. I believe that the more sophisticated our understanding becomes, the more we'll realize that both bottom-up and top-down analysis has fundamental merit.

btw - not sure if this is relevant in this thread, but systems biology is huge nowadays. Scientists are looking at the "whole picture" so to speak, but it takes powerful computers to be able to do it properly, things that have only recently become available.

[Wizofoz]

Scientism is the idea that natural science is the most authoritative worldview or aspect of human education, and that it is superior to all other interpretations of life.[1] (wiki)

As written there, I don't think that is scientism. The scientific method is superior to all other methods when it can be used. I think it becomes scientism when you apply the scientific method to the exclusion of all other methods.

Where people often disagree is where the line should be drawn between where it is acceptable to use the scientific method and where it isn't. I, for example, think that it is perfectly acceptable to subject claims of faith to the scientific method. To examine them and see if they are rational, logical, verifiable, reproducible etc etc. Others see this as an over extension of the scientific method; hence scientism.

Yes, but there's a REASON people feel applying the scientific method to questions of faith is invalid- They would be forced to live with the results of that analysis!!

[toker]

Best at understanding things of value.
We use science to determine what has value?