"Scientism is the idea that science or scientific knowledge alone is adequate to answer questions that in fact require knowledge from other fields."
What other fields?
I am not aware of any questions that science alone cannot answer. I don't believe in objective or ultimate morality, but if it did exist it seems to me science would be required to prove that it exists.
I am also not aware of any better method of arriving at correct answers than science itself. Even when it comes to ethical questions, science can help us immensely (see Sam Harris's book "The Moral Landscape") and is actually essential for figuring out which actions cause good things vs bad things.
Hey Dan, the idea that science can answer all questions is itself not scientific. It is philosophical. Science is limited to making claims about the physical world. It cannot deal with philosophical, economic, and ethical questions, for example. I haven't read Sam's book (heard about it through others) but I also think science and scientific knowledge must be taken into account while making moral decisions. I don't agree with the "you cannot derive an ought from an is" trope. And following Jacob Bronowski, I would say that we cannot get many of our "is" statements without first endorsing many "oughts" (i.e. we ought to have respect for evidence, etc.)
I think the thing that can answer every question / solve every problem is reason and not science. Science has its constraints. Good explanations can (and should) be sought in areas other than science too.
"calling one’s field “scientific” has become a popular form of virtue signaling that lets people hide behind a label that shields their ideas from criticism." This is ironic because a proposition is scientific to the extent to which it makes itself vulnerable to criticism and testing.
"Scientism is the idea that science or scientific knowledge alone is adequate to answer questions that in fact require knowledge from other fields."
What other fields?
I am not aware of any questions that science alone cannot answer. I don't believe in objective or ultimate morality, but if it did exist it seems to me science would be required to prove that it exists.
I am also not aware of any better method of arriving at correct answers than science itself. Even when it comes to ethical questions, science can help us immensely (see Sam Harris's book "The Moral Landscape") and is actually essential for figuring out which actions cause good things vs bad things.
Hey Dan, the idea that science can answer all questions is itself not scientific. It is philosophical. Science is limited to making claims about the physical world. It cannot deal with philosophical, economic, and ethical questions, for example. I haven't read Sam's book (heard about it through others) but I also think science and scientific knowledge must be taken into account while making moral decisions. I don't agree with the "you cannot derive an ought from an is" trope. And following Jacob Bronowski, I would say that we cannot get many of our "is" statements without first endorsing many "oughts" (i.e. we ought to have respect for evidence, etc.)
I think the thing that can answer every question / solve every problem is reason and not science. Science has its constraints. Good explanations can (and should) be sought in areas other than science too.
"calling one’s field “scientific” has become a popular form of virtue signaling that lets people hide behind a label that shields their ideas from criticism." This is ironic because a proposition is scientific to the extent to which it makes itself vulnerable to criticism and testing.