What does this notion of testability do for our understanding of scientism? Or is it more a matter of evaluating the truth of theories? Or what? — Moliere

Not much I guess, unless you believe it is necessary to define what science is before you can say what scientism is. Is scientism itself a testable "theory"?

To me, “scientism” means having a certain attitude about science, an attitude that it is the best kind of knowledge, and sometimes that one’s attitude toward science can cloud one’s judgment, accepting without understanding a particular theory.

so it could be interpreted as saying "X is proven to be true" — leo

Again, anyone with a decent science or philosophy of science education is going to know that empirical claims aren't provable, and we're no longer doing science if a claim isn't at least hypothetically open to revision.

Fair enough. I thought maybe I was missing something :D.

I don't think scientism is a testable "theory", and I don't think we have to define science before understanding it either. At the very least we can clarify what a speaker means, of course, and move on from there.

I half agree with you. We do not have to define science to know that someone is espousing scientism if she says something like: "Science will answer all our questions and solve all our problems" or "any question that is not answerable by science is not a coherent question" (this latter would probably count more as positivism, but I think it is also an expression of a kind of scientism).

But then if the speaker of those statements does not define what she thinks science is, then we don't know exactly what it is that she thinks will answer all our questions and solve all our problems, or what she thinks it is that can answer any coherent question and why she thinks a question that cannot be answered by it is incoherent.

I certainly agree with you that scientism is not a testable "theory". :smile:

So, for example, how exactly evolution happened is not directly observable being in the past, whereas the proposition that water boils at 100 degrees at sea level can be tested by direct observation in the present using a thermometer. — Janus

It's not that simple though. Some days water will boil at 100, and other days not, in the same location, depending on air pressure. And even if you allow for differences in air pressure, all you'd be testing is the accuracy of the measuring instruments.

:clap:

You're being pedantic. Minor differences due to air pressure and the supposed variation in accuracy of thermometers can be taken into account and are irrelevant to the point.

↪Metaphysician Undercover
:clap: — Noah Te Stroete

I'm surprised you would celebrate pedantry, but perhaps you were being sarcastic?

(Shit, got to stop checking the phone!)

Yes. It was sarcasm. I’m not always good at sarcasm. It seemed like it was an unnecessary point.

:cool:

"Science will answer all our questions and solve all our problems" or "any question that is not answerable by science is not a coherent question" (this latter would probably count more as positivism, but I think it is also an expression of a kind of scientism). — Janus

These two scientism utterances are hypocritical, since they are conclusions arrived at not via science. I think this is a common feature of scientism. It is hypocritical.

Minor differences due to air pressure and the supposed variation in accuracy of thermometers can be taken into account and are irrelevant to the point. — Janus

Your point was the testability of the proposition "water boils at 100 degrees at sea level". You said, we could just take a thermometer and test this. My point is that such a test is impossible. Some days you will see that water boils at 100, some days it will not. You cannot test such a proposition in this way, because "sea level" is not the proper variable, "air pressure" is. Now that you see the need to properly account for the variables, you will see that other variables, such as the physical constitution of the water, also make a difference. Dissolved elements make a difference (ever boil sugar water?). And have you ever heard of heavy water?

Clearly, your claim about how easy it is to test such propositions is way off base. .

But then if the speaker of those statements does not define what she thinks science is, then we don't know exactly what it is that she thinks will answer all our questions and solve all our problems, or what she thinks it is that can answer any coherent question and why she thinks a question that cannot be answered by it is incoherent. — Janus

True. What do you think of the broader definition of science with this consideration? That basically all empirical thinking is a kind of scientific thinking? Would those statements count as scientism with science broadly construed?

I'm tempted to say it would not, but that the understanding of science is too broad.