Is anyone on this plane a poet?

I'm a doctor!

I need a poet, dammit!

Edit: this might be interesting: SIX SIGNS OF SCIENTISM — Banno

It's a wonderful piece. Succinct and lucid.

It's a wonderful piece. Succinct and lucid. — Tom Storm

Oddly anachronistic example toward the end.

"Sometimes, the resistance is foolish. I read, for
example, that some prominent Indian social scientists favor the traditional custom
of variolation – inoculation with human smallpox matter, accompanied by prayers
to the goddess smallpox – over the modern scientific practice of vaccination using
cowpox vaccine, which is much less likely to cause smallpox in the patient. This,
in my view, is worse than silly."

Smallpox was eradicated by 1978. This essay was published 2009.

Did you like the essay?

Poetry used to get people laid, right? — Tom Storm

Ah but that’s only one of the four F’s. Bet it didn’t help at all with the other three. Although I guess if you were good enough at it, might help with feeding.

Did you like the essay? — Tom Storm

It's a perfectly decent essay. But I didn't like it - because in my view, accusations of scientism are an attempt to put science back in a box that it shouldn't be in, in the first place.

Rehabilitating the unconscionable?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC546339/

Although, there are signs that the global population growth rate is going down. here

That would solve a lot of problems. And it's largely due to science and engineering. — frank

Ha. I'd say it's likely to go down big time and soon leaving few survivors, and all due to science engineering.

Rehabilitating the unconscionable? — Tom Storm

Piling on!

Modern science, based on the hypothetico-deductive methodology described by Galileo in 'Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems' - has been under constant attack for 400 years.

This essay begins, "science is a good thing" - but then the six criteria of scientism make it quite clear this faint praise holds, only insofar as we allow. And science shouldn't criticise, less yet exclude "other kinds of inquiry besides the scientific."

So, tarot cards, astrology, ouija boards, haruspex, divination - these are all equal methods of enquiry to scientific method, are they?

If you say, no - they're not, you've committed the grave sin of scientism. I do not accept that kind of cultural/epistemic relativism is valid.

It's a well written essay. It adequately expresses a view. But I don't agree with that view, no!

I think our relationship to science is mistaken, and that accusations of 'scientism' justify that mistaken relationship.

But I didn't like it - because in my view, accusations of scientism are an attempt to put science back in a box that it shouldn't be in, in the first place. — counterpunch

Proponents of scientism will never acknowledge there could be such a thing, in my experience.

Ha. I'd say it's likely to go down big time and soon leaving few survivors, and all due to science engineering. — FrancisRay

I'd say, that we face a climate and ecological crisis as a consequence of the misuse of science and engineering by a culture that deprived science of any moral worth, and turned it out barefoot, onto the streets - to hawk its wares to government and industry.

It's the difference between science as a tool, and science as an understanding of reality. We used the tools, but stuck with the same old ideological understanding of reality. Consequently, we applied the wrong technologies for the wrong reasons.

Applying the right technologies for the right reasons, now - we can still save ourselves, but it requires we look beyond partisan ideological interests, to science as an understanding of reality. If we do that, it's fairly simple.

Magma heat energy used to produce electrical power, can meet and exceed current global energy demand, and be be used to capture and sequester atmospheric carbon, produce hydrogen fuel, desalinate sea water to irrigate land, recycle all our waste - which is not possible, either with fossil fuels or renewables like wind and solar.

Proponents of scientism will never acknowledge there could be such a thing, in my experience. — Wayfarer

Could you write this same sentence again, a different way, as it's impossible to parse.

I think Wayfarer's point was that proponents of scientism don't accept that science is in a box. They don't recognise its boundaries. Odd really, because those boundaries are well understood and not a secret. . . .

Could you write this same sentence again, a different way, as it's impossible to parse. — counterpunch

You may not agree with this sentence but there’s nothing the matter with the syntax. @FrancisRay seems to be able to interpret it.

You may not agree with this sentence but there’s nothing the matter with the syntax. FrancisRay seems to be able to interpret it. — Wayfarer

I don't understand your sentence. 'Proponents of scientism' is ambiguous.

Do you mean those committing the sin of scientism?

Or those who believe scientism is a valid critique of science in society?

Secondly, "such a thing" - as what?

You could have been far more clear. Instead extra effort all round because you're too lazy to write proper sentences.

Do you mean those committing the sin of scientism? — counterpunch

I would keep the emotive term 'sin' out of it. I think the Haack article does a good job of explaining what 'scientism' is and what is the problem with it. Rather than refer to that article for a definition, though, I'll provide some detail from the Wikipedia entry on that topic, which describes it as:

1. The improper usage of science or scientific claims. This usage applies equally in contexts where science might not apply, such as when the topic is perceived as beyond the scope of scientific inquiry, and in contexts where there is insufficient empirical evidence to justify a scientific conclusion. It includes an excessive deference to the claims of scientists or an uncritical eagerness to accept any result described as scientific. This can be a counterargument to appeals to scientific authority. It can also address the attempt to apply "hard science" methodology and claims of certainty to the social sciences, which Friedrich Hayek described in The Counter-Revolution of Science (1952) as being impossible, because that methodology involves attempting to eliminate the "human factor", while social sciences (including his own field of economics) center almost purely on human action.

2. 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", or that "science, and only science, describes the world as it is in itself, independent of perspective" with a concomitant "elimination of the psychological [and spiritual] dimensions of experience". Tom Sorell provides this definition: "Scientism is a matter of putting too high a value on natural science in comparison with other branches of learning or culture." Philosophers such as Alexander Rosenberg have also adopted "scientism" as a name for the view that science is the only reliable source of knowledge.

Where I think you tend towards scientism is in statements like:

Applying the right technologies for the right reasons, now - we can still save ourselves, but it requires we look beyond partisan ideological interests, to science as an understanding of reality. If we do that, it's fairly simple. — counterpunch

When you say 'science as an understanding of reality', you're proposing it as an alternative to 'partisan ideological interests', and thereby presenting science itself as a kind of ideology, or as something that trumps ideology.

Furthermore the proposed solution to global energy problems:

Magma heat energy used to produce electrical power, can meet and exceed current global energy demand... — counterpunch

May indeed be a great solution to energy problems, but it is what is described in philosophical terms a matter of technē, 'what can be made'. Again, nothing the matter with it, but there are other elements to the problems of energy production, notably politics - getting people behind such a solution.

Questions regarding 'the nature of reality' are problems of epistēmē, 'what can be known', rather than technē, 'what can be made'.

When you say 'science as an understanding of reality', you're proposing it as an alternative to 'partisan ideological interests', and thereby presenting science itself as a kind of ideology. — Wayfarer

I'm not suggesting science as an ideology per se, not least because global (scientific) government would not be politically legitimate. It would be too distant from local interests to command trust. People wouldn't identify with it. It would be alien to all. Rather, I think the reason we have the knowledge and technology to solve the climate and ecological crisis - but don't apply it, is the ubiquity and exclusive authority of ideological bases of analysis - and what I'm trying to do is get people to look beyond the battlements of ideology to a scientific understanding of reality, because in those terms, it's a relatively simple problem to solve.

It's too early to comment. — TheMadFool

Then it's too early for praise.

I'd say, that we face a climate and ecological crisis as a consequence of the misuse of science and engineering by a culture that deprived science of any moral worth, and turned it out barefoot, onto the streets - to hawk its wares to government and industry.

It's the difference between science as a tool, and science as an understanding of reality. We used the tools, but stuck with the same old ideological understanding of reality. Consequently, we applied the wrong technologies for the wrong reasons.

Applying the right technologies for the right reasons, now - we can still save ourselves, but it requires we look beyond partisan ideological interests, to science as an understanding of reality. If we do that, it's fairly simple. — counterpunch

I'd say the physical sciences are what we need to look beyond, since they fall short of telling us anything much about the nature of reality. The real investigation is metaphysics, for this can tell us a lot.

The problem for me is not science but the way it's used. This is an easy criticism in the middle of a global pandemic that seems to have been engineered by scientists. I'd cite the weaponizing of viruses as a typical example of what's wrong with our use of science. It's a great method, which is why it is so dangerous when combined with arrogance, hubris and money.

Just to put a cat among the pigeons I'll venture that the way to save the world is to stop funding science. But there are ideological issues to overcome. Look at how Bill Gates wants to save the world by employing more and more science and technology! This is an ideological position, not a scientific result or forecast, and it seems quite close to scientism. Perhaps it should be called geekism..

I put much of the problem down to a failure to study metaphysics, but can't put the case properly here.

I honestly don't understand what the difficulty is here. — James Riley

A hint, maybe: misplaced concreteness. The treatment of general conceptions, in this case, information, as an actual thing. Information, in and of itself, can never help anyone decide anything at all, but only that which the information is about, may. Information without the human cognition of its object, is empty.

People like to say....well, the information was always out there, just waiting or us to find it. Which is just the lazy over-simplification of why everything possible to know, isn’t.

Rather, I think the reason we have the knowledge and technology to solve the climate and ecological crisis - but don't apply it, is the ubiquity and exclusive authority of ideological bases of analysis - and what I'm trying to do is get people to look beyond the battlements of ideology to a scientific understanding of reality, because in those terms, it's a relatively simple problem to solve. — counterpunch

Well i’m that case I agree with you.

:up: I think I understand. It would be nice to put science to use trying to figure out why our society produces people like Adam Lanza. Maybe the "social sciences" could help us.

Yes, the application of science has brought about much that is unwanted. Nevertheless, science is our best understanding of what is going on, and hence our best chance at ameliorating negative results lies not in rejecting science but in following it. — Banno

You've got two competing categories here: How does the world work versus how should I live my life. The first is a how question, the latter an ought question. As much as science might provide us explanations for how our world works, it doesn't begin to explain how we ought to live in it.

The two have competing epistemologies. Science gathers data and analyzes it and follows the scientific method. We "know" something when the conditions of that method have been met. The ought questions rely upon introspection and wisdom, relying upon ancient texts and time honored traditions. We "know" something when we've satisfied ourselves our decisions comport to that wisdom.

The conflict arises when the religionists use their sacred texts to answer the how questions and then insist they know the world was created in 6 days and evolution never occurred or when the scientists suggest they've found the meaning of life, which typically is summarized as there really isn't one.

I have pointed to some religions that have struck a balance and have figured out a way to work science into their belief system. It is possible, of course, for someone devoted to science to do the same, which is to find a place for religion within his belief system. The point being, there ought be no conflict if each stays within its lane and we can therefore ask ourselves whether a particular scientific discovery ought enter our lives or not without coming off as anti-scientific.

Information without the human cognition of its object, is empty. — Mww

That's interesting. Knowledge of global warming had been around for decades before the world in general became interested.

Which makes me wonder: what is the mindset that pays attention to science? What cultural conditions reinforce that mindset? What conditions diminish it?

I think there might be something about rightism that closes down that mindset. That would be ironic since they want to see Nature as the all-purpose protector of health and well-being.

Well i’m that case I agree with you. — Wayfarer

Not so fast. On your front page, you have a list of essays that suggest we do not agree:

"Essays of interest

The Cultural Impact of Empiricism Jacques Maritain

Science, Materialism and False Consciousness Bas van Fraasen.

The Blind Spot of Science is the Neglect of Lived Experience

Does Reason Know what it is Missing? Stanley Fish

Anything but Human Richard Polt

It Ain't Necessarily So, Antony Gottlieb"

The reason we can and should look beyond ideology to science is because it is "necessarily so" - the same for you as for me. That's what makes science trustworthy and authoritative; a level playing field upon which all can meet, and it is the reason for solving the climate problem in the particular way described, rather than (failing to solve it) any other. Philosophically, we absolutely do not agree.

I agree, that after 400 years of anti-science abuse that brings us to the brink of extinction, adopting science as an ideology would be damaging. But rightfully, science should have been recognised as the means to establish truth, and scientific knowledge incorporated into politics, economics and culture over the past 400 years. Technology should have been developed and applied in accord with a scientific understanding of reality - and the fact that it wasn't is why we are faced with threats to our very existence.

If we want a sustainable future, however, we have to get there from here - from where we are now, with the minimal disruption possible. It's science that condescends to agree.

Knowledge of global warming had been around for decades before the world in general became interested. — frank

True enough; the observed changes in Nature became known as global warming, when the information contained by those changes became understood. Some are interested, but, e.g., The Great Pacific Garbage Patch, says, not enough.

I hesitate to agree the world in general is interested. Or, perhaps, interested enough to do anything significant about it. Some merely blame the cyclic nature of Nature herself, some say they can’t see it from their house, so neglect their due diligence.

Still, it is the case, that while a bucketful of ants won’t effect a scale, a dump truck full of them certainly will, all things considered.
———————

what is the mindset that pays attention to science? — frank

Hmmmm....good question. The mind that pays attention to science, is the mind that judges a validity in it? I mean, the microwave oven benefits me immensely, but it was a completely accidental discovery, hardly scientific, which suggests mere benefit can’t be the sole arbiter for paying attention to science. Maybe its products, but the discipline in itself.

The two have competing epistemologies ... The ought questions rely upon introspection and wisdom, relying upon ancient texts and time honored traditions. — Hanover

I agree in part, but while ancient texts may help with regard to thoughtfulness, technological problems require technological solutions. We cannot say what we ought to do if we do not have a proper understanding of the science involved.

The point being, there ought be no conflict if each stays within its lane and we can therefore ask ourselves whether a particular scientific discovery ought enter our lives or not without coming off as anti-scientific. — Hanover

The lanes are not clearly marked. Religious groups have restricted the use of contraceptives to control population growth and the spread of disease. There has been opposition to medical research and technologies that make use embryonic stem cells.

The lanes are not clearly marked. Religious groups have restricted the use of contraceptives to control population growth and the spread of disease. There has been opposition to medical research and technologies that make use embryonic stem cells. — Fooloso4

The problem isn't that the lanes aren't clearly marked. The problem is that people won't stay in their lanes.

? I mean, the microwave oven benefits me immensely, but it was a completely accidental discovery, hardly scientific, — Mww

I was thinking of antennas. In spite of antenna theory, which is science, antennas were often designed according to whatever worked. That's the difference between engineering and science.