[MD] Scientism

[Steven Peterson]

Hi Mark,

>> Steve:
>
> I'm promoting pragmatic anti-skepticism. I'm saying that we not not be
>> any more skeptical about moral truth than we are about scientific
>> truth. Anyone objecting to moral truth as not resting on firm
>> foundations similar to those of scientific claims can be shown that
>> moral claims in fact do not suffer by comparison to scientific ones in
>> terms of epistemic grounding. All the criticisms typically made for
>> the possibility of moral knowledge can be shown to apply equally to
>> scientific knowledge that we are not skeptical about.
>>

Mark:
>  Hi Steve,
> In my experience, science is based on skepticism, asking questions, trying
> to disprove.  It is important to be skeptical about scientific truths else
> wise we do not advance.  The practical applications of scientific methods
> are meant to uncover truth, not define it.  I would go so far as to say that
> science presents a false notion of truth.

Steve:
I think this notion is better put as falliblism which does not make us
skeptics doubting the possiblity of knowledge or that we now know
anything. It just means that we always keep in mind that we could be
wrong about any of our beliefs in particular and are willing to be
proven wrong by new evidence and arguments.


Mark
> The foundations of science are not necessarily firm, they are accepted.  If
> we are not skeptical about scientific knowledge it is due to the profound
> indoctrination and resulting faith in its dogma.  Such a thing is termed
> Scientism.  This is not railing against science per se, it is a judgement
> against its applications to areas where it does not belong.

Steve:
What are the areas where science does not belong in your view?

Best,
Steve