[MD] Scientism

[Ian Glendinning]

Hmmm Mark,

I agree with what you say, but that's not what you say.

You are making my point in your contradiction .... you say things like
science cannot progress except by falsification (not otherwise) ....
yet you also say science can be "an expression of morality" and that
"finding things to agree on" is a part of science.

Good science is more than falsification .... it needs the creative /
synthetic / constructive / integrative / agreement too (I think you
agree). All I had said was that a science that was 100% about
falsification would find no place for / in morals.

A more enlightened kind can.
Ian

On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 5:27 PM, 118 <ununoctiums at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Ian,
>
> I would suggest to view science as an expression of morality and study it
> that way.  My view of the progress of science is through a falsification
> methodology.  I do not think it can progress otherwise.  The last thing we
> want is every scientist agreeing on things.  There is that tendency in
> science, and it often takes a maverick to break through.  Pragmatic
> anti-skepticism sounds a bit like finding things to agree on, that is also a
> part of science.
>
> What makes a claim scientific is indeed a source of controversy.  Many
> scientists doing good work are disdained by others.  Much of the scientific
> community is a club that one needs to join and play along with.  Government
> support makes it difficult to work outside this system, we no longer have
> the wealthy self sufficient type that wants to participate.  A problem with
> scientific claims is that they over reach.  Predictions based on science are
> most often wrong, so I wouldn't hang my hat on them.
>
> OK, back to seeing what the weather forecast is...
>
> Cheers,
> Mark
>
> On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 1:30 AM, Ian Glendinning
> <ian.glendinning at gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> Mark, Steve,
>>
>> If your view of science is 100% the skeptical / falsifiable kind then
>> morality is no place for science. An alternative expression of the same
>> thing is that IF science wants to have something to say about morality,
>> then
>> it (science) needs to adopt a more constructive view of life.
>>
>> (ie I'm with Steve on pragmatic anti-skepticism)
>>
>> The sad thing is that most science claims to be scientific - in the
>> emprically falsifiable kinda way - whereas in practice most scientific
>> theory and scientists are far from scientific. Neurotic.
>>
>> Ian
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 6:15 AM, 118 <ununoctiums at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 11:31 AM, Steven Peterson
>> > <peterson.steve at gmail.com>wrote:
>> >
>> > > 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?
>> > >
>> >
>> > Mark:  Morality
>> >
>> > >
>> > > Best,
>> > > Steve
>> > > Moq_Discuss mailing list
>> > > Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
>> > > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
>> > > Archives:
>> > > http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
>> > > http://moq.org/md/archives.html
>> > >
>> > Moq_Discuss mailing list
>> > Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
>> > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
>> > Archives:
>> > http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
>> > http://moq.org/md/archives.html
>> >
>> Moq_Discuss mailing list
>> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
>> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
>> Archives:
>> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
>> http://moq.org/md/archives.html
>>
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org/md/archives.html
>