Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

YawnTractor_1756 t1_jdi6yze wrote

The meaning of the term "scientism" is "excessive belief in the power of scientific knowledge and techniques.". Yet the article says: "there is 'excessive' scientism, and 'not excessive' scientism, but no one holds that excessive scientism views, so we won't discuss them".

>...most attention has been focused on the most radical version (upper left corner), which states that the natural sciences are the only valid form of knowledge. This is a pretty extreme view, which would imply that all of the humanities and social sciences are just rubbish. I believe this version of scientism is relatively easy to knock down, but in fact barely anyone holds it

So not only the article perverted the meaning of the term, but after that they artificially pre-picked only 'good' meanings, and this way "proved" that scientism is therefore good for you. Very scientific way to "prove" things.

14

kompootor t1_jdiq9q4 wrote

Which article are you quoting? I can't find the "excessive belief" definition in the article OP linked, nor in the Metaphilosophy paper.

Also, the second quote about "'excessive' scientism" -- are you quoting "a pretty extreme view"? If so, you are paraphrasing -- please do not use quotation marks unless it's a direct quotation.

I'm not sure I understand your comment. The author says he's addressing one specific argument in a specific paper, not scientism in general. Furthermore, it's a blog post, not a scientific proof, and not a prescription.

5

YawnTractor_1756 t1_jdj1dpk wrote

"Excessive belief" definition is from the Oxford dictionary.

1

kompootor t1_jdj56bu wrote

I suppose you mean the OED and not the Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, which is in front of me with a very different definition. I'm not sure which should be considered "official", but iirc Scrabble requires Collins.

It actually doesn't matter, because neither definition is relevant, because the only definition that matters is the one that's defined in the author's paper. The author uses this to set up their argument's scope. (Oh hey, that's Oxford's very next entry! Although they only talk about it in terms of logic.)

3

YawnTractor_1756 t1_jdjfz5s wrote

Since you agree that author's definition of scientism differs from the definition in the dictionary, I don't see any disagreements between us. Have a good day.

1

theglandcanyon t1_jdics7e wrote

You're arguing about definitions. How about the substance?

−6

Micheal42 t1_jdigb7q wrote

You can't successfully engage meaningfully with substance that presupposes something that is meaningless. Essentially if we can't agree on definitions then no meaningful speech can take place.

12