From: Steve Peterson (speterson@fast.net)
Date: Tue Jan 07 2003 - 23:45:10 GMT
Glenn and all,
Matt wrote:
> There are actually two very different meanings of "scientism":
> American Heritage Dict:
> 1.The collection of attitudes and practices considered typical of
> scientists.
> 2.The belief that the investigative methods of the physical sciences
> are applicable or justifiable in all fields of inquiry.
Glenn wrote:
> You are using the word "scientism" in some of your posts but I'm
> not sure what you mean by it. Does it fit one of the two dictionary
> definitions above?
Steve:
I think of scientism as a worldview. Those that subscribe to scientism (
and I don't assume that you do) view the world through the lens of science.
That which is real is that which is scientifically measurable. If it isn't
scientifically measurable, it isn't real. Scientism is an assumption that
people make about reality (in modern culture it is largely passively assumed
through cultural conditioning.) Obviously there is no rational basis for
making this or any other assumption. We have to base our knowledge on some
assumptions, but I think it is entirely rational to reject this one since it
is inconsistent with experience (it excludes our thoughts, our
consciousness, numbers, in fact, all of mathematics, morality, artistic
beauty.
I think this definition is consistent with the two given above. I think
that the attitudes of typical scientists include viewing the world through a
lens of science. Atypical scientists such as Einstein, Bohr, Heisenberg,
etc. did not do this.
The second definition is due to popular misconceptions about science for
nonscientists who want to gain credibility in their disciplines by calling
them "sciences." An extreme example of the second definition is Creation
Science. It is obvious how pervasive Scientism is in modern culture when
even Fundamentalist Christians feel that they need to validate themselves
with so-called science.
My understanding is that Scientism holds that science is the only way to
know reality. (Materialism includes the assumption that Scientism is true,
but in addition posits that science reveals a material reality (quantum
mechanics sheds doubt on this assumption). Thus, Materialism holds that
only that which has matter and energy is real.)
I see much of ZAMM as an attack on Scientism and Materialism as I understand
the terms, but not on science. One of my favorite parts of ZAMM is the
"ghost story" where he takes the perspective of the Scientism-ist and
concludes that the laws of science themselves do not exist.
Some seem to think that he indulges in definition 2 above in Lila. I don't
know. I have to reread Lila, but I don't think so.
Steve
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Jan 07 2003 - 23:51:46 GMT