[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 362 KB, 674x309, 1386971484844.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5498383 No.5498383 [Reply] [Original]

Has there ever been an actual philosophical argument against scientism?

Whenever I see philosophers use that word, they usually don't understand the scientific method at all, not even on the most simplest level. For example they accuse scientists of believing in scientific theories being always objective truth. Nobody ever claimed they are. Every scientist is well aware that scientific theories are only the currently best models and are always open to improvement. Philosophers who complain about "scientism" also often say science critically relies on philosophy. This isn't true either. The scientific method is already perfect and works. Scientists can apply it without needing to question it.

To me it seems "scientism" is merely a straw man used by people who don't understand what they're talking about.

Any books or academic sources on the topic?

>> No.5498404

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmund_Husserl

>> No.5498409
File: 634 KB, 1280x768, tumblr_m57862l9qf1qcu0j0o1_1280.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5498409

Which philosophers have you seen use that word, and in what context?
I cant think of any important philosophers who do.

>> No.5498455

>>5498409
Anonymous on /lit/ often complains about scientism.

>> No.5498473

She fears Ragnarok, she will not feast in Valhalla.

>> No.5498528

You seem to assume scientism is a thing, maybe I'm wrong but the closer I can see to scientism is positivism, which has clear mistakes even as a science.
Is scientism following the scientific method? Because that's more or less like having common sense and not being a jackass. That's hardly an ism since it fails to tocuh many aspects of life.

>> No.5498538
File: 5 KB, 200x200, His+face+when+there+laughing+_10a6565312167ed28b93ce42b1306e33.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5498538

>>5498383
>Every scientist is well aware that scientific theories are only the currently best models and are always open to improvement.

>> No.5498543

Why would anyone engage in a philosophical argument?
Science works, let's just stick to that.

>> No.5498559

>>5498383
>2014
>not believing in odin

Idontseeanyfrostgiants.jpg

>> No.5499002

>>5498383

What philosophers are you referring to? From what I understand "Scientism" sort of refers to a hodgepodge of related notions that are all bound together by an estimation of science over (and sometimes at the exclusion of) everything else. So "scientism" might refer to the belief that only science (natural science, not social science) provides true propositions about the world. Or it might refer to the belief that science is inherently more valuable/important than anything else and that we should concern ourselves exclusively with furthering it and forget about the arts.

The first one is plain wrong and the second is abject philistinism.

>> No.5499030

>>5498383
There are no truly objective facts, therefore abstract thought is still required in order to interpret anything. Some consider science to be merely a specialized branch of philosophy.

>> No.5499045

It's the exact same way when philosophers talk about finance. They have no idea about what they're talking about and then cry,"MUH Empiricism!" If anyone tries to ask them about experience

>> No.5499074

The entirety of (late) Wittgenstein is an argument against scientism

>> No.5499084
File: 509 KB, 500x500, cover.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5499084

>not believing in Odin
Moondog would disapprove.

>> No.5499092

>>5498538
That stupidity right there is what we calls Scientism. Sometimes it's really hard to explain dry land to those that have never swam in the ocean.

>> No.5500062

>>5499084
He didn't believe in Odin either. He just didn't want to be mistaken for Jesus anymore.

You report that image? Shameful.

>> No.5501512

>>5498383
what was OP's picture and why did it get deleted?

>> No.5501544

To get a great grasp of the entirety of philosophy, what philosophers, in what order, should I read? I'm guessing Plato, Kiekegaard, Wittgenstein, Frege, Hume. What do you recommend and in what order?

>> No.5501549

>>5501544
I'm guessing those names but not in that order. I just named some philosophers I think are relevant.

>> No.5501650

>>5501544
why aren't there any Indian philosophers in that list?
Why no Arab theologians?

If you're just interested in Western philosophy, you don't actually need to read any philosopher directly. The ideas are already in wide circulation and most of it will probably sound like old news.


tl;dr: you're a fag

>> No.5501672

There's probably some ironically verbose argument for anti-intellectualism.