Disprove scientism. Provide methods of learning that are as valuable

>>2710917
[Sociology is ] ... the science whose object is to interpret the meaning of social action and thereby give a causal explanation of the way in which the action proceeds and the effects which it produces. By 'action' in this definition is meant the human behaviour when and to the extent the agent or agents see it as subjectively meaningful ... the meaning to which we refer may be either (a) the meaning actually intended either by an individual agent on a particular historical occasion or by a number of agents on an approximate average in a given set of cases, or (b) the meaning attributed to the agent or agents, as types, in a pure type constructed in the abstract. In neither case is the 'meaning' thought of as somehow objectively 'correct' or 'true' by some metaphysical criterion. This is the difference between the empirical sciences of action, such as sociology and history, and any kind of a priori discipline, such as jurisprudence, logic, ethics, or aesthetics whose aim is to extract from their subject-matter 'correct' or 'valid' meaning.

—Max Weber, The Nature of Social Action 1922

>>2710917
How are you even defining scientism? How are you making value judgments?

>>2710929
scientism - the scientific method is the most valuable and/or the only valuable way of learning about the world around us

>>2710934
Very well, I would then argue that many useful, pleasurable, or otherwise beneficial things aren't within the scope of the scientific method. How could you use the scientific method to gauge the quality of a painting or a work of literature? In fact, the scientific method is insufficient for coming up with any sort of value system at all, it pretty much solely concerns itself with "how?" and not "why?". For whatever organizational principle you use to come up with a good life as opposed to a bad life, you'll need to reach outside the scientific method to come up with it.

>>2710953
>How could you use the scientific method to gauge the quality of a painting or a work of literature?
By using observation to see how much the painting or literature matches quality standards

File: FIT FOR A KING.png (163KB, 392x324px) Image search: [Google]

163KB, 392x324px

>>2710917
>>2710934
>Philosopher of religion Keith Ward has said scientism is philosophically inconsistent or even self-refuting, as the truth of the statements "no statements are true unless they can be proven scientifically (or logically)" or "no statements are true unless they can be shown empirically to be true" cannot themselves be proven scientifically, logically, or empirically

>>2710962
That's not what scientism states tho

>>2710961
How are the quality standards derived then?

>>2710961
>By using observation to see how much the painting or literature matches quality standards
What the hell is a "quality standard"? You can't form a hypothesis to test for a "quality standard", it's not something that can be empirically determined.

>>2710970
>>2710972
^^^
These.
Gimmie some stats.

File: 1394549571.jpg (70KB, 393x325px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 393x325px

>>2710968
>Scientism is a term used to describe the universal applicability of the scientific method and approach, and the view that empirical science constitutes the most authoritative worldview or the most valuable part of human learning—to the exclusion of other viewpoints.
>Accordingly, philosopher Tom Sorell provides this definition of scientism: "Scientism is a matter of putting too high a value on natural science in comparison with other branches of learning or culture.

The scientific method isn't valuable because it helps people learn, it's valuable because it enables institutions to conduct systematic studies of relevant phenomena and devise technologies and strategies with which to confront them.

>>2710917
Mathematics

>>2710968
ok then define your special snowflake version of scientism because this one is the one people are bitching about

>>2710962
Inductive reasoning is inherently better than deductive reasoning because our brains are inherently wired with survival in mind while the tools we have and the environment aren't, with help of these we can have a more neutral picture of the world that surrounds us than we'd get with our own reasoning.
So the discovery of biases within our brain(f.e. seeking agency behind everything, seeing patterns even if there are none) are what justify this reasoning.

>>2711269
Also I'm going to bed so I won't be able to respind for long to any replies to this post

>>2711269
What does this have to do with anything,though? Science isn't a form of reasoning, it's an institutional practice.

spending cosmic funding to make laws of reality

Leaning about what?

>>2711666
duh, you know, like, particles and wave forms and stuff

>>2710917
>scientific method

I majored in physics. Do you know how many times the scientific method was brought up? Zero, zilch, zip, nil, nada, nought, nothing.

It's a meme that only people who don't actually know nor understand science bring up.

File: 1492907399483.jpg (243KB, 1536x1024px) Image search: [Google]

243KB, 1536x1024px

>>2710929
People who say:
>science bless america

>>2711976
>that fucking upside-down sign

File: 1492922500672.jpg (2MB, 2448x3264px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2448x3264px

>>2710929
People who say:
>in science we trust

File: tumblr_mox0nbDAfT1qmokero1_500.jpg (126KB, 500x636px) Image search: [Google]

126KB, 500x636px

>"Lets study the world using just science and the scientific method."
>"This means no logic, no math, and no linguistic analysis of terms, concepts, and the relations between term and concept or the distinctions between phenomena and our labels for that phenomena."
>"Lets also ignore the fields of history, politics, and ethics."

The problem with "scientism" is that its not scientific.Science requires a logical foundation, a clear understanding of methodology and the supports of that methodology, and a comprehension of epistemology. How you know what you think you know.

The people who are against scientism are not pushing for mysticism or an "artistic" feeling based view of the world, they're people who are criticizing brainlets who have successfully turned science into a meme where "scientists say" is viewed as an acceptable form of argumentation, science is understood as a body of knowledge instead of a methodology for gaining accurate knowledge about the world, and who try to limit the terms of intellectual pursuits by trying to proclaim empiricism as the sole method of determining truth while ignoring the a priori axioms that make empiricism valid in the first place.

Its the reduction of science into a lazy pragmatism at best or a meme religion at worst.

File: 1492906973272.jpg (117KB, 1180x842px) Image search: [Google]

117KB, 1180x842px

>>2710917

Why do you hate science? Do you want to have plague?

>>2711397
? Science is a method as reasoning is a method to gain understanding about the world.

>>2712026
why can't i hold all these buzzwords

>>2713080
Science is not the same as individual reason. Science involves peer review, individual reason doesn't. By definition, your reasoning is your own. However, science only has value in an institutional context.

>>2712163
Well, she ain't wrong now is she?

>>2712026
So what do you want, culinary critics and philosophy professors reviewing the latest discovery in molecular biology?

>>2714027
so it is indeed a method but now it only has value as an institutionalised something aka you've now admitted that it indeed is not an institution in essence but that you believe that institutionalization is just an aspect of it, therefore making your quip to my initial post simple pedantry
Congratulations you just played yourself

>>2714051
You are hella good at sucking your own dick. Your mom's boyfriend must love it

>>2714056
Nice name calling

>>2714058
Triggered the /phil/fag I see

>>2714051
wat

>>2714058
You just don't get it. He's abiding by his own original value system in which truth is measured by the number of qualifiers that one can attach to a given subject. You're discriminating against his unique methodology, known as "Assholism."

>>2710917
Science needs other forms of knowledge to give goals.

>>2714036

When did science eradicate the plague?

>>2715052
ITT: complete and utter morons that don't understand shit.

>>2715487
Science lacks the ability to give things value and meaning outside of it's own context. Scietism can never tell you what you should study and what your goals should be.

File: All this today for the 10 easy indulgences.png (76KB, 300x250px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 300x250px

>>2710917
>Disprove scientism.
There is no way of justifying it rationally without going into metaphysics.

>Provide methods of learning that are as valuable as the scientific method.

None, even the scientific method, can stand on its own. Philosophy and science work together. Induction and deduction work together. Metaphysics and physics work together.

Parsing them is just a fucking stupid view by people who have no idea what they are talking about. They are usually agenda-driven.

>>2714041
>>2713131
No I want more people like this guy
>>2715511
People who talk about science should understand epistemology, logic, and metaphysics, before spewing ignorant ass bullshit about what science is or how it works.

>>2714041
That's not what Scientism is tho, being anti Scientism isn't being anti science

>>2715510
Quite possibly the stupidest thing I ever read.

>>2715510
The fuck are you on about?

>>2711976
Fucking Trump

Next he'll start attacking puppies and hugs as well

>>2715202
These days there isn't 1/3 of the population of Europe dying of the Bubonic Plague, though.

>>2716838
Why?

>>2716944
Because I don't go to /pol/. Would still make it in the top 10 if I did.

>>2716951
You seem pretty confident about your claims, how woul you use science to give value to something?

>>2716959
I'd shove a giant termometer up your ass and sell you as a Christmas decoration at retail price. So you see, that way science and comically large devices would give you value.

>>2716970
:^)

>>2716905
And science is responsible how?

>>2717336
/his/ everyone

>>2712026
You are correct.

>>2710917
>Disprove scientism.

Invisible trickster creatures that have their own intelligence can circumvent scientism.