Pages

Wednesday, March 20, 2019

Scientism: science is the only valid form of knowledge





Photobucket
Ian Hacking




Scientism is the understanding that science is the only valid form of knowledge . It's an ideology and permeates  real scientific circles. When thinkers whose understanding is colored by this ideology their defense of science against valid ordinary critique is ideological and programmed, We can always spot this kind of thinking immediately because they invulnerably see any valid criticism as an attack upon the very notion of science, This tendency to think of science as some fragile sacred truth that dare not be questioned is emblematic of ideological reverence, This attitude An example is fond in the essay by Marcel Kuntz is at the Laboratoire de Physiologie Cellulaire Végétale, CNRS/Université Joseph Fourier/CEA/INRA in Grenoble, The essay entitled "The Postmodern assault on  Science"[1]

Kuntz tells us "Postmodernist thought is being used to attack the scientific worldview and undermine scientific truths; a disturbing trend that has gone unnoticed by a majority of scientists.[2] 
Postmodernism undermines all truth. Kuntz wants to privilege his view as THE TRUTH! You Know I believe in truth but I don't believe science is the one and only truth,

The scientific method has been the guiding principle for investigating natural phenomena, but postmodernist thought is starting to threaten the foundations of the scientific approach. The rational, scientific view of the world has been painstakingly built over millennia to guarantee that research can have access to objective reality: the world, for science, contains real objects and is governed by physical laws that existed before our knowledge of these objects and laws. Science attempts to describe the world independently of belief by seeking universal truths, on the basis of observation, measurement and experimentation. [3]
I agree with several aspects of this view point, I think science is the chief means of understanding the naturalistic workings of the wold and that it does supply a less subjective means of understanding the regularities of the law-like framework of the universe's behavior. Yet when we frame it as "objective," even though it can be called that in a relative way, we set up the validity of the Postmodern critique, it is this very swaggering claim to the one and only truth that postmodernists are reacting against. The claim that science gives us access to "objective reality" is a metaphysical claim, that is guaranteed to open up not objectivity but philosophical critique, The statement about universal truth is a dead give away. Go's love is a universal truth, There might be a realm of the forms where Universal truths are housed, for all we know.This clam impinges upon all metaphysical claims and thus is itself a metaphysical assumption,That makes it fair game for philosophy,
The postmodernist school of thought arose to question these assumptions, postulating that claims about the existence of a real world—the knowledge of which is attainable as an objective truth—have only been relevant in Western civilization since the Enlightenment. In recent decades, the movement has begun to question the validity of claims of scientific truth, whether on the basis of their belonging to larger cultural frames or through heavy criticism of the scientific method. [4]
Postmodernism did not arise solely to question the assumptions of science and objective evidence, That's an unfair generalization. That's the hallmark of his  whole attack because it fails to distinguish between levels of postmodern thought, it lumps all philosophical critique of science into the same pile as the most extreme Postmdoerns,

When he gets specific the first one he goes after is Thomas Kuhn. Kuhn is probably the most famous and the most legitimately accepted and admired thinker to be labeled "Postmodern." If we must label him ofrm y money i wouldlabel him Postmodern light,


Thomas Samuel Kuhn (1922–1996) is one of the most influential philosophers of science of the twentieth century, perhaps the most influential. His 1962 book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions is one of the most cited academic books of all time. Kuhn's contribution to the philosophy of science marked not only a break with several key positivist doctrines, but also inaugurated a new style of philosophy of science that brought it closer to the history of science. His account of the development of science held that science enjoys periods of stable growth punctuated by revisionary revolutions. To this thesis, Kuhn added the controversial ‘incommensurability thesis’, that theories from differing periods suffer from certain deep kinds of failure of comparability.[5]
"The concept of paradigm shift proposed by Thomas Kuhn in his famous book, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962;),[6] has also given weight to the critics of science and of its pretension to understand reality. If science is not a gradual process of accumulation of knowledge, but rather subject to sudden “revolutions” that overwhelm outdated theories, they argue, how can one trust scientific knowledge?" (from Kuntz, Op cit)

Who are they? Who are these faceless critics of  science who are out to steal reality? He imagines this rival group of  knowledge preachers with their own meta narrative to sell,.That Is ideology pure and simple, It;s saying My meta narrative is true  not yours,

I don't believe he has read Kuhn, Here are a couple of red flags,First, Kuhn does not say there's a sudden change, Revolutions don't have to be sudden. The metaphor there is political not temporal. In fact Kuhn;s theory states that the shift happens when the paradigm can n longer absorb anomalies that can can a long time for the anomalies to pileup. He says that for an individual researcher it can come as a sudden realization but i;ts not coming overnight in terms of what;s gonging in the field as a whole. When Kuhn says it's not a gradual accumulation of knowledge he doesn't mean these questions haven't been floating around for a long time but that scientific knowledge is not cumulative. it's not a long slow piling up of facts util we find truth. Scientific knowledge can come in an instant he's talking about regular scientific knowledge. Another red flag his rhetorical question  how can one trust scientific knowledge? That is his take on Kuhn,Kuhn himself does not say that, Kunb never goes after science, He is not a science baser. He's ;not trying to foster doubt about science. 
 "If, as according to Kuhn, scientific revolutions are also political upheavals in scientific policy, it is easy to understand why Kuhn's theory has attracted so much attention in a period that calls into question the established political order in the Western world.[7] So here wants to make postmodernism some kind of communist-like threat to peace and civilized order, That strikes me as red Baiting, Is that a bad thing? Questioning the political order?

I find that extremely simplistic, lacking in any specificity that makes it applicable to Kuhn, Kuhn is very specific abouit how defense of a paradigm is like a topological battle. That is why he calls it the scientific revolutions because defense of the old paradigm is like a political regime defemdimg against a revolution,

Then he starts talking about the strong programme as tough Kuhn is in that movement, He was not, The strong programme is the extreme end of postmodernism that does seek to overturn all truth and all science and fits the stereotype, It was largely based in  Edinburgh- with thinkers like David Bloor [8]
Then he slides into talkinga about the ‘strong programme'  in such as way as toconvey the impression that it; related to Kuhn, He also milables and thus castigates other thinkers such as Ian Hacking,

Several deconstructionist thinkers, such as Bruno Latour and Ian Hacking, have rejected the idea that the concepts of science can be derived from a direct interaction with natural phenomena independently of the social environment in which we think about them. The central goal of science, defining what is true and what is false, becomes meaningless they argue, as its objectivity is reduced to ‘claims' that are simply the expression of one culture—one community—among many. Thus, all systems of thought are different “constructs” of reality and all additionally have political connotations and agendas.[9]
He starts out here Identified Hacking as a deconstructionist. Hacking is certainly not a decon. Hacking says He;s a Cambridge analytic philosopher [10]He has been lauded for his scholarship. I am a big fan of His, He is clearly a major historian of sicced,[11] If he can be labeled in the postmodren vain it would be as a Faulcaultian  not a Derridan, That's very different, [12] Faucult had no ax to grind against science.

The generalizations in implacable and them  vs us mentality against what should be considered a valid academic quest for knowledge is indicative of the ideological basis of geneticist thinking, That gives credence to the postmodern critic of the meta narrative,




Sources


all sources acceded 5/2/17  


Kuntz is at the Laboratoire de Physiologie Cellulaire Végétale, CNRS/Université Joseph Fourier/CEA/INRA in Grenoble, 

[2] Ibid.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Ibid.

[5]  Alexander Bird,, "Thomas Kuhn", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2013 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), First published Fri Aug 13, 2004; substantive revision Thu Aug 11, 2011

[6] Thomas Kuhn, 

[7] Kuntz op coit

[8] David Bloor, "The strengths of the strong programme." Scientific rationality: The sociological turn (Springer Netherlands, 1984) pp. 75-94.

[9]Kuntz,  Op cit

[10] Ian Hacking quoted in "Who Are you? The Biosocial Being Ian Hacking  Ioan Davies memorioal lecture, (4/14/17) held at university of Troomnto, URL:

[11]Karen Grandy, "Ian Hacking"The Canadian Encyclopedia. Retrieved 2016-06-10.
  
[12]Thomas P. Kasulis, Robert C. Neville, John Edwin Smith The Recovery of Philosophy in America: Essays in Honor of John Edwin Smith
on line copy google books:


he is Foucultioan


15 comments:

  1. You've seemed to pick out a guy who has extreme views of postmodernism, Kuhn, etc. Though I haven't consulted any polls, I would guess most practicing scientists would not fall under any commonly accepted definition of "scientism." You'd probably find a higher percentage of them among analytic philosophers!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Kuntz is arguing against people like creationists, anti-vaxers and climate change deniers; people who ignore reality in favour of what they WANT to be true. He discusses at length people protesting against GMOs, but the claims by creationists that creationism should be taught along side evolution (or strengths and weaknesses as they now aspire to) is just the same.

    Creationism is not science and is refuted by science. Evolution is not merely a social construct, it is an extremely well support theory. The idea that they should be treated equally in schools is nonsense.

    Note that Kuntz does not say science is the only valid form of knowledge; he specifically restricts it to "natural phenomena". This is not scientism.

    Also, Kuntz does not claim science is objective, he says there is an "objective reality", i.e., there is only one truth, rather than truth is just a social construct. This is not scientism.

    What Kuntz is saying is that a theory like evolution that is well supported by science should be treated as true, whilst creationism should not. That is not scientism, that is science.

    ReplyDelete
  3. 7th Stooge said...
    You've seemed to pick out a guy who has extreme views of postmodernism, Kuhn, etc. Though I haven't consulted any polls, I would guess most practicing scientists would not fall under any commonly accepted definition of "scientism." You'd probably find a higher percentage of them among analytic philosophers!

    I think hes pretty representative of the atheist science guy

    ReplyDelete
  4. The Pixie said...
    Kuntz is arguing against people like creationists, anti-vaxers and climate change deniers; people who ignore reality in favour of what they WANT to be true. He discusses at length people protesting against GMOs, but the claims by creationists that creationism should be taught along side evolution (or strengths and weaknesses as they now aspire to) is just the same.

    those guys aren't postmodern, creationists are fundamentals they tend to be right wing conservative not PM kind of thinking,

    Creationism is not science and is refuted by science. Evolution is not merely a social construct, it is an extremely well support theory. The idea that they should be treated equally in schools is nonsense.

    granted but those guys tend to also hate post modernism

    Note that Kuntz does not say science is the only valid form of knowledge; he specifically restricts it to "natural phenomena". This is not scientism.


    you are just conjecturing

    Also, Kuntz does not claim science is objective, he says there is an "objective reality", i.e., there is only one truth, rather than truth is just a social construct. This is not scientism.

    objective reality and being objuective same thing

    What Kuntz is saying is that a theory like evolution that is well supported by science should be treated as true, whilst creationism should not. That is not scientism, that is science.

    you are reaching, you are fishig for problems with my thing

    ReplyDelete
  5. postmoern = liberal not creationists, Creation = conservative, He is not attacking creationists

    ReplyDelete
  6. Kuntz is not attacking creationism. He says nothing about creationism he talks about Neitzsche---not a favorite of creationists-- and Kuhn and other pm's

    "As Shawn Lawrence Otto discussed in his book, Fool Me Twice: Fighting the Assault on Science in America (2011; [6]), in conjunction with the emergence of multiculturalism and the civil rights movement, ‘relativism'—and its direct attacks on the validity and the authority of science, and not only that of scientists—gained a strong moral influence, first in post-Second World War America and then in Europe. If there is no universal truth, as postmodern philosophy claims, then each social or political group should have the right to the reality that best suits them. What, then, are the consequences of applying postmodernist thinking when it comes to science? Risk assessment provides illuminating examples of how it corrupts the role of science in the public sphere, especially if one considers the dispute over genetically modified organisms (GMOs)."

    follow the link in the bib

    ReplyDelete
  7. Joe: those guys aren't postmodern, creationists are fundamentals they tend to be right wing conservative not PM kind of thinking,

    They certainly would not describe themselves as post-modern! However, it is all part of the same problem - thinking that you can say reality is what you want it to be, evidence/science be damned.

    The whole "fake news" thing is a further symptom.

    Joe: you are just conjecturing

    It was right there in the quote in your OP. Did you not read it?

    Joe: objective reality and being objuective same thing

    No. Objective reality means that there is a real truth out there waiting to be discovered.

    Being objective, on the other hand, is trying to find that truth without bias or opinion.

    ReplyDelete
  8. F2Andy said...
    Joe: those guys aren't postmodern, creationists are fundamentals they tend to be right wing conservative not PM kind of thinking,

    F2AThey certainly would not describe themselves as post-modern! However, it is all part of the same problem

    Nietzsche didn't call himself Pmod because they didn't have that term,no one even called himself modern when he was alive. But they claim him as their own. Certainly the idea of attacking creationism by talking about Nietzsche is daft

    - thinking that you can say reality is what you want it to be, evidence/science be damned.

    I don't know what you mean by that but it sounds really silly.If you are saying that one is damned by imposing one's own desires upon reality then all are damned,

    The whole "fake news" thing is a further symptom.

    of what?



    Joe: you are just conjecturing

    It was right there in the quote in your OP. Did you not read it?

    what?

    Joe: objective reality and being objective same thing

    F2No. Objective reality means that there is a real truth out there waiting to be discovered.

    Yes that;s I didn't mean to say the same thing,I meant to say one assumes the other,If you think you are being objective you assume there is an objective truth to mirror, While objective truth exists we cant objective as observers.


    Being objective, on the other hand, is trying to find that truth without bias or opinion.

    a good thing to try but you wont succeed

    10:04 AM

    ReplyDelete
  9. There are two meanings of the word "objective" that maybe are getting confused. One is epistemological, the other is metaphysical.

    The epistemological one is likely aspirational in that it probably can never be fully attained in reality. The metaphysical one has to do with the nature of reality indepedendent of what we can know about it. Are there objective truths about the world or not, even if we can't ever be sure about what they are?

    ReplyDelete
  10. I think the point is whether we can choose what is true.

    Kuntz is objecting to people who want to subvert science because science does not indicate the truth that they want, and post-modernism offers a way to justify rejecting science (or selectively rejecting it).

    The "fake news" thing is an example of people just choosing what they want to be true, with no reference to reality. Creationism, climate denial, anti-vaxers and GMO objectors are all similar. They choose to ignore science because they have an agenda, they have their own worldview that they want to be true. Science says it is not true, so they reject science, rather than change their opinions.

    7th: The epistemological one is likely aspirational in that it probably can never be fully attained in reality. The metaphysical one has to do with the nature of reality indepedendent of what we can know about it. Are there objective truths about the world or not, even if we can't ever be sure about what they are?

    Exactly. The quote by Kuntz talks about "objective reality". He is talking about the metaphysical one.

    ReplyDelete
  11. 7th Stooge said...
    There are two meanings of the word "objective" that maybe are getting confused. One is epistemological, the other is metaphysical.

    The epistemological one is likely aspirational in that it probably can never be fully attained in reality. The metaphysical one has to do with the nature of reality indepedendent of what we can know about it. Are there objective truths about the world or not, even if we can't ever be sure about what they are?


    Jim I agree with your acessmemt

    ReplyDelete
  12. I think the point is whether we can choose what is true.

    if you mean invent our own relativity no.

    Kuntz is objecting to people who want to subvert science because science does not indicate the truth that they want, and post-modernism offers a way to justify rejecting science (or selectively rejecting it).


    that doesn't make the creationists, that pertains to Post modern as well.

    The "fake news" thing is an example of people just choosing what they want to be true, with no reference to reality. Creationism, climate denial, anti-vaxers and GMO objectors are all similar. They choose to ignore science because they have an agenda, they have their own worldview that they want to be true. Science says it is not true, so they reject science, rather than change their opinions.

    that does not mean that's who Kuntz is talking about


    ReplyDelete
  13. Kuntz is concerned about three different kinds of detractors from objective scientific knowldedge. He describes his three categories this way:

    pseudo-science - those who hold traditional unscientific forms of "knowledge", such as astrology

    alt-science - those who nominally work within the scientific community, but hold unsupported, debunked or discredited views, such as global warming deniers

    parallel-science - those who have established their own separate communities and bodies of research outside the scientific community, such as the Intelligent Design science community.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Kuntz is concerned about three different kinds of detractors from objective scientific knowldedge. He describes his three categories this way:

    pseudo-science - those who hold traditional unscientific forms of "knowledge", such as astrology

    alt-science - those who nominally work within the scientific community, but hold unsupported, debunked or discredited views, such as global warming deniers

    parallel-science - those who have established their own separate communities and bodies of research outside the scientific community, such as the Intelligent Design science community.

    Kuntz is a bit into scientism. Px said he was dealing with creations, n metion of it in the sources i quoted..

    ReplyDelete
  15. ok this is not productive so I;m closing it

    ReplyDelete