Science makes objective observations of quantifiable effects. That can include human or monkey (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0018506X08000949 …) behavior/attitudes. Those who think these are, or lead to, or are a base for, moral judgements are the ones committing scientism.
Highly loaded question which itself is philosophical position.
-
-
It's not a science question indeed. 1. But can we? Eg. say something about homeopath? Say something about Gilgamesh and if it is fantasy or history? 2. If a person applies science that way (for themselves and whoever is interested), is that scientism?
-
I'm not sure I understand your two questions. Yes, you may apply any of the scientific methods to homeopathy. Feyerandian scientific method probably would surprise you here. This is a good overview of the philosophical skeptics/philosophers of science: https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/was-philosopher-paul-feyerabend-really-science-s-worst-enemy/ …
-
As in: even those who spend their whole life studying and proposing a scientific method often come to realise it's more chaotic in practice. I don't really agree with Feyerabend on his version of the scientific method though, but I don't think that matters.
-
Almost every field, if not even subfield uses different scientific method and it can change dramatically through time. One thing even a lot of scientists don't realise is that there's no one true way to do science.
-
Proponents of using science to answer moral questions often fall into the trap of thinking that there's a true single method all scientists agree to follow. They also pretend theory isn't an integral part of the process.
-
Theory is actually really important but many scientists sadly neglect it. There are whole field that collect data but don't really test theories. It's not as simple a picture from the outside, and from the inside often you can't see the wood for the trees.
-
As humans, we look for explanations that helps us recognize what is going on and help us predict what might be next. Science is the continuous quest for good models and the benchmark is the accuracy of the predictions, secondary, how well it fits with other models. 1/2
-
And roughly there are two kinds of models: 1. external behavioral/statistical models; 2. internal causal models (with perhaps statistical submodels). Science (and people) really prefer 2, but they are the hardest to obtain. Crossing that "why-line" too soon is dangerous. 2/2
- 12 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.