This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Scientism article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 35 days |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Hi,
Greetings, Requesting you to have a look at
Requesting article expansion help, if above topics interest you.
Thanks and regards Bookku ( talk) 08:54, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
Hello,
Since some editors are contesting existence of articles associating religions and religious communities to superstitions, One of the article which concerns this project/topic has been nominated for deletion. You can support or contest the deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Superstition in Judaism by putting forward your opinion.
Thanks and regards Bookku ( talk) 08:39, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
Isn't "We are academia, we are right, all others are crackpots." called scientism, too? TBH, this is more near to fascism. -- VictorPorton ( talk) 04:15, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
Currently the opening sentence makes scientism sound virtually the same as science. It does not explain why people use the term to criticize limits of science. As is, the sentence also assumes that "objective" means are the only means to every form of "truth." Only the second sentence attempts to explain the difference between scientism and science. The second sentence, however, emphasizes "religious scholars." By doing so it makes it sound like the criticism of scientism generally comes only from those of faith.
The two sentences read as follows: <<Scientism is the view that science is the best or only objective means by which society should determine normative and epistemological values. While the term was originally defined to mean "methods and attitudes typical of or attributed to the natural scientist", some religious scholars (and subsequently many others) adopted it as a pejorative with the meaning "an exaggerated trust in the efficacy of the methods of natural science applied to all areas of investigation (as in philosophy, the social sciences, and the humanities)".[1]>>
As the very first thing a reader sees, the first sentence should at least allude to the difference between science and scientism. It should also rely on an authoritative source.
The second sentence, then, should make the best case for criticizing the kinds of science that show a belief in scientism.
Here is a draft revision of both:
Scientism is "The belief that only knowledge obtained from scientific research is valid, and that notions or beliefs deriving from other sources, such as religion, should be discounted." While it originally meant merely "A mode of thought which considers things from a scientific viewpoint," the term "scientism" came to refer more specifically to "an exaggerated trust in the efficacy of the methods of natural science applied to all areas of investigation (as in philosophy, the social sciences, and the humanities)." [this requires the Webster's citation already posted]
[1 new citation] Oxford English Dictionary. (n.d.). "scientism, n.". https://www.oed.com/view/Entry/172696?redirectedFrom=scientism
Because I am not skilled at the insert reference footnote functions, I have made an even simpler revision. It maintains the Webster's reference, shortens both the first and second sentences to make them more accurate and inclusive of the criticism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rtorosyan ( talk • contribs) 16:18, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
The distinction between science and scientism is also a kind of demarcation problem. Over the coming months and years we should try to elaborate on this in this article (I'm now motivated to go over cited reliable sources for such info). For now I'm just going to add a link to the Demarcation problem Wiki article into this article's 'See also' section. Tfdavisatsnetnet ( talk)
scientismis a polemic term applied by the WP:FRINGE.
Scientism is a term I only ever hear from homeopathists and creationists. It's an understandable reaction to the fact that the scientific debate is over and they lost.
— User:JzG
Recently an IP editor wished to remove the words "best or" from the lead sentence: "Scientism is the view that science and the scientific method are the best or only objective means by which people should determine normative and epistemological values." This removal of "best or" is not acceptable because it is a fact that there are different views labeled by the term scientism: roughly, one view is that science is the "best" source of objective knowledge, and another view is that it is the "only" source. For example, the cited article in Metaphilosophy by Hietanen et al. (2020) divides epistemological scientism "into four categories in terms of how strong (science is the only source of knowledge) or weak (science is the best source of knowledge) and how narrow (only natural sciences) or broad (all sciences or at least not only the natural sciences) they are". Hietanen et al. cite many sources that make this distinction. As philosopher Maarten Boudry summarized it for the American Philosophical Association in 2020: "either you adopt a narrow or a broad definition of science, and either you believe that science is the only valid source of knowledge or that it is simply the best one available". An up-to-date definition of scientism today has to account for these subtleties in the mainstream philosophical literature. Biogeographist ( talk) 21:35, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
Hi, I have added a "Strong and weak scientism" subsection to "Definitions", mostly because I heard the distinction made by JP Moreland and thought it might be worth noting. I have not yet read any of the sources with "broad" and "narrow", but I should. Thiagovscoelho ( talk) 19:31, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Scientism article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 35 days |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Hi,
Greetings, Requesting you to have a look at
Requesting article expansion help, if above topics interest you.
Thanks and regards Bookku ( talk) 08:54, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
Hello,
Since some editors are contesting existence of articles associating religions and religious communities to superstitions, One of the article which concerns this project/topic has been nominated for deletion. You can support or contest the deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Superstition in Judaism by putting forward your opinion.
Thanks and regards Bookku ( talk) 08:39, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
Isn't "We are academia, we are right, all others are crackpots." called scientism, too? TBH, this is more near to fascism. -- VictorPorton ( talk) 04:15, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
Currently the opening sentence makes scientism sound virtually the same as science. It does not explain why people use the term to criticize limits of science. As is, the sentence also assumes that "objective" means are the only means to every form of "truth." Only the second sentence attempts to explain the difference between scientism and science. The second sentence, however, emphasizes "religious scholars." By doing so it makes it sound like the criticism of scientism generally comes only from those of faith.
The two sentences read as follows: <<Scientism is the view that science is the best or only objective means by which society should determine normative and epistemological values. While the term was originally defined to mean "methods and attitudes typical of or attributed to the natural scientist", some religious scholars (and subsequently many others) adopted it as a pejorative with the meaning "an exaggerated trust in the efficacy of the methods of natural science applied to all areas of investigation (as in philosophy, the social sciences, and the humanities)".[1]>>
As the very first thing a reader sees, the first sentence should at least allude to the difference between science and scientism. It should also rely on an authoritative source.
The second sentence, then, should make the best case for criticizing the kinds of science that show a belief in scientism.
Here is a draft revision of both:
Scientism is "The belief that only knowledge obtained from scientific research is valid, and that notions or beliefs deriving from other sources, such as religion, should be discounted." While it originally meant merely "A mode of thought which considers things from a scientific viewpoint," the term "scientism" came to refer more specifically to "an exaggerated trust in the efficacy of the methods of natural science applied to all areas of investigation (as in philosophy, the social sciences, and the humanities)." [this requires the Webster's citation already posted]
[1 new citation] Oxford English Dictionary. (n.d.). "scientism, n.". https://www.oed.com/view/Entry/172696?redirectedFrom=scientism
Because I am not skilled at the insert reference footnote functions, I have made an even simpler revision. It maintains the Webster's reference, shortens both the first and second sentences to make them more accurate and inclusive of the criticism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rtorosyan ( talk • contribs) 16:18, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
The distinction between science and scientism is also a kind of demarcation problem. Over the coming months and years we should try to elaborate on this in this article (I'm now motivated to go over cited reliable sources for such info). For now I'm just going to add a link to the Demarcation problem Wiki article into this article's 'See also' section. Tfdavisatsnetnet ( talk)
scientismis a polemic term applied by the WP:FRINGE.
Scientism is a term I only ever hear from homeopathists and creationists. It's an understandable reaction to the fact that the scientific debate is over and they lost.
— User:JzG
Recently an IP editor wished to remove the words "best or" from the lead sentence: "Scientism is the view that science and the scientific method are the best or only objective means by which people should determine normative and epistemological values." This removal of "best or" is not acceptable because it is a fact that there are different views labeled by the term scientism: roughly, one view is that science is the "best" source of objective knowledge, and another view is that it is the "only" source. For example, the cited article in Metaphilosophy by Hietanen et al. (2020) divides epistemological scientism "into four categories in terms of how strong (science is the only source of knowledge) or weak (science is the best source of knowledge) and how narrow (only natural sciences) or broad (all sciences or at least not only the natural sciences) they are". Hietanen et al. cite many sources that make this distinction. As philosopher Maarten Boudry summarized it for the American Philosophical Association in 2020: "either you adopt a narrow or a broad definition of science, and either you believe that science is the only valid source of knowledge or that it is simply the best one available". An up-to-date definition of scientism today has to account for these subtleties in the mainstream philosophical literature. Biogeographist ( talk) 21:35, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
Hi, I have added a "Strong and weak scientism" subsection to "Definitions", mostly because I heard the distinction made by JP Moreland and thought it might be worth noting. I have not yet read any of the sources with "broad" and "narrow", but I should. Thiagovscoelho ( talk) 19:31, 27 March 2024 (UTC)