Talk:Scientism
From Academic Kids
RK, could you add a comment that some viewpoints of scienitism are false or self-contradictory. That is, if you take that any non-scientific idea as valid, then you automatically deny that science can be applied to all methods of inquiry. In this entire page of analyzing scientism, I do not see the mention of there being any scientific tests of the various ideas, or even any mention of them. If so, then this is clearly not a scientific idea without testability. The whole point is that theses applying meaning to only scientific statements can easily be self-contradictory.
Sorry RK, but the article is much more POV now, not that it was NPOV before. Can you try to moderate it a bit? BTW, the definition you attribute to a wikipedia contributor, is one that matches the definitions in most well regarded dictionaries. (and, no I didn't add it there myself :) -- Cimon Avaro on a pogo stick 01:42 15 Jun 2003 (UTC) And the word itself in that meaning is well over a hundred years old usage. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogo stick 01:46 15 Jun 2003 (UTC)
- I have started to rewrite this entry based on your observation. Thanks. RK 02:00 15 Jun 2003 (UTC)
Well you did take out the most egregious and blunt rhetoric, but the POV is actually even stronger than before. I mean, if you try to read it from outside, does it not fairly jump into your face that the terms "most scientists" and "many scientists" are the view of the writer. I am not saying that the opinions should not be the predominating ones, but a little more subtleness would not go amiss. With all respect... -- Cimon Avaro on a pogo stick 17:24 15 Jun 2003 (UTC)
- Wikipedia NPOV requires that we distinguish between mainstream beliefs and fringe beliefs. In this article, on this subject it is true that I am in agreement with the view of most scientists. (For other subjects I may not be in agreement with most. That's not really relevant, however.) What concerns me is the way that the term "scientism" is often used as strawman attack. The term "scientism" is used by many writers to describe the beliefs of scientists...except that the vast majority of scientists never had such beliefs (as described by their critics) to begin with. However, please note that I am not opposed to changing the article; any specific suggestions you have are fine, and you are more than welcome to make alterations/additions yourself. RK 23:29 15 Jun 2003 (UTC)
| Contents |
The CORRECT definition!
The one way, or the highway, definition of 'scientism' is in the dictionary! There is actually one real dictionary that uses the correct definition. I use this dictionary definition on my web site because it particularly applies to the anti-science phenomena of medical scientism. The actual definition is as follows.
- scientism (http://www.webref.org/anthropology/s/scientism.htm): "the belief that there is one and only one method of science and that it alone confers legitimacy upon the conduct of research."
I shall repeat. My definition of scientism is actually in the dictionary. While I am sure that it is valid in other areas of science, it is particularly valid in the area of medicine. Hence, my usage of the perfectly valid phrase: medical scientism.
I know where you got the text of scientism from, but it completely misses the mark, in my opinion. -- Mr-Natural-Health
In a second dictionary definition:
- "1. The collection of attitudes and practices considered typical of scientists." (http://www.bartleby.com/61/75/S0147500.html)
This definition supports the above precise definition of scientism. -- Mr-Natural-Health 03:06, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Although science is not an enemy of chiropractic, scientism most certainly is. Scientism limits all fields of human inquiry to contemporary technology. Smith states that scientism "...refers to an uncritical idolization of science -- the belief that only science can solve human problems, that only science has value." Holton observed that "Scientism divides all thought into two categories: scientific thought and nonsense." (4,5) (http://www.worldchiropracticalliance.org/tcj/1995/mar/mar1995kent.htm)
- 4. Smith RF: "Prelude to Science." Charles Scribner's Sons. New York, NY, 1975. P. 12.
- 5. Holton G: "The false images of science." In Young LB (ed): "The Mystery of Matter." Oxford University Press. London, UK, 1965.
- Ergo, there is only the 'one way of science,' or the highway! -- Mr-Natural-Health 03:21, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- "Steam-rolling intellectual debate ... the hegemony of scientific thinking" is another way of saying: 'the one way' of scientism or the highway! -- Mr-Natural-Health 03:28, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)
"economics scientism monopolised by a single approach to the explanation and analysis of economic phenomena." (http://www.ftlcomm.com/ensign/desantisArticles/2001_400/desantis413/debunkingEc.html)
- Here we see 'the one way' of scientism, or the highway, in the field of economics. -- Mr-Natural-Health
the POV is actually even stronger than before
If User talk:Cimon from the mediation committee says that the POV in Scientism is actually even stronger than before, then I that as a pretty good indication that the POV in this article is abundant. Help me remove it. -- Mr-Natural-Health 04:18, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Critique Section was moved.
Further discussion of Critique Section has been moved. Criticisms of Anti-Scientific Viewpoints was moved from Scientism per the example set in Allopathy that was used to delete [criticisms of modern medicine]. Criticisms of Anti-Scientific Viewpoints has been listed on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion). Please see that page for justifications and discussion. -- Mr-Natural-Health 18:56, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)
the neutrality of this article?
Is the neutrality of this article still in dispute? If so, please state why? How may this article be improved? -- Mr-Natural-Health 20:45, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)
