But there's this recurring notion of 'scientism'. Quoting the article:
“Scientism” has a nonpejorative core meaning, but also pejorative connotations. According to the core definition, scientism is the belief that the sciences are the only disciplines that supply us with knowledge. Scott says that “humans are theoretically incompetent, and that science is the one institutional prosthetic that clearly affords them some competence.” This seems scientistic in the core sense, although he also says that true claims can “drift about” in nonscientific philosophy. So if “scientism” is tweaked to mean that science is the only reliable source of knowledge, Scott’s view is scientistic, for whatever that nonpejorative characterization is worth.Sound neat and tidy?
The reason the word is usually read as pejorative, though, is that philosophers have reached some consensus that scientism refutes itself. After all, scientism is a philosophical rather than a scientific proposition. Just ask yourself, then, whether the claim that science is the only reliable source of knowledge is itself reliable. If not, we needn’t trust that all knowledge comes from the sciences, and if so, we have the paradox of knowledge that comes reliably from a nonscientific discipline (philosophy). Either way, scientism is unstable.
I'd swear this is a functional limitation of the human mind in general. The fact that as soon as we take any skin out of the argument, we get to here - philosophy central, where suddenly things are utterly self cancelling.
But the fact is, take a basic science experiment, like some sort of test of whether there is a capillary motion that occurs when fabric is dipped in fluid. Now lets put in the skin - if it does occur but you don't agree it will, you get smacked over the back of your hand with a ruler (or lose $50, if you prefer).
Are you going to say it wont occur? Are you going to say 'Well, that's scientism. And scientism is a philosophical rather than a scientific proposition. And that's just the paradox of knowledge that comes reliably from a nonscientific discipline!'
But see, really that is the theoretical incompetence itself! Once we retract skin, we can talk like that all day long - because were theoretically incompetent in that way! Once were away from the outside world, once were away from having skin in the game, our wheels spin in the air, perpetuallyy. Neither making contact with anything, nor being contacted by anything.
No matter how many nukes or literal scientific raising from the dead (people who are legally dead are revived), it this very theoretical incompetence that lets us, sans anything to lose, go right back to complete indifference or refusal.
Or, from the alternate side of the fence position, I guess its all actually very self conflicting as science isn't proven, etc - all said from the non risk of an arm chair.
It may even indicate a dread dichotomy in the brain - perhaps even supporting the notion of there simply being a rationalisation module in the brain, itself fairly distinct from the rest of the brain. Because basically where there is nothing to lose, the arguments against 'scientism' just flow. But when there IS something to lose, suddenly that dries up! It suggests that the part that is talking is not in charge and that the rest of the brain, when it detects it could lose something, literally cuts the crap! The practical brain and the rationalising brain. The former lets the latter off the leash when the latter might vaguely benefit. But when you stand to lose something by letting the latter off the leash - zip!
I speak from the notion that this might aid in navigating the world. A practical concern. Skin involved.
Or we can recede to the skinless world.