\u00a9 Colman Hogan, 2022<\/p>\n
Science\/Scientism<\/p>\n
Q: what is science? \u2013 examples: gravity, the Proto-Indo-European (PIE) root theory<\/p>\n
Qs of accuracy and prediction: Mayan calendar (~100 BCE) is extremely\u00a0accurate \u2013 1\/10,000th <\/p>\n
of a day more exact than the standard\u00a0calendar\u00a0the world uses today<\/p>\n
Miasma Theory \u2013 Up until about 1900 Western science thought many contagious diseases were <\/p>\n
caused by \u2018bad air\u2019 \u2013 miasma; after 1900 the competing \u2018germ theory\u2019 won out (although 1919-20 <\/p>\n
Influenza pandemic showed the \u2018miasma theory\u2019 still dominated the popular imagination).<\/p>\n
Newton\u2019s hypothesis of \u2018Action at a distance\u2019
\u201cIt is inconceivable that inanimate Matter should, without the Mediation of something else, which is not material, operate upon, and affect other matter without mutual Contact\u2026That Gravity should be innate, inherent and essential to Matter, so that one body may act upon another at a distance thro’ a Vacuum, without the Mediation of anything else, by and through which their Action and Force may be conveyed from one to another, is to me so great an Absurdity that I believe no Man who has in philosophical Matters a competent Faculty of thinking can ever fall into it.\u201d Isaac Newton, letter to Richard Bentley, 1693<\/p>\n
Euclid<\/p>\n
Euclidean geometry explains the human body\u2019s interface with material reality: roads, wheels, train tracks, houses, etc.<\/p>\n
Newton<\/p>\n
Einstein<\/p>\n
Quantum<\/p>\n
GUT: a hypothetical Grand Unified Theory would explain quantum behaviour within a frame that includes Euclidean geometry, Newtonian gravity and Einsteinian relativity<\/p>\n
Inter-relation of theories<\/p>\n
Euclid<\/p>\n
Newton<\/p>\n
Einstein<\/p>\n
Quantum<\/p>\n
GUT?<\/p>\n
Each of these theories expands the domain of relevance and gets more and more accurate<\/p>\n
Quantum mechanics is the most precise scientific theory ever devised \u2013 it can predict certain properties with an accuracy of 10 decimal places
= 0.0000000001 margin of error<\/p>\n
1\/10 billionth <\/p>\n
Further, the theories do not surpass each other; rather, each subsequent theory incorporates the previous and expands its domain of relevance and accuracy<\/p>\n
Science is<\/p>\n
An unprovable hypothesis \u2013 no direct experience; rather, epiphenomena; there is no measurement of gravity, but the effects of its hypothetical force are seen everywhere<\/p>\n
Explains a vast quantity of known phenomena (much of which was not thought to be linked); Newton\u2019s theories explained the movements of galaxies not discovered until centuries later <\/p>\n
Is predictive \u2013 newly discovered phenomena explained by exactly this hypothesis; Einsteinian extrapolation of Newtonianism in 1915 predicted gravity waves, first measured in 2017<\/p>\n
Historical Linguistics: fulfils the three rules of science<\/p>\n
Sir William Jones (1746-1794) \u2013 discovery of historical linguistics<\/p>\n
John\u00a0shares a common origin with\u00a0Shaun,\u00a0Eoin\u00a0Ian,\u00a0Juan,\u00a0Ivan, and\u00a0Yahya. Surprisingly, the\u00a0 Catalan\u00a0 words\u00a0Joan\u00a0\u2039John\u203a and\u00a0xoni \u2039Vulgar girl\u203a are also related. They are all come from the\u00a0Biblical Hebrew phrase\u00a0God is gracious, over 30 centuries of evolution. Historical linguistics tries to analyze such changes and their links, and even recreate disappeared forms through comparing those that are known.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe\u00a0Sanscrit\u00a0language, whatever be its antiquity, is of a wonderful structure; more perfect than the\u00a0Greek, more copious than the\u00a0Latin, and more exquisitely refined than either, yet bearing to both of them a stronger affinity, both in the roots of verbs and the forms of grammar, than could possibly have been produced by accident; so strong indeed, that no philologer could examine them all three, without believing them to have sprung from some common source, which, perhaps, no longer exists; there is a similar reason, though not quite so forcible, for supposing that both the\u00a0Gothic\u00a0and the\u00a0Celtic, though blended with a very different idiom, had the same origin with the\u00a0Sanscrit; and the old\u00a0Persian\u00a0might be added to the same family.\u201d<\/p>\n
William Jones, Third Anniversary Discourse\u00a0to the\u00a0Asiatic Society\u00a0(1786)<\/p>\n
Historical linguistics, the analysis of the similarities of the root structures in the grammars of multiple living and dead languages, posits the \u2013 unprovable \u2013 hypothesis of an Ur language Proto-Indo-European (PIE). No evidence of PIE has ever been found. Yet the hypothesis of PIE explains the incredible similarity of all the languages in the language tree below, and also accounts for their diversity. Over the 250 years since the first formulation of the PIE theory, more and more evidence has been found that verifies its necessary existence \u2013 how else to explain the similarities (which cannot be random)? And indeed, the theory is predictive: on the basis of the hypothesis certain structures are supposed to exist throughout the history of languages, and in fact research over the centuries has sought for and found textual evidence of those structures and changes. <\/p>\n
Historical linguistics, like the theory of gravity is an unprovable hypothesis; of great explanatory power; and predictive. <\/p>\n
Scientism \u2013 a socio-political meta-theory, about \u2018science\u2019 (it is not science)<\/p>\n
i.e., a theory of knowledge which takes \u2018science\u2019 as its core model of understanding<\/p>\n
Scientism is the view that modern Western natural science has authority over all other interpretations of life, that, in the words of philosopher Hilary Putnam, “science, and only science, describes the world as it is in itself, independent of perspective” (i.e., to the exclusion of history, philosophy, psychology, literature, social science, etc.)<\/p>\n
It has four principal doctrines:<\/p>\n
The only real knowledge is scientific knowledge, based on the scientific method<\/p>\n
The method is appropriate for all domains of knowledge; human sciences (arts, humanities, social sciences) must adopt this method to be considered bona fide knowledge<\/p>\n
Exaggerated confidence in the method \u2013 assumption that the world is amenable to being understood only by the method (a metaphysical presumption: how do you prove this?)<\/p>\n
Unlimited extrapolation \u2013 a series of claims not just about science, but with metaphysical import; the world is really like what the method assumes it to be (without this, the claim for the legitimacy\/power of science is groundless)
* this claim provokes the critics of scientism the most: they charge it with:<\/p>\n
overconfidence \u2013 not youthful exuberance
narrow-minded dismissal of all \u2018non-scientific\u2019 knowledge
hubristic prescribing of method for all knowledge domains <\/p>\n
The Six Signs of Scientism<\/p>\n
from Susan Haack, \u201cSix Signs of Scientism\u201d. Logos and Episteme, III, 1 (2012): 75-95<\/p>\n
1. Using the words \u201cscience,\u201d \u201cscientific,\u201d \u201cscientifically,\u201d \u201cscientist,\u201d etc., honorifically, as generic terms of epistemic praise.<\/p>\n
2. Adopting the manners, the trappings, the technical terminology, etc., of the sciences, irrespective of their real usefulness.<\/p>\n
3. A preoccupation with demarcation, i.e., with drawing a sharp line between genuine science, the real thing, and \u201cpseudo-scientific\u201d imposters.<\/p>\n
4. A corresponding preoccupation with identifying the \u201cscientific method,\u201d presumed to explain how the sciences have been so successful.<\/p>\n
5. Looking to the sciences for answers to questions beyond their scope.<\/p>\n
6. Denying or denigrating the legitimacy or the worth of other kinds of inquiry besides the scientific, or the value of human activities other than inquiry, such as poetry or art.<\/p>\n
4<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
\u00a9 Colman Hogan, 2022 Science\/Scientism Q: what is science? \u2013 examples: gravity, the Proto-Indo-European (PIE) root theory Qs of accuracy and prediction: Mayan calendar (~100 BCE) is extremely\u00a0accurate \u2013 1\/10,000th of a day more exact than the standard\u00a0calendar\u00a0the world uses today Miasma Theory \u2013 Up until about 1900 Western science thought many contagious diseases were […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[10],"class_list":["post-107232","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-research-paper-writing","tag-writing"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/papersspot.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/107232","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/papersspot.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/papersspot.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/papersspot.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/papersspot.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=107232"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/papersspot.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/107232\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/papersspot.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=107232"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/papersspot.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=107232"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/papersspot.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=107232"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}