Scientism and Science Denial

This is my take on the philosophy of science and the recent culture wars surrounding scientism and science denial.

Sources:

Chapters:
00:00 - Introduction
00:29 - Anti-scientism
06:11 - The Nature of Science
13:54 - Philosophy and Scientism
17:32 - The Middle Path

#philosophy #science #scientism #anti-science #videoessay

[stanisawzokiewski]

Critisising the institutions that try to monopolise the term science is completely SEPARATE and opposite from being against science.
Its the most scientific thing you can do.
Science is a process not a title.

(Edit) just like a charity getting corrupt and stopping to help people can longer be called a charity, an institution calling itself scientific but being against questioning, examination and trying to silence others in the field who disagree can no longer be called scientific.

[thussaidsomenone]

As a scientist with a soft spot for philosophy and the humanities, let me tell you this video is brilliant! I'm bothered by how pervasive scientism seems to be amongst science communicators and how complacent we are with it, if not outright buying into it... Which ultimately fuels the anti-science crowd in my opinion by disconnecting science from any social and historical context. We do science like it was a dogma given by the science gods in a vacuum and without a framework to even understand what we are doing and why, so it's hard for scientists to be self-critical and build bridges. Lack of proper education in history and philosophy of science amongst scientists has a lot to do with it, I think.
Wrote way too much. Great video, subscribed.

[sithwolf]

While I do believe asking questions about science is perfectly fine what I don't agree with is denying theories without providing an alternative theory with proof. There's been a lot of that happening lately and frankly it's getting ridiculous the amount of armchair scientists popping up by the day all because they feel like experts after reading one science paper.

Edit seems like my comment where I give an example isn't showing so I'll put it here.
One example I have personally experienced is this outdated theory of disease called terrain theory. During my early years in College (before the pandemic) I only heard about it in passing during lectures on the history of microbiology. Then fast forward a few years after the pandemic and suddenly there are a bunch of people crying out that Pastuer was a fraud and Germ theory is a lie. Well I decided to do some digging and I found quite a bit of ludicrous information as well as several people who claimed to be "scientists" or have a strong understanding of diseases and how they work.

Here's a quick rundown of what I found.

1) Terrain theory is an extremely outdated and debunked theory proposed by Antoine Bechamp that claims all infectious diseases from the simple cold to life-threatening Ebola are caused not by pathogens but by toxin build up due to having an extremely unhealthy lifestyle and/or living in a polluted environment. Now the problem here is how can we test it? Answer: we can't. So this theory isn't even a theory. Hell it's not even a hypothesis because to bea hypothesis is to be Falsifiable and terrain theory can't be tested to show one way or another.

2) Bechamp also proposed that the reason we see various microbes at the area of diseased tissue is not because they were the cause but because they are the clean up crew. He then went on further to claim that ALL microbes from bacteria to multicellular parasites like tapeworms are the exact same species which he called the microzyma. The various forms we see are just phases in its lifecycle much like how a caterpillar changes to a butterfly. Now this is obviously false for teo major reasons, the second being set in adamantium. First reason is it goes against genetics, evolution and what we see each time we run a gene sequencing test on any microbe. To be considered part of the same species each organism has to share at least 99%+ DNA with each other. A tapeworm has waaaay more DNA than a bacteria. How did it get that extra DNA? This question leads right into my next reason and the death blow to terrain theory. With no explanation for how it got the extra DNA and matter to form the tapeworm one is lead to believe it just magically appeared. Now this breaks a fundamental law of the universe: matter/energy cannot be created nor destroyed. Since the microzyma fails to follow this fundamental rule it simply doesn't exist.

3) I've tried explaining this to terrain theory supporters and sadly all I got was insults or dyor. Out of 40 discussions only 3 to 4 were productive. The rest broke down as soon as I mentioned these hard questions. Boy the answers were seriously something. A few I got were that DNA doesn't exist at all. Hell one claimed the laws of the universe are fake and that microbes come directly from sugars. How is a molecule of sugar supposed to become a bacteria or tapeworm? Honestly it's astounding the lengths people will go to support their theories and yet they claim they're experts in the field of microbiology and that all scientists are shills.

[grahamt]

A postdoc in my undergraduate degree once told me that "Science is a useful tool because it has predictive power", and that's stuck with me ever since. From this perspective science can be less about dogmatic theory and more about predictive power, like if an apple falls from a tree does newtonian physics accurately predict the time it'll take and it's velocity? What about in terms of biology, does editing this chemical called DNA cause changes in organisms I'm studying?

[dementedfairy]

i always come back to rewatch this video bc it's very well done. i have a bs in physics and before I went to college I was very into scientism. i gained so much perspective from diving into science beyond pop science, reading real academic journals, interacting with the process of doing robust academic studies, and also getting into philsophy. I truly think scientism is a dangerous ideology and it is quite common and prolific in a lot of tech circles. i am quite concerned with how common it is for these people to reject ways of knowing beyond science. there is so much to learn from different fields and they are all founded on different assumptions and exist in completely different terms.

[MinorityRespecter]

"Trusting the Science" is the least scientific thing you can do.

[KingTvlip]

Such a well constructed and explained video in an almost academic manner! Keep up this content, I love it!

[bridesheaddeserted]

Very well said. I've been seeing 'scientism' becoming more and more prevalent online but didn't have the words to describe it.

[雷-tj]

The problem is that in most cases science or anti-science is used for political reasons irrespective of what the science actually says. Take climate change for example. On the anti-science side you have people who support coal, oil and gas, and disregard inconvenient truths like climate change, both domestically and internationally. Their position on a factual statement is determined by their preexisting political opinions and life situation. On the other side you have people like Greta Thunberg, who are correct in telling people that climate change is real and serious, but oppose the best way of massively reducing emissions whilst being able to maintain industrial society, nuclear power. This is because she's an environmentalist first, before she actually tries to find solutions to the problem of climate change, and the environmentalist dogma says nuclear power bad, because they couldn't distinguish between bomb smoke and water vapor in the 60's and 70's, and treat nuclear fission as dark magic that needs to be destroyed.

[ToriKo_]

Wow this was a really great video. After reading the comments it’s weird that it seems like half of them are missing the point. You presented a intro to the philosophy of science, relevance of philosophy, and some relevant surrounding cultural context, and it was very well articulated, paced, and not dry etc. Good job

[AtlasLesbiaNRx]

Recognizing that you are ignoring facts is the first step to wisdom

[j.s.ospina]

Science is a tool. Not a God, not a fraud. A tool. Use it as you'd use a tool.

[caiohamouifurquim]

Honestly, you're a breath of fresh air. Really well thought and natural. I hope you don't let go of the simplicity and fluidity you presented in this video upon your future work. By all means, do what you need to do in order to get recognition, hopefully, with time, you will build a solid ground for a community in which the dialectic process is endless. Appreciate your work.

[liamydreamy]

You know I'm something of a scientist myself

But I will never believe in the 8+ grains a day on the food pyramid

[matrix]

Personally I met in my life many people, that were anti-science before they started using internet, but they talked about their beliefs only in private conversations. In my opinion the Internet just blurred the line between private conversation and publishing. Not many people want to spent time writing books or articles, but writing comments in the Internet is more like casual conversation. Casual conversation is volatile, but internet comments can be screnshoted and showed eternally.

[glassmaker]

I really enjoyed this video, but I have one question? How do we avoid ethos or the logical fallacy of argument from authority during discussions since we don't live in a society where everyone can become a renaissance man and be knowledgeable in every field due to the sheer amount of knowledge we have accumulated as a society? Is this something that as a society we have to concede by trusting people's research/opinions from their respected fields and move on from there such as trusting scientists for their research and religious leaders for morals?

[disneybunny]

Science is a process, not a list of facts. Like all processes, it is flawed and can be improved on.

[tommyvictorbuch]

"I'd rather have questions that can't be answered, than answers that can't be questioned."
- Richard Feynman -

[PaulRezaei]

I find it interesting when people say they only believe in what can be scientifically proven when science itself sits on a foundation of principles that can not be proven scientifically. For example, the laws of logic can not be proven scientifically, yet science requires logic to function.

[diggydude]

I think in most cases, people who allegedly distrust science actually distrust the motives of those funding the science, or of those who use science to push an agenda. For example, those who tell "climate deniers" they should shut up because they're not climate scientists are usually not climate scientists themselves. Trying to suppress debate is a political tactic, not a scientific one.