Scientism: Swear Words in the Philosophical Struggle

Scientism, defined as the belief that science is the only way to true knowledge, is in the Internet news again ( http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2011/12/26/a-new-definition-of-scientism/ and http://machineslikeus.com/news/scientism-scientistic-belief  and http://scienceblogs.com/evolutionblog/2011/12/a_follow-up_post_about_scienti.php?utm_source=sbhomepage&utm_medium=link&utm_content=channellink for the standard deterministic opposition). From time to time indeterminists have used this epithet as a borderline ad hominem in the philosophical struggle between determinism and indeterminism. Determinists assume that all effects have material causes; indeterminists assume that some effects may not have material causes.

The anti-science argument encapsulated by the derisive appellation had some validity in the days of classical mechanics and classical determinism. Their underlying assumption of finite universal causality engendered hubris that failed whenever the promised complete answers were not furnished. Laplace’s Demon was not able to predict a single effect with the absolute precision demanded.

I predict that the 21st Century form of determinism will be harder to slander in this way. This is because it is based on infinite universal causality (All effects have an infinite number of material causes), which is consupponible with the assumption of infinity (The universe is infinite, both in the microcosmic and macrocosmic directions). The hubris is removed with the equally consupponible assumption of uncertainty (It is impossible to know everything about anything, but it is possible to know more about anything). Univironmental determinism (What happens to a portion of the universe is determined by the infinite matter within and without) is at once the universal mechanism of evolution as well as the new scientific worldview.


Dov Henis said...

A Comprehensive Scientism Worldview

“Henis Worldview” Database

I’m nearly 88 yrs old. Circa twenty years ago I intensified my universe-life pondering and scrutinizing of relevant scientific publications, gradually crystallizing and compiling a comprehensive worldview distinctly different in several aspects from the 21st century generally accepted scientific worldview. A compilation of most of the brief inter-related inter-twined chapters of this “worldview” is now displayed at http://universe-life.com/ .

In answer to occasional readers’ comments-remarks I have been asserting that none of the scientific matters stated in or implied by the “worldview“ contradicts the now generally accepted science. Some pedants, though, are not satisfied with this assertion even when ascertained correct. They demand presentation of “new subject specific data”.

To this I posit :


ALL data, wherever published, that conform with the materials presented in “Henis Worldview” chapters are scientifically ”Henis Worldview” database.

Dov Henis
(comments from 22nd century)

Glenn Borchardt said...

Occasionally I hear from deep thinkers like Dov Henis, who are trying to make sense of regressive physics. Dov, like nearly every member of the Natural Philosophy Alliance, is trying to write the book that will do the job. Most are not without their contradictions, as illustrated by Dov’s work. Aside from the one above (“distinctly different…worldview” vs. “none… contradicts the now generally accepted science”), Dov’s website states that he accepts the Big Bang Theory while rejecting dark energy. Almost all these campaigns have one thing in common with all indeterministic philosophies: a failure to state beginning fundamental assumptions. Each seems to have something to add to the discussion, but don’t expect clarity or any progressive development leading to the replacement of the Big Bang Theory.