Science vs Scientism

These definitions are taken from the Random House Dictionary of the
English Language, College Edition, 1968. They represent my
understanding and application of the terms science and scientism and
are specifically directed at those who regard empiricism as the only
definitive methodology for science in general.

science. 1. a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of
facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of
general laws. 2. systematic knowledge of the physical or material
world. 3. systematized knowledge of any kind. 4. any skill that
reflects a precise application of facts or principles.

Scientism. 1. (Often Disparaging). the attitudes, practices, etc.
regarded as characteristics of scientists. 2. advocacy of the
application of principles derived from the natural sciences to other
disciplines including the humanities and the social sciences. 3.
scientific or pseudo-scientific language.



Regards - Lester

"2. advocacy of the
application of principles derived from the natural sciences to other
disciplines including the humanities and the social sciences."

"Lester Zick" <lesterDELzick@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:3f954704.47969393@netnews.att.net...

Science vs Scientism

These definitions are taken from the Random House Dictionary of the
English Language, College Edition, 1968. They represent my
understanding and application of the terms science and scientism and
are specifically directed at those who regard empiricism as the only
definitive methodology for science in general.

science. 1. a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of
facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of
general laws. 2. systematic knowledge of the physical or material
world. 3. systematized knowledge of any kind. 4. any skill that
reflects a precise application of facts or principles.

Scientism. 1. (Often Disparaging). the attitudes, practices, etc.
regarded as characteristics of scientists. 2. advocacy of the
application of principles derived from the natural sciences to other
disciplines including the humanities and the social sciences. 3.
scientific or pseudo-scientific language.



Regards - Lester


Depending on who's dictionary one refers to, empiricism can either be in
contradiction to the above definition of science, or it can be construed
as
a watered down version of it. Empiricism relies on observation and
experience much like science; however, without due regard for system and
theory. Therein lies the distinction. According to Empiricism, knowledge
must be capable of being verified or disproved by observation or
experiment
(sounds like science at this point). Interpretation is key.
I like both words myself.

Ian

"Lester Zick" <lesterDELzick@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:3f954704.47969393@netnews.att.net...

Science vs Scientism

These definitions are taken from the Random House Dictionary of the
English Language, College Edition, 1968. They represent my
understanding and application of the terms science and scientism and
are specifically directed at those who regard empiricism as the only
definitive methodology for science in general.

science. 1. a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of
facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of
general laws. 2. systematic knowledge of the physical or material
world. 3. systematized knowledge of any kind. 4. any skill that
reflects a precise application of facts or principles.

Scientism. 1. (Often Disparaging). the attitudes, practices, etc.
regarded as characteristics of scientists. 2. advocacy of the
application of principles derived from the natural sciences to other
disciplines including the humanities and the social sciences. 3.
scientific or pseudo-scientific language.



Regards - Lester


Depending on who's dictionary one refers to, empiricism can either be in
contradiction to the above definition of science, or it can be construed as
a watered down version of it. Empiricism relies on observation and
experience much like science; however, without due regard for system and
theory. Therein lies the distinction. According to Empiricism, knowledge
must be capable of being verified or disproved by observation or experiment
(sounds like science at this point). Interpretation is key.
I like both words myself.

Are you asking us to chose or to comment.

If you are asking us to choose (I guess that is how I read the vs) I would
question why. I would look at
"2. advocacy of the
application of principles derived from the natural sciences to other
disciplines including the humanities and the social sciences."

I am an engineer by trade and grew up with what are called the hard sciences
but since working for a R&D organisation and working in a number of
multidisiplanry teams I have come to apreaciate the so called soft
sciences. I think there are many ways to look at a problem. I don't excpet
the soft sciences to develop a new way of building a computer or to develope
new drugs but I do expect them to help me determine what we need, how to
intergrate the new technologies and how tobetter developed them in the
future. They all have a role.

People who are strong one way or the other are missing the whole picture.
Life is not black or white it is a balance

"Ian Astbury" <givemethepatch@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:MKCdnUpno5WDNgiiRVn-vw@comcast.com...

"Lester Zick" <lesterDELzick@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:3f954704.47969393@netnews.att.net...

Science vs Scientism

These definitions are taken from the Random House Dictionary of the
English Language, College Edition, 1968. They represent my
understanding and application of the terms science and scientism and
are specifically directed at those who regard empiricism as the only
definitive methodology for science in general.

science. 1. a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of
facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of
general laws. 2. systematic knowledge of the physical or material
world. 3. systematized knowledge of any kind. 4. any skill that
reflects a precise application of facts or principles.

Scientism. 1. (Often Disparaging). the attitudes, practices, etc.
regarded as characteristics of scientists. 2. advocacy of the
application of principles derived from the natural sciences to other
disciplines including the humanities and the social sciences. 3.
scientific or pseudo-scientific language.



Regards - Lester


Depending on who's dictionary one refers to, empiricism can either be in
contradiction to the above definition of science, or it can be construed
as
a watered down version of it. Empiricism relies on observation and
experience much like science; however, without due regard for system and
theory. Therein lies the distinction. According to Empiricism, knowledge
must be capable of being verified or disproved by observation or
experiment
(sounds like science at this point). Interpretation is key.
I like both words myself.

Ian

On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 14:54:31 -0700, "Ian Astbury"
givemethepatch@comcast.net> in sci.philosophy.meta wrote:


"Lester Zick" <lesterDELzick@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:3f954704.47969393@netnews.att.net...

Science vs Scientism

These definitions are taken from the Random House Dictionary of the
English Language, College Edition, 1968. They represent my
understanding and application of the terms science and scientism and
are specifically directed at those who regard empiricism as the only
definitive methodology for science in general.

science. 1. a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of
facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of
general laws. 2. systematic knowledge of the physical or material
world. 3. systematized knowledge of any kind. 4. any skill that
reflects a precise application of facts or principles.

Scientism. 1. (Often Disparaging). the attitudes, practices, etc.
regarded as characteristics of scientists. 2. advocacy of the
application of principles derived from the natural sciences to other
disciplines including the humanities and the social sciences. 3.
scientific or pseudo-scientific language.



Regards - Lester


Depending on who's dictionary one refers to, empiricism can either be in
contradiction to the above definition of science, or it can be construed
as
a watered down version of it. Empiricism relies on observation and
experience much like science; however, without due regard for system and
theory. Therein lies the distinction. According to Empiricism,
knowledge
must be capable of being verified or disproved by observation or
experiment
(sounds like science at this point). Interpretation is key.
I like both words myself.


Hi Ian -

Thanks for the comments. I realize there are considerable ambiguities
in usage. The reason I posted these definitions is that over the last
year or two I have taken considerable flack from a variety of people
as to what exactly constitutes science.

Most empirical scientists I've run into maintain that analytical
disciplines like geometry and math in general are not sciences. I
maintain that they are because the term science really only implies
systematic rigor of necessity. In other words in my view sciences
differ according to the subjects treated and the methods used to treat
those subjects, and they are not necessarily sciences because they
apply empiricist methodology to the treatment of subjects.

This really hits home in the context of behavioral and cognitive
science where the application of empiricist principles is considered
the hallmark of science in those contexts. And I think these
definitions justify my contentions in this regard.


Regards - Lester

On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 17:44:50 +1000, "Tigger News"
tiggernews@hotmail.com> in sci.philosophy.meta wrote:

Are you asking us to chose or to comment.

You know I have to apologize here for posting the isolated
definitions. As I have just explained to Ian Astbury I have taken
considerable flack over the last year or two for my views as to what
constitutes science. And I think these definitions support my take on
the subject.

If you are asking us to choose (I guess that is how I read the vs) I
would
question why. I would look at
"2. advocacy of the
application of principles derived from the natural sciences to other
disciplines including the humanities and the social sciences."

I am an engineer by trade and grew up with what are called the hard
sciences
but since working for a R&D organisation and working in a number of
multidisiplanry teams I have come to apreaciate the so called soft
sciences. I think there are many ways to look at a problem. I don't
excpet
the soft sciences to develop a new way of building a computer or to
develope
new drugs but I do expect them to help me determine what we need, how to
intergrate the new technologies and how tobetter developed them in the
future. They all have a role.

People who are strong one way or the other are missing the whole picture.
Life is not black or white it is a balance

I am or was a professional systems programmer for many years myself
and came to appreciate what you are suggesting. However I think life
is black and white to a certain extent. At least it is black where it
is black, white where it is white, and where it appears gray it is
probably a combination of shades.

I posted these definitions because they validate my contention that
analytical disciplines like geometry and math are sciences. In fact I
also considered posting them to sci.math and sci.physics, but I'm more
interested in cognition just at the moment.

The part of the definition for scientism you cite above is the reason
for the posting. There are many who advocate the application of
empiricist methodology as the sole criterion for science in cognitive
areas. On the other hand I contend the analytical approach is the only
one capable of yielding definitive results in universal terms. The
application of empiricist methodology to behavior can only yield
probabilistic information at best - which in itself is certainly of
considerable value. However only the analytical approach can yield
information on cause and effect relevant to the actual explanation for
cognition and consciousness in general.

Thanks for the interest.

"Ian Astbury" <givemethepatch@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:MKCdnUpno5WDNgiiRVn-vw@comcast.com...

"Lester Zick" <lesterDELzick@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:3f954704.47969393@netnews.att.net...

Science vs Scientism

These definitions are taken from the Random House Dictionary of the
English Language, College Edition, 1968. They represent my
understanding and application of the terms science and scientism and
are specifically directed at those who regard empiricism as the only
definitive methodology for science in general.

science. 1. a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of
facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of
general laws. 2. systematic knowledge of the physical or material
world. 3. systematized knowledge of any kind. 4. any skill that
reflects a precise application of facts or principles.

Scientism. 1. (Often Disparaging). the attitudes, practices, etc.
regarded as characteristics of scientists. 2. advocacy of the
application of principles derived from the natural sciences to other
disciplines including the humanities and the social sciences. 3.
scientific or pseudo-scientific language.



Regards - Lester


Depending on who's dictionary one refers to, empiricism can either be
in
contradiction to the above definition of science, or it can be
construed
as
a watered down version of it. Empiricism relies on observation and
experience much like science; however, without due regard for system
and
theory. Therein lies the distinction. According to Empiricism,
knowledge
must be capable of being verified or disproved by observation or
experiment
(sounds like science at this point). Interpretation is key.
I like both words myself.

Ian







Regards - Lester

Lester for my work I study complex systems like entire banks, internation
freight companies that sort of thing and although you can studdy a truck and
how it works as an engineer you can not study large complex systems that
way. It is the same with the universe. Anyone can solve the two body problem
but when you add another bidy and another it starts to get complicated.
Interaction betwwen Quarks do we just keep going up to the top. We have to
look at the system and its parts at the same time. For this you need tools
that would be considerd 'soft' but study the overal system as a whole.

One of the early systems I worked on at International Harvester was

Lester,
Math is a language.
Mike

"Lester Zick" <lesterDELzick@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:3f96aa34.62682401@netnews.att.net...
On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 14:54:31 -0700, "Ian Astbury"
givemethepatch@comcast.net> in sci.philosophy.meta wrote:


"Lester Zick" <lesterDELzick@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:3f954704.47969393@netnews.att.net...

Science vs Scientism

These definitions are taken from the Random House Dictionary of the
English Language, College Edition, 1968. They represent my
understanding and application of the terms science and scientism and
are specifically directed at those who regard empiricism as the only
definitive methodology for science in general.

science. 1. a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of
facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of
general laws. 2. systematic knowledge of the physical or material
world. 3. systematized knowledge of any kind. 4. any skill that
reflects a precise application of facts or principles.

Scientism. 1. (Often Disparaging). the attitudes, practices, etc.
regarded as characteristics of scientists. 2. advocacy of the
application of principles derived from the natural sciences to other
disciplines including the humanities and the social sciences. 3.
scientific or pseudo-scientific language.



Regards - Lester


Depending on who's dictionary one refers to, empiricism can either be in
contradiction to the above definition of science, or it can be construed
as
a watered down version of it. Empiricism relies on observation and
experience much like science; however, without due regard for system and
theory. Therein lies the distinction. According to Empiricism,
knowledge
must be capable of being verified or disproved by observation or
experiment
(sounds like science at this point). Interpretation is key.
I like both words myself.


Hi Ian -

Thanks for the comments. I realize there are considerable ambiguities
in usage. The reason I posted these definitions is that over the last
year or two I have taken considerable flack from a variety of people
as to what exactly constitutes science.

Most empirical scientists I've run into maintain that analytical
disciplines like geometry and math in general are not sciences. I
maintain that they are because the term science really only implies
systematic rigor of necessity. In other words in my view sciences
differ according to the subjects treated and the methods used to treat
those subjects, and they are not necessarily sciences because they
apply empiricist methodology to the treatment of subjects.

This really hits home in the context of behavioral and cognitive
science where the application of empiricist principles is considered
the hallmark of science in those contexts. And I think these
definitions justify my contentions in this regard.


Regards - Lester

On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 06:41:32 GMT, "Mike" <chumakin@rogers.com> in
sci.cognitive wrote:

Lester,
Math is a language.
Mike

Sure math is a language. But is it the language?

"Lester Zick" <lesterDELzick@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:3f96aa34.62682401@netnews.att.net...
On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 14:54:31 -0700, "Ian Astbury"
givemethepatch@comcast.net> in sci.philosophy.meta wrote:


"Lester Zick" <lesterDELzick@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:3f954704.47969393@netnews.att.net...

Science vs Scientism

These definitions are taken from the Random House Dictionary of the
English Language, College Edition, 1968. They represent my
understanding and application of the terms science and scientism and
are specifically directed at those who regard empiricism as the only
definitive methodology for science in general.

science. 1. a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of
facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of
general laws. 2. systematic knowledge of the physical or material
world. 3. systematized knowledge of any kind. 4. any skill that
reflects a precise application of facts or principles.

Scientism. 1. (Often Disparaging). the attitudes, practices, etc.
regarded as characteristics of scientists. 2. advocacy of the
application of principles derived from the natural sciences to other
disciplines including the humanities and the social sciences. 3.
scientific or pseudo-scientific language.



Regards - Lester


Depending on who's dictionary one refers to, empiricism can either be
in
contradiction to the above definition of science, or it can be
construed
as
a watered down version of it. Empiricism relies on observation and
experience much like science; however, without due regard for system
and
theory. Therein lies the distinction. According to Empiricism,
knowledge
must be capable of being verified or disproved by observation or
experiment
(sounds like science at this point). Interpretation is key.
I like both words myself.


Hi Ian -

Thanks for the comments. I realize there are considerable ambiguities
in usage. The reason I posted these definitions is that over the last
year or two I have taken considerable flack from a variety of people
as to what exactly constitutes science.

Most empirical scientists I've run into maintain that analytical
disciplines like geometry and math in general are not sciences. I
maintain that they are because the term science really only implies
systematic rigor of necessity. In other words in my view sciences
differ according to the subjects treated and the methods used to treat
those subjects, and they are not necessarily sciences because they
apply empiricist methodology to the treatment of subjects.

This really hits home in the context of behavioral and cognitive
science where the application of empiricist principles is considered
the hallmark of science in those contexts. And I think these
definitions justify my contentions in this regard.


Regards - Lester






Regards - Lester