Dear Doomsday Fearmongers

THE SCIENTISTIC “TRUE BELIEVER”

“When someone stops believing in a God, it doesn’t mean that he will believe in nothing. It means that he will believe in anything.” (Oscar Wilde)

I think that there is a continuum of world-views (philosophies? belief systems?) extending, on one extreme from a fully religious conception of man’s place in the world involving a blind worship of some supernatural deity to, on the other extreme, a correspondingly blind worship of the salvationary powers of science, what I previously called “scientism.” While outside of Christian fundamentalism and extreme Islam there doesn’t appear to be any danger of a blind worship of a supernatural deity currently in the ascendant, there does, it seems to me, exist a considerable danger of scientism to the extent that for something to be even intelligible it must be couched in scientific terms, those confirmed by empirical observation and experiment. However, like the religious “true believer” (cf. Eric Hoffer, “The True Believer”) who has incorporated the religious “soul” as the center of his being, so now the the scientistic “true believer” has incorporated science as the center of his. The point is, however, that both are “true believers.” Both have identical mental frameworks.

However, unless science can be put in perspective it may well assume the totalitarian powers previously enjoyed by theocratic belief systems. Science, it must be remembered, is only a tool, a means of providing the optimum of conditions conducive for human flourishing. It is a means, not an end. In itself, it offers no “salvation.”

Further, science cannot explain and diagnose the success of an organism, only its failure, its pathology. Science is helpless in explaining human creativity. Man’s mind is not reducible to a collection of his “brain-states.” It is helpless, for example, in attempting to explain the achievement of Shakespeare’s “Hamlet.” This is so because it doesn’t deal with humanity at that level. For the scientistic man, of course, such a problem as “Hamlet” is little more than a joke. He wants to impoverish humanity to conform to the material categories of scientific explanation. Other categories do not exist. They are off the table.

Of course, there has been a scientistic culture in recent history. It was called “Nazism.”

A pleasure as always.

Cheerio!

THREE’S DEFENSIVE CROUCH

“You are cherry picking and selectively using statements out of context to support your need to ‘prove’ our ignorance.” (Three, 1:14PM, March 21)

Wel, well, well, Montrealman has a lot on his plate this morning. Initially he thought it might be a good idea to have Three as an appetizer, Snoop as the main course, and perhaps Wheeliep as a light dessert (a little slice of melon?) but then re-considered. No, the first two at least posted extended replies to Montrealman’s “The New Doomsday Fearmongers” (March 21) so each deserves a separate and extended reply. Montrealman is just that kind of guy. So he’ll start with Three.

There are three possible ways Three might have replied to Montrealman’s tentative charge of “scientism,” the view that science constitutes the only valid form of knowledge. Three might have said that (a) this is not what he meant, that other forms of knowledge like art, history, literature, philosophy and so on constitute equally valid forms; (b) Three might have said that he indeed was a supporter of scientism and vigourously rallied his forces in defence, or (c) Three might have resorted to adopting a “defensive crouch,” to simply calling Montrealman names. Sadly, for the most part, Three chose (c).

Three seems to have ignored Montrealman’s clearly stated point: “If Snoop simply means that science will enable interplanetary travel, then there’s no argument.” (“The New Fearmongers”) Having ignored this crucial assertion, Three strikes out in his first sentence, claiming that Snoop hadn’t responded since he was probably “not feeding the Troll.” Oh, dear, there’s the Troll gambit again. Of course, it says nothinbg about Montrealman but, whatever it means, it does say a lot about Three and his planned line of attack. And he
doesn’t “disappoint.”

Three goes on to charge Montrealman with “cherry picking” his statements out of context to support his (Montrealman’s) “need” to prove his ignorance. But Three doesn’t appear to understand the concpt of “cherry picking.” There was no need to cite Three’s entire passage (which Three proceeded to do anyway) since anyone interested could scroll back for the relevant quotation. More importantly, there was no desire to distort Three’s views – Montrealman’s selection of Three’s “the spirit of science” adequately captured his central view. In other words, Montrealman had no “need” to prove Three’s ignorance but, by that time of course, Three had already adopted his adversarial defensive crouch.

Three presses his “ad hominem” attack on Montrealman further, charging his with a range of deplorable character faults. (These can be dealth with simply by adding “Swat!” after each of Montrealman’s responses.) So, Montrealman has a “contemptuous attitude towards the denizens of LTWWB” but, of course, Three provides no evidence for his assertion. (Swat!) Similarly, according to Three, unlike others on this site who possess Ph.D.s and even Rhodes scholarships, Montrealman deplorably “flaunts” his academic background but, as with his “contempt,” no evidence is given. (Swat!) Unlike Three who judges others on the basis of their character, Montrealman judges them on the number of letters following their name” but – I know this is getting boring – where’s the evidence? (Swat!) Finally and once again unlike Three, Montrealman, being socially inept, does not know “the nature of the game meant to be played” on LTWWB. Clearly, Three does know the nature of the game but, sadly once again, gives no evidence in support of his claim. (Swat!)

Three does offer an illusion of substance to his reply when he asserts his “two points” but sadly, both lack coherent content. The first is that, in addition to his “spirit of science,” Three claims that there are as yet “undiscovered methodologies to secure our existence in the forseeable future.” Now this is exciting: Of what, one wonders, would such “methodologies” consist? Sadly, our hopes are dashed. Three offers no such “methodologies” or, for that matter, any idea of just what he might have in mind by a “methodology.” Second, Three seems to be climbing down from his “spirit of science” when he states that science is “not the be all, and and science not as salvation.” Well, that’s hopeful but Three fails to provide any content. Montrealman calls out: “Three! Tell us, tell us, if science is not the be all and should not be seen as salvation, then what is? What WILL save us, Three?” But there is only silence. Three has left the room.

We’ll have a look at Snoop tomorrow.

A pleasure as always.

Cheerio!

SNOOP’S EMPTY ROMANTICISM

Note: Montrealman tried to get on LTWWB yesterday to deal with Snoop as promised on “Three’s Defensive Crouch” (March 22) but was unsuccessful after a number of tries. Montrealman thought he had been kicked off the site after spanking Three but, quite by chance, thought he would give it last try this morning and, Lo and behold, here I am! So, let’s now turn the spotlight on Snoop.

Montrealman’s reply to Snoop falls into three parts labelled: (a) Snoop’s Self-Contradiction, (b) Snoop’s Failure to Understand the Concept of Scientism, and (c) Snoop’s Empty Romanticism. However this morning, Montrealman will deal only with “Snoop’s Self-Contradiction” since, on the one hand, to post all three parts would run the reply too long and, on the other, to make sure that Montrealman really hasn’t been kicked off this site after all (i.e., the present post might be rejected). So, to the task at hand!

(a) Snoop’s Self-Contradiction

1. “That’s right bitches, as usual, science is our only hope.” (Snoop, March 18, 2:58PM)

2. “Scientism: a belief that science is the only credible way of gaining knowledge and understanding about our world. I think that’s stupid. And I don’t think anyone actually holds that position because it excludes a whole slew of things that scientists and scientists find much value in: mathematics, art, reasoning, etc. This is a term based on simplistic black and white thinking made up by people who feel needlessly threatened by science.” (Snoop, March 21, 1:42PM)

Now, did you notice the key word in #1? That’s right, the word is “only” which, of course,
means “exclusively,” “uniquely” and so forth. So, on March 18, Snoop felt that science was our only, exclusive, and unique hope because, one supposes, it was the only, the exclusive, and the unique way of gaining a proper knowledge and understanding about our world.

But wait! On March 21, Snoop changed his mind! Science wasn’t the only way after all – mathematics, art, reasoning etc. counted as well. But only (that word again) either (1) or (2) are correct.
In other words, Snoop can’t maintain, simultaneously, that both are true. To do so is called self-contradiction and his self-contradiction undermines any further claim that Snoop might care to make.

Well, let’s see if this is posted. If it is, we can move on to “Snoop’s Failure to Understand the Concept of Scientism.”

A pleasure as always.

Cheerio!

SNOOP’S EMPTY ROMANTICIM

2. Snoop’s Failure to Understand the Concept of Scientism

“Snoop’s Self-Contradiction,” Montrealman’s first instalment of “Snoop’s Empty Romanticism,” took issue with her (apparently Snoop is female) claim that her assertion “That’s right bitches, as usual, science is our only hope” was contradicted by her subsequent assertion that scientists (and presumably Snoop herself) found much value in “a whole slew of other things” like “mathematics, art and reasoning.” The contradiction turned on the exclusionary function of “only” which rendered her second assertion little more than an irrelevant exercise in playing “catch-up.” So Montrealman is going to continue to hold Snoop’s feet to the fire. He is going to give Snoop a further choice, one between a commitment to “scientism” as her assertion suggests, on the one hand, and triviality on the other.

Now one did rather suppose that, in the event of the sun’s winking out and making life on earth impossible, that science would be instrumental in discovering the means for interplanetary travel. In that sense, science would indeed be “our only hope” but even Snoop must grasp that science in that sense is a common-place, that it is breath-takingly trivial. Of course, Snoop might want to embrace triviality but Montrealman thinks that she really means something more, that in effect that Snoop really wants to embrace scientism. The difficulty, however, is that Snoop doesn’t understand the concept. Let’s make it easy for Snoop and demonstrate (1) Snoop’s failure to understand the concept and (2) what the concept actually entails.

(1) For simplicity’s sake (and, of course, for Snoop’s sake as well) it will be shown that she has confounded the concept of scientism on two grounds, i.e., (a) that it is a religious concept and (b) that it is not a “logical concept.”

(a) “Scientism is a made up term, a dreamed up version of the ‘science is basically another religion’ argument. It is essentially meaningless.” (Snoop, 2:23PM) Initially Montrealman was puzzled by Snoop’s claim but then the penny dropped. Snoop was referring to the Oscar Wilde quotation at the head of a previous post to the effect that when people stop believing in God they will not believe in nothing but rather in anything. Mistakenly, Snoop saw Montrealman’s criticism as being religiously inspired but this is just false. Montrealman is a-religious in the sense that it plays no role in his life. (Similarly, Montrealman is not “afraid” of science as Snoop insinuates but quite the contrary, he deeply appreciates the advances, particularly in medicine, that science has brought about.) So then, what kind of concept IS scientism? Unsuprisingly – you’re talking to Montrealman after al – it is a philosophical concept. However, Snoop notwithstanding, it is a very meaningful concept as Montrealman will subsequently show. For one must remember that Snoop is without philosophy – not in the sense that she has none (nobody is without philosophy in that sense) – but rather in the sense that she has no knowledge of the subject and consequently views its concepts as “meaningless.”

(b) “MM seems desperate to prove his intellect yet exposes his ignorance by arguing a position based on a logical fallacy. One cannot debate a logical fallacy like scientism.” (Snoop, 2:23PM)

Snoop appears to have taken a page from Three’s handbook and launched an “ad hominem” attack on Montrealman but, of course, Montrealman snaps his fingers at such remarks. However, Snoop is just wrong. Montrealman is not particularly “desperate” nor is he, at least in respect to Snoop, particularly ignorant. However, and more importantly for the task at hand, Snoop is also wrong about what constitutes a “logical fallacy.” In her typical fashion Snoop merely asserts her claim that scientism is based on a logical fallacy but provides no grounds for saying so. As she is ignorant of philosophy generally, so Snoop is equally ignorant of one of its subsets, logic. Logic is simply a deductive formal system which can demonstrate anything depending on its initial premiss. In itself, logic is “content-free.” So,

Major Premiss: Scientism embraces the view that science is our only hope.
Minor Premiss: Snoop maintains that science is our only hope.
Conclusion: Therefore, Snoop embraces scientism.

Quite simply, my point is that the logic is impeccable, the conclusion flowing of necessity from the first two premises. Whether it is true, of course, is another matter but, as was previously stated, logic is a content-free formal deductive system. My point – are you following Snoop? – is that to speask of scientism as being based on a “logical fallacy” is incoherent since logic itself is never “false.”

Montrealman had initially intended to provide content to the philosophical concept of scientism but he feels, in demonstrating Snoop’s failure to grasp the concept, that he has said enough for one post. Tomorrow he will engage the concept directly, i.e., (2) “what the concept actually entails,” and amplify Snoop’s failure to grasp the concept.

A pleasure as always.

Cheerio!

SNOOP’S EMPTY ROMANTICISM

Montrealman was unable, once again, to access the Bitch site yesterday but it doesn’t seem to matter since Snoop, apparently stunned by the majesty of Montrealman’s mind (a little Montrealman humour there) appears to have gone to ground. Anyway, in his first post, Montrealman successfully argued that Snoop’s position on scientism was self-contradictory and in his second that her understanding of the scientism on the grounds that it is a “religious concept” and that it contained a “logical fallacy” was flawed. It is now time for Montrealman to pick up the thread and submit his third post, one intended to to demonstrate, Snoop’s view that scientism is a “made-up term” and “essentially meaningless” nothwistanding, that it is neither. Indeed, scientism and its philosophical “cousins” dominate present-day social theory.

Scientism maintains that human beings can be reduced to, can be explained in terms of, the laws of nature that regulate the activity of natural objects. While this might be so in respect to the functioning of their bodies, it is certainly not the case in respect to their minds which constitute, as it happens, what it means to be human. The consequence is that the project for scientism – incoherently – necessarily turns on eliminating the human mind as a coherent concept. The project entails the elimination of that which cannot be reduced to the operation of natural laws, things like the will, ethics, values and, oh yes, self-reflective consciousness itself. But this omission of self-consciousness has serious consequences for scientism.

Montrealman will not touch every base in analysing the scientistic project since the powers of self-reflective consciousness undermines each one. From the behaviourist psychology of Watson and Skinner (who, of course, excused themselves from the operation of their own behaviouristic principles) to the “eliminative materialism” of the Churchlands (they were a married couple) who maintained that there existed no mental events or processes (whose work, of course, was the outcome of just such events and processes), the scientistic project foundered on the shoals of self-reflectove awareness. However, a brief discussion of the most famous scientistic philosopher in modern times should be sufficient to overturn Snoop’s claim that no one is stupid enough to embrace scientism.

A.J. Ayer’s “Language, Truth and Logic” (1959) exploded on the scene of British analytical philosophy. Ayer was a proponent of “verificationism,” the view that only those propositions whose content could be verified by the scientific processes of observation and experiment were meaningful. All other propositions were merely the expression of opinions and were, as a consequence, meaningless. The difficulty – it is obvious isn’t it? – is that Ayer’s own views were not themselves amenable to the rigours of observation and experiment and were therefore meaningless. Put differently, the principle of verification was not itself verifiable. End of Ayer.

The current significance of scientism, however, is not primarily in philosophy but rather in the form of underwriting a present mechanistic and reductionist social theory which is currently in the ascendant. For example, think of the the principles of “managerialism” (time-on-task, cost-benefir analysis, time & motion studies, and the like) where human economic activity is “harmonized” in the interests of global capital. The same scientistic principles are in operation but their application, at least overtly, is not directly in philosophy. They are, in effect, ideological “cousins” but make no mistake – scrape away the economic and psychologistic overlay and their scientistic roots stand revealed.

In the next instalment of “Snoop’s Empty Romanticism” Montrealman will, in exposing what is going on in Snoop’s mind, bring his case to a conclusion. He will reveal that Snoop is, at base, little more than a egocentric romantic.

A pleasure as always.

Cheerio!