[FRIAM] What's so bad about Scientism?

[glen]

Well, of course you know where I stand on this. That description of 'doubt' is useless to me because I doubt everything. There is no such thing as 'paralyzing doubt'. I'd lean more towards Marcus answer on that.

Similarly, I don't place 'good thought' in opposition to doubt. To me, doubt IS good thought. The absence of doubt would be the worst kind of thought. And I suppose that implies that science includes the active maintenance of methods by which we doubt/question various assertions.

On July 6, 2018 8:37:38 PM PDT, Nick Thompson <nickthompson at earthlink.net> wrote:
>There is another solution to suicidal skepticism which Is to embrace
>scientism but broaden the definition of science.  This, I think, is
>CSPeirce's way.  We define good thought as any thought that will, in
>the fullness of time ... the very, very fullness of time .. be agreed
>upon.  Good thought is thought that, once and for all, assuages doubt. 
>By doubt, here, I don't mean entertained doubt.  I mean doubt
>sufficiently profound that one cannot, when one needs to, pursue any
>course of action.  REAL doubt.  Paralyzing doubt.
>
>Now, science is defined as that method, that will be agreed, in the
>very long run to produce good thinking.  
>
>Notice that this way out of the scientism debate concedes that a value
>lies at the bottom of scientismicists’  affection for science ... the
>assuaging of REAL doubt.  
>
>Therefore, I stipulate that anybody who embraces REAL doubt as a way of
>life is NOT going to be happy with this solution.  


-- 
glen