Humanists4Science: Are Humanists4Science Positivist-ish or Scientistic-ish or Naturalisic-ish? - Part 1 of 4

Saturday, 6 April 2013

Are Humanists4Science Positivist-ish or Scientistic-ish or Naturalisic-ish? - Part 1 of 4 - Positivism

@ProfBrianCox

@ProfBrianCox Ultra-naïve positivist-ish, although science can't explain the existence of antipositivists Positivism en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positivis…
— Chris Street (@ChrisGStreet) April 6, 2013

I was prompted by Brian Cox twitter profile @ProfBrianCox to investigate Positivism - wikipedia.

I've been mulling over Scientism - wikipedia for some time, especially since I organised for Prof. Alex Rosenberg - wikipedia to talk to Atheism UK about his book 'The Atheist's Guide to Reality: Enjoying Life without Illusions'. Alex's talk on Youtube was recorded for Atheism UK by Mark Embleton at Conway Hall in London on 25th February 2012.

Alex Rosenberg (personal website) is very pro Scientism & describes himself as a Naturalist - NY Times blog (Naturalism - wikipedia).

Wikipedia reckons that Scientism is a pejorative term for Positivism. ref: wikipedia.

I'm interested to understand what are the similarities & differences between the philosophies of Positivism, Scientism and Naturalism, because they often seem to be used interchangeably. And what is Antipositivism?

What is Positivism?

Positivism is a philosophy of science based on the view that information derived from logical and mathematical treatments and reports of sensory experience is the exclusive source of all authoritative knowledge, that there is valid knowledge (truth) only in scientific knowledge. ... Verified data received from the senses is known as empirical evidence. Introspective and intuitive knowledge is rejected. ref: wikipedia

Auguste Comte

Positivism states that the only authentic knowledge is that which allows positive verification and assumes that there is valid knowledge only in scientific knowledge. Enlightenment thinkers such as Henri de Saint-Simon, Pierre-Simon Laplace and Auguste Comte believed the scientific method, the circular dependence of theory and observation, must replace metaphysics in the history of thought. ref: wikipedia

Logical positivism and postpositivism

Logical positivism, a descendant of Comte's basic thesis sprang up in Vienna in early 1900s. Logical positivists reject metaphysical speculation and attempt to reduce statements and propositions to pure logic. Critiques such as Karl Popper, Willard Van Orman Quine and Thomas Kuhn led to the development of postpositivism. ref: wikipedia

Logical positivism combines empiricism, the idea that observational evidence is indispensable for knowledge of the world, with a version of rationalism, the idea that our knowledge includes a component that is not derived from observation. ref: wikipedia

Positivism in science today

Statements should be testable; amenable to being verified, confirmed, or falsified by the empirical observation of reality.

Positivism is "the view that all true knowledge is scientific," and that all things are ultimately measurable. Positivism is related to Reductionism - wikipedia, in that both involve the view that "entities of one kind... are reducible to entities of another," such as mental events to neural phenomena. It also involves the contention that "processes are reducible to physiological, physical or chemical events," or that "biological organisms are reducible to physical systems." ref: wikipedia

What is Antipositivism?
Brian Cox' twitter profile, 'Ultra-naïve positivist-ish, although science can't explain the existence of antipositivists', prompted this blog.

Wikipedia explains what an Antipositivist is:-

Antipositivists rejects Empiricism - wikipedia and the scientific method - wikipedia in the conduct of social research. Antipositivism may be equated with qualitative research methods which rely on fieldwork or open-ended interviews. Positivists use quantitative research methods such as experiments and statistical surveys. Antipositivists reject 'scientism' or science as ideology.

Next blog post: Scientism

No comments:

About Humanists4Science (Hum4Sci)

Humanists4Science (H4S) Mission "To promote, within the humanist community, the application of the scientific method to issues of concern to broader society."

H4S Vision "A world in which important decisions are made by applying the scientific method to evidence rather than according to superstition."

H4S is for humanists with an active interest in science. We believe that science is a fundamental part of humanism but also that it should be directed to humane and ethical ends. Science is, in our view, more a method than a body of facts.

H4S take a naturalistic view and believe, like 62% of the UK population, that science, the scientific method & other evidence provides the best way to understand the universe.

H4S are a Special Interest Group of the British Humanist Association (BHA).

Since 2008 H4S members have discussed many Humanist-Science topics in our Yahoo Group.

Prof. Jim Al-Khalili - 11TH BHA President - On Scientific Method

'I have a rational unshakeable conviction that our universe is understandable, that mysteries are only mysteries because we have yet to figure out, the almost always logical answers. For me there is simply no room, no need, for a supernatural divine being to fill in the gaps in our understanding. We’ll get there, we’ll fill in those gaps with objective scientific truths: [with] answers that aren't subjective, because of cultural or historical whims or personal biases, but because of empirically testable and reproducible truths. We may not get the full picture, we may never get the full picture, but science allows us to get ever closer.’ Jim Al-Khalili, BHA AGM 2013

"A lot of people say science is just one way of looking at the world, at reality, and poets and musicians and, of course, people of faith, have said there are other ways. I don't buy that. For me there is an objective reality that is there and real. For a theoretical physicist who's trained in thinking about quantum mechanics, which involves the idea that by observing something you alter its nature, you have to have some sort of working definitions of reality"
Jim Al-Khalili in New Humanist magazine Mar Apr 2013

Lord Taverne

Science depends on reason and regard for evidence. For me, the scientific approach lies at the heart of humanism as well as atheism. We all accept that science has made us healthier and wealthier. What has been seldom acknowledged or realised is that since the Enlightenment, which it helped to bring about, science has played an essential part in making us more civilised.

Science is the enemy of autocracy because it replaces claims to truth based on authority with those based on evidence and because it depends on the criticism of established ideas. Scientific knowledge is the enemy of dogma and ideologies and makes us more tolerant because it is tentative and provisional and does not deal in certainties. It is the most effective way of learning about the physical world and therefore erodes superstition, ignorance and prejudice, which have been causes of the denial of human rights throughout history. Science is also the enemy of narrow nationalism and tribalism and, like the arts, is one of the activities in this world that is not motivated by greed.

What can compare, for example, with the recent achievement of the Large Hadron Collider, a venture of collaboration by 10,000 scientists and engineers from 113 countries, free from bureaucratic and political interference? Those people put aside all national, political, religious and cultural differences in pursuit of truth and for the one purpose of exploring and understanding the natural world.

Without the contribution of science, which is, in my view, the rock on which atheism and humanism are built, we would be less inclined to be critical, tolerant and understanding and more prone to prejudice, bigotry and tribalism. We would be a less civilised society.

Lord Taverne, 25th July 2013, House of Lords debate on contribution of Humanism and Atheism

Pages

Saturday, 6 April 2013

Are Humanists4Science Positivist-ish or Scientistic-ish or Naturalisic-ish? - Part 1 of 4 - Positivism

@ProfBrianCox

What is Positivism?

No comments: