Scientism without tears?

Scientism without Tears?

Stefanie Dach Ernst Mach Workshop5.5.-6.5.2014

Structure1. Introduction2. Translation via causal relations3. Structural isomorphism as a truth-successor

4. Why care about truth?5. Truth-talk without truth6. Scientism without tears?

1. Introduction

Scientism and the manifest image

„The framework of commonsense [the manifest image] is radically false.“

„Naturalism [Scientism] is really deeply incompatible with what Wilfrid Sellars calls the manifest image.“

Alex Rosenberg

Wilfrid Sellars

1. Introduction

Scientism and the manifest image„no original intentionality, no derived intentionality [...], no meaning, in particular no linguistic meaning, no semantic values, no truth or falsity.“

1. Introduction

The incoherence charge● there are no truth-bearers ● there is no propositional content neither in neural circuitry nor in speech

→ How can we claim that scientism is true?→ How can the thesis of scientism be expressed at all?→ What is this „true“ description of the world that science gives us?

1. Introduction

Translation into neural patterns„a rough translation manual, enabling us to infer from sentences that speakers/writers “sincerely” produce back to the neural circuitry that (nonsententially) stores the information causing the vocalization or inscription“

„a neurological handle on disagreement and on the structural differences in neural circuitry, if any, between asserting p and asserting not-p when p expresses the eliminativist [scientistic] thesis“

2. Translation

Translation via causal relations?● translation and „expressing a thesis“ are

semantic notions● we causally trace marks and noises, not

sentences or theses● „Scientism is true.“● „Der Scientismus ist wahr.“→ which one is the thesis of scientism?it is something expressed by both and we need a notion of meaning to capture this

2. Translation

Translation via causal relations?

„Scientism is true.“ - p„Scientism is not true.“ - non-p„Scientism is very true.“ - p!

How do we capture the sense of „not“?We can have a „neurological handle on disagreement“ only if we understand beforehand what disagreement is.

2. Translation

Structural isomorphism● not a naturalized account of truth,

but a successor concept● designed to capture what a „true“

description of reality is

„provide some alternative for semantic evaluability, to substitute for saying that sentences or statements are true or false“

3. Isomorphism

Structural isomorphism● we could detect isomorpism with

any notion of what reality is like● we need agreement on which

things and processes constitute reality

● science could provide us with it → but can we get circular here?

3. Isomorphism

Structural isomorphism ● just a conceptual successor to

truth ● grasp what having an adequate

representation of reality would amount to if we had it

→ but can it do enough work in Rosenberg's conception?

3. Isomorphism

Why care about incoherence?● a straight-forward rebuttal:

In scientism nothing gets expressed. Even "the expression of the thesis of scientism" is just marks and noises. When I utter: "Scientism is true.", it is still just marks and noises. I do not have to explain the meaning of "true" because there is none.

● our opponent will not be satisfied but do we care?

● to care about incoherence, we need to recognize semantic features of sentences

4. Truth?

Why care about truth?● incoherence need not be the issue

● why then save truth?

→ how can we substantiate the claim that science differs from other areas of culture (religion, history, arts, „common-sense“)?

4. Truth?

Scientism and the manifest image

„The framework of commonsense [the manifest image] is radically false.“

„Naturalism is really deeply incompatible with what Wilfrid Sellars calls the manifest image.“

Alex Rosenberg

Wilfrid Sellars

5. Truth-talk without truth

Truth-talk without truth● truth, aboutness, etc. do not

really exist● but truth-talk cannot be reduced

or eliminated● we need it to construct our

scientific world picture● truth-talk is connected to norms

and criticism5. Truth-talk without truth

Truth-talk without truth

⟶ retaining the advantages of our ordinary concept of truth and structural isomorphism

but: norms and rules vs. physical reality

5. Truth-talk without truth

Scientism without tears?

● don't cry about incoherence

● but maybe do so about „science's adequately describing reality“

6. Scientism without tears?

Thank you for your attention!

ReferencesAmaral (ed.), Pedro. 1989. The Metaphysics of

Epistemology. Atascadero: Ridgeview.“Introductions.” In: Moving Naturalism Forward Workshop

[film], 25/10/2012, http://www.http://preposterousuniverse.com/naturalism2012/video.html.

Rosenberg, Alexander. 2011. The Atheist’s Guide to Reality: Enjoying Life without Illusions. New York: W.W. Norton.

Rosenberg, Alexander. Unpublished. „Eliminativism without Tears.“

Rosenberg, Alexander. Unpublished. „Epistemological Challenges to Scientism.“

Sellars, Wilfrid. 1962. “Truth and ‘Correspondence.’” The Journal of Philosophy 59: 29–56.

Sellars, Wilfrid. 1965. “Scientific Realism or Irenic Instrumentalism: A Critique of Nagel and Feyerabend on Theoretical Explanation.” In: Cohen, R.; Wartofsky, M. (eds.) Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science, Vol. II, 171–204. Humanities Press.

Sellars, Wilfrid. 1967. Science and Metaphysics - Variation on Kantian Themes. Atascadero: Ridgeview Publishing.