Scientism

What Hacker News says

1. pmoriartyApr 2018
   I wouldn't agree with this characterization. There are no subjects that are off-limits to Continentals or Analytics.

   As they've come to dominate university philosophy departments, the Analytics especially have started to branch out in to all sorts of fields they refused to touch in the past -- even going so far as to start reading and discussing Continental philosophers themselves (while mostly missing the point, in my opinion).

   Their difference today is mostly one of approach or writing style, how they understand philosophers of the past, and which of them they consider important. Analytics also seem to be generally more scientistic[1] than Continentals.

   It's hard to summarize the difference any better in words that are comprehensible to people who haven't studied philosophy. You really should just read some representative philosophers from each tradition yourself. It's glaringly obvious if you do.

   [1] - Note: That's "scientistic" -- not to be confused with "scientific". For a good introduction to the difference avoid Wikipedia (which is pretty awful at philosophy), or the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (which is much better, but is very heavily slanted towards the Analytic perspective) and see: Tom Sorell's "Scientism": https://www.amazon.com/Scientism-Philosophy-Infatuation-Scie...

   Show morethread
2. gnosisDec 2012
   This essay should be required reading for anyone who thinks science is or should be the only legitimate way of understanding the world.

   For more information, I strongly recommend:

   "Naturalism and the Human Condition: Against scientism" by Frederick A. Olafson

   and

   "Scientism" by Tom Sorell

   Show morethread
3. gnosisDec 2012
   On the Analytic side, take a look at Balashov's and Rosenberg's "Philosophy of Science: Contemporary Readings"

   On the Continental side, the classic essay is Heidegger's "The Question Concerning Technology".

   I'd also recommend Jacques Ellul's "Technological Society".

   And, while not dealing directly with science, I think Foucault's critiques of power in discourse are very relevant.

   Earlier in this thread I'd mentioned:

   "Naturalism and the Human Condition: Against scientism" by Frederick A. Olafson, whose critique comes from a phenomenological perspective.

   and

   "Scientism" by Tom Sorell, who's a neo-Kantian.

   None of the above are postmodernists.

   Show morethread