How <i>Not</i> to Criticise Scientism

Hietanen, Johan; Turunen, Petri Niklas; Hirvonen, Ilmari; Karisto, Janne; Pättiniemi, Ilkka Orjo Tapani; Saarinen, Henrik

doi:10.1111/meta.12443

Cited by 15 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Now you might think that if Strong Scientism succumbs so easily to the counterexample strategy, then there isn't much value in paying so much attention to it. This is what Hietanen and colleagues say (Hietanen et al 2020). Strong Scientism is too easy to refute, and too implausible to merit serious discussion.…”

Section: The Counterexamples Strategymentioning

confidence: 71%

Argumentative strategies against scientism: an overview

Woudenberg

2023

Interdisciplinary Science Reviews

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper presents and discusses various strategies that have been wielded against scientism, roughly the claim that only science can give us knowledge. The strategies identified are: (1) the counter example strategy, (2) the denying of claimed entailments of science strategy, (3) the self-undermining strategy, (4) the presupposition strategy, and (5) the limits of science strategy. In addition, two proposals are discussed that aim to recast the debate about scientism in a way that renders these strategies obsolete. It is argued that these proposals are misguided.

show abstract

Section: The Counterexamples Strategymentioning

confidence: 71%

Argumentative strategies against scientism: an overview

Woudenberg

2023

Interdisciplinary Science Reviews

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…I will further call this standpoint Luhmann's epistemological scientism (Hietanen et al, 2020) stance toward morality and ethics.…”

Section: Ethics Today Is Nothing More Than a Utopiamentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In the end, Luhmann's epistemological issue with morality seems to be that it is not as scientific, theoretical, and empirical as sociology is (Luhmann, 1996, p. 32). I will further call this standpoint Luhmann's epistemological scientism (Hietanen et al ., 2020) stance toward morality and ethics.…”

Section: Luhmann's Dismissive View On Moralitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Relational positionism: a constructive interpretation of morality in Luhmann's social systems theory

Bombaerts

2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose The purpose of this article is to summarize three Luhmannian critiques on morality, illustrate new roles for morality and add constructive interpretations.Design/methodology/approach Luhmann has recently been described as downright negative toward morality, resulting in a refusal to use ethics as a sociologist, thus leading to a limited use of his theory in moral issues. A constructive interpretation could support a more functional use of morality in social system theory.Findings First, Luhmann signals that morality can no longer fulfill its integrative function in society but also that society has recourse to moral sensitivity. Second, Luhmann describes how anxiety is crucial in modern morality and indicates which role risk and danger could play. The author builds further on this and proposes the concept of “social system attention” that can provide answers to individual and organizational anxiety. The author proposes that institutionalized socialization can support an integrative morality. Third, Luhmann states that ethics today is nothing more than a utopia but also that the interdiction of moral self-exemption is an essential element. The author adds that a relational ontology for social systems theory can avoid ethics as utopia.Practical implicationsThis article is a programmatic plea to further elaborate morality from a system theory perspective in which meaning is relationally positioned.Originality/value This article could potentially provide a more functional application of morality in social systems, thus leading to improvements of attempts of ethical decision-making. The originality of the approach lies in the interpretation of basic assumptions of Luhmann social system theory that are not core to his theory.

show abstract

“…Although necessary or sufficient conditions are not inevitable for science, as our arguments show, it is still possible that such criteria could exist. For example, it is plausible that there are at least some necessary conditions of science, such as the intersubjective evaluability of theories (Hietanen et al, 2020, pp. 533–534, 539, 541–543; Turunen et al, 2022) or the need to support scientific conclusions with reasons.…”

Section: The Demise Of the Traditional Assumptionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Demarcation without Dogmas

Hirvonen

Karisto

2022

Theoria

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper reviews how research on the demarcation problem has developed, starting from Popper's criterion of falsifiability and ending with recent naturalistically oriented approaches. The main differences between traditional and contemporary approaches to the problem are explicated in terms of six postulates called the traditional assumptions. It is argued that all of the assumptions can be dismissed without giving up on the demarcation problem and that doing so might benefit further discussions on pseudoscience. Four present‐day research movements on evaluating the boundaries of science are introduced: (1) philosophy of pseudoscience, (2) social epistemology of dissent, (3) agnotology, and (4) evaluation of expertise. Researchers working within these areas have abandoned some or all traditional assumptions.

show abstract

How Not to Criticise Scientism

Cited by 15 publications

References 20 publications

Argumentative strategies against scientism: an overview

Argumentative strategies against scientism: an overview

Relational positionism: a constructive interpretation of morality in Luhmann's social systems theory

Demarcation without Dogmas

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About