Roger Scruton: The Threat of Scientism

Рет қаралды 13,003

2 жыл бұрын

It takes a lot of effort to provide added educational value by selecting the videos for this channel, philosophyinsights. Usually, there are hours of work involved to skim through videos and edit it, in order to make a fit to the channel. If you enjoy the selection, consider subscribing! Also check out the facebook community of philosophyinsights, where we discuss the videos:
/ philosophyinsights-139...
In "Scientism in the Arts and Humanities," Scruton argues that the ideology of scientism is encouraging us to believe that brains are but matter, paintings are but pixels, and all culture is nothing but "memes." Click here to read the essay: www.thenewatlantis.com/public...
#RogerScruton #scientism
Check out the full interview, licensed under creative common here: • Roger Scruton on scien...
-
If you like the content, subscribe!

Пікірлер: 139

@jkonrad 2 жыл бұрын

You know you’re an intellectual beast when you don’t even need to brush your hair.

@sammiew06 2 жыл бұрын

😂😂😂

@JAdino 2 жыл бұрын

😂😂😂😂

@kiwichippie5465 2 жыл бұрын

Is it just me or are intellectuals and intelligent people always scruffy and careless about their appearance?

@costakeith9048 Жыл бұрын

@@kiwichippie5465 I think it's just really hard to care about social norms and conventions; yes, they obviously play their role in how you are perceived and evaluated by society at large, but they are all so ridiculous and absurd it is can be very difficult to take them seriously or to put much effort into abiding by them.

@Nigelzenig 6 ай бұрын

Too busy thinking to comb hair

@saltburner2 2 жыл бұрын

Brilliant mind, sorely missed.

@howrdrork102 2 жыл бұрын

If only he knew where this would lead... A global regime of Scientism

@Grail434 2 жыл бұрын

I love how his name in French means exactly what he does..... It means "Scrutinizer" 😂

@tau7260 2 жыл бұрын

Thank you for posting the corresponding article.

@defenderofwisdom 2 жыл бұрын

Don't call something scientism arbitrarily. Moral science is not scientism defacto, scientism is defined by assuming science can solve any problem - NOT specific ones.

@paulvallance4970 2 жыл бұрын

??? Scientism is faux science, pretending to be derived from the scientific method but is in fact its bastard child ‘warped’ by transitory cultural, economic and political ‘demands’ of the day, far beyond the ‘experimental paradigm’. The activity has much become a replacement for and thus a usuper of ‘religion’, with its own dogma.

@cx3268 2 жыл бұрын

As with the Coof, trust the science, BUT DON'T QUESTION US about it.

@torjones1701 2 жыл бұрын

If you're not allowed to question, it ain't science... :)

@margaretgrey4238 2 жыл бұрын

I hope someday humanity to progress to value his ideas on wider scale. Loving Beauty. Beautiful New Architecture. Loving People, Freedom and Truth. We have a lot to learn from him about Life. Be well.

@achinthmurali5207 Жыл бұрын

People are the worst. And science is more true than faith

@TheOrdener 8 ай бұрын

Is he just getting at what Pascal calls the Spirit of Geometry versus the Spirit of Finesse?

@seanmoran2743 2 жыл бұрын

C S Lewis warned about this a long time ago The magicians twin That Hideous Strength The Abolition of Man

@sabrinafair35 2 жыл бұрын

Miss him so much. RIP.

@user-nb3mq3cg8k 3 ай бұрын

Roger Scrutom, you done it again 👏👏👏

@88_21 2 жыл бұрын

It's ok, sent it only for you. Couldn't find your email.

@v1e1r1g1e1 2 жыл бұрын

If you regard the spirit as a source of understanding, you get Cathedrals, stained glass windows, the Parthenon, the Pieta, the Sistine Chapel .... If you regard empiricism as the ONLY source of understanding, you get Warhol's Soup Cans.

@robertfranklin8704 7 ай бұрын

C S Lewis wrote a short, albeit profound essay entitled, "Evolutionism."

@all2031 2 жыл бұрын

Social sciences are imprecise because of the complexity of human nature/human value system. However, there have been attempts to reach decisions rationally through various ways that approximates "hard" sciences which encounter their own uncertainties and dark edges. For example, to make good public policy, J.S. Mills advocated Utilitarianism: selecting a course of action that leads to the greatest good for the largest number of people. For individuals, a scientific decision is based on maximizing pleasure and avoiding pain is a universal law of life. No live organism likes to suffer and is searching pleasure.....

@costakeith9048 Жыл бұрын

If the system is too complex to render exact answers over the course of repeatable experiments then it is not a scientific field and the application of the scientific method to that field is very much an example of scientism. The so-called social sciences are nothing more than an attempt to usurp the legitimacy of science to try to manipulate the debate and dialogue that is intrinsic to these fields, it is an inherently dishonest approach to the subject. As for the flaws of utilitarianism, that is a discussion unto itself; but suffice it to say that even the most basic and cursory overview of human history should be enough to demonstrate that maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain has never been either the principal desire nor in the interest of mankind.

@choiyatlam2552 Жыл бұрын

It still a what should question, this not a what is question on the physical world. You can say Mills was inspired by scientific discovery about certain human properties. However, this still doesn’t explain why utilitarian is morally right. Why should we follow this human nature but not the human of battle of survival?

@choiyatlam2552 Жыл бұрын

The “don’t do what you don’t want on other people” itself is a moral judgement, it’s not a scientific fact. Jonathan Haidt and moral psychologist research may tell why this rule is universally adopted by human societies in the context of evolution, but this still doesn’t explain why should we follow that rule.

@ronrubicon1593 2 жыл бұрын

Put simply, in my mind, scientism is the religion of science. "Trust the science." "Talk to your doctor." It is sticking to the orthodoxy despite good reason to be skeptical.

@jims7044 2 жыл бұрын

That isn't necessarily religious. You don't know something or are unsure, so you turn to a source that is verifiably experienced.

@ronrubicon1593 2 жыл бұрын

@@jims7044 Thanks for telling me what I mean.

@Oda__Nobunaga 2 жыл бұрын

It's essentially superstition mutated from some kernel of a decontextualized scientific starting point.

@betaorionis2164 2 жыл бұрын

You don't trust the science, dude? Never boarded a plane? Never made a financial transaction via internet? And yes, if don't feel well, I strongly suggest you to talk to a doctor.

@Oda__Nobunaga 2 жыл бұрын

@@betaorionis2164 Read his words "sticking to the orthodoxy despite good reason to be skeptical." Give me a good reason to think that planes are unsafe. Give me a good reason to distrust internet banking. Give me a good reason to distrust Western medicine in general.

@andrejansen3281 2 жыл бұрын

= science you don't agree with?

@wooriumma 2 жыл бұрын

Why scientist looks like boring and not attractive like that always?? Very curious

@_nebulousthoughts 2 жыл бұрын

While I think worship of anything is dangerous. Scientism as using the story of how we got here as a better version of religion isn't the worst idea. It's not wrapped in allegory so has less room for manipulation through interpretation and encourages critical thought.

@ShifuCareaga 2 жыл бұрын

@andrejansen3281 2 жыл бұрын

@@TheJackOfAllTrades777 Hey, don't suppose you know "Programmer1" who's also on this comment thread?

@noone8418 2 жыл бұрын

Ism’s are the new religion

@ankavoskuilen1725 2 жыл бұрын

I can't hear a word he is saying because I want to comb his hair.

@programmer1840 2 жыл бұрын

Science can help solve any question, if it has a scientifically measurable answer. For example, moral decisions can broken down into what is the net benefit for humanity.

@Danny-yk4yz 2 жыл бұрын

What is one man's benefit is another man's catastrophe :)

@JAdino 2 жыл бұрын

This is just utilitarianism which any wise person knows is not often the best answer.

@programmer1840 2 жыл бұрын

@@Danny-yk4yz most of the time no. For example, we can agree on net happiness being a benefit or proliferation of the human race among space.

@programmer1840 2 жыл бұрын

@@JAdino A combat against utilitarianism is to act based on the net benefit to society, discounted over time. So, you don't just do what is best today, you factor in the long term consequences of your actions. For example, I would argue that murdering someone today may cause a net benefit, but the precedent that it sets causes a net negative effect over time.

@selimhajali9007 2 жыл бұрын

'Humanity' is way more complex than that and 'benefit' is not that easy to measure, which makes all these 'happiness' studies/surveys very clanky, assuming happiness should even be the function to optimize. Something might look great on paper in the short-term (or locally), but might bring disasters and misery a decade later, or possibly for generations and irreversibly (or somewhere else in the world). History is filled with these examples.

@justaguy328 20 күн бұрын

Worship of science is worship of man

@BanjoPixelSnack 2 жыл бұрын

Amazes me that if a certain kind of persona can weave a lot of clever sounding words together to explain something really basic and obvious that people will go to town praising them as geniuses. Not just this guy but Jordan Peterson too.

@kristenmarie9248 2 жыл бұрын

🎯💯👍😂

@kristenmarie9248 2 жыл бұрын

I couldn't listen anymore after a minute, and 40 seconds. He was not saying anything, but a word salad. 🤦‍♀️🤨

@helenbailey8419 2 жыл бұрын

Some people need things explaining to the degree this man and Mr Peterson does.

@EVSmith-by9no 2 жыл бұрын

I don’t think Scruton did anything of the sort. He was a philosopher. His job therefore is to try to explain things in clear and precise language and to offer examples that bring out the particular point he’s making. Dismissing something out of hand as a meaningless word salad is a very lazy and dishonest tactic which essentially relieves the critic of any responsibility to actually engage with what was said. It is in itself a meaningless criticism.

@allylilith5605 2 жыл бұрын

Jordan peterson thinks his stuff through though, while this guy much more seeme to just speak his mind while ignoring the obvious counter arguments to his point

@mrouth5691 Жыл бұрын

Too much word salad. 🤦‍♀️

@SecularKoranismUSA 2 жыл бұрын

Is there a science of wisdom?

@SecularKoranismUSA 2 жыл бұрын

@@TheJackOfAllTrades777 Wisdom has not been properly defined by anyone other than Claire Khaw.

@SecularKoranismUSA 2 жыл бұрын

@@TheJackOfAllTrades777 Because it should be objectively measurable, ideally.

@SecularKoranismUSA 2 жыл бұрын

@@TheJackOfAllTrades777 In Rome, do Romans as the Romans do.

@sibsibs83 Жыл бұрын

Yes, it's called Anthroposophy. Read Rudolf Steiner.

@clintwarlick9241 2 жыл бұрын

Better than the threat of blind stupidity

@Nsgs_ 2 жыл бұрын

You shouldn’t blindly believe anything, question everything, including science and religion

@eidith4523 2 жыл бұрын

Words without meaning essentially, this guys a bum!

@JohnGeometresMaximos 2 жыл бұрын

Oh boy! Wait till you read Marcuse! Endless drivel. 😁

@BanjoPixelSnack 2 жыл бұрын

Yeah, not particularly insightful or profound. Just a lot of words to explain basic common sense??

@kristenmarie9248 2 жыл бұрын

🎯💯👍

@helenbailey8419 2 жыл бұрын

@@BanjoPixelSnack Which the world lacks much more than most people realise.

@JohnGeometresMaximos 2 жыл бұрын

@@helenbailey8419 🎯💯👍

@xcosmiccrunchx 2 жыл бұрын

Nothing against religion, for the most part, but when theists stop trying to answer objective questions with subjective text, I'll care more about people trying to use science to address questions of morals and ethics.

@jondavidgriffin 2 жыл бұрын

I don't think either are suitable. Morals and ethics are best addressed through continual dialogue and reason. We must also accept that there are no 'right' answers and all arguments and conclusions will be imperfect.

@kristenmarie9248 2 жыл бұрын

Blah, blah, blah. 🤦‍♀️👎

@edmundburke8490 10 ай бұрын

Could you perhaps add something of value to discussion.

@Londinium379 2 жыл бұрын

Scruton was a deeply flawed individual who made literally no sense on the many subjects on which he opined. A xenophobic and extremely poor thinker who fooled lots of people.

@seanmoran2743 2 жыл бұрын

Making personal attacks shows how weak your opinion is

@johannespaulus919 2 жыл бұрын

@Naresh B. Please explain..

@mrepix8287 2 жыл бұрын

Go away liberal. Come back when you’re prepared to offer actual argument instead of petulant name-calling.

@fsmelo87 2 жыл бұрын

yeah yeah I'm sure you read a lot of his material. stfu

@costakeith9048 Жыл бұрын

Regardless of your opinion on him, he was one of the last truly educated people in western civilization; his death marked the end of an era and the beginning of a new dark age.

@yfcanaan1386 2 жыл бұрын

Science is going eventually to explain all the things we once deemed mysterious and unattainable by the scientific method. Science is superior,deal with it.

@nerosuperstardom 2 жыл бұрын

Your comment is an excellent example of scientism. Thank you.

@yfcanaan1386 2 жыл бұрын

@@nerosuperstardom If that's what scientism is,then I have no problem in being part of it,I see no other rational alternative to it 🤷‍♂️

@nerosuperstardom 2 жыл бұрын

@@yfcanaan1386 Belief that science will eventually explain everything mysterious is ignoring that there are questions outside the scope and ability of science to explore. It elevates science and the rational to an unrealistic degree (some would say the worship of science), so yes it is scientism, not science. You also assume that all alternatives must be rational to have value. There's no reason to believe the irrational does not have it's own value. Ultimately, there is room enough for both and science should be valued for what it can offer, its authority respected in regard to what it can study, and appreciated in that it is one means of exploring our existence, but not the only one.

@ShifuCareaga 2 жыл бұрын

@CrypticCarbon 2 жыл бұрын

Scientist here. Science actually can not explain everything. In fact you can prove that certain things are unknowable and unprovable. Look up Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem. Science only deals with things that you can practically empirically measure. There are likely many times more things that can't be measured compared to things that can. Science also does not inherently solve answers to many philosophical ethical questions.