What are the risks of scientism concretely ?
Well to back up for a sec,
I think one way to (dis)solve the question is by looking at the revelation Wittgenstein made between his first and second books:
First he thought all language was analytic/descriptive (because people naturally think this, and continue to, because our cognitive 'factory preset' seems to be 'Naive Realist' or perhaps 'Logical Positivist')
Then he realized that actually, most actual language used by actual humans was synthetic/prescriptive
So TL;DR of this:
Analytic/Descriptive = 'the world is like this'
Synthetic/Prescriptive = 'here's what that means for you, and what you might do about it'
This distinction shows up in a few different fields
The German Phenomenologists described three basic categories for the things you experience:
Um-Welt (the 'out' world)
Eigen-Welt (the 'in' world)
Mit-Welt (the "with" world)
So, Scientism is basically the hidden default assumption that in practice, language always and necessarily describes the 'Um-Welt'
(i.e. descriptive/analytic language)
And that that's exactly what language should do
or even that that's all it can do
And anyone not solely describing the 'Um-Welt' is talking bloody shite
(e.g. philosophy or religion)
I think the solution is at the level of character
Dawkins and Krauss need to un-cling to the alleged supremacy of their knowledge
And entertain the possibility that the ghosts of their ancestors might know something they don't (sorry for the 'Mit-Welt' language)
Edited by LimpyLoo, 26 December 2016 - 12:18 PM.