Radical Skepticism and Scientism Reflection

Both themes of radical skepticism and scientism are important to the field of philosophy. Upon this the ideas of the external world skepticism which challenges the notion that there is a world or universe other than the physical one where life exists. On the other hand, scientism relies exclusively on physical and natural sciences to perform assessments. Both correlate since they concentrate on the premise that the physical existence of the universe is essential to the discovery of the reality of the world itself. Unless there is sufficient attention to the details it will be obvious that both concepts actually have major differences that distinguish them from others through their similarities. In this essay each major subject is examined separately, and the two subjects are then examined together in order to detect the similarities and differences between the two. Radical skepticism is a philosophical position about the idea that knowledge about the external world can not be proven accurate. The external world refers to the physical world outside the mind, this philosophical position subjects its supporters to question all beliefs. The statement “ I think therefore I am”(Descartes) serves as justification for this view. However there are many arguments against this position. One relating to the “ I think therefore I am”(Descartes) statement, the argument claims that if this position’s defense relies too much on memories, which are easily manipulated and can be doubted. This would make it meaningless to assert existence if the memories we rely on can not be proven as the actuality. Another critique is based on the difficult need for unrealistic evidence. Radical skepticism assumes true knowledge requires full proof, when this need is not possible. Supported by “... it might be enough to simply rely on the evidence that I gain about it through my senses, as incomplete as it is. This would put radical skepticism to rest. The problem with this solution, though, is that it doesn't refute radical skepticism, but surrenders to it.” (James Fieser, 2008). Christain worldview also has some issues with radical skepticism since the mindset associated with this position would block any attempts to gain knowledge of God. Sharing “According to funky/pop skepticism, our knowledge of the external world is blocked because various logical possibilities can be raised...This type of skepticism confuses possibility with plausibility.”( Hendrik van der Breggen, 2011). There has been no noticeable harm to society as a result of radical scepticism. Radical skeptics have tried to claim that doubt has a special advantage: it will make us tolerant of others if we understand that we ourselves cannot affirm superior knowledge. Scientism is the idea that scientific methods are the only valid way to gain information about anything; that science's interpretation of the universe is right in its basics. Science provides all the important truths about reality, and to know these truths is what real understanding is all about. Being a scientist simply means treating science as our exclusive guide to reality, to natureboth our own and everything else.If not all science-based sources are counted as information, then science itself cannot provide knowledge. This question is connected to if science offers knowledge, it can do so only because non-science can provide knowledge. Which leads to the idea that Everything cannot be substituted at once, the entire foundation, the whole fundamental of science cannot be substituted at once, but a specific non-scientific thing can be substituted. There's therefore a trust in science. Scientism teaches you how to obtain information about topics much like Christian worldview. Yet scientism depends on consulting the sciences in specific. In the sense that we only get to know the ultimate impact on truth by consulting natural sciences. Which undermines the Christian worldviews when it contains five points that science cannot clarify, but theism does explain. It's the heart of the world. The root of nature's universal laws. There is the universe's fine tuning. This is the source of knowledge The essence and the objectively ideal nature of objective rules of morality, logic. As expressed by the Christain’s “if something like religious, ethical or related claims cannot be quantified and proven in the laboratory, then the claims are nothing but hot air, mere expressions of feeling that cannot carry any authority. Thus, the gospel may be safely disregarded and the demands of discipleship set aside when they are not convenient.”(J P Moreland, 2019). Radical skepticism is a psychological belief that a validity of the outer world is difficult to confirm. Radical skepticism believes that true knowledge needs absolute evidence and this need cannot be achieved. Scientism is the belief that scientific methods are the only correct way to learn about everything; that the understanding of the world by science lies in its core principles. Science gives all the essential truths on reality, and the real understanding is about knowing those truths. Therefore there is faith in science. Scientism shows you how to think about subjects such as Christian view of the world. Scientism, however, relies on scientific consultation. Christain's worldview then becomes problematic with both radical skepticism and scientism, since the mindset of these positions would discourage any efforts to attain the knowledge of God.