Utilitarianistic approaches are really bad... Scientism falls flat on its face, since it's a self refuting philosophy(!).
It's truth cannot be demonstrated according to its own principles, (i.e. hard sciences are the best / superiour or even only source of genuine knowledge of the world). The truth of scientism is philosophical in nature and not the result of a scientific experiment.
We shouldn't adhere to untruth just because it "serves" our ends in some ways or another.*
By the way, how do you arrive at your value judgements of "good" and "bad", "serving" something vs. the opposite?
How do you determine "the benefits" in a relativistic worldview, most modern people, as well as you seem to adhere to (see "post truth world").
For whom was it "net beneficial"?
Doing science and producing results is not necessarily a result or proof of the philosophy the scientist adheres to. One could believe all sorts of things and get scientific results, so I don't see scientism as beneficial in any sense.
It is wrong as a theory and it undermines science itself in a major way.
Scientism undermines the presuppositions science philosophically rests on*and which cannot be proven by science itself.
Therefore if Scientism believes that you can only believe "truths" that are the result of scientific experiments and you have to rely on presuppositions that cannot categorically be proven by science itself, you cannot do science anymore.
Scientism is the enemy of science, logically speaking.
*
I still believe that "the Good" and "Truth" are directly entangled and necessary.
*
a) belief in an external world, independent of mind, languagy or theory,
b) the nature of the world is orderly, especially its "deep structure" that lies under and beyond the manifest world of ordinary perception
c) objective truth exists
d) our sensory and cognitive faculties are reliable for gaining truth and knowledge of the world, and tehy are able to grasp the world's deep structure that lies beyond the sense-perceptible world,
e) various types of values and "oughts" exist
f) the laws of logic and mathematics exist
It's truth cannot be demonstrated according to its own principles, (i.e. hard sciences are the best / superiour or even only source of genuine knowledge of the world). The truth of scientism is philosophical in nature and not the result of a scientific experiment.
We shouldn't adhere to untruth just because it "serves" our ends in some ways or another.*
By the way, how do you arrive at your value judgements of "good" and "bad", "serving" something vs. the opposite? How do you determine "the benefits" in a relativistic worldview, most modern people, as well as you seem to adhere to (see "post truth world").
For whom was it "net beneficial"?
Doing science and producing results is not necessarily a result or proof of the philosophy the scientist adheres to. One could believe all sorts of things and get scientific results, so I don't see scientism as beneficial in any sense.
It is wrong as a theory and it undermines science itself in a major way. Scientism undermines the presuppositions science philosophically rests on*and which cannot be proven by science itself.
Therefore if Scientism believes that you can only believe "truths" that are the result of scientific experiments and you have to rely on presuppositions that cannot categorically be proven by science itself, you cannot do science anymore.
Scientism is the enemy of science, logically speaking.
* I still believe that "the Good" and "Truth" are directly entangled and necessary.
* a) belief in an external world, independent of mind, languagy or theory, b) the nature of the world is orderly, especially its "deep structure" that lies under and beyond the manifest world of ordinary perception c) objective truth exists d) our sensory and cognitive faculties are reliable for gaining truth and knowledge of the world, and tehy are able to grasp the world's deep structure that lies beyond the sense-perceptible world, e) various types of values and "oughts" exist f) the laws of logic and mathematics exist