Scientarianism

[Inevitable Droid]

I'm a scientarian, which I'll define as one who deems science (or at least its methods) to be the sole path to objective knowledge, and who deems objective knowledge to be a noble goal for its own sake and for the benefits it brings to man, such that, any alleged path to objective knowledge that contradicts, opposes, undermines, or weakens science or science's methods is deemed invalid and ignoble, while any tangential process that promotes, enables, supports, or strengthens science or science's methods is deemed noble, whereas any tangential process that does the opposite of any of that is deemed ignoble.

Anyone else out there with a similar perspective?

The notion that objective knowledge is a noble goal is one that I put forward from a subjectivist perspective; I.e., I say it is so for me, because I say so.  
If you don't deem objective knowledge to be a noble goal, that's fine, I leave you to your perspective, which I disagree with, but have no basis for attacking, though I might, purely out of curiosity, question it.

The notion that science (or at least its methods) would be the sole path to objective knowledge is a claim about objective reality, and thus is eminently open to debate, should you care to engage in such.  My defense will be to say that any activity aimed at obtaining objective knowledge will either be scientific at least in spirit, or else will be a subjective procedure such as gleaning inspiration from scripture, or reading tarot cards, or casting runes, or going into trance, or hearing voices during prayer, or waking from slumber and writing down one's dreams - and subjective procedures can only be relied upon to yield either subjective knowledge; I.e., knowledge of one's own psyche; or else, on a very lucky day, hypotheses about objective reality, perhaps even testable ones, at which point science (or at least its methods) would need to be employed.

Tangential processes that could theoretically promote, enable, support, or strengthen science or science's methods would be those of politics, economics, education, or entertainment, all of which are noble to the extent they benefit science, and ignoble to the extent they don't.  Tangential processes that oppose all of that would be any of the various flavors of theism.  Secularism protects science from theism and thus is noble.  The claims in this paragraph are so for me because I say so.

[Inevitable Droid]

That which science cannot judge as being objectively true or false must be judged unreal, and then may be handed over to emotion and/or appetite to be judged as being subjectively true or false.  Therein lies all of my atheism, all of my subjectivism, and all of my scientarianism.

[Whitney]

What about the love one has for their spouse or child...is there a scientific way to measure that they truly love their spouse or child?  I'm assuming some hormones could be detected in the body as a response to seeing the person but don't know for sure.  Just thinking of ways using science as the only means for understanding truth could pose issues.  

Since philosophy gave birth to science it might be more appropriate to base truth on the rules of logic rather than specifically on the scientific method as this would also allow you to gauge the truth value of nonmaterial ideas.

[Inevitable Droid]

What about the love one has for their spouse or child...is there a scientific way to measure that they truly love their spouse or child?

If in doubt, one could hook the person up to a polygraph and ask the pertinent question or series of questions.  One could also observe the person in the wild over an extended period, taking note of decisions made under various stressors.

Just thinking of ways using science as the only means for understanding truth could pose issues.

The only means for understanding objective truth.  The adjective matters.

Since philosophy gave birth to science it might be more appropriate to base truth on the rules of logic rather than specifically on the scientific method as this would also allow you to gauge the truth value of nonmaterial ideas.

What most people mean by the scientific method is more precisely designated as the hypothetico-deductive method, whereby a hypothesis must be suggested by data and must be testable, and the hypothesis is actually tested, with a single contrary result usually enough to discount the hypothesis, and a single corroborating result taken as sufficient reason to tentatively adopt as plausible what the hypothesis implies, and then run more tests.  I heartily endorse the hypothetico-deductive method.  I also caution that science has other methods as well, and they too are valid, for example the procedure of passively observing creatures in the wild and taking careful note of what they do.

The methods of science yield what are called synthetic propositions, as opposed to analytic propositions.  The latter are essentially tautologies, albeit often very complex ones, made true by (1) the definitions of words; (2) the conventions of language; (3) the rules of formal logic; or (4) the postulates of mathematics, all four of which collectively I will designate as, the tools of analysis.  A syllogism is an analytic proposition.  An algebraic equation is likewise.  Much of what has any value in philosophy is accomplished by the formulation and manipulation of analytic propositions.  Formal logic, mathematics, and analytic philosophy are legitimate pathways to objective truth.

Synthetic propositions are those which cannot be reduced to tautologies.  It takes more than the tools of analysis to ascertain the truth or falsehood of a synthetic proposition.  The statement, "It is raining outside," is a synthetic proposition.  A synthetic proposition may be objective or subjective.  Objective ones can only be evaluated by science, or at least the methods of science, tightly coupled with as many of the tools of analysis as are relevant.  Subjective ones, by contrast, can only be evaluated by emotion and/or appetite, albeit still tightly coupled with as many of the tools of analysis are are relevant.  

The tools of analysis serve in both the objective and the subjective realms.  Science and its methods serve in the objective realm.  Emotion and/or appetite serve in the subjective realm.  Those three statements, clearly understood and firmly committed to, are enough to pull anyone out of confusion's abyss and set them on the path of clarity.