DOCSLIB.ORG

Maladies of Modernity: Scientism in Politics David Nathan Whitney Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Maladies of Modernity: Scientism in Politics David Nathan Whitney Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College Louisiana State University LSU Digital Commons LSU Doctoral Dissertations Graduate School 2010 Maladies of modernity: scientism in politics David Nathan Whitney Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/gradschool_dissertations Part of the Political Science Commons Recommended Citation Whitney, David Nathan, "Maladies of modernity: scientism in politics" (2010). LSU Doctoral Dissertations. 1970. https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/gradschool_dissertations/1970 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at LSU Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in LSU Doctoral Dissertations by an authorized graduate school editor of LSU Digital Commons. For more information, please [email protected]. MALADIES OF MODERNITY: SCIENTISM IN POLITICS A Dissertation Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the Louisiana State University Agricultural and Mechanical College in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy In The Department of Political Science By David Nathan Whitney B.A. 2004, University of Tennessee M.A. 2008, Louisiana State University December 2010 ©Copyright 2010 David Nathan Whitney All rights reserved ii Dedication I dedicate this dissertation to the memory of my brother, Jerry Whitney, who served as a great source of support and inspiration in my formative years. iii Acknowledgments First and foremost, I must thank my parents for their unwavering support. I could not have asked for more and surely deserved less. I also drew strength from the support of my close friends and family. My nieces and nephews always gave me proper perspective as to what matters most. Academically, I consider myself to be extremely fortunate. The political theory program at LSU is truly a hidden treasure and Sandoz, Stoner, and Eubanks are exemplary scholars who are genuinely concerned about the well being of their students. I am especially grateful to my major advisor, G. Ellis Sandoz, for his constant encouragement and support. Aside from being a tremendous scholar and teacher, Sandoz is simply an exemplary human being, and I consider myself lucky to have studied under his direction. Cecil Eubanks also gave me valuable advice throughout the years and was especially helpful in the development of my pedagogical approach. Jim Stoner provided a positive example through his extraordinary work ethic and helped strengthen my approach to scholarship by asking tough questions. I also owe a debt of gratitude to my minor professor, David Sobek, who graciously oversaw all of my work within my second field. Finally, I must thank the Eric Voegelin Institute for a summer fellowship that allowed me to formulate my prospectus and the Earhart Foundation for providing me with a dissertation fellowship. I would surely still be working on my dissertation if not for their generous financial support. iv Table of Contents Copyright . ii Dedication . iii Acknowledgments . iv Abstract . vi Chapter 1 Introduction: Scientism and the Dogmatics of Modernity . .1 Chapter 2 Francis Bacon and the New Science . 25 Chapter 3 Let There be Light: The Newtonian Age . .53 Chapter 4 Auguste Comte’s Scientistic Politics . .72 Chapter 5 The Evolution of Scientism: Marx, Darwin, and Eugenics . 109 Chapter 6 Towards a New Science of Man . 147 Chapter 7 Conclusion: Scientism in the 21st Century and Beyond . 174 Bibliography . .187 Vita . .192 v Abstract This dissertation explores the complex relationship between science and politics. More specifically, it focuses on the problem of scientism. Features of scientism include the dogmatic faith in the methods of the natural sciences (and the accompanying assumption that those methods can be successfully imported into the social sciences), a materialistic worldview, the rejection of the bios theoretikos, the prohibition of philosophical questions, and an emphasis on immanent fulfillment through the power of science. I seek to demonstrate that scientism is intellectually impoverishing and politically dangerous. Given the lack of full-length studies on the subject, I trace the development of scientism from early modernity to the present day. I begin with Francis Bacon and argue that he stands as the founder, not only of the experimental method, but also of scientism. This is most evident in his presentation of a scientific utopia in New Atlantis. After briefly exploring the works of Isaac Newton and the French Encylopedists, I move on to the other great representative figure of scientism: Auguste Comte. Comte demonstrates the religious fervor that accompanies the scientistic attitude. Continuing on the path set forth by Bacon, Comte argues for a reorganization of society based on the precepts of positive science. I argue that Comte’s founding of the Religion of Humanity serves as a logical progression from his positive philosophy. I then explore the eugenics movements in 20th century America and Germany and argue that they reflect the new worldview that had emerged from Darwin’s evolutionary theory; a theory partially based on scientistic prejudices. I ultimately argue that the solution to scientism lies in a new (or revised) science of politics; the foundation of which is based on the Classical sources that were either discredited or banned outright by the proposals of Bacon and Comte. vi Chapter 1 Scientism and the Dogmatics of Modernity “The damage of scientism is done… the insane have succeeded in locking the sane in the asylum. From this asylum no physical escape is possible. As a consequence of the interlocking science and social power, the political tentacles of scientistic civilization reach into every nook and corner of an industrialized society, and with increasing effectiveness stretch over the whole globe. There exist only differences, though very important ones, in the various regions of the global asylum with regard to the possibility of personal escape into the freedom of the spirit. What is left is hope—but hope should not obscure the realistic insight that we who are living today shall never experience freedom of spirit in society.”1—Eric Voegelin During his Inaugural Address, President Barack Obama vowed to “restore science to its rightful place.”2 This certainly did not come as a surprise to anyone who even casually followed his campaign. The issues of climate change and embryonic stem cell research came up in numerous speeches and debates throughout Obama’s presidential campaign. The foundation had been set several years earlier as former Vice President Al Gore successfully brought the issue of global warming to the forefront of political debate, primarily through his book and subsequent documentary, An Inconvenient Truth. And record high oil prices in the midst of a receding economy all but ensured that the topic would be of utmost concern in the election season. Not even halfway into his first term, Obama has already made good on his campaign promises to push for environmental regulations as well as to aggressively promote embryonic stem cell research. Through these actions, Obama can claim to be making good on his promise to “restore science to its rightful place.” But considering the stakes, we owe it to ourselves to seriously consider what science’s “rightful place” truly is within society. The answer to that question carries serious political consequences and thus deserves our full attention. 1Eric Voegelin. The English Quest for the Concrete. Volume 24 of the Collected Works of Eric Voegelin: History of Political Ideas Volume VI: Revolution and the New Science. Ed. Barry Cooper. (Columbia: University of Missouri Press, 1998) pp.214-215 2 http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/20/us/politics/20text-obama.html 1 The interplay between politics and science is certainly not a new phenomenon, but the unprecedented scientific advances in medicine and technology during the 20th century, and into the first decade of the 21st, have forced us to reconsider that relationship. While advances in medicine and technology led to unprecedented wealth and accumulation of material comforts, man’s increased control over nature also meant that he could destroy his fellow man with greater ease. Thus, in addition to penicillin, vaccinations for crippling diseases such as polio and smallpox, the mass production of the automobile, television, the internet and countless other beneficial inventions, the 20th century saw tens of millions die at the hands of their own governments.3 Atomic energy could provide power for a whole city, but it could also be used to decimate that same city. Therefore, a series of questions must be raised as to the proper relationship between science and politics. Should governments control scientific research agendas? Should they determine what inventions to allow? And if so, how can such determinations be made? Who ultimately decides if a scientific advancement is good or bad for society? The answers to such questions go a long way in determining the role of science within a society. What cannot be disputed in contemporary politics is that science carries great weight. No matter what the issue may be (stem cell research, global warming, militarized weapons, etc.), the importance of having science on “your side” cannot be overestimated. In many cases, both sides will claim to have scientific support for their arguments (this certainly has been the case in the global warming debates). The reason for this is simple: science has produced countless useful innovations, especially within the past century. Nobody has to argue for the power of 3 R. J. Rummel has coined the term “democide” to refer to the killing of citizens by their own governments. Democide accounted for far more deaths than war in the 20th century (including 62 million in the Soviet Union alone). See R. J. Rummel. Death by Government. (New Jersey: Transaction Publishers, 1994) p.24 2 science or its utility to society, as the evidence is overwhelming. However, that prestige can be abused and exploited to advance political agendas.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Renewing the Self
    Renewing the Self Renewing the Self: Contemporary Religious Perspectives Edited by Benjamin J. Wood Renewing the Self: Contemporary Religious Perspectives Edited by Benjamin J. Wood This book first published 2017 Cambridge Scholars Publishing Lady Stephenson Library, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE6 2PA, UK British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Copyright © 2017 by Benjamin J. Wood and contributors All rights for this book reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of the copyright owner. ISBN (10): 1-4438-9885-6 ISBN (13): 978-1-4438-9885-0 TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgements ................................................................................... vii Introduction ................................................................................................. 1 Individuality and Sociality in Christian Social Thought Jonathan Chaplin Section A: Historical Orientations Chapter One ............................................................................................... 10 The Canadian Red Tory Tradition: Individualism, Selfhood, Community and the Good Ron Dart Chapter Two .............................................................................................. 30 Autonomous Selves or Loved Others: A Theo-Political Perspective on the Individual Roger Haydon Mitchell Chapter Three
    [Show full text]
  • The Spirit of Transformational Politics: Human Nature, Communication, and Community
    THE SPIRIT OF TRANSFORMATIONAL POLITICS: HUMAN NATURE, COMMUNICATION, AND COMMUNITY Mary Elizabeth Domenico A dissertation submitted to the faculty at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Department of Communication Studies. Chapel Hill 2017 Approved by: Christian Lundberg William Balthrop Elizabeth Grosz Randall Styers Eric King Watts @ 2017 Mary Elizabeth Domenico ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ii ABSTRACT Mary E. Domenico: The Spirit of Transformational Politics: Human Nature, Communication, and Community Under the Direction of Christian Lundberg This project in communication ethics explores the interrelations among views of human nature, theories of communicative action, and conceptualizations of the constitutive forces of community in Western thought. The central argument, that doctrines of human nature that include extra-material human capacities open avenues for rethinking contemporary political agency, is developed through a genealogy of doctrines of human nature intended to display how ideas of the self are historically configured and influential in thinking about human capacities. I begin with ancient Greek theories of a robust human spirit as portrayed by Homer, Plato, and Aristotle. The second cluster of theorists depicts the degradation of human spirit in religious (Augustine), philosophical (Descartes), and modern scientific doctrines. The third cluster addresses the recuperation of human spirit in the theories of Spinoza, Bergson, and Nancy. These genealogical clusters represent three distinct ways of viewing human nature and capacities for political agency. I challenge theories that presume ideational rationality and discourse are constitutive of community and reformulate the foundation of ethical community based on human spiritual capacities for knowledge beyond the empirical, the creation of new ways of relating to one another, and materializing our ontological connectedness.
    [Show full text]
  • Christianity and Modernity: Why the Liberal Democratic Regime Needs the Church
    ***Please note: This is a translation of the paper delivered at the conference in June 2009. The original version in Spanish has undergone subsequent revisions that are not reflected in this translation.*** CHRISTIANITY AND MODERNITY: WHY THE LIBERAL DEMOCRATIC REGIME NEEDS THE CHURCH The comprehension of tolerance in pluralistic societies with liberal constitutions requires that, when dealing with non-believers and those of different [religious] faiths, the believers must understand that the dissent they encounter will reasonably persist . liberal political culture expects that the non-believers also understand the same thing in their dealings with believers.1 Jürgen Habermas The Christian faith is not a system. It cannot be portrayed as a finished and complete intellectual construction. It is a road and the characteristic of a road is that it is only recognized as such if one enters it, and begins to follow it.2 Josef Ratzinger, THE PLACE OF THE CHURCH 1. “The evangelistic task of the Church in all times and all over the world necessarily reverberates in the life of human society. The Church cannot be confined their temples, as God cannot be confined to the conscience.”3 This assertion, made by Pope John Paul II in Asunción during his only visit to Paraguay in May 1988, reasserted not only the position of the Church in relation to politics, and the Paraguayan State, but also against its policy of exclusion and repression of that time. The historical-political context in mid-1988 was delicate: the national- populist regime of General Alfredo Stroessner had hardened greatly, trying to further stifle the yearning for greater freedom of the people, desires that the Catholic Church echoed by taking on a role as the “voice of the voiceless,” which upset the dictator and his henchmen, who criticized Ramos-Reyes its intervention in political affairs.
    [Show full text]
  • PDF Download Starting with Science Strategies for Introducing Young Children to Inquiry 1St Edition Ebook
    STARTING WITH SCIENCE STRATEGIES FOR INTRODUCING YOUNG CHILDREN TO INQUIRY 1ST EDITION PDF, EPUB, EBOOK Marcia Talhelm Edson | 9781571108074 | | | | | Starting with Science Strategies for Introducing Young Children to Inquiry 1st edition PDF Book The presentation of the material is as good as the material utilizing star trek analogies, ancient wisdom and literature and so much more. Using Multivariate Statistics. Michael Gramling examines the impact of policy on practice in early childhood education. Part of a series on. Schauble and colleagues , for example, found that fifth grade students designed better experiments after instruction about the purpose of experimentation. For example, some suggest that learning about NoS enables children to understand the tentative and developmental NoS and science as a human activity, which makes science more interesting for children to learn Abd-El-Khalick a ; Driver et al. Research on teaching and learning of nature of science. The authors begin with theory in a cultural context as a foundation. What makes professional development effective? Frequently, the term NoS is utilised when considering matters about science. This book is a documentary account of a young intern who worked in the Reggio system in Italy and how she brought this pedagogy home to her school in St. Taking Science to School answers such questions as:. The content of the inquiries in science in the professional development programme was based on the different strands of the primary science curriculum, namely Living Things, Energy and Forces, Materials and Environmental Awareness and Care DES Exit interview. Begin to address the necessity of understanding other usually peer positions before they can discuss or comment on those positions.
    [Show full text]
  • Some Major Issues and Developments in the Philosophy Ofscience Oflogical Empiricism
    -----HERBERT FEIGL----- Some Major Issues and Developments in the Philosophy ofScience ofLogical Empiricism AsouT twenty-five years ago a small group of philosophically minded scientists and scientifically trained philosophers in Vienna formulated their declaration of independence from traditional philosophy. The pamphlet Wissenschaftliche Weltauffassung: Der Wiener Kreis (1929) contained the first succinct statement of the outlook which soon after became known as "logical positivism." In the first flush of enthusiasm we Viennese felt we had attained a philosophy to end all philosophies. Schlick spoke of a "Wende der Philosophie" (a decisive turning point of philosophy). Neurath and Frank declared "school philosophy" as obsolete and even suggested that our outlook drop the word "philoso­ phy" altogether, and replace it by "Einheitswissenschaft" or by "scien· tific empiricism." The notable impact of Alfred Ayer's first book in England, and my own efforts ~oward a propagation of Logical Positiv­ ism in the United States during the early thirties, and then the immi· gration of Carnap, Frank, von Mises, Reichenbach, Hempel and Berg­ mann created a powerful movement, but it elicited also sharp opposition nncl criticism. Through the discussions within the movement and its own production and progressive work, as well as in response to the NO'l'F.: This essay is a revised and considerably expanded .version of a lecture given in plenary session at the International Congress for Philosophy of Science, Zurich, /\ngust 25, 1954. It was first- published in Proceedi11gs of the Secono International Congress of the International Union for tl1e Philosophy ot Science (Neuchatel, Switzerland, 19 55). In the cordial letter of invitation I received from Professor Ferdinand Gonseth, president of the Congress, he asked me to discuss "I'empirisme logi<\ue,-ce qu'il fut, et ce qu'il est clevenu." Much as I appreciated the honor of t 1is ambitious assignment, I realized of course that the limitations of time would permit me to deal onJy with some selected topics within this larger frame.
    [Show full text]
  • Beyond the Scientific Method
    ISSUES AND TRENDS Jeffrey W. Bloom and Deborah Trumbull, Section Coeditors Beyond the Scientific Method: Model-Based Inquiry as a New Paradigm of Preference for School Science Investigations MARK WINDSCHITL, JESSICA THOMPSON, MELISSA BRAATEN Curriculum and Instruction, University of Washington, 115 Miller Hall, Box 353600, Seattle, WA 98195, USA Received 19 July 2007; revised 21 November 2007; accepted 29 November 2007 DOI 10.1002/sce.20259 Published online 4 January 2008 in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com). ABSTRACT: One hundred years after its conception, the scientific method continues to reinforce a kind of cultural lore about what it means to participate in inquiry. As commonly implemented in venues ranging from middle school classrooms to undergraduate laboratories, it emphasizes the testing of predictions rather than ideas, focuses learners on material activity at the expense of deep subject matter understanding, and lacks epistemic framing relevant to the discipline. While critiques of the scientific method are not new, its cumulative effects on learners’ conceptions of science have not been clearly articulated. We discuss these effects using findings from a series of five studies with degree-holding graduates of our educational system who were preparing to enter the teaching profession and apprentice their own young learners into unproblematic images of how science is done. We then offer an alternative vision for investigative science—model-based inquiry (MBI)— as a system of activity and discourse that engages learners more deeply with content and embodies five epistemic characteristics of scientific knowledge: that ideas represented in the form of models are testable, revisable, explanatory, conjectural, and generative.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 14 Modernities, Sciences, and Democracy
    Chapter 14 Modernities, Sciences, and Democracy Sandra Harding The “modern” in “modern science” is a relatively uninterrogated and untheorized concept within the sciences and in the philosophy, sociology, and history of science. This is so today at a time when other aspects of Western sciences have been fruit- fully explored in critical and illuminating ways (see Christensen and Hansen, Chap. 13; and Skovsmose, Chap. 15). In particular, the exceptionalism and triumphalism characteristic of Western attitudes toward our sciences have been explicitly criti- cized and purportedly abandoned by many of the scholars working in science studies fields. By exceptionalism is meant the belief that Western sciences alone among all human knowledge systems are capable of grasping reality in its own terms – that these alone have the resources to escape the human tendency to project onto nature cultural assumptions, fears, and desires. By triumphalism is meant the assumption that the history of science consists of a history of achievements – that this history has no significant downsides. According to this view, Hiroshima, environmental destruction, the alienation of labour, escalating global militarism, the increasing gap between the “haves” and the “have nots,” gender, race, and class inequalities – these and other undesirable social situations are all entirely consequences of social and political projects, to which the history of Western sciences makes no contribution. Such conventional Euro centric assumptions can no longer gather the support either in the West or elsewhere that they could once claim. In recent decades a huge amount of literature on modernity has emerged from the social sciences and humanities. Stimulated by the massive shifts in local and global social formations during the last half of the Twentieth Century, and by the post-modern response to such changes, social theorists, literary and other cultural critics, and, especially, historians have debated the uneven and complex origins, nature, and desirable futures of modernity, modernization, and modernism.
    [Show full text]
  • Situational Analysis
    Situational Analysis by Kevin D. Hoover CHOPE Working Paper No. 2016-17 February 2016 Situational Analysis Kevin D. Hoover Department of Economics Department of Philosophy Duke University 18 February 2016 Mail: Department of Economics Duke University Box 90097 Durham, NC 27708-0097 Tel. (919) 660-1876 Email [email protected] Abstract Situational analysis (also known as situational logic) was popularized by Karl Popper as an appropriate method for the interpretation of history and as a basis for a scientific social science. It seeks an objective positive explanation of behavior through imputing a dominant goal or motive to individuals and then identifying the action that would be objectively appropriate to the situation as the action actually taken. Popper regarded situational analysis as a generalization to all of social science of the prototypical reasoning of economics. Applied to history, situational analysis is largely an interpretive strategy used to understand individual behavior. In social sciences, however, it is applied many to types of behavior or to group behavior (e.g., to markets) as is used to generate testable hypothesis. Popper’s account of situational analysis and some criticisms that have been levied against it are reviewed. The charge that situational analysis contradicts Popper’s view that falsification is the hallmark of sciences is examined and rejected: situational analysis is precisely how Popper believes social sciences are able to generate falsifiable, and, therefore, scientific hypotheses. Still, situational analysis is in tension with another of Popper’s central ideas: situational analysis as a method for generating testable conjectures amounts to a logic of scientific discovery, something that Popper argued elsewhere was not possible.
    [Show full text]
  • MID-TWENTIETH CENTURY NEO-THOMIST APPROACHES to MODERN PSYCHOLOGY Dissertation Submitted to the College of Arts and Sciences Of
    MID-TWENTIETH CENTURY NEO-THOMIST APPROACHES TO MODERN PSYCHOLOGY Dissertation Submitted to The College of Arts and Sciences of the UNIVERSITY OF DAYTON In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for The Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Theology By Matthew Glen Minix UNIVERSITY OF DAYTON Dayton, Ohio December 2016 MID-TWENTIETH CENTURY NEO-THOMIST APPROACHES TO MODERN PSYCHOLOGY Name: Minix, Matthew G. APPROVED BY: _____________________________________ Sandra A. Yocum, Ph.D. Dissertation Director _____________________________________ William L. Portier, Ph.D. Dissertation Reader. _____________________________________ Anthony Burke Smith, Ph.D. Dissertation Reader _____________________________________ John A. Inglis, Ph.D. Dissertation Reader _____________________________________ Jack J. Bauer, Ph.D. _____________________________________ Daniel Speed Thompson, Ph.D. Chair, Department of Religious Studies ii © Copyright by Matthew Glen Minix All rights reserved 2016 iii ABSTRACT MID-TWENTIETH CENTURY NEO-THOMIST APPROACHES TO MODERN PSYCHOLOGY Name: Minix, Matthew Glen University of Dayton Advisor: Dr. Sandra A. Yocum This dissertation considers a spectrum of five distinct approaches that mid-twentieth century neo-Thomist Catholic thinkers utilized when engaging with the tradition of modern scientific psychology: a critical approach, a reformulation approach, a synthetic approach, a particular [Jungian] approach, and a personalist approach. This work argues that mid-twentieth century neo-Thomists were essentially united in their concerns about the metaphysical principles of many modern psychologists as well as in their worries that these same modern psychologists had a tendency to overlook the transcendent dimension of human existence. This work shows that the first four neo-Thomist thinkers failed to bring the traditions of neo-Thomism and modern psychology together to the extent that they suggested purely theoretical ways of reconciling them.
    [Show full text]
  • Voegelin and Strauss on Thomas Hobbes
    A Comparison and Evaluation of Interpretation: Voegelin and Strauss on Thomas Hobbes Copyright 2002 Jeremy J. Mhire In the beginning of his essay on Thomas Hobbes in What is Political Philosophy, Leo Strauss asks the rather salient question of why we, as students of political philosophy in contemporary times, should read Hobbes?29 [1] The simplicity of this question, to say nothing of its relevance, cannot be overlooked. To study Hobbesian political philosophy is to say that it is relevant to us in some way; it speaks to us precisely because it allows us the ability to understand ourselves more fully. As our self‐ understanding is at least partially informed through the modern perspective, it makes sense to return to the thoughts of one who was influential in creating that perspective. This was certainly the standpoint of both Strauss and Eric Voegelin, two of the most influential political philosophers of the last century. By returning to Hobbes�s thought, both Strauss and Voegelin wished to revive those insights that 29 [1] Leo Strauss, What is Political Philosophy (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1959), p. 170. played a crucial role in defining how we understand ourselves today. This essay, then, is first and foremost a general attempt to understand the ways in which both Eric Voegelin and Leo Strauss used Hobbes�s political philosophy as a means through which the modern project, or modernity more simply, could be better understood. This will involve an examination of the key themes that both Voegelin and Strauss thought important to properly understand Hobbes�s political philosophy in particular, and its relationship to modernity more generally.
    [Show full text]
  • What's So Bad About Scientism? Moti Mizrahi Florida Institute Of
    What’s so bad about Scientism? Moti Mizrahi Florida Institute of Technology Abstract: In their attempt to defend philosophy from accusations of uselessness made by prominent scientists, such as Stephen Hawking, some philosophers respond with the charge of “scientism.” This charge makes endorsing a scientistic stance a mistake by definition. For this reason, it begs the question against these critics of philosophy, or anyone who is inclined to endorse a scientistic stance, and turns the scientism debate into a verbal dispute. In this paper, I propose a different definition of scientism, and thus a new way of looking at the scientism debate. Those philosophers who seek to defend philosophy against accusations of uselessness would do philosophy a much better service, I submit, if they were to engage with the definition of scientism put forth in this paper, rather than simply make it analytic that scientism is a mistake. Keywords: inference to the best explanation; epistemological scientism; scientistic stance; success of science 1. Introduction In their attempt to defend philosophy from accusations of uselessness made by prominent scientists, such as Hawking and Mlodinow (2010, p. 5), who write that “philosophy is dead,”1 some philosophers accuse these scientists of “scientism.” According to Pigliucci (2010, p. 235), the term ‘scientism’ “is in fact only used as an insult.” By “scientism,” Pigliucci (2010, p. 235) means, “the intellectual arrogance of some scientists who think that, given enough time and especially financial resources, science will be able to answer whatever meaningful questions we may wish to pose—from a cure for cancer to the elusive equation that will tell us how the laws of nature themselves came about” (emphasis added).2 And Sorell (2013, p.
    [Show full text]
  • Unity of Knowledge in Transdisciplinary Research for Sustainability - G
    UNITY OF KNOWLEDGE (IN TRANSDISCIPLINARY RESEARCH FOR SUSTAINABILITY) – Vol. I - Unity of Knowledge in Transdisciplinary Research for Sustainability - G. Hirsch Hadorn UNITY OF KNOWLEDGE IN TRANSDISCIPLINARY RESEARCH FOR SUSTAINABILITY G. Hirsch Hadorn Department of Environmental Sciences, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zurich, Switzerland Keywords: Holism, issue-oriented research, sustainable development, transdisciplinarity, integration, humanities, sciences, justice, reductionism, materialism, risk, scientific discipline, scientific knowledge, uncertainty of knowledge, systems knowledge, target knowledge, transformation knowledge, moral knowledge, technology assessment Contents 1. Introduction 2. Unity of Knowledge in the History of Ideas: Ontological and Subjective Concepts 3. Unity and Diversity of the Sciences and Humanities 4. Unity of Knowledge in Societal Problem Solving 5. Unity of Knowledge in Education 6. Sustainability 7. Science and Society in Sustainable Development 8. Transdisciplinary Research for Sustainability 9. Outlook Acknowledgements Glossary Bibliography Biographical Sketch Summary Today, there is a social need for a comprehensive unity of knowledge that would provide orientation and ensure action in the context of the complex problems of modern civilization. Based on an intellectual need for unity of knowledge, different concepts of unity of knowledgeUNESCO have emerged in the course – ofEOLSS the history of ideas. The intellectual need for unity can be directed at the world, science, action or the individual. It can involve the quest for the unity of the world based on a principle that is immanent in it, the unity of science as a theoretical, methodical or epistemological unity, the unity of action as a correlationSAMPLE of scientific, pragmatic CHAPTERSand moral knowledge or, finally, unity as the educational task of the individual.
    [Show full text]