SCIENTISM : What!?

"SCIENTISM": What!?... By Swami, 20120610

CONTENTS… - INTRO - HISTORY and CONTEXT - HISTORY OF SCIENTISM - SCIENTISM TODAY - SCIENCE, SCIENTISM, RELIGION, & POLITICS - SCIENTISM APOLOGISTS (defenders of) - SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS - APPENDICES: A: Discussion threads B: Related areas for further consideration ------

INTRO:

Though the word "scientism" is little recognized by the general public, it is sure to elicit opinions upon hearing its definition: "belief that the investigative methods of the physical sciences are applicable or justifiable in all fields of inquiry" [ref], while another is sure to get even more reaction: "the WORSHIP of SCIENCE or claim that only scientific knowledge is VALID or TRUE knowledge" [ref], which is in contrast to the more favorable: "a scientific worldview that encompasses natural explanations for all phenomena, eschews supernatural and paranormal speculations, and embraces empiricism and reason" [ref].

So, it can be seen that "scientism" can be stated in a neutral, a negative, or a positive way. How one uses or views the word will be shaped by their worldview, what they consider to be valid ways of "knowing", and their motivations. At a fundamental level, scientism is closely associated with epistemology: the study of knowledge (What is it? How can it be acquired? How is a thing "known" to be "true"?). And as we shall see, scientism is also associated with social, political, and religious matters.

HISTORY and CONTEXT:

As with many an inquiry, a survey of history provides context for understanding. So, what is the history of “knowing”, and where does science fit in?...

One can hypothesize that people required, or at least desired, a sense of knowing before recorded history; even before language! Knowing came from experiencing (empirical), and thinking (reason). In fact, this has been at the root of philosophy and epistemology from the beginning, and continues to the present day. Originally, the emphasis was placed on reason, even at the exclusion of experience. Actually, the precursor to modern science was called “natural philosophy”. In addition, religious authority also exerted a strong influence on what was accepted as “truth” and on valid ways of knowing. In fact, science and religion coexisted nicely, as long as science aimed to confirm and glorify the Creator.

As for “science” as a way of knowing, it has developed over time, taking on different forms and views, and expanding in practice and scope. Though some expression exists from as far back as ancient Greek times, it’s not until the Renaissance (14th to 17th C.), then the Scientific Revolution (mid-16th thru end of 17th C.), and into The Enlightenment (mid-17th thru end of 18th C.), and finally through to the present day that its influence came to dominate.

HISTORY OF SCIENTISM:

Back to history: this time of scientism itself. This will help us understand the development, various ideas, and changing usage of the term.

Though not called scientism, during the formative centuries of modern science, philosophers touched on the optimistic sense of it: Descartes in the 17th C., Condorcet in the 18th, plus Saint-Simon, Auguste Comte in the 19th, plus Bertrand Russell in the 20th C.

- René Descartes: "Father of Modern Philosophy", rationalist, mathematician, and prominent figure in the Scientific Revolution). - Marquis de Condorcet: Philosopher, rationalist, mathematician, political scientist, and prominent figure in the Age of Enlightenment. - Henri de Saint-Simon: Socialist theorist, influenced positivism, and sociology. - Auguste Comte: Founder of sociology, and doctrine of positivism; and prominent philosopher of science. - Bertrand Russell: Philosopher (one of the founders of analytic philosophy), logician, mathematician; also studied epistemology.

"Positivism asserts that the only authentic knowledge is that which allows positive verification.", specifically, through sensory experience. [ref] It has been associated with scientism: “scientism is most closely associated with the positivism of August Comte (1798-1857) who held an extreme view of empiricism, insisting that true knowledge of the world arises only from perceptual experience.” [ref] Furthermore, “antipositivists and critical theorists have associated positivism with ‘scientism’; science as ideology. [ref]

Though I have found reference to an 1870 appearance of the word “scientism”, the earliest original source attestation I can find is from a 1911 quotation attributed to French biologist and philosopher of science, Félix Le Dantec, in the Grande Revue, thus bringing us into the 20th century:

“I believe in the future of science: I believe that science, and science only, will solve all the questions that have meaning; and I think it will penetrate the essence of our sentimental life and that it will even explain to me the origin and the structure of the hereditary anti-scientific mysticism that cohabitates in me along with the most absolute scientism. But I am also convinced that men pose a lot of questions that don’t mean anything. Those questions Science will show their absurdity by not answering them, which will prove that they don’t have an answer.” [ref.] (Note: Translated by a native French speaker, not Google or otherwise.)

Then there is the following by Bernard Shaw, from circa 1918, casting “scientism” in a negative light as a lesson to churches… "It is not that science is free from legends, witchcraft, miracles, biographic boostings of quacks as heroes and saints, and of barren scoundrels as explorers and discoverers. On the contrary, the iconography and hagiography of Scientism are as copious as they are mostly squalid.” [ref, “Back to Methuselah”, by Bernard Shaw]

The next reference is attested from the early 1940’s by Friedrich Hayek, as revealed in his 1952 book, “The Counter-Revolution of Science: Studies on the Abuse of Reason,..." [PDF]:

“These two major sections of the volume were first published in parts in Economica for 1942-1944 and for 1941 respectively. The third study, written more recently as a lecture appeared first in Measure for June 1951 but was prepared from notes collected at the same time as those for the first two essays.” (Excerpt from the Preface)

Hayek also notes that the original term comes from the French (as “scientisme”), which is in line with the Le Dantec quotation above.

It is from Hayek that much of the widespread early discussion of scientism stems. It should be noted that he was interested in the concept of scientism as it relates to the social sciences, especially to economics, which he viewed as "spontaneous order" resulting from unintended human design by virtue of their actions. Furthermore, he was critical of scientism, not in support of it, though I’m not sure if he considered that any scientist actually practiced it. This “accusation” comes later in history, from other sources.

So, we can see that Hayek was bringing into question Le Dantec’s bold assertion that science can (eventually) answer all questions, and that any questions not answerable by science are actually meaningless.

Perhaps most in line with Hayek’s use of “scientism” is the following definition:

"The view…that the methods of the…physical sciences are universally valid, and therefore should apply to the social sciences and the humanities as well." [ref]

SCIENTISM TODAY:

As is the case with language, a word’s meaning and usage is subject to change. Presently, scientism is most often used as a pejorative in an attack on a scientific claim, or specific scientist. The thing under attack may be something like global climate change, or evolution, which are arguably addressable by science, thus making the claim of scientism actually not appropriate. I have even seen it used by certain conspiracy theorist, where the claim of scientism definitely doesn’t apply. Others use it consistent with the “science outside its domain” sense, such as when science is applied to morals, as against Sam Harris’ book, “The Moral Landscape”. But even here, Harris addresses the charge and gives argument against the accusation. See his related TED Talk here.

Some Christians identify others as holding to scientism. The claim is often that science is inappropriate for examining “faith/Faith” and answering ”questions of ultimate concern”, such as, Where did we come from? Why are we here? What happens after we die? One such Christian, who happens to also be a prominent scientist, is Dr. Francis Collins, Director of the National Institutes of Health, and most notably, past Director of the National Center for Human Genome Research.

He has stated, “Let me say that this last couple of points seems to commit the error of applying in a very rigorous scientific way arguments about faith. I would call that scientism. …Is there a God? Does he care about me? Why are we all here? What happens after we die?... Is it not immediately apparent that science is poorly designed to answer those questions? And similarly I would say that science is poorly designed to assess the truth or falsity of faith.” [ref] This is from an Academy of Achievement panel discussion/”debate” from 2006 featuring notable personalities: Benjamin Carson, Francis Collins, Richard Dawkins, and Daniel Dennett. This charge of scientism is addressed by Dr. Jerry Coyne, Professor in the Department of Ecology and Evolution at the University of Chicago, on his blog, WHY IS EVOLUTION TRUE.

Coyne concludes by saying, "Collin’s response to a fellow believer who espouses creationism is not to correct him on the science but rather to attack those who make valid points about the evolution of aspects of humanity (in this case consciousness and human morality), accusing them of the crime of ‘scientism’.”

And Coyne further states that Collin's is willing to defend religion by "attacking science and addressing methodological naturalism with accusations of 'scientism'." [ref]

SCIENCE, SCIENTISM, RELIGION, & POLITICS:

[This section is incomplete…]

Particularly interesting is how the charge of “scientism” is used in religion, and politics. At the outset, it should be noted that scientism and science are NOT the same. Science - as a mindset and approach to understand Nature - clearly exists, while scientism - as a belief that science is the only valid way to true knowledge, or as a dogmatic “religion” - well, its existence is questionable.

Some Religious Critics of Scientism…

Francis Collins has already been mentioned, but there are plenty of others.

“Scientism? Not So Much!” [ref] by Scott Granger (A Christian view)

"A Plea for Scientism" [ref] "Feyeraband and Scientism" [ref] by Dave Gosse (A Christian view: Lutheran)

"How To Defend Society Against Science" [ref] by Paul Feyerabend

“The Lies of Scientism” [ref] by Bishop Michael J. Sheridan (A Christian view: Catholic)

[ADD MORE…]

The Political Side of Scientism…

“Science and Politics: Deception and Dishonesty”

- “What is actually being promoted here is not science but what is increasingly being called ‘Scientism”. Essentially a religion which preaches dogma and permits no dissent.” - “Scientism is a tool, useful to make political ideas carry the cachet of scientific fact. By draping their political theories in a cloud of scientific jargon, politicians can claim an unearned level of respectability and add weight to their ideas in order to confuse citizens and garner unwarranted support. The communists did the same thing with ‘Marxist theory’ and the Nazi’s did the same with genetic theories of the ‘Master Race’.” - “We are on the brink, and being led by the High Priests of Scientism to follow their lead directly over the edge.” [ref]

[ADD MORE…]

SCIENTISM APOLOGISTS (defenders of):

The are a lot of people, scientists and others, that defend science, but in all my research I have found only one person willing to make a strong defense of scientism. The individual, Alex Rosenberg, is not a scientist, but a philosopher. In his book, “The Atheist's Guide to Reality” [ref, Amazon, including reviews], a central tenet he exposes is “physics fixes all the facts”: from physics one can know chemistry, and from chemistry one can know biology, and from biology one can know anything. To hear him talk about his book and scientism, listen to the Atheist’s Talk podcast here.

SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS:

“Scientism”: What!?... That depends whom you ask and when you ask.

[ADD MORE…] ------APPENDICES:

A: Discussion threads

Threads from postings to message boards: 1) Plato’s Cave meetup (PC). 2) Orlando Freethinkers & Humanists meetup (OF&H). 3) Orlando Skeptics meetup (OS).

Subject: “ARTICLE: ‘Scientism’ (WIP...)” [PC] [OF&H] Subject: “QUESTION: Is science the only valid way of knowing anything?” [PC] [OF&H] [OS]

B: Related areas for further consideration

1) Epistomology (How do I know?) 2) Ontology (What exists?) 3) Presuppositionalism (What postulates do I start from?)

0c6bf57e3251d1f2119af4302226848f.doc