THINKING ABOUT SCIENCE MASSIMO PIGLIUCCI

The Sin of Scientism

he United States is characterized a person who engages in scientism plexities ol human mental phenomena by a peculiar mixture of science- (engaging in scientistic behavior doesn't into current neurobiological parlance, worshipping and anti-intellect- make you a scientist). Indeed, the word perhaps it is the latter that is at fault for T is often hurled at people as an insult, being too simplistic. The Churchlands, ualism. On the one hand, America is the clear world leader in science and tech- especially by philosophers at other on the other hand, have faith in the fact nology, boasting achievements such as philosophers, or by creationists at evolu- that eventually psychology will be absorbed into biology, just as chemistry landing a human on the Moon (or, tionary biologists and other scientists. is now considered largely a branch of more questionably, inventing and using Scientism is essentially an ideological physics. Perhaps, but the jury is obvi- nuclear weapons). On the other hand, position implying that science is the only ously still out, and it seems premature to almost half of the American people don't key to solve any problem worth address- be too dogmatic on the matter. "believe" in evolution, and many ing, and that—given enough time and espouse all sorts of doubtful or down- right silly beliefs in paranormal phe- Scientism is essentially an ideological nomena. How is this possible? Many explanations have been pro- position implying that science is the only key posed, and undoubtedly several are to solve any problem worth addressing, and that— needed. As is often the case with complex sociological phenomena, many given enough time and resources—science factors are at play simultaneously, and in fact will solve those problems. there is no simple answer to the prob- lem. I'd like to focus here on what 1 think certainly is one of these factors, resources—science in fact will solve Another example of scientism can be which when mentioned finds scientists those problems. Let us consider philoso- found in the ambitious program that and skeptics immediately on the defen- phers Patricia and Paul Churchlands E.O. Wilson set up for himself when sive: the intellectual hubris of scientism. rather radical idea that emotions do not writing his Consilience: The Unity of Scientism is not a philosophical posi- exist. Their notion of "eliminativism" Knowledge. In it, the famous biologist tion that people espouse of their own (see Armstrong, D.M., 1999. The elimi- (already controversial enough for wishing choice. There is no National Association nativist theory, pp. 91-99 in The Mind- to straightforwardly extend the sociobiol- for the Advancement of Scientism, and Body Problem: An Opinionated ogy of ants to that of human beings) in fact there is not even a word to label Introduction. Westview Press, Boulder, attempted to present the broad picture of Colorado) aims at reducing all psycho- a "consilience," i.e., a unification, of all logical talk to terms of neurobiology, and branches of human knowledge, from sci- Massimo Pigliucci is Professor of Ecology & the idea is that when one thinks of neu- ence to history, from religion to an. The Evolutionary Biology at the University of rons and electrical potentials, one docs problem was that rather than a unifica- Tennessee and author of Denying not need to bring up cumbersome and tion, Wilsons project increasingly took Evolution: Creationism, Scientism and vague concepts such as emotion. One the shape of a program of academic impe- the Nature of Science. His essays can be could object that if there is a problem rialism in which science would eventually found at uww.rationallyspealeing.org. when attempting to translate the com- reduce and explain everything else.

SKEPTICAL INQUIRER November/December 2003 21 Skeptics have their share of scientistic such a successful activity in die past, it in what other people justly perceive as tendencies, real or perceived, as on those simply does not follow that it will con- an argument from authority ("believe occasions in which they dismiss out of tinue to be so in the future, or that it me, I have a Ph.D. in the sciences .. ."). hand (i.e., without serious considera- will work in any particular case. To What we often fail to convey to the pub- tion, or based only on armchair investi- think otherwise is to put an unsubstan- lic is not that science is incredibly gations) new or unusual phenomena. tiated amount of trust in the method of effective at solving a wide variety of We should always remember that plenty induction (the idea that one can gener- problems—it obviously is. We fail to of currently accepted scientific discover- alize from past experience), a principle present science as an open-ended ies were once thought to be "impossible" that in itself cannot be justified on sci- inquiry, a process of continuous revision or to contradict established scientific entific grounds (see the May/June 2003 of its own findings, a metaphor of the principles (heliocentrism, the theory of "Thinking About Science" column). never-ending quest for human knowl- evolution, and continental drift imme- Second, and perhaps more impor- edge and wisdom. Scientism is the secu- diately come to mind). tantly, adopting a scientistic attitude is lar equivalent of religious bigotry, and What, exactly, is wrong with scien- likely to result in very bad publicity with it does no good to either society or to tism? I maintain that there are two cate- the average citizen. The essence of sci- science itself. gories of problems with it, which every ence is the application of critical think- serious skeptic should ponder from time ing to empirically verifiable questions, Further Reading to time. First, it is philosophically and the last thing one should do in Sorell. T. 1991. Scientism: Philosophy and the untenable. Just because science has been order to foster such attitude is to engage Infatuation with Science. Routledge, London. I_"J

OCTOBER 23 - 26.2003 • ALBUQUERQUE. NEW MEXICO Haunted houses, lake monsters, flying saucers, and mysterious phenomena. Who hasn't heard about government conspiracies to hide extraterrestrials, reports of Bigfoot sightings, or free and easy ways to create unlimited energy If you'd like to know the truth behind these and other incredible stories, look no further: attend CSICOP's conference Hoaxes. Myths & Manias. Topics and speakers include: Welcoming Remarks Investigating Among the Spirits Planet (hoa)X Ken Frazier Joe Nickell Philip Plait

Would You Believe It? They See Dead People, or Do They? Medical Claims Barry Beyerstein Jim Underdown Wallace Sampson The Psychology of the Con How to Hoax a Ghost Video The Use of the Polygraph Ray Hyman Mark Manning Alan Zelicoff Internet and Media Hoaxes Urban Legends: Too Good To Be True Alex Boese Jan Harold Brunvand Banachek, Thought Reader Steve Shaw Conspiracy Theories The Museum of Unworkable Devices Jonathan Vankin Donald Simanek Hoaxes, Myths and Monsters Benjamin Radford Pranks, Frauds, and Hoaxes The Promise of Free Energy from Around die World Eric Krieg Myths and Legends in Anthropology Robert Carroll Kenneth Feder Beyond The Bible Code: Legends and Hoaxes of Evolution Hidden Messages Everywhere UFO Hoaxes Eugenie Scott Dave Thomas James McGaha

Sponsored by For more information call or write Barry Karr at CSICOP. PO Box 703. Amherst NY 14226; (716) 636-1425 ext 217. or by e-mail at [email protected]

2 2 November/December 2003 SKEPTICAt INQUIRER