Scientism?

[shunyadragon]

In another Forum the topic of 'scientism' came up, and various sides of the issue, took issue with me ridiculing the use of the word. I like the following explanation for the issues of using scientism to describe what(?).

Does the word exist? was the challenge from on post. I responded; Actually yes and no, it exists, but it is a bogus ambiguous 'stone' word that fundamentalists like to throw at science, and has no constructive meaning. Science is science, and not related to the diverse conflicting philosophical and theological assumptions beyond Methodological Naturalism.


From: Scientism is a True but Trivial; Can We Move On?
Scientism is a True but Trivial; Can We Move On?

“The problem is to get [people] to reject irrational and supernatural explanations of the world, the demons that exist only in their imaginations, and to accept a social and intellectual apparatus, Science, as the only begetter of truth.” – Richard Lewontin

1.
Clarity is the great harbinger of truth. Truth is clear, hard, and bright, like light or crystal, while falsehood is soft, obscure, soporific, and fuzzy.

Certainly, there are some opaque truths and some clear falsehoods. These are the minority, while truths almost always interlock with a great interlocking web of luminous truth; and falsehoods almost always jostle within a blooming, buzzing hive of unclarity.

The striking feature of each pillar of the modern secular worldview is not its falsehood but its haziness. Modern secular doctrines such as physicalist materialism, totalitarian political correctness, and unlimited sexual autonomy have come to replace the older, ruddier Christian doctrines of incarnation, original sin, and the traditional family. But what do you mean by ‘physical’? And which phrases are supposed to offend me today? If anything two consenting adults do in the bedroom is morally acceptable, why not incest?

The same fuzziness is a feature of the belief that “science is the only begetter of truth”. Call this doctrine ‘scientism’. One of the our latter-day high priests of secularism Richard Lewontin praises scientistic dogma in a sermon to his enlightened flock. His goal is to save the unenlightened from the demons in their imaginations. We can applaud his evangelistic fervor. But before we join his flock, let’s be clear on the doctrine.

The problem with scientism is not that it is false. (Understood one way, I take scientism to be obviously and unquestionably true.) The problem with scientism – in a word – is unclarity. Those who believe in scientism do not know what they believe. As we might worry about some religious believers, the faithful of scientism think their doctrine is true and have placed a lot of stock in the though, but it is likely they haven’t given it a moment’s thought.

Taking Leowontin’s text as the reading for the day, I shall do the work of giving scientism a moment’s thought. My conclusion, in brief, is this: scientism is either tautologically true or false.

Scientism is what Daniel Dennet calls “a deepity.” A deepity is a phrase (like “Love is just a word”) that taken one way is obviously true but insignificant, but taken another way is momentous but obviously false. Of course ‘love’ is a word, as is ‘God’, ‘hate’, and every other word. But of course love is not “just” a word – it is also an emotion, a powerful benevolent force, a divine energy of God.

Likewise, scientism is either trivial or false. In either case, scientism as a thesis for disputation is not worth disputing. But since a gentleman does not complain of a problem without offering a solution, I shall offer a thesis that is worth disputing: namely, that science begets supernatural explanations of the world.

 

[PureX]

In another Forum the topic of 'scientism' came up, and various sides of the issue, took issue with me ridiculing the use of the word. I like the following explanation for the issues of using scientism to describe what(?).

Does the word exist? was the challenge from on post. I responded; Actually yes and no, it exists, but it is a bogus ambiguous 'stone' word that fundamentalists like to throw at science, and has no constructive meaning. Science is science, and not related to the diverse conflicting philosophical and theological assumptions beyond Methodological Naturalism.


From: Scientism is a True but Trivial; Can We Move On?
Scientism is a True but Trivial; Can We Move On?

“The problem is to get [people] to reject irrational and supernatural explanations of the world, the demons that exist only in their imaginations, and to accept a social and intellectual apparatus, Science, as the only begetter of truth.” – Richard Lewontin

1.
Clarity is the great harbinger of truth. Truth is clear, hard, and bright, like light or crystal, while falsehood is soft, obscure, soporific, and fuzzy.

Certainly, there are some opaque truths and some clear falsehoods. These are the minority, while truths almost always interlock with a great interlocking web of luminous truth; and falsehoods almost always jostle within a blooming, buzzing hive of unclarity.

The striking feature of each pillar of the modern secular worldview is not its falsehood but its haziness. Modern secular doctrines such as physicalist materialism, totalitarian political correctness, and unlimited sexual autonomy have come to replace the older, ruddier Christian doctrines of incarnation, original sin, and the traditional family. But what do you mean by ‘physical’? And which phrases are supposed to offend me today? If anything two consenting adults do in the bedroom is morally acceptable, why not incest?

The same fuzziness is a feature of the belief that “science is the only begetter of truth”. Call this doctrine ‘scientism’. One of the our latter-day high priests of secularism Richard Lewontin praises scientistic dogma in a sermon to his enlightened flock. His goal is to save the unenlightened from the demons in their imaginations. We can applaud his evangelistic fervor. But before we join his flock, let’s be clear on the doctrine.

The problem with scientism is not that it is false. (Understood one way, I take scientism to be obviously and unquestionably true.) The problem with scientism – in a word – is unclarity. Those who believe in scientism do not know what they believe. As we might worry about some religious believers, the faithful of scientism think their doctrine is true and have placed a lot of stock in the though, but it is likely they haven’t given it a moment’s thought.

Taking Leowontin’s text as the reading for the day, I shall do the work of giving scientism a moment’s thought. My conclusion, in brief, is this: scientism is either tautologically true or false.

Scientism is what Daniel Dennet calls “a deepity.” A deepity is a phrase (like “Love is just a word”) that taken one way is obviously true but insignificant, but taken another way is momentous but obviously false. Of course ‘love’ is a word, as is ‘God’, ‘hate’, and every other word. But of course love is not “just” a word – it is also an emotion, a powerful benevolent force, a divine energy of God.

Likewise, scientism is either trivial or false. In either case, scientism as a thesis for disputation is not worth disputing. But since a gentleman does not complain of a problem without offering a solution, I shall offer a thesis that is worth disputing: namely, that science begets supernatural explanations of the world.

When even the title is so badly written that it makes no sense, it's not surprising that the content is basically just self-righteous gibberish.

The "truth" is infinitely complex. So much so that no human will ever comprehend it. So the only thing about 'truth' that is "clear, hard, and bright" is how our presumption of comprehending it makes us naive and ignorant humans feel. Whereas, in both fact and practice, the more we actually comprehend the truth of 'what is', the more complex and inexplicable it becomes to us.

 

[joe1776]

I don't use the word scientism because many people don't know its meaning. It's simpler to explain that I'm referring to an excessive belief in the power of scientific knowledge and techniques.

 

[Skwim]

When even the title is so badly written that it makes no sense, it's not surprising that the content is basically just self-righteous gibberish.

The "truth" is infinitely complex. So much so that no human will ever comprehend it. So the only thing about 'truth' that is "clear, hard, and bright" is how our presumption of comprehending it makes us naive and ignorant humans feel. Whereas, in both fact and practice, the more we actually comprehend the truth of 'what is', the more complex and inexplicable it becomes to us.

Absolutely correct. It's constructed of so many poorly thought out and expressed notions that it deserves . . . .

​

As for the word "scientism," I found the following from Wikipedia interesting.

Scientism is an ideology that promotes science as the purportedly objective means by which society should determine normative and epistemological values. The term scientism is generally used critically, pointing to the cosmetic application of science in unwarranted situations not amenable to application of the scientific method or similar scientific standards.

In the philosophy of science, the term scientism frequently implies a critique of the more extreme expressions of logical positivism and has been used by social scientists such as Friedrich Hayek, philosophers of science such as Karl Popper, and philosophers such as Hilary Putnam and Tzvetan Todorov to describe (for example) the dogmatic endorsement of scientific methodology and the reduction of all knowledge to only that which is measured or confirmatory.

More generally, scientism is often interpreted as science applied "in excess". The term scientism has two senses:

1) The improper usage of science or scientific claims. This usage applies equally in contexts where science might not apply, such as when the topic is perceived as beyond the scope of scientific inquiry, and in contexts where there is insufficient empirical evidence to justify a scientific conclusion. It includes an excessive deference to the claims of scientists or an uncritical eagerness to accept any result described as scientific. This can be a counterargument to appeals to scientific authority. It can also address the attempt to apply "hard science" methodology and claims of certainty to the social sciences, which Friedrich Hayek described in The Counter-Revolution of Science (1952) as being impossible, because that methodology involves attempting to eliminate the "human factor", while social sciences (including his own field of economics) center almost purely on human action.

2) "The belief that the methods of natural science, or the categories and things recognized in natural science, form the only proper elements in any philosophical or other inquiry", or that "science, and only science, describes the world as it is in itself, independent of perspective" with a concomitant "elimination of the psychological [and spiritual] dimensions of experience". Tom Sorell provides this definition: "Scientism is a matter of putting too high a value on natural science in comparison with other branches of learning or culture." Philosophers such as Alexander Rosenberg have also adopted "scientism" as a name for the view that science is the only reliable source of knowledge.​

 

[sun rise]

For a great overview of the meaning of "scientism" What is Scientism?

So if science is distinct from scientism, what is it? Science is an activity that seeks to explore the natural world using well-established, clearly-delineated methods. Given the complexity of the universe, from the very big to very small, from inorganic to organic, there is a vast array of scientific disciplines, each with its own specific techniques. The number of different specializations is constantly increasing, leading to more questions and areas of exploration than ever before. Science expands our understanding, rather than limiting it.


Scientism, on the other hand, is a speculative worldview about the ultimate reality of the universe and its meaning. Despite the fact that there are millions of species on our planet, scientism focuses an inordinate amount of its attention on human behavior and beliefs. Rather than working within carefully constructed boundaries and methodologies established by researchers, it broadly generalizes entire fields of academic expertise and dismisses many of them as inferior. With scientism, you will regularly hear explanations that rely on words like “merely”, “only”, “simply”, or “nothing more than”. Scientism restricts human inquiry.

 

[George-ananda]

@shunyadragon I think this discussion needs to start with the OP giving a definition of the word "Scientism' for us to discuss.

I am strongly anti-Scientism as it rejects information from other wisdom traditions like religious and spiritual traditions that present knowledge not testable by the 'scientific method'.

I take the position that science is great but limited in what it knows to what is detectable by the physical senses and instruments. My decades of consideration of the so-called paranormal has led me to believe beyond reasonable doubt that dramatically important things do indeed lie beyond the direct detection of the physical senses.

 

[Brickjectivity]

For a great overview of the meaning of "scientism" What is Scientism?

So if science is distinct from scientism, what is it? Science is an activity that seeks to explore the natural world using well-established, clearly-delineated methods. Given the complexity of the universe, from the very big to very small, from inorganic to organic, there is a vast array of scientific disciplines, each with its own specific techniques. The number of different specializations is constantly increasing, leading to more questions and areas of exploration than ever before. Science expands our understanding, rather than limiting it.


Scientism, on the other hand, is a speculative worldview about the ultimate reality of the universe and its meaning. Despite the fact that there are millions of species on our planet, scientism focuses an inordinate amount of its attention on human behavior and beliefs. Rather than working within carefully constructed boundaries and methodologies established by researchers, it broadly generalizes entire fields of academic expertise and dismisses many of them as inferior. With scientism, you will regularly hear explanations that rely on words like “merely”, “only”, “simply”, or “nothing more than”. Scientism restricts human inquiry.

Yes, so sometime when people say 'Scientism' what they mean is synonymous with 'Reductionism'.
from this link
"Reductionism also has a particular meaning, which is the view that human behaviour can be reduced to physical laws related to the instinctive type of behaviour of other animals. "

This goes a little beyond what Science actually says. Science attempts to explain what it observes about humans, but it doesn't say that all human behavior will be explained in future through Science. That is an opinion put forward as scientific. Thus it is called 'Scientism' instead of 'Science'.

 

[shunyadragon]

For a great overview of the meaning of "scientism" What is Scientism?

So if science is distinct from scientism, what is it? Science is an activity that seeks to explore the natural world using well-established, clearly-delineated methods. Given the complexity of the universe, from the very big to very small, from inorganic to organic, there is a vast array of scientific disciplines, each with its own specific techniques. The number of different specializations is constantly increasing, leading to more questions and areas of exploration than ever before. Science expands our understanding, rather than limiting it.


Scientism, on the other hand, is a speculative worldview about the ultimate reality of the universe and its meaning. Despite the fact that there are millions of species on our planet, scientism focuses an inordinate amount of its attention on human behavior and beliefs. Rather than working within carefully constructed boundaries and methodologies established by researchers, it broadly generalizes entire fields of academic expertise and dismisses many of them as inferior. With scientism, you will regularly hear explanations that rely on words like “merely”, “only”, “simply”, or “nothing more than”. Scientism restricts human inquiry.

I do not consider this definition remotely accurate of anything related. No, concerning 'scientism focuses an inordinate amount of its attention on human behavior and beliefs,' not event from the strict materialist view of science. Scientism in any possible definition would not restrict human inquiry, because scientists regardless of their philosophical or theological view go with the first paragraph. You need to provide other references than your assertions that any scientists broadly generalizes entire fields of academic expertise and dismisses many of them as inferior. With scientism, you will regularly hear explanations that rely on words like “merely”, “only”, “simply”, or “nothing more than”.

 

[shunyadragon]

@shunyadragon I think this discussion needs to start with the OP giving a definition of the word "Scientism' for us to discuss.

I do not believe that scientism can coherently be defined separate from science.

The only possible definition would be: scientism = Ontological Naturalism or Materialism. Concerning the nature of our physical existence science is basically reductionist regardless.

I am strongly anti-Scientism as it rejects information from other wisdom traditions like religious and spiritual traditions that present knowledge not testable by the 'scientific method'.

Actually, by foundation of Methodological Naturalism the present knowledge of religious and spiritual traditions is not testable. As to the acceptance or rejection of religious and spiritual traditions this is an individual matter outside science.

I take the position that science is great but limited in what it knows to what is detectable by the physical senses and instruments.

Fundamentally the conclusion of science as science.

My decades of consideration of the so-called paranormal has led me to believe beyond reasonable doubt that dramatically important things do indeed lie beyond the direct detection of the physical senses.

This would be your personal subjective view, and not related to science.

 

[shunyadragon]

When even the title is so badly written that it makes no sense, it's not surprising that the content is basically just self-righteous gibberish.

The "truth" is infinitely complex. So much so that no human will ever comprehend it. So the only thing about 'truth' that is "clear, hard, and bright" is how our presumption of comprehending it makes us naive and ignorant humans feel. Whereas, in both fact and practice, the more we actually comprehend the truth of 'what is', the more complex and inexplicable it becomes to us.

I do not consider this a coherent answer, and all I see is your efforts to raise the fog index.

 

[George-ananda]

I do not believe that scientism can coherently be defined separate from science .

Then what is it that are we actually discussing in this thread?

I wonder if you are missing the thrust of what the debate is about. Scientism is saying that science and the scientific method are the only valid ways to learn about reality to the exclusion of religious and spiritual beliefs that hold positions not demonstrable by science.

A follower of ‘scientism’ can not ALSO hold a belief in God while a scientist can.

 

[shunyadragon]

Then what is it that are we actually discussing in this thread?

The vague ambiguity of the use of the word 'scientism.'

I wonder if you are missing the thrust of what the debate is about. Scientism is saying that science and the scientific method are the only valid ways to learn about reality to the exclusion of religious and spiritual beliefs that hold positions not demonstrable by science.

My view is; First, the nature of Methodological Naturalism excludes religious and spiritual beliefs from the realm of science. Second, the difference in the philosophical and theological views of scientist covers to wide a range, and it is not clear between the beliefs of different scientists creates a diversity that is difficult to generalize by a term such as 'scientism.' Third, the word 'scientism' is used by many anti-science religious views, such as fundamentalist Christians, to generally condemn such sciences as 'abiogenesis and evolution.

A follower of ‘scientism’ can not hold a belief in God while a scientist can.

As above this statement is too vague considering the diverse religious views of scientists. Of course, some scientist do not believe in God, but beyond this we have religions like Buddhism, variations of Hindu beliefs, Taoism where the belief in God is less specific yet they are scientist like other scientists. It would be difficult to differentiate the science as science is between any of these scientists, unless for a religious or philosophical belief rejected science as science.

 

[osgart]

The first thing i thought of is 'scientism' is used to present certain philosophies as scientific truth, when in fact the evidence is not there for the philosophy being true.

Some spiritualists, religion, and materialists do this sort of activity.

 

[siti]

Scientism is saying that science and the scientific method are the only valid ways to learn about reality...

I would change "reality" for "truth" but otherwise I think that is what is usually intended by intelligent use of the word 'scientism'...i.e. belief in the idea that science is the only valid way to approach the 'truth'. It seems to me that it is most often used in a negative context by people who want to deny some inconvenient scientific fact...but I do think that some rather vocal atheist 'campaigners' (like Dawkins and Dennett etc.) behave as if they subscribe to scientism sometimes. Others simply parrot their words and behave as if they subscribe to something that would be more accurately be described as 'scientist-ism' - IOW - they believe something simply because a (often prominent) scientist said it. That is a far more pernicious problem for society IMO - because scientists are always wrong...trust me, I am one (kind of). And what I mean by that is that science is not meant to be right or true - it is meant to uncover potentially falsifiable explanations of observed facts. In that sense, I kind of agree with the triviality bit I read somewhere above, i.e. that scientism is true only in the sense that science is always potentially falsifiable and therefore both the word (as normally used) and the objection to science that it (as normally used) embodies are true enough (i.e. science does not have the last word as far as 'truth' is concerned) but entirely trivial...because science (properly understood) has never claimed to have the last word as far as 'truth' is concerned.

...what was the question again?

 

[PureX]

I do not consider this a coherent answer, and all I see is your efforts to raise the fog index.

It's only vague to those who don't understand it, or don't want to. I don't disagree with some of the observations being made in the essay you presented. But the thinking of the author appears to be very muddled, as evidenced by the often incoherent writing. And therefor, so too the conclusions. There are a lot of threads on here about 'scientism'. And so far, the only folks trying to dismiss it as non-existent or irrelevant are those who engage in it. Very much like a drunk does regarding the subject of his drinking. Or a bigot does regarding the subject of his bigotry. Yet alcoholism and bigotry are both very real 'life-memes' for a lot of people, regardless of their strident denial of same.

 

[George-ananda]

...what was the question again?

That was my opening point.

Debating a vague word gets painful.

 

[shunyadragon]

That was my opening point.

Debating a vague word gets painful.

Ideal conclusion.

 

[shunyadragon]

It's only vague to those who don't understand it, or don't want to. I don't disagree with some of the observations being made in the essay you presented. But the thinking of the author appears to be very muddled, as evidenced by the often incoherent writing. And therefor, so too the conclusions. There are a lot of threads on here about 'scientism'. And so far, the only folks trying to dismiss it as non-existent or irrelevant are those who engage in it. Very much like a drunk does regarding the subject of his drinking. Or a bigot does regarding the subject of his bigotry. Yet alcoholism and bigotry are both very real 'life-memes' for a lot of people, regardless of their strident denial of same.

IF the previous reference does not meet your standards, how about Sean Carroll

From: Let’s Stop Using the Word “Scientism”

Let’s Stop Using the Word “Scientism”

The working definition of “scientism” is “the belief that science is the right approach to use in situations where science actually isn’t the right approach at all.” Nobody actually quotes this definition, but it accurately matches how the word is used. The problem should be obvious — the areas in which science is the right approach are not universally agreed upon. So instead of having an interesting substantive discussion about a real question (“For what kinds of problems is a scientific approach the best one?”) we instead have a dopey and boring definitional one (“What does the word `scientism’ mean?”).

I don’t know of anyone in the world who thinks that science is the right tool to use for every problem. Pinker joins Alex Rosenberg, who has tried to rehabilitate the word “scientism,” claiming it as a badge of honor, and using it to mean a view that “the methods of science are the only reliable ways to secure knowledge of anything.” But even Alex firmly rejects the idea that science can be used to discover objective moral truths — and others think it can, a view which is sometimes labeled as “scientism.” You can see the confusion.

Someone might respond, “but `scientism’ is a useful shorthand for a set of views that many people seem to hold.” No, it’s not. Here are some possible views that might be described as “scientism”:

• Science is the source of all interesting, reliable facts about the world.
• Philosophy and morality and aesthetics should be subsumed under the rubric of science.
• Science can provide an objective grounding for judgments previously thought to be subjective.
• Humanities and the arts would be improved by taking a more scientific approach.
• The progress of science is an unalloyed good for the world.
• All forms of rational thinking are essentially science.
• Eventually we will understand all the important questions of human life on a scientific basis.
• Reductionism is the best basis for complete understanding of complicated systems.
• There is no supernatural realm, only the natural world that science can investigate.

The problem is that, when you use the word “scientism,” you (presumably) know exactly what you are talking about. You mean to include some of the above supposed sins, but not necessarily all of them. But if you aren’t completely explicit about what you mean every time you use the term, people will misunderstand you.

Indeed, you might even misunderstand yourself. By which I mean, using vague words like this is an invitation to lazy thinking. Rather than arguing against the specific points someone else makes, you wrap them all up in a catch-all term of disapprobation, and then argue against that. Saves time, but makes for less precise and productive discussion.

Given that the only productive way to use a word like “scientism” — something vaguely sinister, ill-defined, used primarily as an accusation against people who would not describe themselves that way — would be to provide an explicit and careful definition every time the word is invoked, why use it at all? I’m not saying you can’t disagree with specific claims made by Pinker or anyone else. If you think people are making some particular mistake, that’s fine — just say what the mistake is.

I take the main point of Pinker’s piece to be the same as Feynman’s discussion of the beauty of a flower, or Dawkins’s Unweaving the Rainbow — science is not opposed to the humanities or the arts, but enhances them by giving us a deeper understanding. With that, I couldn’t agree more. We can disagree with some of the specific contentions in a constructive way, but lumping everything we don’t like into one catch-all word isn’t useful.