The term scientism is still being defined as the list of definitions below shows:
Scientism is the opinion that science and the scientific method are the best or only way to render truth about the world and reality.
Scientism is methods and attitudes typical of or attributed to the natural scientist.
Roughly, Scientism is the view that the hard sciences—like chemistry, biology, physics, astronomy—provide the only genuine knowledge of reality.
Scientism is the idea that all forms of intellectual inquiry must conform to the model(s) of science in order to be rational.
Scientism is an exaggerated trust in the efficacy of the methods of natural science applied to all areas of investigation (as in philosophy, the social sciences, and the humanities).
Scientism is a way of thinking or expressing ideas that is considered to be typical of scientists.
Scientism is the broad-based belief that the assumptions and methods of research of the physical and natural sciences are equally appropriate (or even essential) to all other disciplines, including philosophy, the humanities and the social sciences. It is based on the belief that natural science has authority over all other interpretations of life, and that the methods of natural science form the only proper elements in any philosophical (or other) inquiry.
(Note—Some sources list more than one of these as the definition of the term. Which is surprising because the term has been around for quite some time.)
This “idea” is something philosophers debate based, I presume, upon the arrogance displayed by a small minority of scientists. Scientists in general choose to limit their investigations to the material world and claim that their methods seem to be the most successful approach to studies of the material world. They, in general, do not claim that science is the only valid way to acquire knowledge . . . it might be, but that is not something most scientists claim. We do claim that science it’s the most successful approach to acquiring knowledge of the material universe.
This whole idea is a misguided intersection between a couple of trends. The very visible successes of the natural sciences have led various other academic pursuits to take on the trappings of science themselves to share a little of the glory, as it were. I have commented that during my duration in academia, departments formerly labeled “Social Studies” became departments of the Social Sciences;” economics was a liberal arts course, but more recently has required the passing of calculus courses to gain a degree and the term “the economic sciences” is often muttered. And while “Politics” was a study in and of itself, that study is now referred to as Political Science.
Is this because they have adopted scientific methodology in their researches? They say they have, but they have not. The primary investigative tool in “political science,” for example, is the poll or survey of attitudes. Have you have heard of a biologist or chemist or physicist using a poll to gather new data? I think not. Using math and computers to study questionnaire responses doesn’t make a study scientific.
The natural sciences have a feature none of the co-called social sciences have and that is a neutral arbiter of all conjectures. Nature has a way of say “Oh, no you don’t!” when scientists go off the rails. Nature always has the final say on all natural science questions. The rub is getting her to answer our questions.
Now, I do not contend that scientists cannot be arrogant, they are just like every other subset of human beings. And, I freely admit, scientists have much better technical skills than social skills and so may commit faux pas at a higher rate than other groups. So scientists can come off as being a tad more arrogant than other groups. But, in addition, scientists are viewed as being overeducated eggheads by many and it is easy to attribute arrogance to such individuals, whether it exists or not. What we scientists actually claim is that when studying the material universe, science is the most successful approach ever concocted. We do not claim that science is the only way to extract knowledge from nature, but we firmly believe (and yes, it is a belief) that before you can start blathering on about “other ways of knowing” you need to exhaust science as a mode of information extraction and find it wanting before picking up those threads.
The problem with “other ways of knowing” is that they are interwoven with what we know of as our only way of knowing so far. For example, some consider sensory information as an “other way of knowing.” Our senses involve biological interfaces with nature that result in signals sent to our brains which are there interpreted. You do this. I do this. But neither of us can experience the other doing it. It is personal. Your brain doesn’t share information with my brain and vice-versa.
As to the hypothetical parapsychological ways of knowing, good luck with those. I find them very attractive . . . fictions.
So, why are philosophers finding this somewhat obscure older term, scientism, worth discussing now? I suggest that there is and always has been a firm streak of anti-intellectualism in this country. The Flat Earthers, anti-vaccination folk, climate change deniers, etc. have been with us for the entirety of our existence as a country. (The anti-vaxxers were prevalent in the Revolutionary War era. Washington was trying to get his troops vaccinated against smallpox and the anti-vaxxers were decrying the process as opposing God’s will.) Currently, very rich business interests have found it profitable to stoke the furnaces of their ire, so anti-scientific attitudes are increasingly common. Discussing that effort could be fruitful, but discussing “scientism,” especially defined as the arrogant attitude that “ all forms of intellectual inquiry must conform to the model(s) of science in order to be rational” supports a particular political ideology, one that doesn’t want public science putting any restrictions on making obscene amounts of money doing what no one actually wants.
Attackers to the Right of Me, Attackers to the Left of Me (Science)
Tags: anti-scientific attitudes, philosophy of science, science
There are widespread attacks on science going on stretching from bizarre conspiracy theories along with legitimate philosophic enquiries.
Some philosophers have questioned science because science has not established where physical laws come from. Sean Carroll, a science popularizer, responded with “Why do the laws of physics take the form they do? It sounds like a reasonable question, if you don’t think about it very hard.” This, of course, was attacked as an arrogant attitude. I think not. (Full Disclosure—I am a fan of Dr. Carroll’s popularizing works. Oh, and Dr. Carroll holds a university chair in the philosophy of science.)
This question is loaded with philosophical detritus. Philosophers historically were always searching for the ultimate causes of what they observed because they were looking for gods. Today we find ultimate causes and absolutes to be nonexistent in nature.
This question is basically asking why things are the way they are. Good question, for a philosophy class in which students are being taught to think by being asked questions for which no answers exist. One might as well ask “Why is God such an asshole?” for all the good it will do you.
There is also some fundamental misunderstandings about physical laws. The general public from time to time confuses them with social laws. They ask, “Well if there are laws, there must be a law giver, no?” A physical law is merely a natural behavior that is so trustworthy that no (or sometimes very few) exceptions are known to exist. It is a physical behavior we can trust and even make predictions based upon them. For example, the orbit of the Moon around the Earth is fairly consistent. It does vary a little, but just a little and these variances are quite well known. As a consequence we can predict the location of the Moon in the night sky 20 years or even 200 years from now with accuracy. And sending spaceships to Mars requires us to have it attempting to land where the planet will be after the months it takes for the ship to travel there, not where it happens to be now.
So, why do these physical regularities exist? This is not a question that scientists ask; it is a question that Philosophers of Science ask, however. So, not knowing the source of physical laws is not a failing of science, it is a failing of the philosophy of science.
Scientists are criticized for having the attitude that when science provides no answer to a question, there is no reason to believe that any answer is possible or even necessary. This criticism is stupid, in the extreme. Here are some reasons science hasn’t answered a question (yet):
a. no one has tried to answer the question
b. the funding needed to answer the question is not available
c. the technology needed to answer the question hasn’t been invented yet
d. the question is not a scientific one (that is about the behaviors of nature)
e. the question is incoherent
f. etc.
And whether an answer is possible can only be answered by trying to answer the question over and over and over, and failing over and over and over, but then the question of possibility has still not been answered because some new technology might be invented enabling the question to be answered. This is why the criticism “well, science can’t answer that question, now can it?” in incoherent because all questions are open. Because of this all scientific answers are provisional because we do not know what data will be discovered in the future.
There are no absolutes in science . . . but there are some very good bets. For example, if you want to bet me the Sun will not come up tomorrow, I will empty my bank accounts to take that bet. There is no physical law ensuring the Sun will come up tomorrow (We’ll call it the Annie Law: The Sun will comer up tomorrow!) but it has every day for millions of years and so the odds are very much that it will tomorrow, also.
Finally science has been criticized for not having the answers to the “Big Questions,” like: “Why is there something rather than nothing?” This is not a Big Question in the first place, but it is prominent in philosophy circles because they have no answer. Please note that if there were nothing, the question could not exist because there would be no one to ask it. This question can only arise in universes that are made of somethings. So, the question is moot. But, there are some hints we are garnering from Nature that “nothing” does not exist. So, one possible answer is that “nothing” is impossible. This is another absolute so favored by philosophers and churchmen.
Other stupid questions like “Where did the universe come from?” show the ignorance of the asker. The universe is everything. It can’t come from some other place without there being a section of the universe walled off from us it could some from. And, if it did exist then it would be part of the universe and the question would still be unanswered.
One of my favorites is “What is our purpose, what are we doing here?” Who said we have a purpose? Again, these are god-believers who desperately want such things to exist, all evidence to the contrary. Purposes are things we invent, for ourselves, that give direction to our efforts. They come from within; stop looking for them from without.