The Alleged Threat of Scientism

I sometimes use an organizing tag of “Sometimes a Blurb is Enough” for books in which the blurb is enough to tell us we do not need the read a book. (The maxim is “don’t judge a book by its cover . . . so it is okay to judge them by their blurbs.)

The book I am looking at is “Science Unlimited? The Challenges of Scientism” and the blurb (off of Goodreads’ website) is:

All too often in contemporary discourse, we hear about science overstepping its proper limits—about its brazenness, arrogance, and intellectual imperialism. The problem, critics say, is the privileging of science over all other ways of knowing. Science, they warn, cannot do or explain everything, no matter what some enthusiasts believe. In Science Unlimited? , noted philosophers of science Maarten Boudry and Massimo Pigliucci gather a diverse group of scientists, science communicators, and philosophers of science to explore the limits of science and this alleged threat of scientism.

Long ago, the study of nature was called natural philosophy and we were all together. Along came “the Scientific Revolution” and modern science was born, as was specialization. Traditionally the “Scientific Revolution” is considered to have begun with Copernicus, but this is a subject of debate. But scientists did begin to “specialize” increasingly at about this time. Soon, there were botanists, astronomers, chemists, physicists, medical doctors, etc.

Scientific approaches to studying nature became more and more successful and science is now considered the primary tool for studying nature. If you suggest that botany could be studied more effectively through prayer, don’t expect your grants to get funded.

In fact science became so successful that other academic studies wanted to bask in a similar glory and so, well, changes were made. The “Social Studies” became the “Social Sciences.” Economics became immersed in math, when before it barely required accounting skills, now calculus is often required for undergraduate degrees in economics. And the “Nobel Prize” in economics is called the “Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences.” (It is not one of the original Nobel Prizes, so technically it is not a Nobel Prize, but it is just tacked onto the list.)

Psychology considers itself to be a science, etc. Whether it is or isn’t isn’t the point. What is the point is how much uncertainty is involved.

It is only human to think “if it worked over there, maybe it will work here.” So, many people in non-scientific fields have chosen to try out scientific methods to see if they work. As a result, the traditionalists in those fields take umbrage at those rejecting the more traditional approaches of those “studies” to use newfangled scientific approaches. The traditionalists are, in essence, defending their turfs.

Harrumph, a science of ethics, harrumph! Egad, science applied to religion, how dare they! Thus the pushback under an umbrella of “scientism,” being “an excessive belief in the power of scientific knowledge and techniques.” And comments like “Science, they warn, cannot do or explain everything, no matter what some enthusiasts believe.” But . . . how can we know if no one tries? There is a big difference between an arrogant approach, e.g. “this will work” and a hopeful one “this might work.”

As to “privileging of science over all other ways of knowing” the phrase “other ways of knowing” is usually used in contexts in which people talk about learning through mystical/religious revelations. Note—the word revelation refers to something being revealed and implies a revealer, so you can see why this is popular with the god-botherers. What are these other ways of knowing? Why haven’t they been characterized and studied in detail? I suggest it is because it is better leaving them “as part of the mystery,” and in so doing allowing them to make their claims without dissenters.

Scientists were often accused of destroying the mystery of life. For example, nasty chemists and botanists studied the appearances of the “fall colors” of deciduous trees and found out why those colors changed. The mysterians moaned, “You are destroying the essence of the beauty.” On the other hand, I adore the fall colors and collect pictures of them, but my appreciation is deeper than those who just “look at the pretty colors.” I know why those colors appear and what chemicals are involved and that makes them even more profoundly beautiful.

It is telling that these “science is destroying the mysteries of life” folk don’t attack art historians who look at the brush techniques and paint compositions of master painters. They can tell a painting’s authenticity from the weave in the canvas it is painted on, or the woods used to make the stretchers. In those cases “destroying the mystery” includes identifying the forgeries. (And don’t get me started on the Shroud of Turin.) They just want some mysteries to exist so they can claim only their god can understand them.