For my College Composition class I had to pick and research a topic and argue a certain point of view. I chose scientism. Although it is lengthy, I thought it would be worth reproducing here. Since this was a paper for school, I will note that it is different from most of my blog posts.
The Error of Scientism Explained
The most important things that could exist in your life don’t exist–God, ethics, meaning, value, and other metaphysical things. How do we know this? Supposedly, it is because science cannot verify that these things exist, and what science cannot verify to exist, cannot exist.
There have been movements in popular culture and contemporary philosophy to reduce every possible topic of study to a list of scientific laws. With the first successes of physics and chemistry, the scientific method began to be applied to categories that were before thought to be domains of philosophy; zoology, psychology, and sociology. More recently, there have been arguments made about controversial topics on the basis of the scientific method’s inability to describe or study. This is scientism, and it has produced such dogmatic statements on philosophical-religious issues listed above.
The prophets of scientism can be first found in the early naturalists, those philosophers who declared that all that existed was the natural world, and that everything we observe around us is nothing more than what arises from matter. Popular historians of philosophy first introduced the scientistic idea to audiences in works like Will Durant’s The Story of Philosophy. In contemporary culture, the great proponents of scientism, unwitting though they may be in their method, are the predominant set of professors of philosophy, your average village atheist, and those popular “New Atheists.”
This is a problem of our age. The scientific method is presumed to be the end-all be-all of knowledge reducing to obscurity all classical, religious, or philosophical worldviews and trapping the scientismist (one who practices scientism) within their own assumptions. The triumph of the scientistic (not scientific!) worldview can only be found in its inevitable ignorance of any method of inquiry into reality that is not scientific, which in turn is an ignorance of its own presuppositions. Scientism equates knowledge with science, whereas while science may be knowledge, not all knowledge is science. Thus, scientism is a faulty methodology that claims more than what it can prove and derives an impoverished worldview.
What is Science?
To be able to understand scientism, we must first understand science, for there is no scientism without science. While science can be appropriated within a worldview as the premier and most excellent study of material phenomena, it does not of itself, and should not, being properly understood, lead to scientism. Scientism is a derivative inherently linked to the scientific method, but one should not be mistook for the other. Science is a method of inquiry, scientism is a philosophical outlook.
Gregory Peterson, a professor of philosophy, has noted that first and foremost, the calling into question the ability of the scientific method to study all of reality implicates that there is a demarcated line between science and non-science (754). While the difference is at times obvious (as between physics and art history), the problem is that the issue of demarcation between science and non-science has been debated without clear resolution by philosophers of science. Karl Popper, a vocal social critic of the 20th century, argued that the distinction of science and non-science was on the ability of falsifiability (Peterson 754). In other words, if a proposed hypothesis cannot be in any imaginable way disproved through empirical observation, then the hypothesis is subsequently not falsifiable, and not (according to Popper’s demarcation via falsifiability) science. On these grounds, Popper declared that Marxism and psychoanalysis non-scientific despite their masquerading as scientific (Peterson 754).
For example, if I were to posit a theory about viruses that declared they are always passed through bodily fluids in an attempt to explain their transmission, it could be said that my theory is scientific, due to its empirical falsifiability. My theory will not actually ever be proven true, for every instance of virus transmission cannot be observed, but my theory can be disproved by the observation of a single instance of virus transmission happening through any other means than bodily fluids (i.e. in the air). The adoption of my theory as most sufficiently explanatory would most likely follow a great deal of experimentation in which there was no observed virus transmission through other means. However, my theory would always be ready to be disproved if one observation is made in contradiction.
What should be noted here is that several presuppositions about the natural world are necessary for this method to be valid.
First, it is assumed that physical laws are universal and act equally everywhere. This was what undergirded Newton’s (at the time) radical hypothesis that the revolution of the planets could be explained by the same gravity that made things fall on earth.
The second assumption is of our ability to know the outside world through the perception we have. If we do not perceive what is actually out there, then we are not going to be able to really make any inquiries into the reality that is actually there.
The third assumption is our ability to describe what we perceive in a meaningful way. In short, the formula E = mc2 is assumed to really describe the relationship of energy and matter, rather than being just mere gibberish.
The fourth and probably most important assumption is the soundness of the laws of logic, such as A = A and excluded middle. Logical laws underlie the induction/deduction nature of conclusions from observation; for instance, it precludes our suggesting that because the sun sets, the sun eats fish on Fridays. Simply, the conclusion doesn’t follow from the observation.
With these assumptions in place, it is possible to defend the scientific method as explained above. Without these presuppositions, the scientific method is unjustified, because if there isn’t an order, if we don’t really perceive the natural world as it is, or if we can’t really describe the natural world, then any conclusions based on the scientific method are fundamentally flawed, for an conclusion derived from unsound premises is itself unsound.
It is important for the reader to note here that these presuppositions are outside of the ability of the scientific method to prove. The scientific method cannot prove them for the simple reason that the premises stated above are presupposed in the first place!
What is Scientism?
This understanding of the scientific method in place, scientism can be clearly distinguished and so understood. Mikael Stenmark, professor of the philosophy of religion at Uppsala University, characterizes scientism as the proposition that “There is nothing outside the domain of science, nor is there any area of human life to which science cannot successfully be applied” (15), the implication being that whatever science cannot study does not exist or can’t be known about in some way.
Ian Barbour, a retired professor of physics and religion, gives an example of overt scientism from popular culture as the proposition that “the existence of chance and evolution in the universe mean that the universe is purposeless” (208). What is important to understand here is that a conclusion is drawn on the basis of the scientific method not finding purpose, and so thus concluding that there is no purpose based only on this method and no other. Thus, Michael Augros, a professor of philosophy and a member of the President’s Council of the Society for Aristotelian Studies, concludes that
“when scientists, using only the methods to which they are accustomed, see no need for such things as free will, the soul, purpose in nature, and a host of other things, they are apt to regard them as obsolete hypotheses” (106).
Stenmark, observing upon this sort of methodological incompetency that results when the scientific method is attempted to be used to answer questions of immaterial/metaphysical nature, has produced a list of types of scientism, which all revolve around some conclusion in which it is supposed that because science cannot study something, that something must be hocus.
The types of scientism that he lists are;
1. Epistemic Scientism
This type of scientism is characterized by Roger Trigg as the view that “Science is our only means of access to reality” (qtd. in Stenmark 19). In other words, this type of scientism would say “What science cannot study cannot be known.”
2. Rationalistic Scientism
This sort of scientism could be characterized as “What science cannot study cannot be rationally believed.” This is a stronger epistemological statement than epistemic scientism.
3. Ontological Scientism
This is probably the most familiar form of scientism, characterized as “Science can study everything that exists; ergo, what science cannot study does not exist.”
4. Axiological Scientism
This type of scientism declares that whatever is scientific holds greater precedent and importance than something non-scientific, even that anything non-scientific is negligible.
5. Redemptive Scientism
This form is based on an “unlimited confidence” in the scientific method and what science will deliver up for society redemption from evils, moral and natural. This underlies the first prime minister of independent India’s Jawaharlal Nerhu’s statement “It is science alone that can solve the problem of hunger and poverty, of insanitation [sic] and illiteracy, of superstition and deadening custom and tradition” (qtd. in Stenmark 15)
6. Comprehensive Scientism
The above forms can be believed without belief in another, but accepting the whole shebang would be called comprehensive scientism for its total commitment to the idea that all reality can and will be illuminated by science (Stenmark 17-31).
The refutation of these separate types in some cases must be done separately (particularly with redemptive scientism), and in some cases the refutation of one would lead to the refutation of another (rationalistic scientism stands on epistemic scientism).
Who is talking Scientism?
The influence of scientism is unavoidable, and because the average person will be introduced to it at some point in their life, they ought to be able to recognize it and understand its deficiencies. Scientism exists in the culture as an extension of the scientific revolution during the Enlightenment. It was simply natural, and an easy mistake, to suppose that because the scientific method proved certain things true that religious establishments seemingly denied, the mere fact of the impressive work of science would make it seem that the scientific method could be successfully applied to everything in life.
Initial developments in science made this proposition seem more true than it would have seemed at first, even to Francis Bacon, the so-called father of the scientific method. Newton’s radical thesis that the celestial bodies were governed by the same physical laws as the ones found on earth, and that the same force that made objects fall on earth made the planets revolve around the sun, is an excellent example of the achievement of science. Other achievements of science include the discovery of bacteria, the development of vaccines for deadly diseases, the theory of the atom, Einstein’s special and general relativity, the nuclear bomb, the geologic age of the earth, and the theory of evolution. A naïve reaction might be that “Wow, science has done so much, why shouldn’t it do everything?”
In fact, this is the sort of thinking that led to the initial scientific breakthroughs found in the social sciences such as psychology, sociology, and anthropology. The scientistic worldview is only an extrapolation of these facts.
So it is no wonder that the presence of scientism in popular and academic culture is easily found. Carl Sagan, the prominent popularizer of science, is quoted as saying “The Cosmos is all that is or ever was or ever will be” which is a clear example of scientism, for it makes a claim more or less beyond the ability of science to verify (qtd. in Stenmark 23). Bertrand Russell speaks from the view of scientism when he declares “While it is true that science cannot decide questions of value, that is because they cannot be intellectually decided at all, and lie outside the realm of truth and falsehood. Whatever knowledge is attainable, must be attained by scientific methods; and what science cannot discover, mankind cannot know” (qtd. in Bertrand Russell, Wikiquote).
I would be willing to gander you have your own experience of scientism in the form of an argument against theism (or purpose) that more or less stated that there being a lack of scientific evidence of God (or purpose), there isn’t a God (or purpose). The New Atheists are notorious for these sorts of unfounded remarks, such as when Richard Dawkins says that the theory of evolution proves that there is no purpose in the universe (Barbour 208). His fellow popular New Atheists such as Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, or Daniel Dennett we imagine would readily agree.
Because of the nature of the influence of scientism in popular culture, it is important to understand how to recognize scientism and understand why it is an invalid worldview.
4. What is wrong with Scientism?
To understand the incoherence of scientism, the nature of science must be referenced to the idea of scientism itself, which is supposedly based off of a proper understanding of science, though it demonstrably isn’t.
Scientism’s predominant claim is that whatever cannot be studied by science, does not exist, cannot be rationally believed, or cannot be known about. This commitment to ontological, rationalistic, or epistemic ideology leaves scientism in a scrape, for, remembering above, the very presuppositions required for science to work cannot be scientifically verified! If scientism is true, then because the principles that underlie the scientific method are unable to be scientifically studied, the scientific method must be discarded. This self-contradictory nature precludes one’s ability to rationally adopt the scientistic worldview.
It might be replied that the scientistic outlook could be defended without committing such a self-contradictory proposition, that the scientistic proposition could be arrived at by other means; but this would lead to a conclusion other than scientism, because scientism precludes means other than science.
The very content of the scientific method in its being rationalistic rather than empirical (i.e. the universal presence of physical laws) means a person committed to scientific truth must be committed to the rationalistic truths that science is based on. This is seen in the very history of the scientific method. Francis Bacon, a great developer and defendant of the scientific method, argued that the method worked because the (rational) principles that supported were sound. Thus, the scientific method operates like a deductive argument; if the premises are sound and the logic is valid, the conclusion necessarily follows.
The method of science being furnished not by empirical science, but by rational philosophy, means that the scientist speaking as a scientist (that is, making propositions about material phenomena) cannot make philosophical propositions, for they would at that point no longer be a scientist but a philosopher. Hence, Augros states that “The scientist can tell roughly how much mass the universe contains, and whether the finitude of the universe is due to its having a boundary. The natural philosopher can say what time is” (111).
Since the one committed to the scientific method must also be committed to the reasoning that produced the presuppositions which give credence to the scientific method in the first place, the scientist (distinct from a scient-ismist) must recognize that there are bounds beyond which science cannot study, otherwise known as scientific demarcation. It is the subject of another essay to argue what this demarcation is (my purpose in talking about demarcation was only to show the need for seeing that not all study is scientific, or even needs to be scientific), but it can be recognized that the lack of appreciation for different methodologies of inquiring into the nature of reality produces an impoverished worldview. To use Augros again, a person who refuses to look at something from any methodology other than science will be apt to disregard those theories as un-scientific and hence fruitless for explanation (106). However, the abandoning of something because of the scientific method’s inability to discern it would rule out the scientific method as just previously discussed, so we can understand that just because science doesn’t find something doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist; science can conclude at the most that the subject or object under inquiry isn’t scientific. I would give this concise and easy-to-remember formula: Science is knowledge, but knowledge is not Science.
This lack of appreciation for scientific demarcation leaves the scientismist the inability to understand to understand different worldviews or viewpoints. For instance, while a person who presupposes rationalism will be able to understand this essay, because the committed scientismist is already committed to believing only what empiricism can prove, he will deny what I have proved through rational methods because the rational method is invalid because it is not the scientific method. A counter-formula to remember what scientism is would state Knowledge is science.
Even beyond just this essay, this leaves the scientismist unable to grapple with philosophical-religious concepts such as ethics, the soul, and God. The methodology for a religious believer will be inherently different from the scientismist, as the believer is inevitably submitting to reasons non-scientific. This inability to understand alternate methods places the scientismist at an inherent disadvantage, because they could not explain anything outside of scientific method without being inconsistent (which I will note that they are by nature of the proposition of scientism anyway). A philosopher could rightly place the scientific method as the method of inquiry into the explanation of material phenomena within a grander worldview which also appreciates that the morally important things are not those things scientifically ascertainable.
The validity of extra-scientific beliefs and concepts (except the scientific method itself, of course) are not the topic of this essay but others, but I would note that the religious believer is inevitably committed to the position outlined here on science, for a commitment to anything less than rationalistic methodology could not achieve the conclusion that there is a God or religious values, as these topics cannot be determined by science so-discussed herein.
A true understanding of science and the ordaining of it a rational place within one’s worldview amounts to a denial of scientism and the ability to logically inquire into issues beyond material phenomena.
What can we say then?
The issue of scientism can and should be understood, especially in today’s society, where scientism is heavily prevalent, albeit often unwittingly. Scientism as expounded by prominent figures would tell us that whatever cannot be determined through science doesn’t exist, can’t be believed, or can’t be known. However, we know that this would eliminate scientific method from being believed, because the presuppositions it is supported on are beyond scientific scrutiny. This leads us to adopting the belief that while science is good, non-science isn’t necessarily bad in opposition. Something that pretends to be scientific but isn’t can be rejected (like Popper does of Marxism), but something that doesn’t pretend to be scientific could be true not despite or in contradiction to science, but as complementary. We shouldn’t understand or believe that the term “non-scientific” is intrinsically derogatory. We should in turn argue against such characterizations.
The inability for the scientismist to appreciate their own contra-scientismist presuppositions leads them to an impoverished worldview that is self-contradictory and unable to understand the world and beliefs of others around them. As such, the scientismist worldview ought to be rejected, and it should be understood that a rejection of scientism doesn’t lead to a rejection of science, because science and scientism are distinct. Science deserves an esteemed place in a worldview as the premier method of study of material phenomena, but shouldn’t be exalted beyond its boundaries of competency. It must be remembered that science is knowledge, but knowledge is not science. Ultimately, the one who rejects non-scientific inquiry is no better than the one who rejects science; they are both fundamentalists, opposed as different sides of the same coin.
Works Cited
Augros, Michael. “Science and Natural Philosophy.” The Thomist 68 (2004): 105-41. Print.
Barbour, Ian G. “Science and Scientism in Huston Smith’s Why Religion Matters.” Zygon Journal of Religion and Science 36.2 (2001): 207-14. Print
“Bertrand Russell.” Wikiquote. January 7, 2010.
Peterson, Gregory R. “Demarcation and the Scientistic Fallacy.” Zygon Journal of Religion and Science 38.4 (2003): 751-61. Print.
Stenmark, Michael. “What is Scientism?” Cambridge Religious Studies 33 (1997): 15-32. Print.
Well argued. I’ve run into more believers of scientism than you could shake a stick at. (You didn’t mention that scientism makes people intolerably smug and arrogant, though.)
Your word choice could be better, though. For instance, you sometimes say “they” when you use a singular such as “he or she, as in “for they would at that point no longer be a scientist but a philosopher.” Some of your usages, like “gander” in the fifth paragraph of the third point, seem wrong as well.
Agreed with katz. Well argued. Nicely put together Bryce. Because of the length of the paper I didn’t focus in on specific arguments or sentences, but took it as a sweep of an entire painting. And I like the painting! Good art work! Well thought out and a solid critique of the modernist materialist/naturalist/humanist pervasive worldview. Nicely done AGAIN Bryce! I’m thrilled with your scholarship!
REV