There has been an attempt ongoing for some time to harness the respectability of science and conflate it with an increasingly popular philosophy known as scientism. But scientism and science are different things. The latter is a powerful method of obtaining and applying material facts and information. The latter creates a subjective world view using the pretense that science has the capacity to tell us objectively right from wrong, the ethical from the unethical, best from worst, etc..
But that’s oxymornic. Science is incapable of doing any of that, since as a method, it is utterly amoral. Indeed, the amorality of science is precisely why ethical parameters must be built around it, hopefully loose enough to allow us to benefit from its prowess, yet strict enough ensure that science serves society rather than devours it. In that dual mandate (if you will) are dynamic tensions that can never be fully resolved.
An article by philosopher professor Edward Feser over at Public Discourse explores the differences between science and scientism. From the article:
Scientism is the view that all real knowledge is scientific knowledge—that there is no rational, objective form of inquiry that is not a branch of science…Despite its adherents’ pose of rationality, scientism has a serious problem: it is either self-refuting or trivial. Take the first horn of this dilemma. The claim that scientism is true is not itself a scientific claim, not something that can be established using scientific methods. Indeed, that science is even a rational form of inquiry (let alone the only rational form of inquiry) is not something that can be established scientifically. For scientific inquiry itself rests on a number of philosophical assumptions: that there is an objective world external to the minds of scientists; that this world is governed by causal regularities; that the human intellect can uncover and accurately describe these regularities; and so forth. Since science presupposes these things, it cannot attempt to justify them without arguing in a circle. And if it cannot even establish that it is a reliable form of inquiry, it can hardly establish that it is the only reliable form. Both tasks would require “getting outside” science altogether and discovering from that extra-scientific vantage point that science conveys an accurate picture of reality—and in the case of scientism, that only science does so.
Feser points out that philosophy often governs how scientific findings are interpreted, and then gets to his next critique:
Here we come to the second horn of the dilemma facing scientism. Its advocate may now insist: if philosophy has this status, it must really be a part of science, since (he continues to maintain, digging in his heels) all rational inquiry is scientific inquiry. The trouble now is that scientism becomes completely trivial, arbitrarily redefining “science” so that it includes anything that could be put forward as evidence against it.
Right. But all rational analysis isn’t scientific. And certainly, concepts of meaning and purpose–or lack thereof–are not scientific as such issues cannot be proved or disproved scientifically. And that problem leads scientism into necessary contortions:
The irony is that the very practice of science itself, which involves the formulation of hypotheses, the weighing of evidence, the invention of technical concepts and vocabularies, the construction of chains of reasoning, and so forth—all mental activities saturated with meaning and purpose—falls on the “subjective,” “manifest image” side of scientism’s divide rather than the “objective,” “scientific image” side. Human thought and action, including the thoughts and actions of scientists, is of its nature irreducible to the meaningless, purposeless motions of particles and the like. Some thinkers committed to scientism realize this, but conclude that the lesson to draw is not that scientism is mistaken, but that human thought and action are themselves fictions. According to this radical position—known as “eliminative materialism” since it entails eliminating the very concept of the mind altogether instead of trying to reduce mind to matter—what is true of human beings is only what can be put in the technical jargon of physics, chemistry, neuroscience and the like. There is no such thing as “thinking,” “believing,” “desiring,” “meaning,” etc.; there is only the firing of neurons, the secretion of hormones, the twitching of muscles, and other such physiological events.
Which I find ironic, because that kind of reductionism seems to lead directly to a variation of the Buddhist view that what we think we know is really all illusion.
And here comes the human exceptionalism part: We alone in the known universe are a believing species. Whether one is a Christian, Buddhist, atheist, or a follower of philosophical scientism, none of it is purely objective. At some point, unless we avoid all deeper reflection, we have to choose our subjective poison. And once we are in the realm of subjectivity, while we may use scientific findings to under gird our beliefs, we have actually left the realm of science behind. (Example: Science can tell us that a human embryo is a living organism. Deciding whether it is right or wrong to use that organism as a natural resource is not science.)
March 9th, 2010 | 3:04 pm
Smith,
Do you seriously give ANY intellectual credence this this rubble?
I hope the extreme intellectual poverty of this nonsense (a massive work in contradiction and a priori definitions not widely held) is apparent to every one.
Seems like Eddy boy has spent very, very, very little time designing experiments or formulating testable hypotheses (he can’t even get the assumptions of science correct, wow). Yet he is rather eager to comment on science from his extreme ignorance. How embarrassing.
No wonder he is endorsed by National Review.
Smith, there is a notion that conservatives lack intellectual rigor, how is this kind of stuff helping to disprove that notion?
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
March 9th, 2010 at 3:17 pm
David: Anyone who calls science a “philosophy” shouldn’t throw stones.
March 9th, 2010 | 5:25 pm
David:
I read the article, and I confess it wasn’t apparent to me. What specific part of the argument did you take issue with?
March 9th, 2010 | 6:49 pm
[...] Scientism Isn't Science » Secondhand Smoke | A First Things Blog Share and [...]
March 9th, 2010 | 9:48 pm
As the rational concept that all phenomena can be best explained by natural processes and not by invoking supernatural processes, “scientism” has served human civilization well.
Do we suffer by giving up unicorns, fairies, leprechauns, miracles, gods, ghosts, afterlife, witches, ESP, souls and angels? Perhaps, but I doubt it.
The term seems to be used mostly by philosophers and parapsychologists to describe scientists. And not in a good way.
March 10th, 2010 | 12:30 pm
I’d like to see somebody refute the argument!
March 10th, 2010 | 1:20 pm
“We alone in the known universe are a believing species.” Really? Are you prepared to prove that?
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
March 10th, 2010 at 1:36 pm
Name one other known species in the KNOWN universe that has “beliefs,” History Writer. If outer space aliens have beliefs, we don’t know about them yet. Animals don’t “believe” things, as far as science can tell. No philosophy, no religion, no superstitions, etc.
March 10th, 2010 | 10:02 pm
As far as I’m concerned, there IS no inherent conflict between religion and science. Religion is here to explain the things we can’t explain via science, or to at least make us feel better about the things we can’t control. That’s why we don’t worship the sun anymore, we figured out it’s a big ball of burning gas.
Still, human science is pitiful given the size of the known universe, let alone what may exist beyond our senses. Can’t depend on science 100% either.
One absolutely reliable sign of a charlatan is a “scientist” saying we don’t need religion, or a religious figure rejecting well supported scientific knowledge. They’re trying to create turf battles to their own benefit. (It got Ed Feser published, didn’t it?) If you run into either sort, grab your wallet and run.
March 10th, 2010 | 10:31 pm
the scientific method also presupposes morality, as well as, as Feser states, rationality, an objective world, etc. The morality being that the truth should be uncovered, that scientists should not make up their work, that they should not lie to co-workers, the public etc. Therefore, this moral framework exists outside of science, and provides a guide for proper scientific reasoning. This moral foundation is another reason that ”scientism” is false. Also, in fairness, I think that Professors Pat and Paul Churchland, the wife and husband team responsible for the eliminative materialism nonsense, have abandoned this theory. Plenty of materialist thinkers, notably John Searle, have provided cogent refutations of this view.
March 11th, 2010 | 4:18 am
Feser doesn’t seem to understand what science is: “The claim that scientism is true is not itself a scientific claim, not something that can be established using scientific methods.” Really? All you’d have to do is find a single non-scientific source of knowledge and you’ve refuted scientism. If you can’t do that, every case where science does provide knowledge affirms, but does not prove the scientism hypothesis. A disprovable hypothesis and using evidence to buttress a hypothesis sounds like science to me.
“For scientific inquiry itself rests on a number of philosophical assumptions: that there is an objective world external to the minds of scientists; that this world is governed by causal regularities; that the human intellect can uncover and accurately describe these regularities; and so forth. Since science presupposes these things, it cannot attempt to justify them without arguing in a circle.”
And the continued success of science provides powerful evidence that there is a world external to our minds; that the word is governed by causal regularities; and so forth.
“The irony is that the very practice of science itself, which involves the formulation of hypotheses, the weighing of evidence, the invention of technical concepts and vocabularies, the construction of chains of reasoning, and so forth—all mental activities saturated with meaning and purpose—falls on the “subjective,” “manifest image” side of scientism’s divide rather than the “objective,” “scientific image” side.”
And, as above, the continued success of the scientific method provides powerful confirmation of those hypotheses. As for mental activities, Feser is way behind the power curve here. Thought, including “meaning” and “purpose” are rapidly losing their subjective status. In the age of FMRIs and other brain scans, thought is rapidly becoming something that can be examined as objectively as anything else.
Finally, anytime somebody says something like, “There is no such thing as “thinking,” “believing,” “desiring,” “meaning,” etc.; there is only the firing of neurons, the secretion of hormones, the twitching of muscles, and other such physiological events.”, you’re dealing with a hopeless ignoramous. Thinking, believing, desiring, meaning and all other forms of thought are implemented via the firing of neurons, secretion of hormones and whatever else. The man just plain doesn’t know what he’s talking about.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
March 11th, 2010 at 10:18 am
Dave M: That’s part of the desire (for reasons I don’t get) to maximize reductionism when it comes to the human being. Because a part of the brain fires when emoting, that doesn’t mean that it is just neurons. Just because we are made up of carbon molecules, that doesn’t mean we are just carrots–that are also made up of carbon molecules–although the big brained ethicists in Switzerland claimed that individual plants have intrinsic value for that very reason.
March 11th, 2010 | 4:28 am
Wesley J. Smith: “Name one other known species in the KNOWN universe that has “beliefs,” History Writer.”
Chimps, bonobos and any animal smart enough to stay away from someone who has kicked it in the past all have beliefs. For instance, “That tall red-headed thing kicked me. I’m going to stay away from it,” would qualify as a belief, even if it’s expressed through emotions and not words.
As far as that goes, my cat believes that the best place to look for lunch is in his food bowl and the best place to have a nap is in a basket of clothes fresh out of the drier. Everytime I do laundry, the cat shows up and tries to get in the laundry basket. That’s not a random movement on his part. He believes the basket is full of warm comfortable things that are good to nap on.
In fact, I think just about any mammal has the mental equipment to have beliefs. Beliefs are pretty basic forms of mental activity. They help the animal to survive and prosper in the world.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
March 11th, 2010 at 10:14 am
That’s not a “belief” as I was referring to. I was referring to philosophy, religion, values, ethics based on analyses, etc. Ridiculous. Good grief.
March 11th, 2010 | 12:03 pm
Wesley:
Whoa! YOU made the claim. It’s up to you to prove it. The “known universe” is a pretty big place, and you obviously haven’t been everywhere in it, so making a claim that “we alone in the known universe are a believing species” is simply a matter of opinion. As if that weren’t enough, you compound the foolishness by attempting to use this totally unprovable claim to support an equally unprovable one, that of human exceptionalism. In your usual way you simply overlook defining what constitutes “a believing species” in the first place. Believing WHAT? How do you know what or if members of other species “believe?” Neither the article nor your claims about all species “in the known universe” support claims about the reality of “human exceptionalism.”
March 11th, 2010 | 3:28 pm
Dave M: “Chimps, bonobos and any animal smart enough to stay away from someone who has kicked it in the past all have beliefs. For instance, “That tall red-headed thing kicked me. I’m going to stay away from it,” would qualify as a belief, even if it’s expressed through emotions and not words.”
That is NOT faith. That is learning. Verified by life experience.
Faith is when you believe something without direct evidence, sometimes even against the existing evidence.
There was a silly Keanu Reeves* movie a few years back called “Considine” that nevertheless had one great exchange in it. Keanu’s character returns from the dead, making him the only living creature to have actually experienced the afterlife. When he complains (to an angel, btw) that he doesn’t get credit for believing in God, the angel says, “You don’t believe, John, you KNOW. There’s a difference.”
*Wes’s VERY favorite actor. Just ask him. ;)
March 11th, 2010 | 11:38 pm
Mr. Mullinex:
By arguing that all knowledge is “scientific”, you’re essentially playing into Feser’s second argument – that scientism is circular in that it defines “science” as “anything rational”.
Unless your definition of science is impossibly broad, people can acquire all kinds of knowledge non-scientifically. I learned that Augustus Caesar was succeeded by Tiberius from reading books, for example – nothing scientific about that. More importantly, pretty much all ethical reasoning is non-scientific, yet it can be extremely rational. Being rational and being scientific are two different things.
Padraig:
I agree “Constantine” was a silly movie. But it did have Tilda Swinton in it, plus a great cameo by Peter Stormare as Satan.
March 12th, 2010 | 5:30 am
padraig, I never mentioned faith, I was talking about beliefs – an internal representation of something in the world. Believing without direct evidence or against the evidence is what attracts conmen to churches.
March 12th, 2010 | 6:18 am
Wesley, you quote Feser talking about, ‘“thinking,” “believing,” “desiring,” “meaning,” etc.’. That’s what I’m talking about.
We know animals have values. One experiment let chimps get food anytime they wanted just by pulling a chain – but other chimps got severe shocks everytime they did so. The chimps quickly figured out what was going on (that is, they formed a belief about how the experiment worked) and stopped pulling the chain. One chimp went five days before hunger drove him to pull the chain, another went twelve days.
This just in – RATS do the same thing! http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/wildlife/5373379/Animals-can-tell-right-from-wrong.html
Try reading something by Frans de Waal. Or “When Elephants Weep – The Emotional Lives of Animals”. Or any of a hundred books on the subject. Or just Google animals and morality or consciousness or intelligence.
As for religion, in a time when religion makes people fly airplanes into skyscrapers or stage insulting protests at soldier’s funerals, I’m quite willing to state that animals probably don’t have religion. Not that I’d be totally surprised if they did…
March 13th, 2010 | 9:40 pm
It always is helpful to gauge the impact of something you blog by the number of people who respond by telling you that rats running a maze is equal to the collective works of Shakespeare or whale song is equal to Rachmaninoff.
March 15th, 2010 | 7:55 pm
The notion that science is the only legitimate form of belief, is patently false. It’s not even the best form of belief. The best form, is from direct experience. If I experience something, it’s unmediated. If I accept what a scientist says, I accept his authority. This is mediated through him. I f he did the research, then the mediation stops there. However, if he is releying on other scientists, then his belief in their claims is mediated again. And so forth. Even one’s own experience depends on one trusting, or having faith in one’s sensations.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact