I’ve made my thoughts on scientism pretty clear in pretty much everything I’ve posted about metaphysics. I generally use the term to describe the belief that only quantifiable or measurable data has meaning, that only science can provide useful knowledge, and that science can provide utterly comprehensive knowledge of all things that exist.
While I love science – truly, I love science, philosophy of science, and history of science and if I could have several lives to live, I’d devote my next to physics – I do think that there are experiences and ideas that lie outside of the scope of science per se. Poetry. Happiness. Defining the scientific method itself. Math. Why people find some colors more pleasing than others. How to deal with regret. How to make the most moral decision, even when you think you know what that is.
I could go on.
While we may be to able scientifically parse aspects of these, I think there are limits to the level of comprehensiveness that human knowledge can achieve. Thus, I believe in science, but not scientism. I think there will always be more to know, and I can’t confidently say that our current scientific method is going to be able to handle it all.
But perhaps I’m taking too narrow an approach to the word. Last Friday, the blog Planet Pailly posted an entry on the term as part of its ongoing series “Sciency Words” (which is all around awesome and highly varied). The entry gives a few different interpretations on the term:
Advocacy of science education or funding of scientific research.
The belief that taking a scientific approach to other fields of study (history, politics, etc) can improve those fields.
The belief that science is the best or only source of truth.
The belief that the only true knowledge is quantified knowledge (i.e.things we can measure). This can be extended to mean that if we can’t measure something, it must not exist.
The improper use of science, either by making broad claims based upon limited empirical evidence or by misapplying scientific knowledge to unrelated topics.
This is perfect timing, because it also just so happens to be Scientism Week over at Scientia Salon. Part One has gone up today, and it really digs into the various ways of thinking about the term. It’s also a nice primer on the debates surrounding the use and acceptance of scientism as a concept, and while I’m still convinced that there are metaphysical properties and questions that extend beyond even the milder Descriptive Scientism author Robert Nola comes to in the end, it’s a thought provoking piece, fully worth a careful read. I’m excited for the rest of the series, though I have a suspicion I’ll be on the opposite side of a good portion of the upcoming claims.
But it’s always fun to be challenged.
17 thoughts on “Brief Thoughts On Scientism”
James Pailly
When I first looked up the term scientism, most of what I found talked about science as the only source of truth, with the part about measurable data being closely related. I think that’s the more mainstream definition.
My initial reaction was much the same as yours: there’s too much of human experience that isn’t measurable. It was only as I dug deeper that I started to find these other definitions. Maybe the term is sort of like “conservative” or “liberal.” Maybe it includes a spectrum of points of view ranging between moderate and radical.
Michelle Joelle
Ironically, that’s sort of the murky, non-scientific nature of language (though I agree with your more recent post that there are scientific aspects to linguistics). 😛
I think the issue with scientism is that it tends to define the conversation as a spectrum (I’m repeating myself in all of my replies, I’m so sorry) that ranks all knowledge on a scale of “fiction” to “science” in a similar way to the political dichotomy you mentioned. I think that the confusion comes in when people want to speak outside of the dichotomous continuum, but our current paradigm gives them no place to go.
You’re giving me all sorts of thoughts lately! No resolutions though, alas. Keep it up 🙂
writersdream9
You are a very good writer! I have my opinions about the necessary unity between science and religion but you helped me to understand better the side that I fall short on, that being science! Thank you very much!
Michelle Joelle
Thank you for your kind comments! I’m blushing. 🙂
SelfAwarePatterns
I definitely agree that quantifiable and measurable isn’t a complete account of knowledge. I don’t think it’s even a complete account of science. (What was Darwin measuring or quantifying when he discovered natural selection?)
A lot depends on how we define “science” and “knowledge”. Holding a narrow conception of science and declaring it as the only source of valid knowledge is pretty blinkered.
But I’ve been accused of scientism before for simply doubting assertions that lacked evidence, or for regarding scientific knowledge as more reliable than other forms of knowledge (despite the fact that I acknowledge that those other forms of knowledge exist). This has led me to be somewhat suspicious of the label.
Michelle Joelle
Really well said! I think that scientism itself is the reason that the term is somewhat polarizing – because society tends to view knowledge on a scale of “fiction” to “science”, any commitment to knowledge can be seen by some as scientism (perhaps in a negative way), and then anything that’s systematic in its search for knowledge is seen as science (in a positive way, like the conferring of an honor).
And like you said, I think that’s quite limiting, for both scientific and non-scientific modes of inquiry.
Lee
Science works great for what it’s meant for: studying physical phenomena. The more non-material something gets, the less science can say about it. When it comes to God and spirit, science has little or nothing relevant to say. It’s simply the wrong tool for the job. Same goes for non-material things such as love and compassion.
Michelle Joelle
Agree. I always get so confused when I hear religious speakers trying to use science as a justification for religious beliefs and events. I’m not doctrinal in any sense (and probably more Platonic than religious), but this sort of stuff just feels like it’s missing the point.
Lee
People who are already religious or spiritually oriented can use science to strengthen their beliefs. There’s plenty of supportive material out there. But people who are materialistic will never get to spirituality through scientific research. Some scientists do get there through a sense of wonder at the beauty of it all. But that is a feeling and impulse that goes beyond pure science.
Pingback: Can Scientism Be a Good Thing? | Planet Pailly
Joshua Scott Hotchkin
There has been much busywork in recent weeks to validate scientism through methodological and epistemological pragmatism and even redefinition. These all miss the point entirely by trying to obscure scientism as a cultural problem by parading as an academic footnote. I wrote a response to the pieces over at Scientia Salon which may appear there, and if not, will be at my own website- Scientism Central. Which is precisely what is says it is if you are interested in exploring the issue in further detail. Great writing, keep it up!
Joshua Scott Hotchkin
There seems to be a very growing tendency in the last several weeks to dismiss criticism of scientism either by redefining it or by defending it as epistemologically sound in academia and science. What this ignores is that scientism is not just an academic issue. It is a cultural issue as well, and one that entails some severe existential risks.
I wrote a response to the Scientism Week articles at Scientia Salon, which will either appear there or at my second website, Scientism Central, which you may enjoy based on your interest in the topic.
Michelle Joelle
I agree – I think that defenses of scientism tend to shift the definition of the term from “the belief that science is the primary way we are able to obtain knowledge about all things” to the much weaker “any time you are able to obtain knowledge from something, then it’s science”, reducing science from a true method and body of knowledge to an honor to be conferred.
And I think that’s as bad for science as it is for non-scientific disciplines. I haven’t really had a chance to put my thoughts together on why (though I know they’ll include some Feynman when I do), but I think you’re suggesting something similar. I’ll have to check out your post to be sure! Thanks for the heads up, I’d only found your first blog. I will definitely check out the second.
Joshua Scott Hotchkin
There is also an irony here in that even the critics of scientism seem confined to only addressing the issue in academic terms, essentially saying that academic critique of scientism is the only meaningful critique of scientism. I have made it my goal to try to bring the conversation to a level where it can be understood by average people, but in doing so am often excluded from the usual circles of scientism critique. I guess it is a good thing that thinking and writing is a labor of love.
Many of the points you make here and elsewhere are all things i address in my most recent criticism. I will let you know where it ends up. Thanks for the conversation! 🙂
Joshua Scott Hotchkin
The article was somewhat expectedly rejected at Scientia, so I posted it at Scientism Central.
Tienzen (Jeh-Tween) Gong
MICHELLE JOELLE: “Thus, I believe in science, but not scientism. … though I have a suspicion I’ll be on the opposite side of a good portion of the upcoming claims.”
I am totally with you.
I made comments at Scientia Salon on these articles. Do you agree with me on those points?
http://scientiasalon.wordpress.com/2014/08/19/scientism-yippee-or-boo-sucks-part-ii/comment-page-1/#comment-6250
http://scientiasalon.wordpress.com/2014/08/21/defending-scientism-mathematics-is-a-part-of-science/comment-page-1/#comment-6532
rung2diotimasladder
I think I’m with you on this issue. Even the comment about being more Platonic than religious. I too read that article and found it interesting. I don’t understand redefining scientism…I’ve always understood it to be what you said:
“I generally use the term to describe the belief that only quantifiable or measurable data has meaning, that only science can provide useful knowledge, and that science can provide utterly comprehensive knowledge of all things that exist.”
Oh, terminology. Oh, language.