The need to repudiate scientism

Last updated on: October 30, 2017 at 9:31 pm by Dan Peterson

The need to repudiate scientism 2017-10-30T21:31:53-06:00 Dan Peterson

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

On the campus at the University of California at Berkeley (Wikimedia Commons)

“Repudiation of scientism is the only way the we can break free from some of the more debilitating habits of thought that have dominated modern intellectual life. But this repudiation is unsustainable, even by the most heroic effort, without a distinction between science and scientism. If denying scientism’s sway requires us to deny the truthfulness, value, or reality of scientific knowledge — as seems to be implied by some of today’s critiques — then in my opinion the move will fail. And it should fail, because in fact science does give real, reliable, knowledge. It is just that science and scientism are not the same thing. Science is not all the knowledge there is.”

(Ian Hutchinson, Monopolizing Knowledge [Belmont, MA: Fias Publishing, 2011], 4)

Dr. Ian H. Hutchinson is Professor of Nuclear Science and Engineering at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), with a primary research interest in plasma physics.

***

Recently, certain rather controversial fossil discoveries have led some to argue that the common view that humans evolved in Africa should be abandoned.

In an interesting article, Julien Benoit defends the standard model against such criticisms but — and this is enormously important — insists that they are important, nonetheless:

“This is the nature of science: a paradigm that cannot be questioned on a regular basis becomes a dogma.”

***

The best-known book of the Austrian-born philosopher of science Paul Feyerabend, who died in 1994 after a career spent mostly at the University of California at Berkeley, is his 1975 volume Against Method: Outline of an Anarchistic Theory of Knowledge. Here are some provocative quotations from that book:

“Everywhere science is enriched by unscientific methods and unscientific results, . . . the separation of science and non-science is not only artificial but also detrimental to the advancement of knowledge. If we want to understand nature, if we want to master our physical surroundings, then we must use all ideas, all methods, and not just a small selection of them.” (305-306)

“Given any rule, however “fundamental” or “necessary” for science, there are always circumstances when it is advisable not only to ignore the rule, but to adopt its opposite. For example, there are circumstances when it is advisable to introduce, elaborate and defend ad hoc hypotheses, or hypotheses which contradict well-established and generally accepted experimental results, or hypotheses whose content is smaller than the content of the existing and empirically adequate alternative, or self-inconsistent hypotheses, and so on.” (14-15)

“Science is neither a single tradition, nor the best tradition there is, except for people who have become accustomed to its presence, its benefits and its disadvantages. In a democracy it should be separated from the state just as churches are now separated from the state.” (238)

“The idea of a method that contains firm, unchanging, and absolutely binding principles for conducting the business of science meets considerable difficulty when confronted with the results of historical research. We find, then, that there is not a single rule, however plausible, and however firmly grounded in epistemology, that is not violated at some time or another.” (14)

“The separation of state and church must be complemented by the separation of state and science, that most recent, most aggressive, and most dogmatic religious institution.” (295)

Uncategorized

Previous Post

October 30, 2017

Science, mystery, and metaphor

Next Post

October 30, 2017 Some people just never get jokes.

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Uncategorized

Select a Month October 2026 September 2026 August 2026 July 2026 June 2026 May 2026 April 2026 March 2026 February 2026 January 2026 December 2025 November 2025 October 2025 September 2025 August 2025 July 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 February 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 June 2023 May 2023 April 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 March 2014 August 2013 February 2012

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

I made a rash vow that cost me my only child after a military victory. Who am I?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Jephthah Samson Gideon Barak