Scientism

{{bronze}}{{philosophyscience}}{{confused|[[Scientology]]}}
'''Scientism''' is the view that only scientific claims are meaningful. It is often widely abused as a term to refer to [[science]] and attitudes associated with science, and its primary use these days is as a pejorative.<ref>The [http://books.google.com/books?id=5wTQtwB1NdgC&dq=simon+blackburn+scientism&q=scientism#v=snippet&q=scientism&f=false ''Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy''] by Simon Blackburn notes that it is presently a term of abuse.</ref>

The non-pejorative, and therefore boring, sense of the term denotes the "methods and attitudes typical of or attributed to the natural scientist."<ref>[http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/scientism Merriam-Webster &mdash; Scientism]</ref><ref name="Stanford">[http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-knowledge-social/ Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosopy - The Social Dimensions of Scientific Knowledge]</ref> This meaning is rarely seen in the wild.

The pejorative sense, in which it is a general-purpose [[snarl word]], is the one you will see in action.<ref>Although it is adopted as a "badge of honor" in the rare case, such as in Alex Rosenberg's [http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/25/books/review/alex-rosenbergs-the-atheists-guide-to-reality.html?pagewanted=all ''The Atheist's Guide to Reality''.]</ref> This usage seems to date to [[Friedrich von Hayek]]'s 1943 essay "Scientism and the Study of Society."<ref>Friedrich von Hayek. [http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/2549653?uid=3739832&uid=2129&uid=2&uid=70&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=21101049363313 Scientism and the Study of Society.] ''Economica'', Vol. 9, No. 35 (Aug., 1943), pp. 267-291</ref>  Because the [[mad scientist]]s are prowling the streets!

==Sensible usage==
{{cquote|The idea that the concepts of [[truth]], falsity, explanation, and even understanding are all concepts which belong exclusively to science seems to me to be a perversion…|||Hilary Putnam<ref>[http://maverickphilosopher.typepad.com/maverick_philosopher/2009/12/wisdom-from-putnam-on-science-and-scientism.html Wisdom from Putnam on Science and Scientism], Maverick Philosopher</ref><ref group=note>This quote of Putnam’s reflects his mid-career radical departure from his earlier views of scientific realism and naturalism. After this departure, Putnam decided to focus on ''a priori'' issues, possible worlds, “brains in vats”, and all kinds of issues that are anathema to a naturalist; Putnam now characterised philosophy as being [https://anchor.fm/kieran-setiya/episodes/Mark-Wilson-eobc3m “on a moral crusade against scientism”].</ref>}}

Scientism is a topic of major contention in the [[philosophy of science]], and [[philosophy]] in general.<ref name="Stanford"/> While often used as a term of abuse, it is also used in a descriptive sense to refer to any philosophy that treats science as the only means of acquiring [[knowledge]] (for various definitions of "knowledge"). For this reason, scientism is often associated with [[logical positivism]], which attempted to do away with [[metaphysics]] entirely.<ref>C. Hakfoort. [http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00033799200200441 Science deified: Wilhelm Osstwald's energeticist world-view and the history of scientism.] ''Annals of Science'', Volume 49, Issue 6, 1992</ref> The role of scientism in modernity is also a point of debate in [[social]] theory.<ref>Huston Smith. [http://www.worldwisdom.com/public/viewpdf/default.aspx?article-title=Scientism--The_Bedrock_of_the_Modern_Worldview_by_Huston_Smith.pdf Scientism: The Bedrock of the Modern Worldview], in ''Science and the Myth of Progress'', ed. Mehrdad M. Zarandi</ref> [[Postmodernism]] in particular sought to critique scientism.

Scientism or implicit scientistic attitudes are often characterized by a [[equivocation|conflation]] of [[moral]] and scientific [[progress]], an overzealous application of simplistic [[reductionism|reductionist]] methodology and, especially in the social sciences, the [[logical fallacy]] of [[reification]], in which an abstract metric is treated as something "real". It also tends to be accompanied by loads of [[sciencey]] [[technobabble]].<ref>Rushkoff, Douglas. ''Survival of the Richest: Escape Fantasies of the Tech Billionaires''. New York: W.W. Norton, 2022. pp. 58-63.</reF> Here are some examples:

* Theories rooted in some form of [[social Darwinism]], such as [[eugenics]] and [[Racialism|"scientific" racism]]. And we know what the [[Holocaust|end result of that was]].
* "Scientific [[Socialism]]"
* [[Taylorism]], or "Scientific Management".
* Widespread use of [[Myers-Briggs Type Indicator|questionable personality tests]] in businesses and schools.<ref>See Annie Murphy Paul's [http://www.popmatters.com/pm/review/cult-of-personality ''Cult of Personality''] for numerous examples.</ref>
* Most pop [[evolutionary psychology]] attempting to characterize "human nature".
* [[Economics]]: [[Supply side economics|supply-demand]], [[homo economicus]], [[Perfect competition|perfectly competitive markets]], the [[free market]] myth, etc.

Unfortunately, it gets mixed into the [[crank]] usage when someone is told their favorite thing is actually [[Bullshit|full of shit]]. [[Rational]]ly speaking, one should realize that science (in its proper meaning) deals with analyzing [[empirical]] [[evidence]] [[logic]]ally and [[Deductive reasoning|deducing]] objective facts: It does not take an active role in determining what one ''should'' do or how they ''must'' act (that would be [[Hume's law]] in action), nor does it deal with subjective thought systems (ranging from [[art]]s to moral codes) or [[Ideology|ideologies]] in general.

==="Six signs of scientism"===
Analytic philosopher Susan Haack lists what she considers six signs of scientism:<ref>[http://pervegalit.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/haack-six-signs-of-scientism-october-17-2009.pdf Six Signs of Scientism], Susan Haack</ref>
{{quotebox|
#Using the words "science," "scientific," "scientifically," "scientist,” etc., honorifically, as generic terms of epistemic praise, making it seem as if there is no such thing as science that might be bad, abusable, or fallible. 
#[[Physics envy|Adopting the manners, the trappings, the technical terminology, etc., of the sciences, irrespective of their real usefulness]] and doing so in a way that lacks genuine rigor.
#A preoccupation with demarcation (i.e., with drawing a sharp line between genuine science, the real thing, and “[[pseudoscience|pseudo-scientific]]” imposters) that disregards the more ambiguous cases (such as where the boundary between psychology and philosophy of mind might be) while conflating honest inquiry in general with the sciences alone. 
#A corresponding preoccupation with identifying the [[scientific method]], presumably to explain how the sciences have been so successful, which ignores the fact that the scientific method is better understood as a collection of methods that are neither used by all the sciences nor are used exclusively by science alone. 
#Looking to the sciences for answers to questions beyond their scope, especially in matters pertaining to subjective thought systems. 
#Denying or denigrating the legitimacy or the worth of other kinds of inquiry besides the scientific (e.g., historical, legal, or philosophical), or the value of human activities other than inquiry, such as poetry or art. This includes the suppression of various traditional practices and skills now at risk of being permanently lost.}}

Douglas Rushkoff, professor of media theory, calls scientism "the refusal to consider anything without evidence" and compares it to a religious belief, "something more like ''faith'' in an empiricist universe" and elaborates: "It's an assumption. It's part of a system of meaning, developed by a community of people over time. It just happens to be a meaning system that ignores meaning itself."<ref>Rushkoff, Douglas. ''Survival of the Richest: Escape Fantasies of the Tech Billionaires''. New York: W.W. Norton, 2022. pp. 56-57.</reF> Rushkoff goes even further in calling scientism "a sociopathic perspective that makes science valuable to the billionaire class because it helps justify their most shameful behaviors."<ref>Rushkoff, Douglas. ''Survival of the Richest: Escape Fantasies of the Tech Billionaires''. New York: W.W. Norton, 2022. p. 63.</reF>

==Science as religion==
{{cquote|It's an all-purpose, wild-card smear… It's the last refuge of the [[sceptic]]. When someone puts forward a scientific theory that they really don't like, they just try to discredit it as 'scientism'.|||[[Daniel Dennett]]<ref>[http://www.newstatesman.com/node/152968 When it comes to facts and explanations of facts, science is the only game in town], ''New Statesman''</ref>}}

While the refusal to acknowledge the real limitations of the [[scientific method]] is a legitimate concern, the term is frequently bandied about by cranks of all stripes in order to [[handwave]] any scientific evidence that might go against their ideology. In this sense, it seems to translate to (a) believing science works, (b) that this is bad, and (c) because the speaker's personal ox has been gored.

===Problems===
To the extent that this claim is true at all, it is true only if one accepts an overly-expansive definition of "[[religion]]", under which any number of unrelated things (all of science, being a devoted sports fan, ''etc.)'' would count as "religions" as well. But according to any definition of "religion" which does not regard Monday Night [[Football]] as a '[[sacrament]]' of whatever kind, evolution is not a "religion".

Science can only be viewed as a religion insofar as the assertion that the universe is internally consistent is axiomatic. If it isn't internally consistent, it is not necessarily possible to demonstrate that it isn't. If this axiom of science and logical reasoning is wrong, it follows that ''any'' and ''every'' belief system is a religion, making the above argument disingenuous.

Science does not accept "revealed truth" as evidence. Because [[God]], [[Allah]], [[Moses]], [[Buddha]], [[Darwin]], or (Ernst) Mayr says so does not make it so. They may all propose [[hypotheses]], but then they and others must do the hard work to support or disprove them.

The argumentation used to support the claim of [[Evolutionism|evolution being a religion]] is not in question; however, the use of the term "religion" is confused with what would be more agreeably called a "[[worldview]]". Any system of thought or perspective will inherently be value-laden and supported by various underlying assumptions of [[metaphysics]]. Thus while both modern science and [[Christianity]] are approaches to explain, interpret, and view existence, they differ in the supports and values on which they rest. While no perfect definition of religion, or science for that matter, is agreed upon, a clear demarcation of the underlying differences between the two generalized approaches can be seen in the questions that are asked. The questions of religion such as: 'Where do we go when we die?', 'What exists outside of existence?', and 'Who is [[God]]?' are not so much unanswerable by science as they are more inapplicable, as the religion's underlying metaphysical conceptions inherent in such questions are not shared by the scientific perspective. (That is, science doesn't think of [[humans]], [[reality]], and the purpose of inquiry in the same way as religion.)

===Crank quotes===
Here are some examples:

{{quotebox|The scientism practiced by devotees of [[Darwinist|Darwinian]] evolution, however, is not science, but simply a [[Secular religions|secular religious]] worship masquerading as science. In Darwinian scientism no free inquiry, no examination of evidence will be permitted. The gods of secularism have revealed the [[dogma]] of [[social justice]], which necessitates [[moral relativism]] based on the secular theory of [[Darwinism|Darwinian evolution]], and anyone revealing inconvenient, contradictory facts must be destroyed.<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20070212003636/http://www.thomasbrewton.com/index.php/weblog/weblog_printerFriendly/225/ Can Science Survive Scientism?] by Thomas Brewton (archived from February 12, 2007).</ref>}}

{{quotebox|One way to reject scientism is to combine scientific reality checks with [[faith]]. When we build and maintain a Christian worldview — a view of the world, used for living in the world — based on the [[Bible]], we believe that reality includes what we see and also what we don't see. For example, a coroner might say, "During my 45 years of experience, I have observed that [[dead]] people always remain dead, they are never [[Resurrection|resurrected]] back to [[life]], so (based on this scientific reality check) if you want to be scientific then you should reject Biblical claims for the [[resurrection of Jesus]]."  But this observation is not evidence against divine action, if God's common actions are not obvious and His obvious actions are not common. During the history recorded in the Bible, many millions of people died, but only seven were brought back to life: two in the [[Old Testament]] (by Elijah & [[Elisha]]) and five in the [[New Testament]] (two by [[Jesus]], one of Jesus, and by [[Peter]] & [[Paul of Tarsus|Paul]]). Even though God's actions are occasionally [[Miracle|miraculous]], usually God chooses to act in ways that are natural, not miraculous.<ref>[http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/science/faith-science.htm Science and Christianity: Are they compatible?] by Craig Rusbult (2004) ''Science-and-Faith Education for the Whole Person''.</ref>}}

Or consider this usage by a [[quack|proponent]] of [[alternative medicine]]:<ref>[http://www.anh-europe.org/news/anh-feature-beware-scientism%E2%80%99s-onward-march Beware scientism’s onward march!] by Lionel Milgrom (2009) ''Alliance for Natural Health'' (archived from May 17, 2010).</ref>
{{quotebox|In the [[United Kingdom]], scientism is on the march, attempting to crush beneath its [[Logical positivism|positivist]] boot the public's right to [[CAM|complementary and alternative medical therapies]] such as [[homeopathy]], free on Britain’s [[National Health Service]].}}

==See also==
*[[Anti-science]]
*''[[Frankenstein]]''
*[[Physics envy]]
*[[Post-normal science]]
*[[Pseudoskepticism]], a word used similarly by the same people
*[[Secular religions]]

==External links==
*[http://www.skepdic.com/scientism.html Scientism], entry in [[the Skeptic's Dictionary]]
*[http://carbon.ucdenver.edu/~mryder/scientism_este.html Scientism], Martin Ryder, University of Colorado, Denver
*[http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-shamans-of-scientism The Shamans of Scientism], [[Michael Shermer]]
*[http://ahotcupofjoe.net/2006/02/does-scientism-exist/ Does Scientism Exist?], A Hot Cup of Joe
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FU7fmb7_pHM Daniel Dennett smacks down John Haught] (video)
*[http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2011/12/04/what-is-scientism-a-guest-post/ What is “scientism”?], Dr. William Widdowson
*[http://rationallyspeaking.blogspot.com/2011/12/scientism-as-scientistic-belief.html Scientism as Scientistic Belief], Paul M. Paolini, ''Rationally Speaking''
*[http://www.tnr.com/article/books-and-arts/magazine/103086/scientism-humanities-knowledge-theory-everything-arts-science The Trouble with Scientism], Philip Kitcher, ''The New Republic''
*[http://www.giffordlectures.org/Browse.asp?PubID=TPSASV&Volume=0&Issue=0&TOC=TRUE Science as Salvation], Mary Midgley, Gifford Lectures 1989-1990
*Susan Haack. [http://www.csicop.org/si/show/science_scientism_and_anti-science_in_the_age_of_preposterism/ Science, Scientism, and Anti-Science in the Age of Preposterism.] ''Skeptical Inquirer'', Volume 21.6, November / December 1997

==Notes==
{{reflist|group=note}}

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

[[Category:Neologisms]]
[[Category:Science]]
[[Category:Philosophy of science]]

Categories: Neologisms, Science, Philosophy of science