"Scientism is the view that science and the scientific method are the best or only way to render truth about the world and reality. While the term was defined originally to mean "methods and attitudes typical of or attributed to natural scientists", some scholars, as well as political and religious leaders, have also adopted it as a pejorative term with the meaning "an exaggerated trust in the efficacy of the methods of natural science applied to all areas of investigation (as in philosophy, the social sciences, and the humanities)".--- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism The round peg of scientism fits snugly in the round hole left by religion. All the former needs and questions are met. The reliance on authority figures for the truth. The explaining of the universe in terms of a lawful and absolute order. The utopian anticipation of a future where all problems of humanity are solved. The grandiose smugness of knowing THE truth behind everything. The desire to evangelize others about a way of life and infallible thinking (the scientific method) that saves them from deception and error. And the demonization of dissenters who will not accept its dogmatic tenets. Scientism simply stands in as a surrogate gospel or "good news" that is not to be questioned and must be accepted by everyone in order to be "saved". “The public has a distorted view of science because children are taught in school that science is a collection of firmly established truths. In fact, science is not a collection of truths. It is a continuing exploration of mysteries.” ― Freeman John Dyson “Science, at its core, is simply a method of practical logic that tests hypotheses against experience. Scientism, by contrast, is the worldview and value system that insists that the questions the scientific method can answer are the most important questions human beings can ask, and that the picture of the world yielded by science is a better approximation to reality than any other.” ― John Michael Greer
I think this is a concept that says more about the person using it than anything about the subject that it is addressing.
The wikipedia article seems a bit biased towards the side of "scientism" being a bad thing, but it does explain the alternative point of view to some extent. (Probably MR didn't read that far down.) This part seems like a reasonable sort of explanation of what scientism's critics are upset about: [Scientism] is also sometimes used to describe the universal applicability of the scientific method, and the opinion that empirical science constitutes the most authoritative worldview or the most valuable part of human learning, sometimes to the complete exclusion of other opinions, such as historical, philosophical, economic or cultural opinions. It has been defined as "the view that the characteristic inductive methods of the natural sciences are the only source of genuine factual knowledge and, in particular, that they alone can yield true knowledge about man and society". The term scientism is also used by historians, philosophers, and cultural critics to highlight the possible dangers of lapses towards excessive reductionism with respect to all topics of human knowledge. I suspect that what probably upsets MR the most has more to do with philosophical naturalism, which is the position that says "only nature, including humans and our creations, is real". From a belief in scientific naturalism, it follows that God does not exist. Philosophical naturalism is related to scientism when it leads to the further belief that that science alone can give us complete and reliable knowledge of reality. Science itself does not make the assumption of philosophical naturalism. Science uses methodological naturalism. That is, science looks for causes and explanations in the natural world. This is a pragmatic necessity, because science seeks to build up a body of reliable, falsifiable knowledge - something that can't be done with anything supernatural. (In fact, even the existence of anything supernatural is not falsifiable.) Complaining about methodological naturalism amounts to little more than a complaint that, for whatever reason, you just don't like science. It's a bit like complaining about a portraitist using paint to produce images. Why not use something other than paint to make paintings? The answer is obvious: if you don't use paint, you're not painting. That's just a fact. It doesn't devalue other forms of art, like charcoal sketching or sculpture. Painting is what it is. Similarly, science is what it is. Coming back to scientism, it seems to be an label that is intended primarily as an insult. It tends to be waved around a lot these days by religious people and religious-adjacent types (e.g. people who are into crystal power, ghosts, supernatural "forces", the Secret, universal karma and other 'New Age' ideas). Daniel Dennett wrote that accusations of scientism are "[are] an all-purpose, wild-card smear ... When someone puts forward a scientific theory that [religious critics] really don't like, they just try to discredit it as 'scientism'. But when it comes to facts, and explanations of facts, science is the only game in town". Not everyone has a negative view of scientism. The most negative people tend to be those who feel that their beliefs (especially in the supernatural) are under attack from science. In contrast, Michael Shermer defines scientism as: a worldview that encompasses natural explanations, echews supernatural and paranormal speculations, and embraces empiricism and reason. For obvious reasons, this is like a red flag to a bull for those who are steeped in superstition and who firmly believe in the supernatural and/or the paranormal. Those people want to argue that science is not the only path to reliable knowledge. They might argue, for instance, that such things as intuition or mystical insight, or communication from a deity, can all provide reliable knowledge. Scientism is often intended as an insult. However, opponents of scientism really need to make the case for why scientism is bad. Can they, for instance, give cogent examples of where science fails and religion (or mysticism or the "paranormal") provides a better means of understanding the world around us, as it really is?
MR: The obvious question arises, then: is there are better way to render truth about the world and reality? The successes of science are obvious and right in front of us a lot of the time. There is no doubt that science has been phenomenally successful in rendering truth about the world and reality, so far. Is there anything that has comparable power? This is all well and good as a potential description of what we might call a "religion of scientism". The question is: do many people actually follow a religion with these tenets? Science itself is clearly not "scientism", in these terms. Science does not rely on authority figures. It does not claim absolute order to the universe. It does not promise a future in which all human problems are solved. It does not claim to know the truth behind everything. It does not evangelise. It does not demonise "dissenters". It is not a dogma and it has no dogmatic tenets. I suggest that if MR's aim here is to accuse particular people of following a religion of scientism, he should name those people and demonstrate that they actually have all (or most) of the traits he has listed. Speaking for myself, there's almost nothing in MR's list that applies to my own beliefs or attitudes to knowledge, despite the fact that I'm a strong advocate for science and critical thinking. If MR is trying to put me into his scientism box, he has missed the mark by a very long way. I'm wondering, then: is this just a caricature that doesn't actually apply to anybody in the real world? Or is there some value in the label?
Yah, "scientism" is at least the abstraction of a philosophical orientation from science (if not a completely authorized school of thought). Religious analogies or comparisons certainly aren't unknown, though: "Political philosopher John Gray asserts that "New Atheism", humanism, and 'scientism' are extensions of religion, particularly Christianity." (link) Seven Types of Atheism by John Gray review – is every atheist an inverted believer? https://www.theguardian.com/books/2...n-gray-review-atheist-believer-material-world Even Marxism and its later offshoots (which afflict so much of the humanities with their social-oppression "just-so" theories and fixations) was ironically, and at the very least, a subconscious secular replacement for Christianity -- especially imitation of the missionary aspect.[1] A similar exploitation of altruism for power ascension of the intellectual class [the intelligentsia being equivalent to priests] and bureaucrats, with roots also going back to Plato's philosopher kings. Alex Rosenberg seemingly endorsed scientism as the standard for atheism: The Atheist's Guide to Reality I recall an article by Massimo Pigliucci expressing delight at Rosenberg for doing that, with respect to "formalizing" scientism and lifting it above pejorative status. Pigliucci had another round at it a few years ago: No matter how you put it, scientism is still a bad idea https://blog.apaonline.org/2020/10/22/no-matter-how-you-put-it-scientism-is-still-a-bad-idea/ "My friend and collaborator Maarten Boudry has recently mounted yet another defense of scientism, so I feel compelled to articulate yet another offense here." Recent item by biologist Mike Klymkowsky (arguably loosely related to the topic): Orthodox Science as a (mostly good) religion - - - footnote - - - [1] George Bernard Shaw: I am a Socialist and a Democrat myself, the hero of a hundred platforms, one of the leaders of the most notable Socialist organizations in England. I am as conspicuous in English Socialism as Bebel is in German Socialism; but do you suppose that the German Social-Democrats tolerate me? Not a bit of it. [...] All they want to know is; Am I orthodox? Am I correct in my revolutionary views? Am I reverent to the revolutionary authorities? Because I am a genuine free-thinker they look at me as a policeman looks at a midnight prowler or as a Berlin bourgeois looks at a suspicious foreigner. They ask "Do you believe that Marx was omniscient and infallible; that Engels was his prophet; that Bebel and Singer are his inspired apostles; and that Das Kapital is the Bible?" [...] Thus you may see that when a German, by becoming a Social-Democrat, throws off all the bonds of convention, and stands free from all allegiance to established religion, law, order, patriotism, and learning, he promptly uses his freedom to put on a headier set of chains... --The Perfect Wagnerite: A Commentary on the Niblung's Ring _
Yeah, there seems to be a rather strong tradition, both within "scientific communities" as well as "atheist communities", of pretending that this is not, in fact, the case. Well, either that or they (some?) somehow simply do not know? Weird as that may seem, it seems a strong possibility, what with young'uns and their general disdain for history--especially their own. Gray typically spares no one, and while generally averse to being characterized as a strong proponent of anything, nevertheless makes a good case for post-humanistic thinking.
I find John Gray's views very interesting. I would be interested to learn more about why he thinks that atheism, humanism and scientism are "extensions of Christianity". Can anybody give me a summary?
Check out Straw Dogs <<<. He's written a number of books since, but Straw Dogs is where he expounds upon this most thoroughly. And it's just a really great book generally. Essentially, he argues that most forms of humanistic thought, and Enlightenment/post-Enlightenment thinking, originate with Christianity--well, all the Abrahamic traditions, really, but especially Christianity. In many respects this is patently obvious, of course: in the Western world, most folk were Christian and for a considerable period, pretty much all intellectuals and, most importantly, literate people were Christian (some Jews and some Muslims as well, of course). Perhaps more significantly, he observes that even more progressive thinking modes and traditions in the modern world are deeply informed by Christianity. Take environmental and ecological movements as an example: the more dominant trends still tend to regard humans and humanity as something outside of "nature" and our environment, and their aims and attitudes more resemble something akin to "responsible stewardship", as opposed to far less dominant strains like deep ecology or critical animal studies wherein we are very much a part of the environment, animality, etc. and valuation is inherent rather than determined by usefulness or by virtue of having certain qualities or attributes.
