Scientism, good or bad?

First of all, what is a good working definition of scientism? I’ve tried looking it up and seem to get some pretty contradictory answers.

And is it a bad thing? On one hand, it seems to be a fairly rigid thing, in that science itself becomes sort of a religion. On the other, it seems to be a derogatory term applied by creationists to the likes of Carl Sagan. On the third hand, it has been described by some rational thinkers as being poor a way of learning as any form of un-critical non-thinking.

Well?

I’ve heard of science and I’ve heard of Scientology, but “scientism” is a new word to me. Where did you hear it or read it?

First from my girlfriend. And there is a new book out called Denying Evolution: Creationism, Scientism, and the Nature of Science by Massimo Pigliucci. Enter that word into a search engine and you will get a bunch of hits.

One (and only one) definition, from Merriam-Webster:

Main Entry: sci·en·tism
Pronunciation: 'sI-&n-"ti-z&m
Function: noun
Date: 1877
1 : methods and attitudes typical of or attributed to the natural scientist
2 : 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)

Another definition:

Unlike the use of the scientific method as only one mode of reaching knowledge, scientism claims that science alone can render truth about the world and reality. Scientism’s single-minded adherence to only the empirical, or testable, makes it a strictly scientifc worldview, in much the same way that a Protestant fundamentalism that rejects science can be seen as a strictly religious worldview. Scientism sees it necessary to do away with most, if not all, metaphysical, philosophical, and religious claims, as the truths they proclaim cannot be apprehended by the scientific method. In essence, scientism sees science as the absolute and only justifiable access to the truth.

Never really heard of it before.

My take is that, as that book title suggests, it’s primarily used by people who’re opposed to scientific exploration in certain areas, particularly evolution, paleontology, archeology, cosmology, etc. It sounds like a handy pessimistic label to apply to people who prefer evidence to faith.

Sounds like a cheap shot to put Creationism on par with science, by making them sound similar. Maybe to stress their view that science is also a belief system.

Pffrrrt.

I’m pretty sure that’s how it’s used most often, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that that’s what it means – hence my asking for a good definition.

Last night I was reading a review of the book I mentioned earlier, and it said something to the effect of “Nor should we employ scientism, because we all know how bad that can be.” The review was in Skeptical Inquirer. Which would imply that skeptics abhor scientism as well.

Hence this thread.

OK, but then here is the definition given by skepdic.com:

So it would seem to be a term employed by skeptics as well.

Hmmm, guess I am a one who practices scientism myself, does that make me a scientist?

I AM a scientist, and i have no problem with you people worshiping me!

This is a false notion, held by folks who do not understand the Scientific Process.

Remember this: in science, any theory may be overthrown at any time, by someone who has a theory which fits the known facts and explains more than the old one does. The idea of scientists being a body of “worshippers” who accept known theories on blind faith is as likely as Pope John Paul II suddenly adopting a new career as a hip-hop artist.

True as that is, I don’t think that is what is implied by the word “scientism.” I think “science as religion” in this case refers to following science to the exclusion of all else, not the very abandonment of scientific method.

I can see that. It’s not a question of scientists being “worshippers” of science, but laypeople who don’t understand how research and the scientific method really work.

Unfortunately, I still think it’s unfairly applied to rational people who simply don’t agree with “intelligent design” or whatever other cornball idea somebody comes up with that can’t stand up to scrutiny.

There is a difference between science and scientism. Science is a method of exploring possible answers to a question. Scientism is “This is true now and forever this because science says so.” Scientism is the dogma that makes some idiot actor in a white lab coat look “credible” in a commercial. Scientism is the dogma that “‘Science’ will fix all our problems.” It looks upon “Science” as a body of knowledge instead of a method. Social Darwinism is a scientistic doctrine, for example. It is not a scientific doctrine. Scientism is also indulged in by people who feel a need to make “Science” some kind of quasi-divinity.

There is a great difference between the real scientific method and blind scientism.

Uh, there is a vast gulf between real science and the dogma of scientism. One thing is that most of us working scientists don’t see much need to go around capitalizing “Scientific Process” as if it were some sort of deity’s name.

Real scientists do not indulge in scientism. We’re too intimately acquainted with all the bumps and fumbles of real science. Scientism is the religion of peopl who are at a remove from the reality of doing science. Y’know, people who come up with ideas like “We should stop feeding poor people because that only weakens our species and makes us have too many bad genes.” Now, if the person is merely working from misunderstanding and accepts correction, it’s an honest error. If the person persists dogmatically, insisting that there is “real scientific backing” for things like social Darwinism, then it’s scientism.

Scientism is what gave rise to the ability for anyone to say “it’s been scientifically proven that…” and then tag whatever they wish on the end and act as if its irreptuable proof.

Isn’t this basically just logical positivism? Hume, Russell and the like?

The use of empirical observation and logic as the basis of a philosophy certainly isn’t new.

Good answer, Dogface.

So what of the assertions that Sagan engaged in scientism? In one of his books he pretty much stated that science was the answer to everything.

tdn-“In one of his books he pretty much stated that science was the answer to everything.”

Could you give that some context(and perhaps a quote/which one of his books). Not that I would be surprised judging from my reading of “Dragons of Eden”. Seems like a neat guy, but I would agree there is the wiff of the “true believer” about him.
Haven’t we all met that guy who’ll believe something to the death because he saw it on “Discover”?

tdn-“In one of his books he pretty much stated that science was the answer to everything.”

Could you give that some context(and perhaps a quote/which one of his books). Not that I would be surprised judging from my reading of “Dragons of Eden”. Seems like a neat guy, but I would agree there is the wiff of the “true believer” about him.
Haven’t we all met that guy who’ll believe something to the death because he saw it on “Discover”?

As the term seems to be used, I would also lump in with scientism this qualitative (not definitional) statement: “Science is the method of exploring answers to a question.” As seems to be indicated above.

Just because you pay lip service to the Popperian notion that “science never proves anything” doesn’t mean you aren’t engaging in a bit of, well, scientism. :stuck_out_tongue: