Difference between revisions of "Scientism" - New World Encyclopedia

From New World Encyclopedia
(import from wiki)
 
Line 1: Line 1:
 
{{claimed}}
 
{{claimed}}
  
−
The term '''scientism''' has been used with different meanings in the literature. The term is often used  as a [[pejorative]]<ref>Scientism: "''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)''" definition from: Ryder, Martin. "Scientism." ''Encyclopedia of Science Technology and Ethics''. 3rd ed. Detroit: MacMillan Reference Books, 2005.</ref><ref>Scientism: "''Pejorative term for the belief that the methods of natural science, or the categories and things recognized in natural science, form the only proper elements in any philosophical or other inquiry. The classic statement of scientism is the physicist E. Rutherford's saying 'there is physics and there is stamp-collecting.' ''," definition from ''[[The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy]]''. n.d.</ref> to indicate the improper usage of [[science]] or scientific claims.<ref>After reviewing the usage of the term by contemporary scholars, Gregory R Peterson concludes that "''the best way to understand the charge of scientism is as a kind of logical fallacy involving improper usage of science or scientific claims.''" (p.753). From: "[[Peterson, Gregory R.]] (2003) Demarcation and the Scientistic Fallacy. ''[[Zygon: Journal of Religion and Science]]'' '''38''' (4), 751-761. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9744.2003.00536.x"</ref> The charge of scientism often is used as a counter-argument to appeals to scientific authority in contexts where science might not apply,<ref>[http://carbon.cudenver.edu/~mryder/scientism_este.html Scientism] by Martin Ryder - University of Colorado. (Accessed: July 05 2007)</ref> such as when the topic is understood to be beyond the scope of [[Scientific method|scientific inquiry]]. In contrast with this was its usage in the early 20th century, which was as a neutral descriptive and roughly synonymous with [[logical positivism]].<ref>Rey, Abel. "Review of ''La Philosophie Moderne''." ''The Journal of Philosophy, Psychology and Scientific Methods'' 6.2 (1909): 51-53.</ref> The term scientism can also be used, sometimes with a more neutral tone, to describe the view that science has authority over all other interpretations of life, such as [[philosophy|philosophical]], [[religious]], [[mythical]], [[spiritual]], or [[humanism|humanistic]] explanations. It has also been applied to the view that the [[natural sciences]] have authority over other fields of inquiry such as [[social sciences]]. The terms '''[[scientific imperialism]]''' and '''scientific fundamentalism''' have occasionally been used to refer to some of these concepts in an almost exclusively pejorative manner.<ref>For an example see Zwartz, Barney; "[http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2005/08/17/1123958129538.html Let's have a proper scientific debate]," [[The Age]], 18 August, 2005</ref>
+
The term '''scientism''' has been used with different meanings in the literature. The term is often used  as a [[pejorative]]<ref>Scientism: "''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)''" definition from: Ryder, Martin. "Scientism." ''Encyclopedia of Science Technology and Ethics''. 3rd ed. Detroit: MacMillan Reference Books, 2005.</ref><ref>Scientism: "''Pejorative term for the belief that the methods of natural science, or the categories and things recognized in natural science, form the only proper elements in any philosophical or other inquiry. The classic statement of scientism is the physicist E. Rutherford's saying 'there is physics and there is stamp-collecting.' ''," definition from ''[[The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy]]''. n.d.</ref> to indicate the improper usage of [[science]] or scientific claims.<ref>After reviewing the usage of the term by contemporary scholars, Gregory R Peterson concludes that "''the best way to understand the charge of scientism is as a kind of logical fallacy involving improper usage of science or scientific claims.''" (p.753). From: "[[Peterson, Gregory R.]] (2003) Demarcation and the Scientistic Fallacy. ''[[Zygon: Journal of Religion and Science]]'' '''38''' (4), 751-761. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9744.2003.00536.x"</ref> The charge of scientism often is used as a counter-argument to appeals to scientific authority in contexts where science might not apply,<ref>[http://carbon.cudenver.edu/~mryder/scientism_este.html Scientism] by Martin Ryder - University of Colorado. (Accessed: July 05 2007)</ref> such as when the topic is understood to be beyond the scope of [[Scientific method|scientific inquiry]]. In contrast with this was its usage in the early 20th century, which was as a neutral descriptive and roughly synonymous with [[logical positivism]].<ref>Rey, Abel. "Review of ''La Philosophie Moderne''." ''The Journal of Philosophy, Psychology and Scientific Methods'' 6.2 (1909): 51-53.</ref> The term scientism can also be used, sometimes with a more neutral tone, to describe the view that science has authority over all other interpretations of life, such as [[philosophy|philosophical]], [[religious]], [[mythical]], [[spiritual]], or [[humanism|humanistic]] explanations. It has also been applied to the view that the [[natural sciences]] have authority over other fields of inquiry such as [[social sciences]]. The terms "[[scientific imperialism]]" and "scientific fundamentalism" have occasionally been used to refer to some of these concepts in an almost exclusively pejorative manner.<ref>For an example see Zwartz, Barney; "[http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2005/08/17/1123958129538.html Let's have a proper scientific debate]," [[The Age]], 18 August, 2005. Retrieved August 3, 2007.</ref>
  
 
==Overview==
 
==Overview==
Line 13: Line 13:
 
===Relevance to the science and religion debate===
 
===Relevance to the science and religion debate===
  
−
Gregory R Peterson remarks that "for many theologians and philosophers, scientism is among the greatest of intellectual sins".<ref name="fallacy"/> In fact, today the term is often used against vocal critics of religion-as-such.<ref>Robinson, Marilynne. "Hysterical Scientism: The Ecstasy of Richard Dawkins."''Harper's Magazine'' Nov. 2006.</ref> For instance, the philosopher of science [[Daniel Dennett]] responded to criticism of his book ''[[Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon]]'' by saying that "when someone puts forward a scientific theory that [religious critics] really don't like, they just try to discredit it as 'scientism'".<ref name="byrnes" >Byrnes, Sholto. "[http://www.newstatesman.com/200604100019 'When it comes to facts, and explanations of facts, science is the only game in town']" ''New Statesman'' 10 Apr. 2006.</ref> Meanwhile, in an essay that emphasizes parallels between scientism and traditional religious movements, [[The Skeptics Society]] founder [[Michael Shermer]] self-identifies as "scientistic" and defines the term as "a scientific worldview that encompasses natural explanations for all phenomena, eschews supernatural and paranormal speculations, and embraces empiricism and reason as the twin pillars of a philosophy of life appropriate for an Age of Science."<ref>Shermer, Michael. "[http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000AA74F-FF5F-1CDB-B4A8809EC588EEDF The Shamans of Scientism]." ''[[Scientific American]]'' June 2002.</ref>
+
Gregory R Peterson remarks that "for many theologians and philosophers, scientism is among the greatest of intellectual sins".<ref name="fallacy"/> In fact, today the term is often used against vocal critics of religion-as-such.<ref>Robinson, Marilynne. "Hysterical Scientism: The Ecstasy of Richard Dawkins."''Harper's Magazine'' Nov. 2006.</ref> For instance, the philosopher of science [[Daniel Dennett]] responded to criticism of his book ''[[Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon]]'' by saying that "when someone puts forward a scientific theory that [religious critics] really don't like, they just try to discredit it as 'scientism'".<ref name="byrnes" >Byrnes, Sholto. "[http://www.newstatesman.com/200604100019 'When it comes to facts, and explanations of facts, science is the only game in town']" ''New Statesman'' 10 Apr. 2006. Retrieved August 3, 2007.</ref> Meanwhile, in an essay that emphasizes parallels between scientism and traditional religious movements, [[The Skeptics Society]] founder [[Michael Shermer]] self-identifies as "scientistic" and defines the term as "a scientific worldview that encompasses natural explanations for all phenomena, eschews supernatural and paranormal speculations, and embraces empiricism and reason as the twin pillars of a philosophy of life appropriate for an Age of Science."<ref>Shermer, Michael. "[http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000AA74F-FF5F-1CDB-B4A8809EC588EEDF The Shamans of Scientism]." ''[[Scientific American]]'' June 2002. Retrieved August 3, 2007.</ref>
  
 
==Alternate usages==
 
==Alternate usages==
Line 23: Line 23:
 
* The contention that the [[social sciences]] should be held to the somewhat stricter interpretation of [[scientific method]] used by the [[natural sciences]].  <ref> Webster. 1983. Definition #2 for Scientism. </ref>  
 
* The contention that the [[social sciences]] should be held to the somewhat stricter interpretation of [[scientific method]] used by the [[natural sciences]].  <ref> Webster. 1983. Definition #2 for Scientism. </ref>  
 
*The belief that the social sciences are ''not'' sciences because they commonly do not hold to the somewhat stricter interpretation of [[scientific method]] used by the natural sciences.<ref> Webster. 1983. Definition #2 for Scientism.</ref>  
 
*The belief that the social sciences are ''not'' sciences because they commonly do not hold to the somewhat stricter interpretation of [[scientific method]] used by the natural sciences.<ref> Webster. 1983. Definition #2 for Scientism.</ref>  
−
*The belief that scientific knowledge is the foundation of all knowledge and that, consequently, scientific argument should always be weighted more heavily than other forms of knowledge, particularly those which are not yet well described or justified from within the rational framework, or whose description fails to present itself in the course of a debate against a scientific argument. It can be contrasted by doctrines like [[historicism]], which hold that there are certain "unknowable" truths.  <ref> The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition. 2000.  [http://www.bartleby.com/61/75/S0147500.html Bartleby.com] </ref>   
+
*The belief that scientific knowledge is the foundation of all knowledge and that, consequently, scientific argument should always be weighted more heavily than other forms of knowledge, particularly those which are not yet well described or justified from within the rational framework, or whose description fails to present itself in the course of a debate against a scientific argument. It can be contrasted by doctrines like [[historicism]], which hold that there are certain "unknowable" truths.  <ref> The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition. 2000.  [http://www.bartleby.com/61/75/S0147500.html Bartleby.com] Retrieved August 3, 2007.</ref>   
−
* As a form of [[dogma]]: "In essence, ''scientism'' sees science as the absolute and only justifiable access to the truth."<ref>http://www.pbs.org/faithandreason/gengloss/sciism-body.html "Scientism" PBS.org. ''Faith and Reason.''</ref>
+
* As a form of [[dogma]]: "In essence, ''scientism'' sees science as the absolute and only justifiable access to the truth."<ref>http://www.pbs.org/faithandreason/gengloss/sciism-body.html "Scientism" PBS.org. ''Faith and Reason.'' Retrieved August 3, 2007.</ref>
−
 
 
−
==References==
 
−
{{reflist|2}}
 
  
 
==See also==
 
==See also==
Line 48: Line 45:
 
{{portalpar|Philosophy|Socrates.png}}
 
{{portalpar|Philosophy|Socrates.png}}
 
{{col-end}}
 
{{col-end}}
 +
==Notes==
 +
{{reflist|2}}
 +
 +
==References==
 +
*Aeschliman, Michael D. ''The Restitution of Man: C.S. Lewis and the Case against Scientism.'' Grand Rapids, Mich: W.B. Eerdmans Pub. Co, 1983. ISBN 0802819508 ISBN 9780802819505
 +
*Bannister, Robert C. ''Sociology and Scientism: The American Quest for Objectivity, 1880-1940.'' Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1987. ISBN 0807817333 ISBN 9780807817339
 +
*Haack, Susan. ''Defending Science—Within Reason: Between Scientism and Cynicism.'' Amherst, N.Y.: Prometheus Books, 2003. ISBN 1591021170 ISBN 9781591021179
 +
*Olafson, Frederick A. ''Naturalism and the Human Condition: Against Scientism.'' London: Routledge, 2001. ISBN 0415252598 ISBN 9780415252591 ISBN 0415252601 ISBN 9780415252607
 +
*Postman, Neil. ''Technopoly: The Surrender of Culture to Technology.'' New York: Vintage Books, 1993. ISBN 0679745408 ISBN 9780679745402
 +
*Schoeck, Helmut, and James W. Wiggins. ''Scientism and Values.'' Princeton, N.J.: Van Nostrand, 1960.
 +
*Sorell, Tom. ''Scientism: Philosophy and the Infatuation with Science.'' International library of philosophy. London: Routledge, 1991. ISBN 0415033993 ISBN 9780415033992
 +
*Stenmark, Mikael. ''Scientism: Science, Ethics, and Religion''. Ashgate science and religion series. Aldershot: Ashgate, 2001. ISBN 0754604454 ISBN 9780754604457 ISBN 0754604462 ISBN 9780754604464
 +
 +
==External links==
 +
*Vladislav S. Olkhovsky. [http://www.ldolphin.org/olkhov.html How science correlates to Christianity, atheistic scientism, and New Age mysticism], Scientific Centre "Institute for Nuclear Research," Kiev-252028, Ukraine. Retrieved August 3, 2007.
 +
*Henry F. Schaefer III. [http://www.lewissociety.org/scientism.php C. S. Lewis: Science and Scientism], C. S. Lewis Society. Retrieved August 3, 2007.
  
−
[[Category:Philosophical terminology]]
+
===General Philosophy Sources===
−
[[Category:Science]]
+
*[http://plato.stanford.edu/ Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy]. Retrieved August 2, 2007.
−
[[Category:Philosophy of science]]
+
*[http://www.iep.utm.edu/ The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy]. Retrieved August 2, 2007.
−
[[Category:Political philosophy]]
+
*[http://www.epistemelinks.com/  Philosophy Sources on Internet EpistemeLinks]. Retrieved August 2, 2007.
−
[[Category:Philosophical terminology]]
+
*[http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/gpi/index.htm Guide to Philosophy on the Internet]. Retrieved August 2, 2007.
−
[[Category:20th century philosophy]]
+
*[http://www.bu.edu/wcp/PaidArch.html Paideia Project Online]. Retrieved August 2, 2007.
−
[[Category:19th century philosophy]]
+
*[http://www.gutenberg.org/ Project Gutenberg]. Retrieved August 2, 2007.
−
[[Category:Types of scientific fallacy]]
+
 +
[[category:Philosophy and religion]]
 +
[[Category:philosophy]]
  
 
{{credits|Scientism|147225469}}
 
{{credits|Scientism|147225469}}

Revision as of 02:39, 3 August 2007


The term scientism has been used with different meanings in the literature. The term is often used as a pejorative[1][2] to indicate the improper usage of science or scientific claims.[3] The charge of scientism often is used as a counter-argument to appeals to scientific authority in contexts where science might not apply,[4] such as when the topic is understood to be beyond the scope of scientific inquiry. In contrast with this was its usage in the early 20th century, which was as a neutral descriptive and roughly synonymous with logical positivism.[5] The term scientism can also be used, sometimes with a more neutral tone, to describe the view that science has authority over all other interpretations of life, such as philosophical, religious, mythical, spiritual, or humanistic explanations. It has also been applied to the view that the natural sciences have authority over other fields of inquiry such as social sciences. The terms "scientific imperialism" and "scientific fundamentalism" have occasionally been used to refer to some of these concepts in an almost exclusively pejorative manner.[6]

Overview

Reviewing the references to scientism in the works of contemporary scholars, Gregory R. Peterson[7] detects two main broad themes:

  • (1) it is used to criticize a totalizing view of science as if it were capable of describing all reality and knowledge, or as if it were the only true way to acquire knowledge about reality and the nature of things;
  • (2) it is used to denote a border-crossing violation in which the theories and methods of one (scientific) discipline are inappropriately applied to another (scientific or non-scientific) discipline and its domain. Examples of this second usage is to label as scientism the attempts to claim science as the only or primary source of human values (a traditional domain of ethics), or as the source of meaning and purpose (a traditional domain of religion and related worldviews).

According to Mikael Stenmark in the Encyclopedia of science and religion,[8] while the doctrines that are described as scientism have many possible forms and varying degrees of ambition, they share the idea that the boundaries of science (that is, typically the natural sciences) could and should be expanded so that something that has not been previously considered as a subject pertinent to science can now be understood as part of science, (usually with science becoming the sole or the main arbiter regarding this area or dimension). In it's most extreme form, scientism is the view that science has no boundaries, that in due time all human problems and all aspects of human endeavor will be dealt and solved by science alone. Stenmark proposes the expression scientific expansionism as a synonym of scientism.

Relevance to the science and religion debate

Gregory R Peterson remarks that "for many theologians and philosophers, scientism is among the greatest of intellectual sins".[7] In fact, today the term is often used against vocal critics of religion-as-such.[9] For instance, the philosopher of science Daniel Dennett responded to criticism of his book Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon by saying that "when someone puts forward a scientific theory that [religious critics] really don't like, they just try to discredit it as 'scientism'".[10] Meanwhile, in an essay that emphasizes parallels between scientism and traditional religious movements, The Skeptics Society founder Michael Shermer self-identifies as "scientistic" and defines the term as "a scientific worldview that encompasses natural explanations for all phenomena, eschews supernatural and paranormal speculations, and embraces empiricism and reason as the twin pillars of a philosophy of life appropriate for an Age of Science."[11]

Alternate usages

Standard dictionary definitions include the following applications of the term "scientism":

  • The use of the style, assumptions, techniques, and other attributes typically displayed by scientists.[12]
  • Methods and attitudes typical of or attributed to the natural scientist.[13]
  • 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.[14]
  • The use of scientific or pseudoscientific language."[15]
  • The contention that the social sciences should be held to the somewhat stricter interpretation of scientific method used by the natural sciences. [16]
  • The belief that the social sciences are not sciences because they commonly do not hold to the somewhat stricter interpretation of scientific method used by the natural sciences.[17]
  • The belief that scientific knowledge is the foundation of all knowledge and that, consequently, scientific argument should always be weighted more heavily than other forms of knowledge, particularly those which are not yet well described or justified from within the rational framework, or whose description fails to present itself in the course of a debate against a scientific argument. It can be contrasted by doctrines like historicism, which hold that there are certain "unknowable" truths. [18]
  • As a form of dogma: "In essence, scientism sees science as the absolute and only justifiable access to the truth."[19]

See also
  • Positivism
  • Pseudoscience
  • Pseudoskepticism
  • Scientistic materialism
  • Technologism
  • Techno-utopianism
Portal:Philosophy
 Philosophy Portal

Notes

  1. ↑ Scientism: "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)" definition from: Ryder, Martin. "Scientism." Encyclopedia of Science Technology and Ethics. 3rd ed. Detroit: MacMillan Reference Books, 2005.
  2. ↑ Scientism: "Pejorative term for the belief that the methods of natural science, or the categories and things recognized in natural science, form the only proper elements in any philosophical or other inquiry. The classic statement of scientism is the physicist E. Rutherford's saying 'there is physics and there is stamp-collecting.' ," definition from The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy. n.d.
  3. ↑ After reviewing the usage of the term by contemporary scholars, Gregory R Peterson concludes that "the best way to understand the charge of scientism is as a kind of logical fallacy involving improper usage of science or scientific claims." (p.753). From: "Peterson, Gregory R. (2003) Demarcation and the Scientistic Fallacy. Zygon: Journal of Religion and Science 38 (4), 751-761. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9744.2003.00536.x"
  4. ↑ Scientism by Martin Ryder - University of Colorado. (Accessed: July 05 2007)
  5. ↑ Rey, Abel. "Review of La Philosophie Moderne." The Journal of Philosophy, Psychology and Scientific Methods 6.2 (1909): 51-53.
  6. ↑ For an example see Zwartz, Barney; "Let's have a proper scientific debate," The Age, 18 August, 2005. Retrieved August 3, 2007.
  7. ↑ 7.0 7.1 "Peterson, Gregory R. (2003) Demarcation and the Scientistic Fallacy. Zygon: Journal of Religion and Science 38 (4), 751-761. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9744.2003.00536.x"
  8. ↑ As described by Mikael Stenmark, author of the article about the topic of Scientism in: J. Wentzel Vrede van Huyssteen (editor). Encyclopedia of science and religion, 2nd ed. Thomson Gale. 2003. (p.783)
  9. ↑ Robinson, Marilynne. "Hysterical Scientism: The Ecstasy of Richard Dawkins."Harper's Magazine Nov. 2006.
  10. ↑ Byrnes, Sholto. "'When it comes to facts, and explanations of facts, science is the only game in town'" New Statesman 10 Apr. 2006. Retrieved August 3, 2007.
  11. ↑ Shermer, Michael. "The Shamans of Scientism." Scientific American June 2002. Retrieved August 3, 2007.
  12. ↑ Random House Dictionary of the English Language. 1987.
  13. ↑ Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary. 1983.
  14. ↑ Webster. 1983.
  15. ↑ Webster. 1983. Definition #3 for Scientism.
  16. ↑ Webster. 1983. Definition #2 for Scientism.
  17. ↑ Webster. 1983. Definition #2 for Scientism.
  18. ↑ The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition. 2000. Bartleby.com Retrieved August 3, 2007.
  19. ↑ http://www.pbs.org/faithandreason/gengloss/sciism-body.html "Scientism" PBS.org. Faith and Reason. Retrieved August 3, 2007.

References
ISBN links support NWE through referral fees

External links

General Philosophy Sources

Credits

New World Encyclopedia writers and editors rewrote and completed the Wikipedia article in accordance with New World Encyclopedia standards. This article abides by terms of the Creative Commons CC-by-sa 3.0 License (CC-by-sa), which may be used and disseminated with proper attribution. Credit is due under the terms of this license that can reference both the New World Encyclopedia contributors and the selfless volunteer contributors of the Wikimedia Foundation. To cite this article click here for a list of acceptable citing formats.The history of earlier contributions by wikipedians is accessible to researchers here:

The history of this article since it was imported to New World Encyclopedia:

Note: Some restrictions may apply to use of individual images which are separately licensed.

Retrieved from https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/p/index.php?title=Scientism&oldid=393086

Content is available under Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License; additional terms may apply. See Terms of Use for details.
Copyright Logo
Powered by MediaWiki