Is Scientism misleading Christians about Science?

[Radagast]

I am under the impression that Scientism is misleading many Christians into believing that many controversial scientific facts such as evolution and origins of the earth and universe are just beliefs. What do you think?

I think you may be right. Advocates of scientism are guilty of straying out of their zone of expertise, and coming up with a great deal of mediocre philosophy. This causes, I think, many people to devalue those statements made which are well-founded.

 

[Radagast]

Empiricism has limits just like anything else in epistemology.

Scientism asserts it is superior to other methods, which is flagrantly untrue to anyone mildly acquainted with arts and humanities.

Scientism is also problematic in mathematics. Mathematical truths are not empirical, and we don't prove theorems by conducting scientific experiments.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Scientism is also problematic in mathematics. Mathematical truths are not empirical, and we don't prove theorems by conducting scientific experiments.

That would be because Mathematics is NOT an experimental science. Science means "knowledge" so mathematics is knowledge derived from a set of axioms about numbers and operations performed on them in a system that demands logical consistency.

 

[Radagast]

That would be because Mathematics is NOT an experimental science.

That would be my point, yes.

Science means "knowledge"

Advocates of scientism (there are some very vocal ones here on CF) use "science" to mean "empirical science," as in the quote below.

"Scientism is belief in the universal applicability of the scientific method and approach, and the view that empirical science constitutes the most authoritative worldview or most valuable part of human learning to the exclusion of other viewpoints."

 

[MoreCoffee]

...
Advocates of scientism (there are some very vocal ones here on CF) use "science" to mean "empirical science," as in the quote below.

The definition from post #6 is not referenced. Where does it come from? The chap who gave the definition has a

non-denominational faith icon so I wonder if his definition represents anything that non-religious thinkers might support.

 

[Radagast]

The definition from post #6 is not referenced. Where does it come from?

From Wikipedia, I believe. I think it's a reasonable definition of the term.

Advocates of scientism I've met have generally also argued strongly for philosophical materialism and for the idea that mathematical truths are empirical (both of which I would disagree with).

 

[MoreCoffee]

I imagine that atheists and many scientists would reject the word "scientism" and the definition given in post #6.

 

[Radagast]

I imagine that atheists and many scientists would reject the word "scientism" and the definition given in post #6.

Advocates of scientism would certainly agree that "empirical science constitutes the most authoritative worldview." In fact, I more often hear the stronger statement "empirical science constitutes the only authoritative worldview."

For those of us who disagree with that claim, some label for the position is necessary, and "scientism" is the generally accepted one. Some advocates of the position do in fact embrace that term.

I should also point out that I am in fact a scientist. Like the majority of scientists, I do not support scientism.

 

[bhsmte]

I was referring to Christians who might view scientism as a mistaken view of science itself. I just saw it mentioned in a thread yesterday. I think Scientism may have become a straw man for condemning science.

Any examples of what you are referring to?

 

[ThinkForYourself]

"Scientism[bless and do not curse]is belief in the universal applicability of the[bless and do not curse]scientific method[bless and do not curse]and approach, and the view that[bless and do not curse]empirical science constitutes the most authoritative worldview or most valuable part of human learning to the exclusion of other viewpoints."

I think science is the most authoritative worldview because it has the most empirical data, so I agree with that part of scientism.

Imagine if the humanities had progressed at the same rate as science over the last 500 years. We would be living in a utopia.

 

[Radagast]

I think science is the most authoritative worldview because it has the most empirical data, so I agree with that part of scientism.

Imagine if the humanities had progressed at the same rate as science over the last 500 years. We would be living in a utopia.

I think this comment kind of makes my point, managing to combine petitio principii (assuming that empirical data is all that counts) with ad hominem (progress or otherwise in the humanities has nothing to do with the empiricist claim) and a false dichotomy (empirical science and the humanities are not the only forms of knowledge -- mathematics is one of several others).

If a scientist makes comments like that, it is less than surprising that many people will fail to take seriously his or her well-founded remarks about actual science.

 

[durangodawood]

....Imagine if the humanities had progressed at the same rate as science over the last 500 years. We would be living in a utopia.

Difficult to imagine. The humanities and social sciences are harder. More variables by far.

 

[John the Bpt]

Any examples of what you are referring to?

...these days I would be surprised if there were not. But no I am not aware of such. It just seems an opportunity for the old straw man fallacy which is being used so commonly to mislead people these days.

 

[Radagast]

...these days I would be surprised if there were not. But no I am not aware of such. It just seems an opportunity for the old straw man fallacy which is being used so commonly to mislead people these days.

So you've totally changed your mind since you wrote the OP?

 

[MoreCoffee]

I do not think of science or the scientific method as a world view. It's an approach to explaining facts. It is not the explanation itself just the method one can use to find credible and reasonable explanations.

Philosophy and religion yield world views but the scientific method and science is not philosophy or religion.

 

[Radagast]

Science is not scientism.

Indeed, and the majority of scientists would agree with that.

I do not think of science or the scientific method as a world view. It's an approach to explaining facts. It is not the explanation itself just the method one can use to find credible and reasonable explanations.

Philosophy and religion yield world views but the scientific method and science is not philosophy or religion.

But for advocates of scientism, scientism is their world view. They would deny the value of both philosophy and religion. That's the whole point of this thread, actually.

 

[John the Bpt]

So you've totally changed your mind since you wrote the OP?

No I have not but it was mostly a suspicion on my part. So I just did a quick search which I should have done before posting. I am unable to post links yet so please do so for me. Just do a search for scientism straw man and a wealth of information will come up.

 

[ThinkForYourself]

Difficult to imagine. The humanities and social sciences are harder. More variables by far.

I agree. And in many cases much more difficult to collect reliable, unbiased, data.

 

[ThinkForYourself]

I think this comment kind of makes my point, managing to combine petitio principii (assuming that empirical data is all that counts) with ad hominem (progress or otherwise in the humanities has nothing to do with the empiricist claim) and a false dichotomy (empirical science and the humanities are not the only forms of knowledge -- mathematics is one of several others).

If a scientist makes comments like that, it is less than surprising that many people will fail to take seriously his or her well-founded remarks about actual science.

And this kind of post is why people consider the humanities less authoritative.


"I think this comment kind of makes my point, managing to combine petitio principii (assuming that empirical data is all that counts)"

Wrong. Where did I say empirical data is all that counts?


"with ad hominem (progress or otherwise in the humanities has nothing to do with the empiricist claim)"

I think the humanities are important. This is a ridiculous claim. Science has progressed an amazing amount in the last 500 years. Why would you interpret that as an attack on the humanities? It makes no sense.


"a false dichotomy (empirical science and the humanities are not the only forms of knowledge -- mathematics is one of several others)"

Wrong. I replied to the OP, regarding the Humanities and Science. Where did I say or imply there are no other forms of knowledge?


If a scientist makes comments like that, it is less than surprising that many people will fail to take seriously his or her well-founded remarks about actual science.

You appear to blaming the scientist because the reader demonstrably lacks the skills required to understand what he said, and the context it was said in. How is that the scientist's fault?

 

[Radagast]

Just do a search for scientism straw man and a wealth of information will come up.

Those hits are partly comments by advocates of scientism objecting to the label, and partly people saying that "scientism is a straw man" is a straw man. Opinions on both sides, in other words.

But scientism is not a straw man; you only need to wade through the old posts here at CF to find many passionate advocates of scientism.

The term goes back at least to Eric Voegelin (1948), who said it was "characterized by three principal dogmas: (1) the assumption that the mathematized science of natural phenomena is a model science to which all other sciences ought to conform; (2) that all realms of being are accessible to the methods of the sciences of phenomena; and (3) that all reality which is not accessible to sciences of phenomena is either irrelevant or, in the more radical form of the dogma, illusionary."

Of course, that doesn't answer the question in the OP: whether scientism is sufficiently widespread to influence the average person's opinion of science -- although I think it probably is and does. I'm not the only person to think so; Massimo Pigliucci makes the same point in his Denying Evolution: Creationism, Scientism, and the Nature of Science, for example. He thinks scientism has contributed to the denials of evolution in the USA.