An ID view of scientism

14 January 2010
Tossing Scientism's 'Addled Eggs' Out Of The Frying Pan
Robert Deyes
In their book The Privileged Planet, astronomer Guillermo Gonzalez and philosopher of science Jay Richards point out that rather than adopting the original definition of 'science' as a search for knowledge (literal translation from Latin), some opinion makers in science have taken it to mean "applied naturalism" defined as, "the conviction that the material world is all there is, and that chance and impersonal natural law alone explain, indeed must explain, its existence" (1).-Outspoken neo-atheist Peter Atkins has actively pushed such a view through his espousal of the 'scientism' movement, unwaveringly maintaining that science is "the only reliable way we have of discovering anything about the workings of nature and fabric of the world" (2). Countering such a position is philosopher Eddie Colanter who described scientism as "the worldview [that] asserts that the only type of truth or knowledge that exists or that is important is that which can be known or verified through the scientific method" (3). 
Notable in Atkins's collective 'house of horrors' is the ontological reductionist notion that metabolic processes alone organize the "random electrical and chemical currents in our brains" that then shape our personalities and creative drive (2). Brain biologist John Eccles revolted against the demeaning undercurrent of such reductionism "with its claim [that] promissory materialism accounts for all the spiritual world in terms of patterns of neuronal activity" (4). In his Challenges From Science theologian John Lennox maintains that if Atkins's assertion were true, it would at once render philosophy, ethics, literature, poetry, art, and music irrelevant for our understanding of reality (5).-Besides throwing these and other disciplines into the intellectual trash heap, Atkins's position better reflects his atheist tendencies than any truly unbiased approach to discussion. His own 'cosmic bootstrap', the idea that cosmic spacetime brought about its own existence and today "generates its own dust in the process of its own self assembly" (5), is laughable precisely because, as theologian Keith Ward notes , "it is logically impossible for a cause to bring about some effect without already being in existence" (5).-Theologian J.P Moreland brilliantly counters the axioms that Atkins holds dear, by demonstrating their self-refuting nature. "A proposition", writes Moreland "is self-refuting if it refers to and falsifies itself. For example, "There are no English sentences" and "There are no truths" are self-refuting" (6). He later adds that "scientism is not itself a proposition of science, but a second-order proposition about science to the effect that only scientific propositions are true or rational to believe" (6).-Atkins's condemnation of cosmic purpose and design is all too evident in his own rhetoric. "Our universe" he assures us, "hangs there in all its glory, wholly and completely useless. To project onto it our human-inspired notion of purpose would, to my mind, sully and diminish it" (2). Side-stepping the extraordinary nature of the cosmic Big Bang (5), Atkins then contents himself with speculation over the existence of infinite universes (2), and clearly unveils to his audience that his acceptance of the facts is dependent on his own pet peeves and preferences. In short his conclusions are not those of an unsullied objectivist.-Years ago astrophysicist Kenell Touryan warned us of the 'trap of scientism' that, in the realm of biology at least, has become the philosophical foundation of many an evolutionist. "No reputable physicist or chemist" Touryan noted "would be presumptuous enough to characterize scientific discoveries, at least in the hard sciences, as "truth that will make us free"" (7). Laying out the reality of his own experiences he wrote:-
Last year's scathing allegation from Atkins and his ilk- that you cannot be a true scientist in the 'deepest sense of the word' and still have religious beliefs (8) ... was not one grounded upon scientific insights but on a pervasive atheistic brand of religion. It is high time that we recognized this and tossed the 'addled eggs' of scientism out of the frying pan.-Literature Cited
1. Guillermo Gonzalez and Jay Richards (2004) The Privileged Planet, How Our Place In The Cosmos Is Designed For Discovery, Regnery Publishing Inc, Washington D.C, New York, p.224-2. The Joy Of Science, The Existence Of God And Galileo's Finger, Roger Bingham Interviews Chemist Peter Atkins, 2007, See http://thesciencenetwork.org/media/videos/3/Transcript.pdf-3. Michael Behe, Eddie N. Colanter, Logan Gage, and Phillip Johnson (2008) Intelligent Design 101: Leading Experts Explain The Key Issues, Kregel Publications, Grand Rapids, Michigan, p.161-4. John C. Eccles (1991) Evolution of the Brain, Creation of Self, Published by Routledge, New York, p.241-5. John Lennox (2007) Challenges From Science, Beyond Opinion, Living The Faith We Defend (Ed. Ravi Zacharias), pp. 112-118-6. Ibid, p.204-7. Kenell J. Touryan (1999) Science and "Truth", Science, 30 July 1999, Volume 285. p. 663-8. Gene Russo (2009) Balancing Belief And Bioscience, Nature Volume 460, p. 654

Post reply

6540 views

Scientism as defined by a scientist: Massimo Pigliucci tackles scientism headlong in his book "Denying Evolution." -Scientism is the belief that science will solve all of man's problems. He goes to a great length of covering different kinds of scientism, none of which are covered by the author cited here. -What the ID advocate is doing is phrasing an extreme faith of scientific materialism as scientism. It's a veiled strawman. -Where I have difficulty of this is in terms of the reliability question. Reliability of a system of gaining knowledge is in my opinion, the utmost in important criterion in using it. Name one that's demonstrably more reliable. -If you can't, then that means science is the best. If science is the best, than I don't know a better argument for what would be more valid, knowledge gained from an unreliable system, or knowledge gained from science? -Scientism as espoused by the author in my argument actually seems more reasonable. Scientism as espoused by Pigliucci, is actually a more useful explanation, and better describes people such as Dawkins, because when viewed in terms of reliability, science IS king.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

Post reply

6489 views

MATT: What the ID advocate is doing is phrasing an extreme faith of scientific materialism as scientism. -There are two very different definitions of scientism. One is: "use of the scientific method of acquiring knowledge, whether in the traditional sciences or in other fields of inquiry." No-one could possibly object to that, could they? But the second, as indicated in the article and often used pejoratively, is based on "the conviction that the material world is all there is". That's where the trouble begins. One of my dictionaries, in the context of the second definition, contains a quotation from Brian D. Josephson and Beverley A. Rubik, The Challenge of Consciousness Research, 1992: "We feel that the attitude that predominates in science at present is arrogance, which has fostered dogmatism and scientism." Note their field of study.-This form of scientism is indeed an extreme faith, as embraced by writers like Dawkins, because it categorically attributes life, consciousness and every phenomenon connected with consciousness, to material sources that have produced them by accident. I would argue (and George will disagree!) that there is no scientific evidence that life and consciousness are ... or even can be ... a D-I-Y product, and anyone who thinks they are has no more and no less evidence than anyone who thinks they aren't. Nobody knows. I need to put that more emphatically. Nobody KNOWS. It's a matter of belief.-And this is the problem, as I see it, with your next argument, Matt: "Reliability of a system of gaining knowledge is in my opinion, the utmost in important criterion in using it. [...] If science is the best, then I don't know a better argument for what could be more valid, knowledge gained from an unreliable system, or knowledge gained from science?" -I don't think anyone would deny that there are certain types of knowledge for which science is incomparably the best system. Whatever makes the material world tick is the province of science, and no matter how imperfect scientists themselves may be, they are no more imperfect than any other branch of humanity. We shouldn't judge science, any more than we should judge religion, by its practitioners. But science can only 'know' these material realities, and if nobody 'knows' whether all realities are material, the so-called reliability of science becomes irrelevant to other types of knowledge. These MAY (only may) include the origin of life and the nature of consciousness.-In no way does that invalidate the scientific approach. But it may very well invalidate the claim that science is the only reliable approach. How could it be, if reality should turn out to have dimensions beyond the material ones we know? It can only be reliable if scientism's (2nd definition) basic, absolutely unproven premise is correct. David's post quotes John Lennox, who says "that if Atkins's assertion were true, it would at once render philosophy, ethics, literature, poetry, art, and music irrelevant for our understanding of reality." He might have added emotions such as love. Science is supreme in its own field of material reality; it has no authority in the fields listed by John Lennox; and in my opinion it has neither more nor less authority in the territory where those fields overlap.-*** I've just read your latest post, in which you have put on your agnostic hat and argue very much along my own lines. I'll keep this post as it is, though, and leave you and your brother in law till tomorrow!

Post reply

6449 views

dhw,
> In no way does that invalidate the scientific approach. But it may very well invalidate the claim that science is the only reliable approach. How could it be, if reality should turn out to have dimensions beyond the material ones we know? It can only be reliable if scientism's (2nd definition) basic, absolutely unproven premise is correct. David's post quotes John Lennox, who says "that if Atkins's assertion were true, it would at once render philosophy, ethics, literature, poetry, art, and music irrelevant for our understanding of reality." He might have added emotions such as love. Science is supreme in its own field of material reality; it has no authority in the fields listed by John Lennox; and in my opinion it has neither more nor less authority in the territory where those fields overlap.
> -Though you say much of merit in this post I want to zero in on this section here. -What other forms of gaining knowledge are there? The only ones we can consider are the ones we know of. And on a case by case basis, how do they do what they do better than science? Even if you go to compare methods of gaining knowledge, you are again engaging in the scientific method. -If its reliable, it'll give you the same answer every time. If it doesn't give you the same answer, how can you call it reliable? If you can't call it reliable, how can you call it valid?

Post reply

6445 views

MATT: What other forms of gaining knowledge are there? The only ones we can consider are the ones we know of. And on a case by case basis, how do they do what they do better than science?-It's difficult for me to answer you without directly repeating everything I said in my previous post, though you've almost answered your own question under "The Nature of this Conflict". Anyway, I'll try to approach it from a different angle. Let's take just one issue, since we both have difficulty with it: consciousness. As I see it, we have three options:-1) We adopt the quasi-religious faith of materialism, and believe that thought, memory, emotion etc. are explicable in material terms. Then unquestionably science will seem to be the only reliable method of acquiring knowledge about how they are produced. If our basic premise is false, we won't find the answers, but our faith will keep us hoping. 
 
2) We adopt the non-materialist faith, and believe in a soul. Science will cover the material aspects of consciousness (cerebral cortex, neurons, electrical impulses, etc.), and for the rest we will rely on personal or shared experiences. If our basic premise is false, we won't...etc. - or we may one day change our minds.-3) We adopt neither faith, but remain open to what we believe to be the reliable findings of science and to what we believe to be the reliable realities of personal experience (our own and other people's). We may or may not one day reach a conclusion.
 
Clearly, then, in response to your question, the other principal way of gaining knowledge that we know of is through experience. We use such knowledge all the time, and we share it with others just as they share it with us ... very often through books and other media. We can't live without it, but inevitably there's a process of subjective selection that goes on all the time, even in science (otherwise everyone would agree). If I tell you I nearly got drowned as a child (which I KNOW is true), you may well believe me. If someone tells you they KNOW they heard a voice which gave them information that later turned out to be true, you may well be sceptical. If a renowned climatologist publishes research data which he says he KNOWS is true, and for good measure lots of important people accept and act on it, you may well believe him. (And when news breaks that the data may have been falsified, you will feel cheated but may well find excuses for your lack of scepticism!) In all these cases, you're dealing with someone else's "knowledge", and you're imposing your own standards of credulity on it. -If we return to our starting point of consciousness, then, you can adopt either faith or neither and thus satisfy yourself, but the moment you discuss the issue with someone else, i.e. try to exchange "knowledge", you're confronted with the problem of your (and his) subjective criteria for selection. As you yourself put it when wearing your agnostic hat: "unless you can agree on what is valid evidence, there is no way to effectively implement the burden of proof issue on this topic." And since no-one can tell us what are or are not the correct criteria or the correct basic premises, no-one can tell us whether science or experience is the more reliable guide to the true nature of consciousness. Game, set and match to you, and exit your brother-in-law!

Post reply

6452 views

It is a self defeating philosophic view because it is inconsistent:

http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2018/07/fallacies-physicists-fall-for.html#more

"Scientism is simply not a coherent position. You cannot avoid having distinctively philosophical and extra-scientific theoretical commitments, because the very attempt to do so entails having distinctively philosophical and extra-scientific theoretical commitments. And if you think that these commitments are rationally justifiable ones – and of course, anyone beholden to scientism thinks his view is paradigmatically rational – then you are implicitly admitting that there can be such a thing as a rationally justifiable thesis which is not a scientific thesis. Which is, of course, what scientism denies. Thus scientism is unavoidably self-defeating.

"The fallacy is simple, and blindingly obvious once you see it. So why is it so common? Why do so many otherwise genuinely smart people (as well as people who merely like to think they are smart, like combox trolls) fall into it?

***

"though the fallacy is pretty simple, you have to have at least a rudimentary understanding of certain philosophical concepts – realism, instrumentalism, self-contradiction, etc. – and a basic willingness to think philosophically, in order to be able to see it. Now, suppose you not only don’t know much about philosophy, but are positively contemptuous of it (as those beholden to scientism often are). Then you are not going to know very much about it, and you are not likely to be able to think very clearly about even the little bit you do know. Your prejudices keep getting in the way. You are bound to be blind even to obvious fallacies like the one in question.

'The bottom line is that if you cannot help doing philosophy – for again, the very act of denying that one needs to do it itself involves one in a philosophical commitment – but at the same time also refuse to do it, then you are inevitably both going to do it and do it badly.

***

"Scientism is, by the way, self-defeating in more than just the way already identified. Consider that scientific methodology involves both the construction of mathematical representations of nature, and the experimental testing of those representations. If you think carefully about either of these components – including even the second one – you will see that it cannot be correct to say that we can have no rationally justifiable belief in what cannot be experimentally tested.

"This is most obvious in the case of mathematics. Even those beholden to scientism will typically admit that even those parts of mathematics that do not have application within empirical science constitute genuine bodies of knowledge. And even the parts of mathematics that do have application within science operate in part by distinctively mathematical rules of reasoning rather than being evaluated solely by experimental testing."

Comment: At least we can recognize this philosophy as we discuss the untestable. Feser is my favorite Thomist philosopher.

Post reply

1896 views

RSS Feed of thread

AgnosticWeb.com

An ID view of scientism (Introduction)