There have been several posts about scientism over the past few weeks, particularly at
- Why Evolution is True (Jerry Coyne)
- Sandwalk (Larry Moran)
- Evolving Thoughts (John Wilkins)
- Choice in Dying (Eric MacDonald)
I won’t single out specific posts at those sites, as I will only be making general comments. Most of the people reading this have probably also read those other blogs and have already seen some of the relevant posts.
The claim made by proponents of scientism is, to perhaps overstate it a little, that the methods of science are the only way to knowledge. I’ll count the first two of the sites I listed as favoring scientism, and the last two as opposing it. And I’ll count myself as an opponent.
The proponents of scientism usually say that they include other disciplines, such as history, when they talk of using the scientific method. On one hand, this is good, for it means that their scientism is not as narrow as it might seem. Yet, on the other hand, it is also quite puzzling. For history is very different from science, so different that it seems strange to say that it uses the same methods. I’ll discuss this point later in the post, where I shall indicate why I consider science so clearly different from history.
Knowledge
If we are going to talk about knowledge, we should start by agreeing what we are talking about. Philosophers often define knowledge as justified true belief. I am on record as disliking that definition of knowledge. It has always seemed to me that our knowledge vastly exceeds what can be expressed in the form of written or spoken statements.
If we take a more expansive view of knowledge, then the proponents of scientism would probably agree that there is a lot that does not come from the scientific method. Examples would include the knowledge involved in appreciation of art and the knowledge required to excel at a sport. So, to be fair to the proponents of scientism, I shall limit this discussion to what does reasonably fit the “justified true belief” designation. In fact, I shall define the discussion to what we might call “factual knowledge.”
The puzzling thing for me, is that even when we restrict our consideration to factual knowledge, there is an enormous amount that does not come via disciplines such as science and history.
The overwhelming bulk of our factual knowledge is cultural knowledge. It not knowledge about the physical world. It is knowledge that we need to be part of a society. This includes facts about the banking system, facts about how to shop in a supermarket, facts about sports such as golf or football or baseball or cricket. It includes facts about government and politics, facts about the arts, facts about understanding the weather report, facts about using the Internet, facts about blogging. It even includes facts about putting out the garbage for collection.
Some of those cultural facts will be of interest to historians and to those in other academic disciplines. But much of our cultural knowledge is sufficiently mundane that it is not likely to be studied by any professional discipline.
Contrasting history and science
I’ll now turn my attention to the differences between science and other disciplines such as history and journalism. Both science and history use evidence on which to base conclusions. And that is probably what proponents of scientism have in mind when then include disciplines such as history among those using the scientific method. However that is surely too simplistic.
History mainly uses evidence that already exists. That is to say, they look at records that were made in the past. They might also look at artifacts, so their descriptions of artifacts would perhaps count as evidence that did not already exist. But it will still be similar in kind to already existing evidence.
Compare that to science. When physicists started investigating electricity, there was no data or evidence about voltages or electrical currents. The concepts of voltage (technically, elecromotive force) and current were not in use. The scientists had to invent these new concepts, and they had to invent ways of getting data that related to those concepts. This invention of new concepts is not restricted to physics. Before Mendel, nobody talked about genes. Before the work of Crick and Watson, nobody talked about the genome. Across the physical sciences, and to a lesser extent with the social sciences, we see the invention of new concepts and new forms of data that had never been used before. That is very unlike what happens with fields such as history or journalism.
Religions and knowledge
Perhaps one of the greatest concerns of the proponents of scientism, is that they want to exclude religion as a way of knowing. Yet I fail to see how that can work. A lot of what happens in a religion involves traditions and rituals that would count as cultural knowledge. And some of that cultural knowledge is best acquired by being part of the religion. So I don’t see that we can rule out religion as a way of knowing.
For myself, I do not value religious knowledge. And I presume that proponents of scientism likewise do not value it. But that it has no value to me does not imply that is not knowledge which others might value.