UPDATE: For another splenetic take on scientism, read David Brin’s post, “The dangerous chimera called ‘scientism.” An excerpt:
The crusade to discredit all fact-using professions is an existential threat to us all — a deliberate effort to lobotomize-away any influence by folks who actually know stuff.
One of the core elements of this campaign is to deride modern science as a ‘mere religion’. A religion called “scientism’. That cult incantation – aiming to cancel out all nerds and every kind of ‘expert’ – is promoted in this article.
One raver, denouncing Scientific America’s endorsement of pro-fact candidates, said:
“…worshippers at this new altar seem determined to usher in a new post-modern utopia in which science and religion are fused once again. In that light, they cannot help but endorse Kamala Harris because their consciences won’t allow them to do otherwise. It’s not a choice dictated by science, but by theology.”
Parse it. The fundamental goal is to demean fact-professions by their own standards, by calling them (without any hint of evidence, or irony) mere boffin-lemmings, yelping in unison as they worship the current paradigm and repress dissenting views.
Of course this is the masturbation-incantation of morons who know nothing about how science works, but desperately seek to justify their war against it.
Whenever I hear the word “scientism”, I know that there will follow a discourse about either how science is deficient, or about how “other ways of knowing” are as good as modern science at discerning truths about the universe. The subject of my book Faith versus Fact is in fact a long defense of science (“construed broadly,” as I explain in the book) as the only way to know truths about the universe, so it’s no surprise that I’m wary of the word “scientism” and how it’s used.
If you think that the U.S. has largely been immune to the type of anti-modern-science attitudes pervading New Zealand, you might want to look at the Scientism Workshop that will take place at the University of Chicago next week. This is apparently a part of The Scientism Project, a multi-university and somewhat multinational consortium of philosophers and historians of science researching scientism, which they define this way:
Scientism, as an epistemic position, is the view that the sciences and their methods are the best (or only) way of obtaining genuine knowledge of reality. As a social ideology, scientism is the view that the sciences alone can be trusted with the task of bringing about social progress. These two aspects of scientism, while distinct, are related: It is by virtue of revealing ‘the way the world really is’ that we acquire the ability to effectively and reliably direct society towards progress.
I am not referring to scientism as a “social ideology,” but concentrating on the first definition. Clearly making social progress requires more than just science, and no scientists would say otherwise. One needs politics, tactics, money, empathy, and so on. But let’s stick with the first definition.
The Scientism Project is holding a two-day conference next week. It’s across the street from me, and I’m not yet sure if I’ll go. Some of the talks look interesting, some boring, others don’t seem to be very science-dissing, but some make me concerned. The printed summaries of two talks from the last group are below. Here are the dates (The Franke Institute is inside the Regenstein Library at its east end).
Date: 11-12 October 2024.
Time: 9.30 am to 5.30 pm.
Location: Franke Institute for the Humanities, University of Chicago.
The Program is given as a whole, with talk summaries; here are two: (I’ve provided links to the speakers. The first in particular is almost identical to what we hear from New Zealand. Bolding in the summaries is mine. I’ve addressed the contentions of the first talk many times with respect to “ways of knowing” of the Māori of New Zealand, and reader will be familiar with my beefs:
“Rethinking Expertise: How Indigenous Science Expands the Limits of Scientism for a Better Understanding of the World and Improved Decision Making”
Heather Sauyaq Jean Gordon, Sauyaq Solutions and University of Alaska Fairbanks
Indigenous Sciences (IS) offer distinct ways of knowing derived from Indigenous cosmologies, epistemologies, ontologies, and axiologies, that often seem to stand in contrast to scientism. While scientism elevates scientific methods as the sole valid approach to knowledge, Indigenous Knowledge systems are holistic, integrating spiritual, cultural, ecological, and relational understandings of the world. Scientism focuses on the scientific method that is typically traced to the 16th and 17th centuries, ignoring the Indigenous processes of observation, hypothesis, and experimentation developed millennia ago. In addition to IS offering millennia of the scientific method, IS bring in more comprehensive approaches to science (what in mainstream science may be referred to as systems science or sustainability science) that includes place, culture, and community, recognizing that data cannot be understood without contextualization, and that humans cannot exist without the nonhuman world. IS also contextualize [sic] through relationality, generational knowledge, lived experiences, and oral traditions (nearly all religious texts are also based on oral tradition in dominant society. It is important to note that when scientism makes claims about what is science and what is evidence, it attempts to delegitimize other ways of knowing, engaging in epistemic injustice and intellectual colonialism, and creating a space where decisions can only bemade on what is “evidence” according to scientism. Epistemic pluralism recognizes multiple ways of knowing and creates space to co-produce new knowledge from multiple ways of knowing coming together. IS offers scientism a new way to see the world, through sustainable 7 generations thinking of over 800 years back and 800 years into the future, focusing on the long term instead of the short term. Indigenous approaches also create outcomes recognizing the interconnectedness between all things, removing silos between disciplines, and seeking to benefit future generations. IS exist for practice and life, they are not restricted to those with degrees and the ability to read. It is vital to decolonize scientism so that IS can be seen as both evidence and knowledge in collaborative decision making.
“Science-Envy and the Current Science Crisis”
Matthew J. Brown, Southern Illinois University Carbondale
One feature of or type of scientism can be described somewhat disparagingly as “science-envy.” Scientism in this sense seeks to take the methods, practices, and results of science as the model or criteria for another field, such as philosophy. But contemporary science is not a worthy object of envy, due to a contemporary crisis in science. This crisis has two parts: internally, there is what we might call a quality control crisis, while externally, there is what we might call a crisis of expertise. Accordingly, fields like philosophy should not take science uncritically as a model or standard for success.
I can’t help defending science here against this calumny. Yes, science is imperfect: there are failures to replicate, and even Nobel Prizes have been given for things that were later shown to be wrong. But every bit of understanding about the universe that we’ve eked out of observation and experiment has come from science construed broadly. Despite the “contemporary crisis” that Dr. Brown touts, we have discovered black holes, gravity waves, mRNA vaccines for covid, golden rice, and, just this week, the structure of the fly brain, including all the neurons and their connections (and in some cases how the brain interacts with the fly body), a discovery that promises to promote huge leaps in understanding one of the great mystery of science: how the brain works. (I’ll write about that soon.) How dare any tyro say that “science is not a worthy object of envy?”
“… 7 generations thinking of over 800 years back and 800 years into the future…”
So that’s 228 years per generation? Even if the 7 generations refers only to the past, that’s 114 years.
Hegemonic Western neo-colonialist arithmetic….
It might be interesting to hear Heather Sauyaq Jean Kwamboka Gordon’s talk. If indigenous ways of knowing can contribute to science, let’s see if she can make the case.
I don’t know if I would actually attend, but I might want to read the abstracts. I’m definitely wary of the word “scientism.” Any time there’s an “ism,” criticism lies close behind.
The definition of scientism does not come across as being negative, especially if one carefully defines science in the broadly construed way as you do.
It would be interesting to hear about some of the talks, and your impressions about them. It would be really interesting if you gave a talk at the event! I think some of the folks there are not used to being challenged.
My dialectic-O-meter needle is bumping
PCC(E): “Clearly making social progress requires more than just science, and no scientists would say otherwise. One needs politics, tactics, money, empathy, and so on. But let’s stick with the first definition”
Well put.
IMHO and in thinking “scientism” over again after a long time, after reading about lots of Hegelian thought, a dialectical model of transformation is apparent of the form :
Abstract->Negation->Concrete
In their terms :
“Social Progress”->Science/”scientism”->”Better Understanding of the World and Improved Decision Making”/”genuine knowledge of reality”
… so this is cleared up in my view – “scientism” is a dialectical manipulation to negate science (..?!..) and bring forth some wonderful new life – that wonderful life being held back by “scientism”. That requires that first definition given above.
That makes this a gnostic view – a carceral existence they can see but lowly creatures like practicing scientists etc. cannot. It’s funny, the anti-“scientism”ists CAN see the world the way it really is, and everyone else needs to get hip to their faith to see it.
And “decolonize” is simply a giveaway as to political activism.
A religious plasma physicist argued against scientism too, if I recall, so “scientism” thought can potentially get complex.
The uncovering of an erroneous scientific claim or outright defeat of a hypothesis that everyone thought would be proven ….. means that science is perfect.
I am curious about how people who defend tradition deal with new information.
A lot of traditions were established before mass communication. What if, for example, two tribes have very different ways of successfully growing vegetables. They are geographically in different climates, and have no way of knowing that. Once mass communication is available and they find out that their equally successful methods are different, how do they go about understanding that those methods are climate-based? Or, do they just go to war to decide who is “right”?
There might be different tribal members who learn more about climate-based approaches to growing vegetables, who then understand the effects of various climates on methodologies’ success level.
But then in order to do that, they have to abandon their concept of “tradition”.
L
+1
I think you know this, but Jared Diamond’s Guns, Germs, and Steel would be of interest here.
There’s a DVD/video too!
The vegetable thing is actually personal with me. I have no particular respect for “tradition” so it was never an issue.
My grandfather was a professional gardener. He lived with us when I was growing up, and in addition to his job, always maintained a veg garden next to our house. The climate in northern New Jersey was very similar to the climate in northern Switzerland, so his methods didn’t need adjusting.
When I was 20, I moved to NM. My housemate was a County Extension Agent, who had a lot of gardening knowledge. The first year we put in a veg garden, I started mounding for the cucumbers. She explained to me that in an arid climate, mounding wastes water. In NJ, mounding allows evaporation out the sides, which keeps the roots from rotting in the humidity. But in NM, evaporation out the sides will kill the plants because the roots will dry out.
The idea of waffle gardens is a Pueblo adaptation to growing vegetables in a desert ecosystem. It works great. But it would kill a lot of plants in NJ.
L
+1 🎯
One of the obvious problems with addressing the often sloppy, vague, and unsupported claims of those endorsing Other Ways of Knowing is that using clear and rigorous methods of analysis is the very thing they’re railing against. A bad talk then is really a good talk — if you’re in the proper frame of mind.
Far too many people seem to think that ‘science’ is about men (and it usually is men) in white coats doing experiments with test-tubes in laboratories. As our host never ceases to point out, science is not a collection of academic subjects, or of bodies of knowledge, but a methodology. It works just as well in history, economics, cosmology, anthropology, and pretty well any serious subject you care to mention. And most importantly, it is culture-neutral. Even adherents of MM could learn to apply it, if they were prepared to put the effort in.
PS: I look forward to PCC(E)’s take on the fruit-fly brain analysis, which I read about this week, and which seems to me to be an amazing experiment. MM and the like would never be capable of even conceiving such an achievement, let alone carrying it out.
I read the program. If I squint, the abstracts look like those by other self-professed truth tellers including the Extended Evolutionary Synthesis folks when they gather for conferences. Similarities include claims of bias, gate-keeping, and hubris on the part of those boring old conventional scientists. This EES event even featured “scientism” in one of the titles.
extendedevolutionarysynthesis.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/United-Fronts.pdf
There’s always a “crisis in science”, it’s always the fault of the scientists for being narrow-minded, and there’s always some gnostic wizard with another way of knowing who has the solution.
And like so many others, Dr. Gordon of course has a consulting side gig
sites.google.com/view/sauyaqsolutions/
where she sells “Indigenous-Led Solutions for a Sustainable Future”.
The silver lining is that like EES this decolonization and indigenization craze too shall pass, it will waste some money along the way, and we won’t be any wiser for it, but not too much damage will be done in the end.
Yes, it seems to be more about marketing than science. Why else come up with the term “scientism”?
As the IS advocates insist that data must be “contextualized,” via oral tradition, “lived experience,” etc., how do they explain the huge inconsistencies among the various indigenous knowledge systems? Are the multiple, different explanations of the creation of the earth and sun all equally correct?
And let’s not disparage the Indigenous Europeans, who told us that Apollo drove his chariot across the sky, so that must be part of the context of knowledge of daylight and nighttime, and the structure of the solar system, right?
And they told us that too much black bile causes melancholia, so that must be part of the context of understanding depression, right?
Fie on your scientism if you reject my IS.
I dunno. When I read the abstracts, I felt the black bile rising.
In my scrapbook of quotes I have one from Matt Dillahunty:
Science is the only thing that disproves science, and it does it all the time.
Ergo: tradition, myth, wishful thinking, etc. can be lovely, but they are inadequate to challenge science.
“Scientism, as an epistemic position, is the view that the sciences and their methods are the best (or only) way of obtaining genuine knowledge of reality.”
I agree with the view described. Depending on context and audience I might phrase it as “The scientific method is the only way we have of knowing that we’ve obtained provisional knowledge of reality.” There might be true statements about reality that cannot be tested or supported by evidence, but neither the scientific method nor “other ways of knowing” could demonstrate them to be true.
My challenge for those who champion non-science (pronounced, of course, “nonsense”) is always “How do you know?”
Exactly right. Science may not be the only way to gain knowledge about reality, but it is the only one we know that can separate the wheat from the chaff, or separate what corresponds to reality from that which is imaginary/conceptual. If another way can be shown to work, then there will be more than one way, but until then…
[N]on-science (pronounced, of course, “nonsense”)
😀
Great post. Would go if I was closer.
The blind see, the deaf hear, the lame walk, the barren give birth, and they still don’t believe in science.
They will be using laptops and cellphones and optical fiber and wireless. I remember when you brought hand-drawn transparencies for an overhead projector.
I suspect the point of this is to get representation on committees for new infrastructure and other large projects. Have an honorary position for someone who will bring their ways of knowing to the group. And most importantly get paid for it. So the talks don’t need to have any actual content. They are just advertising that they are willing to play that role.
And it’s quite a role. See
https://sites.google.com/view/sauyaqsolutions/
where you can buy “a Community Needs Assessment to identify Native language education and cultural programming opportunities to develop a strategic plan to guide initiatives.”
Must take mad skills (and a really good thesaurus) to run an assessment that identifies opportunities to plan an initiative.
+1
Given some of the discussion, Maybe worth posting Feynman’s précis (reader Jeremy pointed this out a while ago and I agree with what he said – something like it captures the essence):
“If it disagrees with experiment it is wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science.”
-Richard P. Feynman
The Character of Physical Law
(1965)
Chapter 7, “Seeking New Laws”
p.150 (Modern Library edition, 1994)
Well worthwhile to get that book and read the rest, but the “it” here is a “guess” at a new “law”, as he put it.
Aka: Return of the Noble Savage.
I think scientism is a good word to describe my own beliefs, naturalism comes close, but not close enough.
However, I’m not that enthusiastic about social science, it lacks predictive power, is biased towards utility (vs truth) and shows no real progress (it has still no laws). That’s why my scientism is limited to the hard sciences; even economics is in my view not a real science. My favorite economist says that economics is 5% knowledge and 95% politics (if I remember correctly).
I’m looking forward to the piece about the structure of the Drosophila brain. A fruit fly seems so more complex than a worm or a larval squirt brain.
Economics used to be known as Political Economy.
I hate to use a nomenclature originally designed to denigrate, but the Social Sciences can have a prominent role in understanding human development, but they tend towards a “descriptive” function. That said, the social sciences include a lot of testing, repetition, rigorous statistical methods, data modeling/analysis. Do they tend more towards the speculative, sure! However, the line between the “hard” sciences is pretty blurry despite the prevalence of just-so storytelling in the soft sciences. There’s a place for furthering the understanding of the natural world through descriptive science. Not to mention the ethical considerations around experimental methods with regard to human and animal subjects!
Everybody who doubts that the West developed better scientific epistemological than any other culture that now or ever existed, or that doubts that Western science can accurately find objective facts of the world better that Mauris or anybody else, or who says “there are no facts anyways, reality is socially constructed”, should prove their beliefs to be sincere by rejecting the fruits of western science. They should communicate their drivel by carrier pigeon, not via email and the internet.
Particularly those folx who actually believe that one can not dismantle the master’s house using the master’s tools.
The trouble with modern science is that it’s shooting itself in the foot. It’s being weaponised and politicised at the expense of truth. Some “sciences”, particularly those in the humanities, don’t really warrant the name.
Up against this science, ways of knowing may even be more compelling.
For example this Substack piece I read the other day:
https://open.substack.com/pub/rogerpielkejr/p/weaponizing-peer-review?r=o883r&utm_medium=ios
We value science because it works, and it works because is based on reason, and because it’s based on reason, science can explain why it works. Indigenous knowledge has virtually nothing to contribute to the modern world.
I dislike the term scientism and dislike the way it has been used ever since reading a paper by Massimo Pigliucci dissing new atheists. Thanks Jerry for pointing that out all those years ago.
Craig, I totally agree.
To that Substack article you linked, I’d add the “Science” of multiple sexes as espoused by Scientific American to manipulation of science to serve political goals.
“It is important to note that when scientism makes claims about what is science and what is evidence, it attempts to delegitimize other ways of knowing, engaging in epistemic injustice and intellectual colonialism…”
No, it is is not attempting to do that. It is either proving other ways of knowing wrong or not. The fact that the so-called other ways of knowing cannot produce actual working knowledge of the real world is the root cause of the delegitimizing. There is no justice involved – a theory is either supported by evidence or not. Even a theory that is supported by evidence may be proved wrong later (Newton’s theories replaced by Einstein’s). What do these people want when they talk about justice – the right to claim and teach falsehoods?
In terms of Indigenous ways of knowing, I wonder if they also count the Bible as part of the canon.
The lingo at the Scientism Workshop resembles the postmodernist clichés of 40-50 years ago. A half-century of intense deepity in this vein at places like Paris 8 (Vincennes) and such Anglo imitators as Berkeley and Duke, has come up with a single new discovery: Indigenous is better than the other (Western) kind of Science. No doubt a generation educated in this view will henceforth take their cellphones to native healers for repair, and consult scholars of Matauranga Maori or the Two Row Wampum Belt when they need treatment for cancer.
To be semi-serious for a moment, I think the two Mikes in comment #14 sum up the whole story: what used to be a status ploy in academia has now, with the discovery of the Indigeneity gimmick (and the example of the Diversity Consultant industry) become monetized.
Jon,
Regarding using mumbo jumbo to repair technology:
Once I attended a Christian church service in which the AC was on the fritz.
The pastor walked over to the thermostat and said “I’ll try laying hands on this”, which he did as he said a prayer.
It didn’t work.
He walked away saying, “I guess we’ll have to leave it to someone to whom God gave brains and tools.”
My observations include that Philosophy (construed broadly) does not converge, but Science (construed broadly) converges.
Indeed you could argue cynically that philosophers are under great pressure to disagree with other philosophers, with marks awarded for ‘style’.
“[P]hilosophers are under great pressure to disagree with other philosophers, with marks awarded for ‘style’.”
“[R]unning a programme like this [calculating the answer to the Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe, and Everything] is bound to create an enormous amount of popular publicity for the whole area of philosophy in general. Everyone’s going to have their own theories about what answer I’m eventually to come up with, and who better to capitalize on that media market than you [professional philosophers]? So long as you can keep disagreeing with each other violently enough and slagging each other off in the popular press, you can keep yourself on the gravy train for life. How does that sound?”
The two philosophers gaped at him.
“Bloody hell,” said Majikthise, “now that is what I call thinking. Here Vroomfondel, why do we never think of things like that?”
“Dunno,” said Vroomfondel in an awed whisper, “think our brains must be too highly trained Majikthise.”
So saying, they turned on their heels and walked out of the door and into a lifestyle beyond their wildest dreams.
“Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy” (Douglas Adams)
Thank you for sharing information about our workshop, Professor Coyne. I hope we’ll see you there. Should be an exciting discussion.