Science and Scientism

Allegory of science
Attributed to Sebastiano Conca

The Dictionary of Oxford Languages defines science as follows:

The systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation, experimentation, and the testing of theories against the evidence obtained.

This definition is complete, because it covers the three branches in which scientific knowledge is normally classified: theory (reasoning), observation and experimentation. We could add applied science (technology), which is often classified separately.

On the other hand, scientism is defined thus:

The belief that scientific methods can be applied to all problems, with the consequent application of inappropriate scientific methods in unsuitable circumstances.

This definition is interesting: scientism is considered a belief, rather than a scientific theory, for it cannot be deduced or induced solely from observation and experimentation. The second part of the definition suggests that scientism is not a source of valid knowledge and is clearly not science.

In general, it can be said that scientism asserts that only scientific knowledge is valid, thus contradicting itself (like most modern relativist claims). Scientism also proves its worthlessness because it leaves out of what it considers valid knowledge almost all human activities, including those that most affect us, those most important for our personal life. For instance:

1. Metaphysics, which as its name implies, studies what is beyond physics (i.e., science).
2. Poetry, a purely human game with words, metaphors, and figures of speech that, by construction, is beyond the reach of science. However, it affects us deeply.
3. Music, a game with sounds, also beyond the reach of science. And I say this, even though I have made research on automatic music generation. Some of my publications in this field are among the most cited of my articles.
4. The plastic arts, for scientific study cannot capture the effect they produce on our vision.
5. Love and friendship. Has anyone ever used scientific procedures to decide who should be your beloved or your friend?
6. The meaning of life: I recommend reading Viktor Frankl, recounting his experience in a Nazi concentration camp.
7. The wish for immortality here and now, a human constant that crashes head-on against science, which affirms that immortality is impossible, because the universe will not be perpetually suitable for life. See this post on my blog, which addresses the issue from a non-scientific point of view.
8. Religion: As I have said many times in these posts, God is beyond the reach of science. God’s existence or inexistence cannot be scientifically proven. However, religion is one of the basic forces that shape human history, which becomes meaningless if one tries to ignore it.

G.K. Chesterton

Can anyone really believe that a life exclusively based on scientism is worth living? I think many people are doing lip service when they declare their belief in scientism, but when it comes to the most important things in life, they act as if they didn’t. It happens the same with free will: those who deny free will, disprove their own assertions, for in their normal lives they usually act as if they believed in free will. Chesterton said this: …the bold deterministic speculator… is not free… even to say “thank you” for the mustard. (Orthodoxy).

But there is something even worse than scientism, which at least holds that science provides valid knowledge. There is an anti-scientific ideology that despises what science says, that denies that induced abortion is homicide, that denies that 99% of human beings are born male or female and that, for them, sex is a fixed and definitive fact. To do this is not scientism. In the best case, it is ignorance.

The same post in Spanish

Thematic Thread about Science in General: Previous Next

Manuel Alfonseca