Does science explain everything?

William Shakespeare

Scientism is the philosophical theory that affirms that science is the only valid source of human knowledge. Taken literally, this statement sometimes leads to absurd conclusions. Perhaps the following case is an example of scientism. I’ve taken it from a recent article by Joseph Pearce entitled Shakespeare and Science.

Kathryn Harkup, British doctor in chemical sciences and science communicator, has published several books analyzing various literary works from the point of view of science. I don’t know if Harkup is a case of scientism, but her emphasis on science makes me think that perhaps she is. She has recently published a book titled Death by Shakespeare, where she criticizes how Shakespeare presents death in his plays, based on what she believes science modern knows about death. Pearce highlights two examples, which show some of the absurd conclusions caused by basing only on science.

Contradictions of naturalism

Mary Midgley

Several times I have pointed out some of the contradictions stated by naturalist philosophy and its different variants: materialism, reductionism, physicalism, scientism, etc. In the previous post I pointed out that Raymond Tallis has detected two important contradictions that he calls darwinitis and neuromania. In this post I am going to bring together a few more, because when one sees them together their power is multiplied. Here are those I have selected:

• Science is the only valid source of human knowledge: Which science has reached this conclusion? Physics? Biology? None of the sciences. Therefore, if what this statement says is true, this statement must be false. We arrive at a contradiction. On the other hand, if this statement is false, there is no problem. Ergo, this statement is false. Therefore, scientism (and thus naturalism) is false.

Neuromania and Darwinitis

Raymond Tallis

Chapter 11 of the book The Naturalist Worldview of Moisés Pérez Marcos, which I discussed in the previous post, is dedicated entirely to the philosopher and neuroscientist Raymond Tallis, who despite his atheistic religious stance opposes some of the modern exaggerations of reductionist naturalism. Tallis published a book in 2011 titled, significantly, Aping Mankind: Neuromania, Darwinitis and the misrepresentation of humanity. This book describes two very widespread philosophical pathologies, which emerge from professional journals and educated colloquiums to discussions in the pub or TV screens. (Pérez Marcos, paraphrasing Tallis). They are the following:

Naturalism or naturalisms

La cosmovisión naturalista (The Naturalist Worldview) is a monumental book, written in Spanish by Moisés Pérez Marcos, about naturalist philosophies. As with the multiverse, of which there are many different theories, usually incompatible with each other, there are (almost) as many naturalistic philosophies as there are naturalistic philosophers. In other words, they don’t agree among themselves.

The first thing to do when confronted with naturalism is to try to define it and differentiate it from related worldviews:

Will the multiverse change the scientific method?

Antony Flew

These are my last comments on Man Ho Chan’s article, which reviews and refutes recent attempts to make multiverse theories scientific. Here I’ll deal with those attempts that propose renouncing the scientific method to make the theories of the multiverse scientific. This group of proposals, the most radical, can be summarized as follows:

• Epistemological anarchy: Proposed by Feyerabend in 1988, it argues that science is an essentially anarchic enterprise: theoretical anarchism is more humanitarian and more likely to foster progress than its law-and-order alternatives. In other words: We had better give up applying the scientific method, lest we miss some pseudoscientific theory that could have been useful. 

Man Ho Chan comments this: It is doubtful that multiverse theories can make any real scientific advancement. In some versions of multiverse theories, they suggest that all that can happen happens. In other words, these versions can explain everything. If a theory can explain everything, it does not lead to any scientific advancement… Therefore, it seems that multiverse theories are passively driven by empirical findings or theoretical constructions rather than actively leading to any new scientific advancement.

Will the multiverse cause a change in the scientific paradigm?

Thomas Kuhn

I continue my comments on Man Ho Chan’s article, which reviews and refutes recent attempts to make multiverse theories scientific. In this post I’ll refer to those attempts that try to modify the current scientific paradigm to include the theories of the multiverse, so that they can be considered scientific. To do this, epistemological changes or scientific paradigm changes should be made.

According to Thomas Kuhn, there are five criteria that make it possible to evaluate the paradigmatic character of a theory:

1. Accuracy: Indicates whether the predictions of the theory agree with experimental data discovered after the theory is formulated. This criterion is similar to falsifiability in the Popper-style theory, and corresponds to what I have called in another post validation of the theory. It is clear that multiverse theories do not meet this criterion, since they do not make testable predictions.

Are the multiverse theories scientific?

Virgo galactic cumulus

In previous posts I have said that the theories of the multiverse (there are several, some of them contradictory to the others) are not scientific, because it’s not possible to prove them false, according to Karl Popper’s criterion: a theory is not scientific unless it can be proved false with an experiment.

A recent article by Man Ho Chan reviews and refutes various attempts to claim that multiverse theories are indeed scientific. Here I am going to speak about those that try to prove that the multiverse theories should be considered scientific without asking big changes to the current criteria. Carroll 2018 uses three main arguments to justify this: