Tsuyoiko
DON'T PANIC!
- Messages
- 970
- Reaction score
- 85
- Points
- 0
Scientism gets a negative reaction. Many people assume that it is a bad thing, but do we really know what it is?
Its bad reputation is probably based on a definition like this one:
Michael Shermer has a very different definition:
If you think scientism is a bad thing, what do you mean by it and why is it bad? What questions can't be answered by science and reason? Are there areas of human enquiry that science should 'butt out of'?
Its bad reputation is probably based on a definition like this one:
That seems like a pretty shoddy definition to me. Define 'exaggerated' in this context, for a start. Is using fingerprints or DNA to solve crimes 'an exaggerated trust in the methods of natural science applied to the social sciences'? No? What about the genetics behind addiction? Where do we draw the line then?Websters said:An exaggerated trust in the efficacy of the methods of natural science applied to all areas of investigation, as in philosophy, the social sciences, and the humanities
Michael Shermer has a very different definition:
If that is scientism, then sign me up! Or do you see something wrong with scientism even in this more favourable definition?Michael Shermer said:Scientism is a scientific worldview that encompasses natural explanations for all phenomena, eschews supernatural and paranormal speculations, and embraces empiricism and reason as the twin pillars of a philosophy of life appropriate for an Age of Science
If you think scientism is a bad thing, what do you mean by it and why is it bad? What questions can't be answered by science and reason? Are there areas of human enquiry that science should 'butt out of'?