Blinded by Scientism (Public Discourse)

[Alex]

Blinded by Scientism
by Edward Feser
March 9, 2010
The problem with scientism is that it is either self-defeating or trivially true. F.A. Hayek helps us to see why. The first article in a two-part series
http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2010/03/1174

Recovering Sight after Scientism
by Edward Feser
March 12, 2010
Seeing that scientism is unsustainable, we must embrace a return to philosophy. The second article in a two-part series
http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2010/03/1184



Alex's comment:

Defining "scientism" as "no knowledge beside scientific knowledge" makes scientism self-refuting and indefensible.

But if "scientism" is defined as "the position which takes science as the best method to obtain knowledge," scientism becomes defensible.

The method of defense is to ask a question: Do we human know a method that is less unreliable than science? Science is not the only method. Science is not perfect. But other methods are highly likely to be worse (less reliable) than science. You can sit there thinking, read an ancient "holy" book, close your eyes and meditate or pray, guess and place a bet, toss a coin, etc. The question is: Are these methods more reliable than science?

A false criticism of science as the best method is that the practice of science is not strictly rational. Accidental discoveries are common place. This is a misunderstanding of the scientific method. The gate-keeper of the scientific method is not rationality, is proof or disproof against evidence. A hypothesis can well be drawn by irrational accidental means, it is the test against observed evidence that makes it stand or fall. The key of science is evidence, not reason.

Refutation of "scientism" in the first sense above is no problem, as far as science as the best method is maintained. The problem is that many authors firstly defines "scientism" in the first sense and then refute it at ease. Then they go on insidiously and falsely hint that science is not the best method. They then bring up other non-scientific methods (often religious ones) as if they are as (or more) reliable as science, parallel to science.

---------------------

The author has mentioned the Uncaused Cause argument for God's existence. If there is a philosophically-deduced Uncaused Cause, how to name it? Simple, use the word appeared in the question, name it "Cause." There is no good reason to call it Allah or Brahman or God or Tao or else. Uncaused Cause has not argued for God's existence, it has argued for Cause's existence.