Yesterday, I began a series called "
Science versus its Evil Twin: Scientism:."
I had written that there are five major clues that distinguish the pursuit of science,
and I examined the first in yesterday's post. Today, I'd like to look at the first
part of Clue #2 – Scientism rejects other forms of knowledge.
In most cheesy b-movies, we see the storyline play out predictably. The villain
has made some advancement in pushing his agenda and the world starts to play by
his rules. Therefore, in order to maintain his grip of power, our villain seeks
to silence anyone who may disagree with him. He will discredit, disgrace or imprison
anyone who offers up a contrary view to his plan. He seeks to be the only authority
on all matters that he wants to control. In our look at science versus scientism,
we also see a wrestling for power. There are those using science as one way of
understanding the world, and there are those who say since science tells us about
the natural world, that means that only science can tell us about anything. Scientism
discounts all other forms of knowledge as either imperfect or not really knowledge
at all.
Science owes a debt to philosophy
As we mentioned above, science has at its core the idea of observing interactions
and critically examining their causes. Anyone beginning to study the subject of
science is taught the scientific method, one of the primary ways scientists accomplish
their task. Usually the method is divided into basic steps: a person has a question
about some function of the natural world, he constructs a hypothesis, then tests
that hypothesis with experiments, and analyzes the outcome. Lastly, he determines
whether the original hypothesis is true and reports the results. This is a fundamental
notion of what makes up our lab sciences. However, assumed in those steps is a
lot of philosophy! Several philosophical principles must exist before the scientific
method can even get started! Let's take a look at the components more closely and
see where these assumptions lie.
Testing Hypotheses with Experiment
When scientists perform tests, one of the things they assume is a cause and effect
relationship. If we are studying some effect, such as the attraction of magnets,
we assume that there is a cause and effect relationship between the material of
the magnets and their attraction. But we only make such an assumption because our
past experience has shown that whenever material of this nature gets close to certain
metals, a force is exerted between the two. How do we know that making such an assumption
is warranted? Isn't one of the goals of science to eliminate assumptions and instead
provide explanations for why functions happen? But then, aren't we starting with
an assumption that cause and effect relationships are going to show us that? How
do we know that the relationship we see isn't just a fluke of timing? Since it
is only our experience that tells us about cause and effect, we are assuming our
experience can tell us about the relation between the two, but we have no other
reason to do so.
Realize, this line of doubt is not my own. Skeptic David
Hume argued at great lengths to say that our experience may work for us, but that
does not mean there is
really a causal connection between two things, simply
because one happens to come prior to the other.
1
Basically, Hume asserts that science cannot test its own assumption about repeatability.
Hume says trying to prove such things by experiment is really question-begging since
you're using the very testing method that's in question! Therefore, in order to
say that we
know condition A produces effect B, we must rely on
theories of what makes our knowledge justified. This again is the realm of philosophy.
The scientist cannot scientifically prove that experience is a good indicator of
what will happen in the future if the same conditions were to be produced; he relies
on a philosophical framework to justify his assumptions.
Analyzing Outcomes
Once the scientist has performed experiments, he analyzes the outcome and draws
conclusions as to whether it matches his hypothesis or not. But how can he be sure
whether the results do indeed match his expectations? Philosophy comes into play
here as well. In chapter 6 of this book, we took a moment and discussed the Three
Standard Laws of Thought, also referred to as the Laws of Logic. We discovered
that these laws were the main way that anyone compares and contrasts claims to see
if they make sense or not. The Law of Identity states that a thing is equal to
itself. So if the results of an experiment match the hypothesis, then the hypothesis
can be considered valid in that instance.
We also learned from the Laws
of Non-Contradiction and Excluded Middle that the result has to be either consistent
with the hypotheses or inconsistent with the hypothesis.
2
That means scientists use the Laws of Logic in analyzing their outcomes. Logic
in all its forms is clearly identified as the only way a scientist can draw any
conclusions that would continue to make sense.
Scientism dismisses philosophy as unnecessary
So, philosophy plays a crucial role in doing science well. It becomes the measuring
stick on truth claims. But when our evil villain scientism enters the picture, he
challenges this authority. While he uses philosophy, he sees anything other than
what he defines as science as a threat and therefore dismisses it as unimportant
or dead. Famous physicist Stephen Hawking, began his most recent work
The Grand
Design by doing just that. He writes:
"…philosophy is dead. Philosophy has not kept up with modern developments
in science, particularly physics. Scientists have become the bearers of the
torch of discovery in our quest for knowledge. The purpose of this book is to
give the answers that are suggested by recent discoveries and theoretical advances."3
Of course, such claims as "philosophy is dead" and "Scientists
have become the bearers of the torch of discovery in our quest for knowledge"
are highly problematic. For one thing both claims are themselves not scientific;
there is no test that fits the scientific model one may perform and come up with
those statements. No, saying "philosophy is dead" is making a philosophical
statement itself; it's doing philosophy! The claim becomes self-refuting and can
be dismissed. This is why Hawking's claim has been so widely criticized by philosophers
of science, even those who are atheists!
4
To read the next article in this series,
click here.
.JPG)
