Talk:Scientism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Socrates
Philosophy Portal
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received an importance rating on the importance scale.
This article is being improved by WikiProject Rational Skepticism. Wikiproject Rational Skepticism seeks to improve the quality of articles dealing with science, pseudosciences, pseudohistory and skepticism. Please feel free to help us improve this page.

See Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ.
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

Contents

[edit] RK

RK, could you add a comment that some viewpoints of scienitism are false or self-contradictory. That is, if you take that any non-scientific idea as valid, then you automatically deny that science can be applied to all methods of inquiry. In this entire page of analyzing scientism, I do not see the mention of there being any scientific tests of the various ideas, or even any mention of them. If so, then this is clearly not a scientific idea without testability. The whole point is that theses applying meaning to only scientific statements can easily be self-contradictory.

Sorry RK, but the article is much more POV now, not that it was NPOV before. Can you try to moderate it a bit? BTW, the definition you attribute to a wikipedia contributor, is one that matches the definitions in most well regarded dictionaries. (and, no I didn't add it there myself :) -- Cimon Avaro on a pogo stick 01:42 15 Jun 2003 (UTC) And the word itself in that meaning is well over a hundred years old usage. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogo stick 01:46 15 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I have started to rewrite this entry based on your observation. Thanks. RK 02:00 15 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Well you did take out the most egregious and blunt rhetoric, but the POV is actually even stronger than before. I mean, if you try to read it from outside, does it not fairly jump into your face that the terms "most scientists" and "many scientists" are the view of the writer. I am not saying that the opinions should not be the predominating ones, but a little more subtleness would not go amiss. With all respect... -- Cimon Avaro on a pogo stick 17:24 15 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Wikipedia NPOV requires that we distinguish between mainstream beliefs and fringe beliefs. In this article, on this subject it is true that I am in agreement with the view of most scientists. (For other subjects I may not be in agreement with most. That's not really relevant, however.) What concerns me is the way that the term "scientism" is often used as strawman attack. The term "scientism" is used by many writers to describe the beliefs of scientists...except that the vast majority of scientists never had such beliefs (as described by their critics) to begin with. However, please note that I am not opposed to changing the article; any specific suggestions you have are fine, and you are more than welcome to make alterations/additions yourself. RK 23:29 15 Jun 2003 (UTC)

[edit] The CORRECT definition!

The one way, or the highway, definition of 'scientism' is in the dictionary! There is actually one real dictionary that uses the correct definition. I use this dictionary definition on my web site because it particularly applies to the anti-science phenomena of medical scientism. The actual definition is as follows.

scientism: "the belief that there is one and only one method of science and that it alone confers legitimacy upon the conduct of research."

I shall repeat. My definition of scientism is actually in the dictionary. While I am sure that it is valid in other areas of science, it is particularly valid in the area of medicine. Hence, my usage of the perfectly valid phrase: medical scientism.

I know where you got the text of scientism from, but it completely misses the mark, in my opinion. -- Mr-Natural-Health

In a second dictionary definition:

"1. The collection of attitudes and practices considered typical of scientists."

This definition supports the above precise definition of scientism. -- Mr-Natural-Health 03:06, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Although science is not an enemy of chiropractic, scientism most certainly is. Scientism limits all fields of human inquiry to contemporary technology. Smith states that scientism "...refers to an uncritical idolization of science -- the belief that only science can solve human problems, that only science has value." Holton observed that "Scientism divides all thought into two categories: scientific thought and nonsense." (4,5)

4. Smith RF: "Prelude to Science." Charles Scribner's Sons. New York, NY, 1975. P. 12.
5. Holton G: "The false images of science." In Young LB (ed): "The Mystery of Matter." Oxford University Press. London, UK, 1965.
Ergo, there is only the 'one way of science,' or the highway! -- Mr-Natural-Health 03:21, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)

"The ascendancy of the natural scientific community in controlling much opinion , such as through the media, publishing, employment and lobbying - has a narrowing and deleterious effect on culture. Adherents of the pseudo-philosophies of objectivism or positivism try to dictate what is 'sensible', what can be believed or not and even what are acceptable terms or languages to describe the world. Their success in steam-rolling intellectual debate with their short-term pragmatism and naive belief in the neutrality of 'objective theory' and scientific expertise is a major danger to society. They would exclude other world-views quite rigorously and even ridicule as virtually pathological all radical dissent to the hegemony of scientific thinking, ..."

"Steam-rolling intellectual debate ... the hegemony of scientific thinking" is another way of saying: 'the one way' of scientism or the highway! -- Mr-Natural-Health 03:28, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)

"economics scientism monopolised by a single approach to the explanation and analysis of economic phenomena."

Here we see 'the one way' of scientism, or the highway, in the field of economics. -- Mr-Natural-Health

[edit] the POV is actually even stronger than before

If User talk:Cimon from the mediation committee says that the POV in Scientism is actually even stronger than before, then I that as a pretty good indication that the POV in this article is abundant. Help me remove it. -- Mr-Natural-Health 04:18, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Critique Section was moved.

Further discussion of Critique Section has been moved. Criticisms of Anti-Scientific Viewpoints was moved from Scientism per the example set in Allopathy that was used to delete [criticisms of modern medicine]. Criticisms of Anti-Scientific Viewpoints has been listed on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion. Please see that page for justifications and discussion. -- Mr-Natural-Health 18:56, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)

[edit] the neutrality of this article?

Is the neutrality of this article still in dispute? If so, please state why? How may this article be improved? -- Mr-Natural-Health 20:45, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)

[edit] The Correct Definition

Read Scientism and Values by de:Helmut Schoeck, for the most diverse selection of articles against scientism, based on the Symposium on Scientism and the Study of Man.

Scientism is not a newly-coined word.

Obviously true. It has at least a century of existence. See positivism for the same word with a more neutral, non pejorative sense. Lapaz 04:48, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

The term "scientism" refers only to the fallacious use of the methods of certain natural sciences when we ought to study man as a unique being with emotional, mental, and social potentialities above those of known animals. de:Helmut Schoeck

A critical attitude toward scientism is not to be confused with an antievolutionary position. de:Helmut Schoeck

Scientism means that only value-free concepts are to be employed in the interpretation of the human situation, and that man himself is to be reduced -- via a behavioristic psychology -- to a purely physiochemical complexus of interrelated processes amenable to a complete explanation in terms of the value-free concepts and categories of the natural sciences. W.H. Werkmeister

The undue application of the terminology and of the methods of science to the study of man. Pieter Geyl

Scientism is the profoundly unscientific attempt to transfer uncritically the methodology of the physical sciences to the study of human action. Murray Rothbard

When scientific status is uncritically claimed for the studies of man, the result is what, following Hayek, is known as "scientism." Eliseo Vivas

Scientism, according to Hayek, is the misapplication of the method of natural science in realms where it does not belong... It is the mistaken belief that science, scientific method, and technology with its achievements for human comfort cover the whole of human experience and fulfillment. Ludwig von Bertalanffy

The vulgarization of science -- scientism -- has led many people, including not a few scientists who have lost sight of the philosophical foundations of their craft, to assert that science holds the key to all problems of human experience and that those problems that cannot be dealt with by simplification or abstraction are either trivial problems or no problems at all. Robert Strausz-Hupé

See also Tom Sorell, Scientism: Philosophy and the Infatuation With Science.

Scientism is the belief that science, especially natural science, is much the most valuable part of human learning -- much the most valuable part because it is much the most authoritative, or serious, or beneficial.

Scientism is a matter of putting too high a value on science in comparison with other branches of learning or culture.

New scientism is a reaction against those who write philosophy in ignorance of science, and who defer too much to prescientific intuition or common sense. It is also a reaction against the supposed metaphysical excesses of traditional philosophy, with its irreducible mental substances and events, its Platonic forms, and its transcendental egos.

Old scientism insists on the need not only for philosophy, but for the whole of culture, to be lead by science. This form of scientism has a history stretching back at least to the 1600s; in this century its spokesmen have included Carnap, Reichenbach, Neurath, and other 'scientific emipiricists'.

[edit] POV that needs reference if to stand

I removed this. This is a controversial claim and does no justice to Marxist thought. It needs reference if it is meant to be attack on Lenin-Marxist Communist states.

  • Scientism may also refer to the way in which Marxists appropriated science (especially Darwin) as a justification for Karl Marx's theories, and how science replaced religion in Marxist communism.

[edit] Scientism is always pejorative

This article needs work. Scientism is always a pejorative word, to the contrary of more neutral positivism, which was once claimed by philosophers such as Auguste Comte and was very common in the 19th century. Scientism basically refers to the ideology of science which tends to consider the world only according to its scientifical point of view, being blind to the fact that science itself has an ideology, as did epistemologists such as Gaston Bachelard or Louis Althusser show. Lapaz 04:46, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

By the way, scientism is not necessarily exclusively an ideology of scientifics. I rm seconds ago a passage in the consciousness entry which said:

"Modern day scientists in the fields of Ethology, Neuroscience and Evolutionary psychology seek to explain it as a function of the human brain that evolved to facilitate reciprocal altruism within societies. As such it could be instinctive (genetically determined) or learnt."
"Conscience can prompt different people in quite different directions, depending on their beliefs, suggesting that while the capacity for conscience is probably genetically determined, its subject matter is probably learnt, or imprinted, like language, as part of a culture. One person can feel a moral duty to go to war, another can feel a moral duty to avoid war under any circumstances."

This is a perfect example of scientism, most probably written by someone who's never opened a biology book in his life (explaining such a phenomenon as "consciousness" by genetics is something that would never occur to 99.99% of any genetician scientifics); it is this statement which directed me here. Lapaz 04:54, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm confused by this. Most educated people believe that consciousness is a genetically-encoded potentiality in human beings and whatever other organisms typically develop it. That is not "scientism"; it is just the scientific worldview: the genes of such organisms encode for the development of complex neurophysiology, which is the physical basis of consciousness. However, your actual quote is about conscience, not consciousness. To claim that conscience is genetically determined in some way would be very bold indeed. However, the passage you quote does not say this. It says that the capacity for it is genetic (at the most general level this must be so, since our capacity for human beings and other animals with minds to have minds at all depends on our genetic code and the complex organic structures it produces). However, it says the actual contents or subject matter of the conscience are part of culture, rather than being genetically determined. That isn't a very controversial claim. I really don't see the problem. Metamagician3000 14:16, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this article is horribly far from the mark. Scientism is what happens when people take the visible trappings of science for the essence, essentially making a religion out of it. It is the treating of 'scientists' as a priesthood - something no one who actually understands science would agree with. It is characterised by the treatment of scientific theory as dogma, the substitution of 'scientific consensus' (meaningless to science, but sacrosant to scientism) for evidence, and so on. The article, as it stands at present, is not just worthless but actively misinformative. 4.240.141.126 07:29, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Is there any evidence that anyone has ever claimed to subscribe to a theory or an ideology called "scientism"? As far as I can see, the word is a pejorative one used to attack people who take certain philosophical positions such as naturalism, scientific realism, etc. Beyond stating that that is how I have always heard the word used, I can't support this claim with references, so I have not edited the article itself. However, nothing there convinces me that any such ideology or theory exists. Does anyone have any example of someone claiming to be committed to something they call "scientism"? If there is a notabe body of theory within which the term is applied to opponents, we should report that theory and its claims without endorsing them. E.g. we could say: "Foo applies to the term to the following views ... and argues that they are mistaken for the following reasons ... ", or whatever. Metamagician3000 13:59, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Scientism =?= Positivism

  • JA: I have placed a {citation needed} tag on the assertion of identity or synonymy between scientism and positivism. I think that the reader is owed the favor of citing an external source for such a statement. Jon Awbrey 07:12, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Scientism != Positivism. For a modern example of scientism, see Richard Dawkins' books, such as The God Delusion. He's not merely atheistic, but naïvely scientistic, and this was noted in this month's Harper's. [1] 198.170.2.93 21:40, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, that's one point of view I suppose. Metamagician3000 12:40, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Definition of scientism

Scientism is the philosophy that science is the primary source of knowledge about the world irrespective of its ontological nature.

Can you cite a source for this definition? --Loremaster 14:54, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dicdef?

This article looks very much like a dictionary entry, so, unless there is something more to be said about scientism as a whole (rather than concepts which already have their own entries), I suggest moving it to Wiktionary and leaving the contents of the ‘See also’ section as a disambiguation page. —xyzzyn 06:32, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Scientism: the "correct" definition

The correct definition of a word is that which is used in writing and speech. If there is more than one meaning, then there is more than one correct definition. To try to say there is only one 'correct' definition is idiotic. Last I checked, it was a tradition of the English language to have multiple definitions for one spelling of a word. Check out "lay" and tell me how many definitions there are. → R Young {yakłtalk} 00:44, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Scientism: The word whose definition cannot, by its own definition, be found by applying itself to itself. 198.170.2.93 21:28, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Can someone fix the FORMATTING issues

The formatting of this article needs to be fixed.→ R Young {yakłtalk} 00:44, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Definitions?

This page really belongs on the Wiki Dictionary, if anywhere. Tuviya 06:35, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal for rewriting the article

The most common usage of "scientism" in my experience has been as a pejorative. Googling the word seems to support this. I therefore propose that the article be rewritten accordingly. As far as I can tell, no one calls him or herself "scientistic" (or relevant cognates), so presenting the concept as a ideology to which people adhere seems misleading. Simões (talk/contribs) 22:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree, though finding verifiable sources might prove difficult. Metamagician3000 04:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

This article really needs to be rewritten, the citations are one sided at best. -lostinthought

[edit] Dispute

This article is disputed. From the above conversation about the article being "one-sided", I was led to believe that the correction would be to make the article "two-sided". I don't feel it is any less one sided than before, just in the opposite direction. This is hardly neutral, NPOV. Why not give everyone's view, instead of pretending the other side doesn't count or doesn't have a voice. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 22:27, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't follow. Your critique is vague and non-specific. The article doesn't even address whether the accusations of scientism (qua pejorative) are true: we as Wikipedia editors are in no place to say. The rest is just on the non-pejorative usages. What, exactly, do you find problematic with the article? Simões (talk/contribs) 22:33, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Looking at the parts that were deleted, and the citations that were deleted should answer that. I thought that if the article was one sided, then you would add in the other side for balance. You added in the other side, but did away with the first side, totally tipping the scale the other way. Now the two versions need to be merged together somehow to give all the information and dictionary definitions. I will leave it to those who actually wrote the article to make the final decision on if they want to discontinue the dispute, since up til now I was only watching the article as a lurker. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 22:55, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, but you'll have to be more specific. The parts that were deleted were done so because they were either incorrect outright, misleading, or a simple list of dicdefs. This last item in particular does not belong in any article: definitions should be integrated into the main text. I've included definitions with references. Finally, the version I've written does not present anyone's "side." Again, the article does not address whether or not the accusers or targets of the accusations are correct. There is nothing more here than a neutral description of the usages along with some history thereof. Simões (talk/contribs) 23:05, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, it's like this. Of all the ten definitions from all the big league dictionaries, not one of them stated that it is pejorative. Now you found a source that disagrees and presents a different POV. No problem adding it, but we don't assume one POV is the underlying truth and write from that tone. So it would be perfectly neutral to state:
According to the "Encyclopedia of Science Technology and Ethics", scientism is pejorative.
But it's not neutral to write as if only your source is correct and the big league dictionaries are deficient and to be omitted, by skipping the part that says According to the "Encyclopedia of Science Technology and Ethics"... See what I mean? ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 23:22, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
It's not just according to a single encyclopedia entry. The people to whom the term is being applied also generally reject it as a pejorative. I'll point to the Dennett interview as a source as well. Simões (talk/contribs) 23:32, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
There's no problem with saying "the people to whom the term is being applied also generally reject it as a pejorative". The problem is endorsing their opinion ourselves, especially when most dictionaries don't. So we still have to attribute the opinion rather than state it as fact, when other sources state differently. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 23:36, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
That the people to whom the term is being applied reject it as a pejorative is not a mere opinion. It's precisely what renders the term a pejorative. Also, at least one dictionary suggests the term is a pejorative: Webster's.

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)

Furthermore, the Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, which is far more a reliable source for the term than a general purpose dictionary, gives the following as its sole definition (I'll go ahead and add this as a reference, too).

Pejorative term for the belief that the methods of natural science, or the categories and things recognized in natural science, form the only proper elements in any philosophical or other enquiry. The classic statement of scientism is the physicist E. Rutherford's saying 'there is physics and there is stamp-collecting.'

This should more than establish the verified, NPOV status of "scientism" qua pejorative. General purpose dictionaries take a back seat to specialized reference works. Simões (talk/contribs) 23:54, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
The old dicdefs did not actually say how the term was used; there is no issue of undue weight, because they provide no weight in this specific issue. By the way, the folks at Stanford seem to agree with what the article says—‘accuse their opponents of crude scientism’. —xyzzyn 00:04, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Actually, what makes a term pejorative is if the people using it mean it that way, not if the people called that take it that way. For example I just had a conversation earlier today with an editor who eliminated the word "Shiite" from every single page on wikipedia and replaced it with "Shia", because he says "Shiite" is pejorative in English, and apparently this is because Al Jazeera says so. But since mainstream English dictionaries don't mention this, and it is widely used without any pejorative intent, I disagreed. I feel that its being pejorative should be stated as opinion rather than fact, especially if there are significant contrary opinions, but again, I would really like to hear what the authors of the previous article think and will bow to their judgement on this since I am not an expert on this. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 00:31, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Are there significant contrary opinions, though? The term has had different meanings over time, but I haven’t seen anything disputing the description with respect to the manner in which it is used today. —xyzzyn 00:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Intolerable tampering with the truth

Since the last time I visited this page, a significant portion of this entry was deleted. The resultant truncated entry is biased and dishonest. It is impermissible to give one definition of scientism as pejorative and delete conflilcting uses of the term. Much of philosophical terminology is contested and this has to be honestly documented. Where can I protest this malfeasance? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nancy Nickies (talk • contribs).

The chief criterion governing the inclusion of content in an article is verifiability (but neither truth nor honesty). If you wish to add something to the article, feel free to do so, as long as you provide reliable sources for your addition. —xyzzyn 18:10, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
The article wasn't simply truncated; it was rewritten. Also, non-pejorative usages are given. I'm not following your complaint here. Simões (talk/contribs) 20:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

It is clear that this must a topic of some dispute. However it is extremely funny to follow the link in The Renaissance and the Industrial Revolution, on the other hand, saw the rise of scientism, in such forms as the substitution of chemistry for alchemy, the dethronement of the Ptolemaic theory of the universe assumed by astrology, the development of the germ theory of disease, that restricted the scope of applied magic and threatened the belief systems it relied on. to find that is primarily (3 references no less!) a perjorative. I ask the editors here to either consider making this a truly encyclopedic article and to not just focus on the current culture war or else change these links coming here to a more appropriate dissucion of the changes in people's belief system that arose during the Renaissance. I am sure there are plenty of refs listing "Humanism" being used as a perjorative, but there is also room for an large neutral article on the subject. The discussion of the use of scientism as a perjorative in the current culture wars should be a good-sized subsection of a neutral article about the actual nature and history of the belief system. To have this be the focus of the article is just biased. If there is another name for this belief system, that is not considered a perjorative, then this should redirect there with a sentance added to the intro saying that "Scientism is another name for Foo mainly used a perjorative [1][2][3]."--BirgitteSB 19:12, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


[edit] let's revert this article to Jan 3 version

If I knew how to do this, I would revert the article back to the January 3 version before Simoes screwed it up on Jan. 14, and then work to improve it from there. To preserve NPOV other comments must be added. Beware of the word "ideology", which has multiple meanings, though scientism is often accused of being ideological, specifically of aping scientific methods without being convincingly scientific in substance.

Incidentally, someone destroyed this talk page a few days ago and I complained about it to the wikipedia editorial board. I don'tknow who or what was responsible, but I hope we don't see a repeat of this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nancy Nickies (talk • contribs) 02:07, 20 January 2007 (UTC).

The chief problem with the January 3 version was that it consisted of quotations from dictionaries. It was not an encyclopaedia entry. The current version is at least prose, and if something is missing, it can just be added (with references). —xyzzyn 02:13, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry you think I "screwed it up," but you've offered no material with which to supplement the article. I also note that your usage of "scientism" here is as a pejorative, backing the current article text. And, once again, non-pejorative uses are also given. As it stands, I think the article can be said to be a bit anemic, but I'm still failing to comprehend your problem with its pov. Simões (talk/contribs) 08:23, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree with xyzzy that the rewritten version is a significant improvement. I'm inclined to remove the dispute tag since there hasn't been much discussion for the last couple of weeks. Jim Butler(talk) 06:33, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Word Origin and original usage

The multiple usages of the word, even with in dictionaries are not consistent with each other. That is not terribly unusual, but in such cases, it would be helpful to show early usage and change in usage. One dictionary puts the origin at 1875. The earliest usage I've seen is the use of critical rationalists like Karl Popper and Fredrick Hayek. This probably dates to ~1930 So can anyone find earlier usage? Carltonh 19:04, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

There's already a 1909 instance given. Simões (talk/contribs) 19:06, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Has anyone else heard of Karl Popper?

At the beginning of the 20th Century, the positivist program in science and mathematics was seen to have overstepped its epistemological limits.

Attentive scientists who were philosophically inclined realized that the scientific method,although rigorous, rested on unprovable (although confident) assumptions, which in any case could never be consistently formalized, due to Godel undecidability. This was a fundamental problem, even disregarding quantum uncertainty.

This crisis was resolved by Karl Popper. In a nutshell, the problem of proof is resolved by the principle of falsifiability. Although a theory can never be proven by any conceivable method, it easily can be disproved. Without objective proof, truth is experiential and an ideal to strive for, as Popper summed up: "We search for truth, but what we find instead is fact, without certainty."

Karl Popper rescued modern science from philosophical self-destruction. He condemned what he called "scientism" as an unfounded belief that science could offer metaphysical certainty, meaning 100% certainty (this is also John McLaughlin's tongue-in-cheek) about anything at all, even that the sun will rise tomorrow, even though we are so confident of this that we are virtually certain of it.

The meaning of "scientism" accordingly is: claiming the authority of science (rational empiricism) over areas of knowledge or belief which are not open to scientific inquiry. Unfortunately, even the most half-baked creationist is correct to label religious belief under the guise of science as "scientism."

Thus "skepticism" (show me; let me test your assertion) is the correct scientific attitude to metaphysics. "Scientism" has no place whatsoever in science, and is, and should be, a pejorative. This is not less true when it is used, whether accurately or not, by pseudoscience. It is saddening to hear of a skeptic refer to himself as scientistic rather than scientific.

I don't see any sign of a philosopher's presence in this article. Until it gets one, I ask those who disdain science (and scientists who disdain philosophy) to recuse themselves.Vendrov 10:58, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

You missed the mention of Dennett, then? Simões (talk/contribs) 13:42, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
No; but not sure to what intyerview you referred. My take is that although Dennett might not agree that Popper's scientism is a valid concept, he knows what it means. His complaint in any case is that he is being tarred with the wrong brush: as biased by unfounded belief in contrast to his ID opponents, who present themselves as properly skeptical scientists.Vendrov 06:05, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
The portion of the text mentioning Dennett in this article is ambiguous, at best. Judging by the interview provided as the source [2] he seem to be be simply complaining that some of his theories are being treated as scientism (while he claims they are 100% science). However this article reports his statement completely out of context, making it sounds as if he (as "a prominent philosopher of science") is claiming that scientism is "just" a term used for "bashing true science"... ... BTW, Dennet's quick reference to the term while actually commenting other topics is of questionable relevance, especially when it is placed right in the space that should be dealing with actual definitions of the term. --Leinad ∴ -diz aí, chapa. 18:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Major rewrite

OK, I just did a major rewrite of the article. The changes are mainly reflecting the considerations of two peer-reviewed articles dedicated to understanding and explaining "scientism":

  • The article by Gregory R. Peterson, (2003) Demarcation and the Scientistic Fallacy. in Zygon: Journal of Religion and Science 38 (4), 751-761.
  • The article about the topic of Scientism in: J. Wentzel Vrede van Huyssteen (editor). Encyclopedia of science and religion, 2nd ed. Thomson Gale. 2003.

Even though I am making many changes in only one edit, I've spent considerable amount of time (3 days) considering the sources and refining this text. So, please don't go making hurried reverts or modifications assuming that I made the changes I made mindlessly. Of course, even though I was careful, it is quite probable that what I wrote needs refinement. Grammar improvements are especially welcome, since English in not my native language. --Leinad ∴ -diz aí, chapa. 17:43, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Great work on the expansion. This article really has some meat to it now. Simões (talk/contribs) 18:27, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. As you suspected, there are a few grammatical errors in it, so I'll try to find some time to go through and clean it up a bit later today. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 18:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

First, I'm going to say that I disagree with the entire premise here. Is this a WIKTIONARY defitnion or an article about an idea? Second, if you don't speak great English, wouldn't it be better to write an article in your native language? Third, it is better to make one or a few changes at a time, to give other viewpoints a chance to respond. What if some of your changes are acceptable and others not? Fourth, like any word with more than one meaning, I think there is a problem is the article 'presumes' one meaning over all the others. The article must explain that the use of the word, its very definition, is often contested and contradictory.

Finally, I disagree with the word 'pejorative'. Like calling a killer a killer, some words (like charlatan) may have negative connotation, but they are only pejorative if unfairly so.Ryoung122 23:11, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

You reverted to a version that was little more than a list of dicdefs. Confused? Simões (talk/contribs) 23:26, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


I'm inclined to re-include the alternate definitions, after the presently existing text, i.e., in addition to the "meat" that Simoes and others have added to the article. The following are some that were previously used in this article up until about eight months ago. I think they may add some additional perspective for the reader about just how broad and varied the usages of the word have been. ... Kenosis 23:05, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

==Alternate meanings of scientism==
Standard dictionary definitions include the following meanings:
  • The use of the style, assumptions, techniques, and other attributes typically displayed by scientists.[1]
  • Methods and attitudes typical of or attributed to the natural scientist.[2]
  • 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.[3]
  • The use of scientific or pseudoscientific language."[4]
  • The contention that the social sciences should be held to the somewhat stricter interpretation of scientific method used by the natural sciences. [5]
  • The belief that the social sciences are not science because they commonly do not hold to the somewhat stricter interpretation of scientific method used by the natural sciences.[6]
  • The belief that scientific knowledge is the foundation of all knowledge and that, consequently, scientific argument should always be weighted more heavily than other forms of knowledge, particularly those which are not yet well described or justified from within the rational framework, or whose description fails to present itself in the course of a debate against a scientific argument. It can be contrasted by doctrines like historicism, which hold that there are certain "unknowable" truths. [7] This viewpoint is typified by comments such as "Scientific research has demonstrated that substance x causes cancer in humans."
  • As a form of dogma: "In essence, scientism sees science as the absolute and only justifiable access to the truth."[8]

References: [footnote numbers differ from what they would be in the article]

  1. ^ Random House Dictionary of the English Language. 1987.
  2. ^ Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary. 1983.
  3. ^ Webster. 1983.
  4. ^ Webster. 1983. Definition #3 for Scientism.
  5. ^ Webster. 1983. Definition #2 for Scientism.
  6. ^ Webster. 1983. Definition #2 for Scientism.
  7. ^ The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition. 2000. Bartleby.com
  8. ^ http://www.pbs.org/faithandreason/gengloss/sciism-body.html "Scientism"] PBS.org. Faith and Reason.

[edit] Scientific fundamentalism

Per this AfD Scientific fundamentalism now redirects here. There wasn't much usable text to merge, but the AfD does contain a number of references which may be of use to anyone looking to improve this article. Iain99 07:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Scientific imperialism

Much of the content in the link to scientific imperialism, (that was introduced earlier today in the article), seems very similar to what is commonly discussed as scientism. Maybe we should consider a merge... I am not sure, though. To write this article considering the complex variety of definitions of scientism alone seems hard enough already - an obligation to also describe all possible usages of scientific imperialism may not be a good idea. Any comments? --Leinad ∴ -diz aí. 20:15, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks yes there are many parallels but am not sure merger is the answer. With scientific imperialism I think they say different things in my opinion. Imperialism is very largely about power, scientism is a much broader term. I added a link earlier to an excellent article about the arrogance of scientists. Please read it and maybe we can amend the article further. thanks Peter morrell 20:58, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
There are many ways in which the scientism and the scientific imperialism can be improved. I wish I had more time for doing so, but I am busy in real life. I had previously decided not to edit WP at all during this year of 2007. After relapsing during this last month, I am trying, with limited success, to leave WP again ;) --Leinad ∴ -diz aí. 14:23, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Leinad (=daniel spelt backwards), what do you mean by relapsing? do you think editing articles on wikiedia is a type of sickness?? ;-) probably true! I like your webpage esp. chocolate milk, your interest in religion and science, your love of nice respectful people and above all Brazil! I love Sao Paulo even though I have never been I want to visit it more than any place on earth for the graffiti...sorry i digress...I agree both articles must be improved. I will try to do some and maybe you can help. thank you Peter morrell 16:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Simple quote

Don't you think this essentially Kantian (or maybe Hegelian) view expresses a sentiment that lies at the heart of the misgivings that many have about adopting an excessively pro-scientific stance?

Almost every scientist I have ever spoken to about the nature of science believes that scientists study the world 'out there' ; in other words, they study an objective world devoid of human emotions and meaning. They find it quite difficult at first to understand that what they are really studying is the phenomena - the mental representations of the world 'out there'. Once thus enlightened they can then perceive that their knowledge of the world 'out there', far from being objective, is intimately bound up with, and inseparable from, their hopes, fears, and other emotions. The world is one thing, and our knowledge of it is another ; we ought not to imagine that our understanding of the world is the world itself. James, Norwich[3]

However, the The Times article which this comment comes from is a good example of extremely pro-science views, a view that sees nothing wrong with the impact science has had on our world. Peter morrell 05:59, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Introduction

The introduction reads as if written by committed positivists who want to hush up the usage of the term, prevalent at least to 1968 (cf. Maslow), to criticize the claims of natural science that a narrowly empiricist methodology exclusively accessing external/quantifiable observations was the only viable way to knowledge. I have tried to remedy this using the dictionary of philosophy definition in the text itself, but it really needs a fuller rewrite to provide a balanced picture. Hgilbert 12:44, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree; go ahead and see if it can be balanced up a bit; it's long overdue. Peter morrell 12:49, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] O x y m o r o n

Can someone add in big yellow bold letters that 'scientism' is an oxymoron? Only bad science can be scientism, science when it works as it should, it wants to question its past findings, only a bad scientist does not take into account new evidence. --Leladax (talk) 15:42, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that you understand the full scope of scientism. The idea that "beauty is unimportant" is a scientistic bias in the "only science matters" way -- and has nothing to do with bad science. Claiming that an hour of individual psychotherapy is "scientific work" is an example of the "anything that I value must be scientific" usage of the word scientism -- and it also has nothing to do with bad science. Think about Russian formalism: these people called their literary criticism "scientific," even though it's facially impossible to conduct an controlled experiment on the phrasing of a poem. For that matter, the Soviets under Lenin and Stalin, declared everything the party did to be "scientific," from writing songs to the colors of the clothes they didn't manufacture. The concept of scientism exists to define these not-science extremes, not to identify sloppy logic, inadequate controls, or personal bias in an experiment (="bad science"). WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:41, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't think you understand what an oxymoron is, either. You need a pair of terms, for starters. Simões (talk/contribs) 09:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)