The Failure of Natural Science in Scientism
- Get link
- Other Apps
Going door to door is a lost art but Austin L. Hughes, the Carolina Distinguished Professor of Biological Sciences at the University of South Carolina boldly stands on the doorstep of natural science and shows how “scientism” has become a cruel neighbor in his article, “The Folly of Scientism.” Generally speaking, “science” means “knowledge,” and “natural science” concerns itself with one facet of knowledge; however, “it is frequently claimed that natural science does or soon will constitute the entire domain of truth.” Hughes systematically exposes the flaws of the so called “universal competence” of science, or “scientism” by asking the most important question that scientism cannot answer, “Is it really true that natural science provides a satisfying and reasonably complete account of everything we see, experience and seek to understand--of every phenomenon in the universe?”
Taking scientism by the hand, Hughes moves through the neighborhood of disciplines starting with Philosophy and the assumption that Philosophy must be a valuable tool for the scientist. Scientism actually claims to have outgrown its need for philosophy, substitution institutional theory for plain logic; in other words, “good science” and “bad science” are defined by where the National Science Foundation wants to put its money and philosophy is too cerebral and less experimental. The claim is that science never goes backwards (as philosophy tends to do) and always moves forward, never repeating itself, leading the public with the assumption that science must be right because the ideas sound less philosophical and more scientific. The question remains: how are scientific evaluated without the ability to identify something called “false”?
Next, Hughes contrasts scientism with three areas of inquiry: metaphysics, epistemology and ethics. If philosophy is dead to the natural scientist, then the conclusions touching subjects as cosmology fall more in the realm of science-fiction. “Universe” has lost its meaning as a word that encompasses everything known and unknown on every level, giving rise to concepts such as “multi-verses.” This makes no sense, especially because theories of the “multi-verse” must still answer the questions of existence these tries to avoid. Why is our universe governed by scientific laws at all? Natural selection may try to explain species but it cannot explain the fitness benefit of comprehending the universe, or explain why the universe is comprehensible at all.
The contradictions abound! Concerning ethics: how can science assert there is no universal right or wrong and still be science? “If ‘we know now’ that he selfish behavior attributed to our ancestors is morally reprehensible, how have ‘we’ come to know this? What basis do we have for saying that anything is wrong at all if our behaviors are no more than the consequence of past natural selection? And if we desire to be morally better than our ancestors were, are we even free to do so? Or are we programmed to behave in a certain way that we now, for some reason, have come to deplore?”
Hughes correctly concludes that philosophers has the last laugh because the so-called “self correction” of practicioners of scientism find themselves following in the footsteps of Aristotle, attempting to discover the person while in pursuit of happiness. Scientism clearly has not and cannot alone answer questions that fall outside its purview.
Taking scientism by the hand, Hughes moves through the neighborhood of disciplines starting with Philosophy and the assumption that Philosophy must be a valuable tool for the scientist. Scientism actually claims to have outgrown its need for philosophy, substitution institutional theory for plain logic; in other words, “good science” and “bad science” are defined by where the National Science Foundation wants to put its money and philosophy is too cerebral and less experimental. The claim is that science never goes backwards (as philosophy tends to do) and always moves forward, never repeating itself, leading the public with the assumption that science must be right because the ideas sound less philosophical and more scientific. The question remains: how are scientific evaluated without the ability to identify something called “false”?
Next, Hughes contrasts scientism with three areas of inquiry: metaphysics, epistemology and ethics. If philosophy is dead to the natural scientist, then the conclusions touching subjects as cosmology fall more in the realm of science-fiction. “Universe” has lost its meaning as a word that encompasses everything known and unknown on every level, giving rise to concepts such as “multi-verses.” This makes no sense, especially because theories of the “multi-verse” must still answer the questions of existence these tries to avoid. Why is our universe governed by scientific laws at all? Natural selection may try to explain species but it cannot explain the fitness benefit of comprehending the universe, or explain why the universe is comprehensible at all.
The contradictions abound! Concerning ethics: how can science assert there is no universal right or wrong and still be science? “If ‘we know now’ that he selfish behavior attributed to our ancestors is morally reprehensible, how have ‘we’ come to know this? What basis do we have for saying that anything is wrong at all if our behaviors are no more than the consequence of past natural selection? And if we desire to be morally better than our ancestors were, are we even free to do so? Or are we programmed to behave in a certain way that we now, for some reason, have come to deplore?”
Hughes correctly concludes that philosophers has the last laugh because the so-called “self correction” of practicioners of scientism find themselves following in the footsteps of Aristotle, attempting to discover the person while in pursuit of happiness. Scientism clearly has not and cannot alone answer questions that fall outside its purview.
- Get link
- Other Apps
Popular posts from this blog
“Men and women who saw God in the Bible: Why did they not all die?”
July 2004 I went to Kenya, Africa to speak in two Pastor’s Conferences on the subject of Man, Sin and Salvation. At the end of each day I left just over an hour for questions (half the time were questions touching the subject of my lectures, and the other half for “open questions”; that is, people could ask anything). For the next few weeks, I will be sharing the questions that were asked of me, and my answers—and believe me when I say these people really know how to think! Question from Kenya #1: “Men and women who saw God in the Bible: Why did they not all die?” [“ But He said, ‘You cannot see My face, for no man can see Me and live! ’” (Exodus 33:20) was the basis of the student’s question]. Answer: First, consider those who did see God—how did they respond when they saw Him? They were instantly aware of their sinfulness, and God’s holiness and righteousness (to name a few. And notice also that each responded in an attitude of worship, bowing down): Abraham built altars, wors
A Sonnet
“My God, where is that ancient heat towards thee, Wherewith whole shoals of martyrs once did burn, Besides their other flames? Doth poetry Wear Venus' livery? only serve her turn? Why are not sonnets made of thee? and lays Upon thine altar burnt? Cannot thy love Heighten a spirit to sound out thy praise As well as any she? Cannot thy Dove Outstrip their Cupid easily in flight? Or, since thy ways are deep, and still the fame, Will not a verse run smooth that bears thy name! Why doth that fire, which by thy power and might Each breast does feel, no braver fuel choose Than that, which one day, worms may chance refuse. Sure Lord, there is enough in thee to dry Oceans of ink; for, as the Deluge did Cover the earth, so doth thy Majesty: Each cloud distills thy praise, and doth forbid Poets to turn it to another use. Roses and lilies speak thee; and to make A pair of cheeks of them, is thy abuse Why should I women's eyes for crystal take? Such poor invention burns in their low mind Wh
Welcome, May!
The past few weeks have been stressful. Training new employees, dealing with difficult customers, not sleeping well, not exercising (I’ve gained 20 pounds in the last two years), getting through family drama (two life-threatening events in the same day, 2000 miles apart: my dad’s heart attack in NM and a 9 year grandchild starting the rest of his life with Type 1 Diabetes) . . . My CrossFit lifestyle withered into oblivion when I lost my job at the University in 2020, as Covid got going. Deep depression brought me to a standstill as I took a few months to try to reset. Since then, my physical status has been on steady decline. Now my daily schedule looks something like this: Work 3-11 pm (on a good day), Go to bed at 4 am, get up between 10:30 am and noon, get booted up and go back to work. If I get one day off a week I’m fortunate. At least I don’t have to work all night for now. That was the worst. So I haven’t had time or energy to do much, even read, much less write. And since my