tothesource: The central argument of your book, Monopolizing Knowledge, if we could boil it down--is that "scientism" is wrong-headed precisely because it allows the particular assumptions and methods of science to gain a monopoly on knowledge, driving out all other legitimate forms of knowledge from the field. Could you spell that out a bit?

Ian Hutchinson: Put simply, scientism is the belief that science, modeled on the natural sciences, is all the real knowledge there is. It implies that whatever is not science is mere opinion, superstition, irrationality, emotion, or nonsense. Scientism is not a finding of science; nor is it needed for science to flourish; but it is an extremely widely held attitude in our society today. Actually, although there are some writers who explicitly advocate scientism, more usually it is an implicit, unspoken presumption. Many of the current critiques of religion are founded on scientism, as an elementary analysis of their arguments shows. But scientism also feeds the so-called culture wars, and science wars, the postmodern denial of science, the commonplace over-reliance on technology, and a whole host of polarizing trends in our culture.

My book sets out to examine scientism, to understand its roots, history, development, and results, and to show that it is a ghastly mistake. Recognizing and repudiating this mistake is not straightforward. The first difficulty is precisely that scientism is rarely explicit. It has become metaphorically almost the intellectual air that the academy breathes, and so it often goes unnoticed. A monopoly works unhindered if people don't realize it exists. The second problem is that the word science is ambiguous. Once, long ago, "science" meant simply any systematic intellectual discipline. That's the Latin derivation: just "knowledge". If that were what we meant today by science, then scientism would be true by definition, and there would be no more to say. But it isn't.  In common usage today, science means what was once called "natural philosophy", i.e. the science of the natural world, epitomized by physics, chemistry, biology, geology and so on.  Mixing up these two meanings promotes scientism.

tts: You suggest that the monopolizing expansion of scientism to "an all-encompassing world-view" makes it (paradoxically) "essentially a religious position." What effect, then, does scientism have on religion?

Hutchinson: Scientism is unquestionably a philosophical position. That's the first thing to realize. The success of science lends some superficial plausibility to scientism but scientism can't be demonstrated scientifically (which, incidentally, makes it self-contradictory) nor by any other logical argument. In that sense it is an unproven presupposition that is taken "on faith". It is a lens or filter through which the world is viewed, lending its own tint to every perception. It becomes a basis from which ethical questions are argued.  (Think, for example, about the contemporary use of "diversity", echoing ecological considerations, as a justification for all sorts of prescriptive morality). And for some people it becomes a cause to which they are passionately committed.  All of these are characteristics of religion. People who use scientistic arguments to critique religion protest loudly at such a characterization. They say they don't have rituals, and then define religion narrowly to mean belief in the supernatural, so as to avoid the charge. Ironically, early movements in scientism such as Positivism actually did have all the trappings of religion, including ritual services and sacred priesthoods. And some of the notable advocates of scientism in the late twentieth century (e.g. E.O.Wilson) likewise imagine religious energies and observances being coopted in its support.

tts: You note the interesting distorting effects of scientism on other legitimate fields of knowledge--the distortions coming from the attempt by people in these fields trying to imitate the methods of science where these methods are entirely inappropriate. Could you give us some examples?

Hutchinson: Obviously if science is all the real knowledge there is, then any self-respecting academic discipline had better be sure that it is a science. There's a long history of attempts to do this with the practice of non-scientific disciplines. For example, the attempts to make sociology and history into sciences gave rise to Positivism and Marxism in the nineteenth century. Then there was a succession of Social Darwinisms right down to the present day.  Incidentally, the word "scientism" was coined (or at least first widely promoted) by F A Hayek, a Nobel-prize-winning economist, to decry its baleful influence on his own social disciplines. There's also a rather more recent history of the simpler "branding" move of calling activities sciences regardless of their content or practice (for example "Domestic Science" education imparts important life skills but bears no intellectual resemblance to natural science).

Modern science, the inheritance of the scientific revolution, has identifiable characteristics by which it operates. I summarize these as insistence upon reproducibility and Clarity. Science relies upon experiments or observations that must give reproducible results, and be describable unambiguously (for example through measurements). These are the features that permit the experimental discovery of the law-like features of the world, and are the basis of science's stunning success in its understanding of nature.  But many extremely important aspects of the world don't possess those characteristics. History cannot be subjected to repeatable tests because it is generally about about unique events. The law, or politics, or language, or music, or philosophy, or religion are not subjects that lend themselves to the methods of science. They are not, and cannot be science. Yet they possess real knowledge. If an economist colleague bristles when I comment that his discipline is not a science, that is because of a presumption of scientism. He should not resent the comment. It is not a put-down, because I don't accept scientism. Science is not all the knowledge there is. Economics possesses real knowledge; it's just not science.

tts: You make the interesting argument that much of the controversy in regard to evolution actually comes from the acceptance of scientism--both by some of the more vocal advocates of evolution and its critics. It seems like you're saying something like this: evolution isn't the problem; scientism is the problem. Could you explain?

Hutchinson: The modern myth about the relationship between science and theology is that they are, and always have been, at war. This myth dates from the latter part of the nineteenth century, and arose as a deliberate part of the strategies of secularist advocates in academia. Both a serious appreciation of the actual history of science, and the lives and ideas of scientists in the modern world show that science and Christianity (I don't presume to speak for other religions) are not inevitably in conflict. There is, however, truly a tension that fits the warfare metaphor. It is between scientism and pretty much every other non-scientific viewpoint, including but not limited to religion.  In other words, my case is that a main cause of the tension between science and Christianity is not so much natural science or religious doctrine as it is the metaphysics of scientism. Christianity certainly is incompatible with scientism, but it is not incompatible with science. Science and scientism are not the same thing.

The problem is, though, that very often in the science and Christianity discussion, neither the secularist advocates nor the Christian draw any distinction between science and scientism.

Concerning evolution, yes, like several other aspects of modern cosmology, it rules out some literalistic interpretations of Genesis. But literal interpretations of Genesis have never, from the earliest church fathers, been Christian orthodoxy --- even granting that the default view was once that the earth is much younger than we now know it is. Where the incompatibilities really lie is in the unjustified and unscientific extrapolations of evolution that arise from scientism. Unfortunately, both sides of the argument often agree on the erroneous view that accepting biological evolution implies the anti-theist conclusion that God has no hand in creation, and that life is meaningless. This leads some influential Christians to think that they must reject evolution as a scientific explanation of biological diversity and adaptation. That's a mistake. Instead of trying to promote supposed scientific disproofs of evolution or scientific proofs of God --- thereby tending to concede the crucial point that science is the final arbiter of all truth --- they ought to repudiate that erroneous scientism.

Belligerents or Brothers? Are Science and Christian Faith at Odds? Part 1 of 2

Are science and Christianity at war? Although several prominent thinkers like Dawkins and Hawkins think so—and the media likes to spin that view out—Prof. Ian Hutchinson of MIT disagrees. Drawing from personal experience as a scientist and professor at MIT, as well as the vast resources of history and philosophy of science, Ian Hutchinson produces a compelling argument that methodically takes down the view that science and faith are at war—and instead suggests that they might, in fact, be brothers.

http://www.veritas.org/Media.aspx#!/v/20

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2007/PSCF6-07Hutchinson.pdf

Monopolizing Knowledge: A Scientist Refutes Religion-Denying, Reason-Destroying Scientism by Ian Hutchinson.

The great, twin merits of Dr. Hutchinson's argument are that (1)it isn't new and (2) he's a world- class scientist using the latest in science, philosophy, and history to make it.

By saying it isn't new, I mean that it is both ancient and very wise. Going all the way back to the ancient Greeks, the philosophers Plato and Aristotle argued that we must beware of letting one kind of knowledge monopolize all of knowledge. For example, mathematics is a wonderfully precise kind of knowledge, they admitted, but there are many real objects of knowledge that cannot be described or understood through mathematics alone. Try to understand politics, or the nature of justice, or economics, or poetry, or history, or philosophy, religion as if they were mere branches of mathematics, and you will distort and confuse rather than understand them.

Dr. Hutchinson, whose scientific credentials are beyond reproach, has the same thing to say about scientism (and does so, as I mentioned, using the latest in the philosophy of science, history, and philosophy). The methods of science are illuminating in a restricted realm, argues Hutchinson,but that does not mean that the light gained there illuminates everything else. Try to apply the same method to the study of politics, economics, history, or religion, and you will end up either obscuring far more than you understand, or even worse, simply dismissing any study of these areas as merely subjective and irrational. That is foolish hubris, although (he laments) all too common and influential hubris.

Dr. Hutchinson is a very clear, engaging writer, and he has zeroed in on one of the great confusions that mires our understanding of the real relationship of religion to science.

Dr. Benjamin Wiker

http://www.amazon.com/Monopolizing-Knowledge-Ian-Hutchinson/dp/0983702306

In this episode of Big Bang Theory, Sheldon's "scientism-speak" is on dispaly

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6zCrtHq29KE

Recent AAAS Event in Washington DC Explores the Power—and Possible Limits—of the Scientific Method

Does science have all the answers? It certainly has methods that have proved highly effective in understanding the natural world, nuclear scientist Ian Hutchinson of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology said at a recent AAAS discussion on whether science can explain everything.

But despite its successes, he said, there are “many vital areas of human knowledge that are intrinsically inaccessible to science,” including history, literature, philosophy, law, and religion. Hutchinson said “scientism,” or the belief that science provides the only path to real knowledge, has provoked intellectual tensions that serve neither science nor the humanities very well.

If one accepts the premises of scientism, he said, “everything else is just opinion, emotion, superstition, irrationality or nonsense.”

In the 6 December lecture and discussion organized by the AAAS Dialogue on Science, Ethics and Religion, Hutchinson argued for a clearer understanding of science and its limits. And, he said, there must be room for those who that believe that the laws of nature “are what they are because God designed them that way and maintains them by his will.”

“The advancement of science is not well-served by the scientistic attitude that scientific knowledge is all the worthwhile knowledge there is,” said Hutchinson, a professor of nuclear science and engineering. “On the contrary, society’s respect for science is actually undermined.”

American Association for the Advancement of Science

http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2011/1221doser_event.shtml

Materialism had a powerful grasp on the inhabitants of the 19th century. George MacDonald, one of the most respected authors of that era, evidenced prescient awareness of the boundaries between science and scientism in his writing and speaking.

"But first of all let me say a word to the man or woman who is troubled with the difficulty of believing. Now-a-days, there is such a talk about science, and such a contempt poured forth on the man who thinks to walk without that kind of science for the guide of his life, who has a different goal, a different ambition, whose thoughts stretch further than the things of this life--the things he sees and hears and handles---if there be such a man among us, friends, who does the work of the world, and does it well, but his head is in heaven--that is the kind of thing we ought all to be and to seek."

"...I question if there is a doubt or a sense of difficulty that prevails now that has not passed through my own mind as a thing to be encountered and understood and settled. It is natural that we should doubt, with such cries especially on all sides of us, and the intellect so much more awake than ever it was before, and indeed the conscience not more asleep than before and with one on this side and one on that side crying out, "I have reached, I have seen, and I have found no God." Settle this with yourselves to begin with. Not all the intellect or metaphysics of the world could prove that there is no God, and not all the intellect in the world could prove that there is a God. If you could prove that there is a God, that implies that you could go all round Him, and buttress up His being with your human argument that He should exist. As soon might a child on his mother's bosom, looking up into his mother's face, write a treatise on what a woman was, and what a mother was.

But do not think that God is angry with you because you find it hard to believe. It is not so; that is not like God; God is all that you can honestly wish Him to be, and infinitely more; He is not angry with you for that. And He knows perfectly well that what the scientific man calls truth--though you will observe that he is always constantly, and everywhere changing his theories---that what the scientific man calls truth is simply an impossibility with regard to God; and God knows it. Your brain, the symbol of your intellect, cannot, concerning Him, if He exists, receive that kind of proof which you have when you read a proposition of Euclid. It commends itself to your mind and your understanding. You say, "So it is and it cannot be otherwise." But you cannot receive that kind of proof; there is no such proof with regard to the Mighty God. And therefore I say if you doubt the existence of the living God, He is not angry with you for that."

"...Faith in its true sense does not belong to the intellect alone, nor to the intellect first, but to the conscience, to the will, and that man is a faithful man who says, "I cannot prove that there is a God, but, O God, if Thou hearest me anywhere, help me to do Thy will. There is faith."

"...It is the turning of the eye to the light; it is the sending of the feet into the path that is required, putting the hands to do the things which the conscience says ought to be done."

George MacDonald
In the Pulpit: Sermon: Faith The Proof of The Unseen
June 1882

http://georgemacdonald.info/

Send your letter to the editor to feedback@tothesource.org.