Scientism

“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.”

“Sorell, T. (1991) Scientism; Philosophy and infatuation with Science.  [Kindle  version].  Retrieved from Amazon.com  Chapter 1, paragraph 1

. All of us come into our worldview with a set of assumptions both conscious and unconscious about the world and our place in it. To be objective about any view of the world is simply not possible.  Not only is it not possible, but the idea is not even desirable.  For the assumption itself carries with it a set of blinders that feed our ego, but not our knowledge.  This is not to say that we should not try to be as objective as possible, but we must be aware that our conclusions are limited by our assumptions. Our assumptions are the result of what we have learned, both consciously and unconsciously. An example of this is how people use the word science itself. 

Science as it is used by Scientism advocates is an abstraction; Science obviously is not a thing like a table. The favorite refrain of scientism’s advocates, I will refer to them simply as Scientistic (for simplicity purposes throughout the rest of the book) is that “Science Tells Us”

When they speak of Science in this way, they are speaking of an abstraction. Abstractions can refer indirectly to groups of individuals or a process. They create in the mind a synthetic unity that does not physically exist but can be a container for self-identity, idolization, or its opposite, vilification. One cannot construct an argument about something based on the abstraction “Science “. You can argue a point based on a particular branch of science, a particular theory, or even paradigm. However, when an appeal is made or a claim registered for Science as an authority without specificity, that claim is specious.

Different disciplines make up the scientific community, and many different methodologies, obviously there is no place in the physical world where you can go visit Science, although there are places that you can go, like a laboratory where they practice a specific science. One can read books or attend lectures on specific aspects of a scientific discipline, Chemistry or Physics for instance. You can take a class in the Philosophy of Science, but you cannot visit Science itself.

There are serious implications for this simplification of Science.  It renders a complex body of knowledge, theories and a community of human beings and their efforts to a Golden Calf deserving of worship.  The statement “Science says,” Implies that “Science”, has a uniformity of opinion, which may or may not be true.  Secondly, it requires us accept the authority of Science, but in support an argument. This appeal to authority is a fallacy of defective induction, where it is argued that a statement is correct because the statement is made by a person or source that is commonly regarded as authoritative. The most general structure of this argument is:

Source A says that p is true.

Source A is authoritative.

Therefore, p is true

Even if we were to accept this clearly fallacious argument, we would still have to deal with the reality that there are levels of scientific certainty .There are those postulates with a coherent theory based on evidence, but there may also be an alternative theory, which explains the evidence. A case in point is a dispute among Evolutionary Biologists, is evolution gradual or not, and another example in physics is there are competing cosmologies the Big Bang versus the steady state model.

The majority of physicists adhere to the former but plasma physicist prefer the latter. We describe principles such as gravity as a natural law because the mathematical and empirical evidence is demonstrably plain and consistent… The other reason is historical the person who coined the phrase Sir Francis Beacon, was a lawyer. Then there is that in Science which is highly theoretical, and it is not readily or in some cases even possible to verify through Falsifiability.

If using the term law of nature is rather interesting in that the laws are often changed, which actually has been the case in physics where the Supreme Court of empirical evidence has overturned the previous law of nature.  So we went from and Aristotelian point of view two with a Newtonian one then two relativity and quantum mechanics.  Laws of nature are terms like science which need to be looked at closely and not accepted as permanent fixtures of our understanding of the universe as they are subject like any theoretical framework to falsification. William James addressed the issue in discussion:

But as the sciences have developed farther, the notion has gained ground that most, perhaps all, of our laws are only approximations. The laws themselves, moreover, have grown so numerous that there is no counting them; and so many rival formulation’s are proposed in all the branches of science that investigators have become accustomed to the notion that no theory is absolutely a transcript of reality, but that any one of them may from some point of view be useful. Their great use is to summarize old facts and to lead to new ones. They are only a manmade language, a conceptual shorthand, as some one calls them, in which we write our reports of nature; and languages, as is well known, tolerate much choice of expression and many dialects. But as the sciences have developed farther, the notion has gained ground that most, perhaps all, of our laws are only approximations. The laws themselves, moreover, have grown so numerous that there is no counting them; and so many rival ormulations are proposed in all the branches of science that investigators have become accustomed to the notion that no theory is absolutely a transcript of reality, but that any one of them may from some point of view be useful. Their great use is to summarize old facts and to lead to new ones. They are only a manmade language, a conceptual shorthand, as someone calls them, in which we write our reports of nature; and languages, as is well known, tolerate much choice of expression and many dialects.”

Pluralistic Universe, New York, 1909, pp. 321-4 and Pragmatism: A New Name for Some Old Ways of Thinking [1907], New York, l909, pp. 52-61)

There is no such Place as Whiteland, Diversity is Dogma

There is no such place as Whiteland, yet most Americans of European descent seem to think that they are white. Many have no idea of the derivation of their family surname, and the cultural history of their origins. An amusing example happened a few years ago when I was at a friends house and a young man said to me ”I can’t stay in the sun for very long because my Irish Anglo-Saxon genes”. I asked him if he was Anglo-Irish and he said no I am Irish. I then had to explain to him that the Irish are Celts not Anglo-Saxons. Not to conflate linguistic groups with race never the less it sasy ev erhting about “white self identity”
At a time when every ethnic group in America is celebrated if you were to celebrate a generic European descent you would of course be labeled as a racist.
People of northern European descent are now a minority in the United States yet are still considered the purposes of affirmative action and majority. When your son applies for graduate school they will immediately run into the “women and minorities are encouraged to apply” mantra on every application. Since there are fewer men going to college than women, and since men of European descent are even fewer the majority of academia will end up either  melanin enriched female or both. So where is the beloved diversity in that? Nordic, Celtic, and Slavic men will have to take their academic talents to Europe.

In this case diversity is the antithesis to meritocracy. In fact diversity is an entirely neutral concept, one can have a diversity of ailments which is bad, or a diversity of talents which is good. The idea that cultural or ethnic diversity is somehow better than homogeneity is merely a political agenda disguised as inclusion. While ethnicity, language and culture shape the person’s thoughts is the quality of the person’s character, talent and intelligence that makes them valuable. The assumptions behind diversity is good necessarily are philosophically absurd. We now have a diversity of criminal subcultures in America, from every ghetto,barrio and,third world country. These diversity of criminals have a diversity of arsenals, hand guns assault rifles, machine guns and such,so it follows this must be a splendid thing for America.

When one promotes  with the notion that there is a unique way to perform science or art. or conduct business according to culture and ethnicity where does it stop. A case in point Hitler wanted nothing to do with scientists such as Albert Einstein, who practiced “Jewish science”. While no one can deny that various cultures have traditions that work well for them within that culture, that does not mean they can be translated into every specific situation outside that culture. The entire notion of diversity is a triumph of cultural stereotype over individual genius. That it’s become such a revered concept in university is only natural, being that American education is much more about indoctrination  than edification.

What is important is not diversity but equal opportunity to compete with your own unique ideas and talents, which you come to you from your character and intellectual curiosity. The Western European traditions were so successful to the extent they were open to new ideas as long as they worked.. However, not all new ideas are worthy of serious consideration. The fact remains that certain cultures are far more advanced than others, Nigerian e-mail scams, Chinese industrial espionage, organized Gypsy welfare fraud, may be diverse but we can live without them.