From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Not to be confused with Scientology.
For the concept in the Foundation series, see Scientism (Foundation).

Scientism is belief in the universal applicability of the scientific method and approach, and the view that empirical science constitutes the most authoritative worldview or most valuable part of human learning to the exclusion of other viewpoints.[1] It has been defined as "the view that the characteristic inductive methods of the natural sciences are the only source of genuine factual knowledge and, in particular, that they alone can yield true knowledge about man and society."[2] The term scientism frequently implies a critique of the more extreme expressions of logical positivism[3][4] and has been used by social scientists such as Friedrich Hayek,[5] philosophers of science such as Karl Popper,[6] and philosophers such as Hilary Putnam[7] and Tzvetan Todorov[8] to describe the dogmatic endorsement of scientific methodology and the reduction of all knowledge to only that which is measurable.[9] "Scientism" has also been taken over as a name for the view that science is the only reliable source of knowledge by philosophers such as Alexander Rosenberg.[10]

Scientism may refer to science applied "in excess". The term scientism can apply in either of two senses:

  1. To indicate the improper usage of science or scientific claims.[11] This usage applies equally in contexts where science might not apply,[12] such as when the topic is perceived to be beyond the scope of scientific inquiry, and in contexts where there is insufficient empirical evidence to justify a scientific conclusion. It includes an excessive deference to claims made by scientists or an uncritical eagerness to accept any result described as scientific. In this case, the term is a counterargument to appeals to scientific authority.
  2. To refer to "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 inquiry,"[13] or that "science, and only science, describes the world as it is in itself, independent of perspective"[7] with a concomitant "elimination of the psychological dimensions of experience."[14][15]

The term is also used by historians, philosophers, and cultural critics to highlight the possible dangers of lapses towards excessive reductionism in all fields of human knowledge.[16][17][18][19][20]

For social theorists in the tradition of Max Weber, such as Jürgen Habermas and Max Horkheimer, the concept of scientism relates significantly to the philosophy of positivism, but also to the cultural rationalization of the modern West.[9][21] British writer and feminist thinker Sara Maitland has called scientism a "myth as pernicious as any sort of fundamentalism."[22]


Reviewing the references to scientism in the works of contemporary scholars, Gregory R. Peterson[23][page needed] detects two main broad themes:



According to Stenmark, the strongest form of scientism states that science has no boundaries and that all human problems and all aspects of human endeavor, with due time, will be dealt with and solved by science alone.[27] This idea has also been called the Myth of Progress.[28]


Intellectual historian T.J. Jackson Lears argues there has been a recent reemergence of "nineteenth-century positivist faith that a reified 'science' has discovered (or is about to discover) all the important truths about human life. Precise measurement and rigorous calculation, in this view, are the basis for finally settling enduring metaphysical and moral controversies." Lears specifically identifies Harvard psychologist Steven Pinker's work as falling in this category.[30] Philosophers John N. Gray and Thomas Nagel have leveled similar criticisms against popular works by moral psychologist Jonathan Haidt, neuroscientist Sam Harris, and writer Malcolm Gladwell.[31][32][33]

Relevance to science/religion debates[edit]

Several scholars use the term to describe the work of vocal critics of religion-as-such. Thinkers associated with New Atheism have garnered this label from both religious and non-religious scholars.[34] Theologian John Haught argues Daniel Dennett and other new atheists subscribe to a belief system of scientific naturalism, which holds the central dogma that "only nature, including humans and our creations, is real: that God does not exist; and that science alone can give us complete and reliable knowledge of reality."[35] Haught argues this belief system is itself self-refuting since it requires its adherents to assent to beliefs that violate its own stated requirements for knowledge.[36] Christian Philosopher Peter Williams argues it is only by conflating science with scientism that new atheists feel qualified to "pontificate on metaphysical issues."[37]


Non-religious scholars have also linked New Atheist thought with scientism. Atheist philosopher Thomas Nagel argues neuroscientist Sam Harris conflates all empirical knowledge with that of scientific knowledge.[39] Marxist literary critic Terry Eagleton argues Christopher Hitchens possesses an "old-fashioned scientistic notion of what counts as evidence" that reduces knowledge to what can and cannot be proven by scientific procedure.[40] Agnostic philosopher Anthony Kenny has also criticized New Atheist philosopher Alexander Rosenberg's The Atheist's Guide to Reality for resurrecting a self-refuting epistemology of logical positivism and reducing all knowledge of the universe to the discipline of physics.[41]



Gregory R. Peterson writes that "for many theologians and philosophers, scientism is among the greatest of intellectual sins".[23][page needed]


  1. the inferences and procedures used by all serious empirical inquirers

Philosophy of science[edit]

Main article: Philosophy of science

In his essay Against Method, Paul Feyerabend characterizes science as "an essentially anarchic enterprise"[45] and argues emphatically that science merits no exclusive monopoly over "dealing in knowledge" and that scientists have never operated within a distinct and narrowly self-defined tradition. He depicts the process of contemporary scientific education as a mild form of indoctrination, aimed at "making the history of science duller, simpler, more uniform, more 'objective' and more easily accessible to treatment by strict and unchanging rules."[46]


— Feyerabend, Against Method, p. viii[47]

Rhetoric of science[edit]

Main article: Rhetoric of science

Thomas M. Lessl argues that religious themes persist in what he calls scientism, the public rhetoric of science.[48] There are two methodologies that illustrate this idea of scientism. One is the epistemological approach, the assumption that the scientific method trumps other ways of knowing and the ontological approach, that the rational mind reflects the world and both operate in knowable ways. According to Lessl, the ontological approach is an attempt to "resolve the conflict between rationalism and skepticism". Lessl also argues that without scientism, there would not be a scientific culture.[48]

Religion and philosophy[edit]


Rationalization and modernity[edit]



Jürgen Habermas, The Philosophical Discourse of Modernity



Aldous Huxley, Literature and Science

Dictionary meanings[edit]


  • The use of the style, assumptions, techniques, and other attributes typically displayed by scientists.[54]
  • Methods and attitudes typical of or attributed to the natural scientist.[55][56]
  • The use of scientific or pseudoscientific language.[57]

Media references[edit]


See also[edit]


  3. ^ Rey, Abel (1909). "Review of La Philosophie Moderne". The Journal of Philosophy, Psychology and Scientific Methods 6.2: 51–3. doi:10.2307/2011609. 
  4. ^ Maslow, Abraham, "Preface", Toward a Psychology of Being (1st ed.), There are criticisms of orthodox, 19th Century scientism and I intend to continue with this enterprise .
  10. ^ Rosenberg, Alex (2011). The Atheist's Guide to Reality. W. W. Norton. ISBN 978-0-393-34411-0. 
  11. ^ Peterson 2003, p. 753: 'the best way to understand the charge of scientism is as a kind of logical fallacy involving improper usage of science or scientific claims'
  13. ^ Blackburn, S (2005). The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy. Oxford paperbacks. Oxford University Press. pp. 331–32. ISBN 978-0-19-861013-7. LCCN 2006271895. Scientism: 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 inquiry. 
  17. ^ Chargaff, Irwin (Dec 1997), "In Dispraise of Reductionism", Bioscience 47 (11): 795–7, doi:10.2307/1313101 .
  19. ^ Wieseltier, Leon. "Crimes Against Humanities Now science wants to invade the liberal arts. Don't let it happen.". Retrieved 21 December 2013. His essay, a defense of "scientism," is a long exercise in assimilating humanistic inquiries into scientific ones. By the time Pinker is finished, the humanities are the handmaiden of the sciences, and dependent upon the sciences for their advance and even their survival. 
  21. ^ Brunkhorst, Hauke (1995). "4". In Seyla Benhabib, Wolfgang Bonss, John McCole. On Max Horkheimer: New Perspectives. The MIT Press. p. 74. ISBN 0262522071. 
  22. ^ Maitland, Sara (1994). A Big Enough God: Artful Theology. London: Mowbray. p. 15. ISBN 026467331X. 
  23. ^ a b Gregory 2003.
  24. ^ Peterson, Donald R (June 2004), "Science, Scientism, and Professional Responsibility", Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice 11 (2): 196–210, doi:10.1093/clipsy.bph072, The term scientism is ordinarily used with pejorative intent. 
  25. ^ Hakfoort, C (1992), "Science deified: Wilhelm Osstwald's energeticist world-view and the history of scientism", Annals of Science 49 (6): 525–44, doi:10.1080/00033799200200441, The term 'scientism' is sometimes used in a pejorative sense 
  26. ^ Bannister, Robert C (1991), Sociology and Scientism: The American Quest for Objectivity, 1880–1940, The University of North Carolina Press, p. 8, Scientism... a term of abuse since Friedrich Hayek first popularized it in the 1940s. .
  30. ^ Lears, T.J. Jackson. "Get Happy!!". The Nation. Retrieved 21 December 2013. 
  31. ^ Gray, John. "The Knowns and the Unknowns". The New Republic. Retrieved 22 December 2013. These theories show the continuing appeal of scientism—the modern belief that scientific inquiry can enable us to resolve conflicts and dilemmas in contexts where traditional sources of wisdom and practical knowledge seem to have failed. 
  32. ^ Gray, John. "Malcolm Gladwell Is America's Best-Paid Fairy-Tale Writer". The New Republic. Retrieved 22 December 2013. ... the mix of moralism and scientism is an ever-winning formula, as Gladwell's career demonstrates. 
  33. ^ Nagel, Thomas. "The Facts Fetish". The New Republic. Retrieved 22 December 2013. Harris urges that we use scientific knowledge about humans to discover what will maximize their well-being, and thereby to discover the right way to live. This is an instrumental use of science, starting out from his basic moral premise. 
  35. ^ Haught, John (2008). God and the New Atheism: A Critical Response to Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens. Westminster John Knox Press. pp. X. 
  36. ^ Haught, John (2008). God and the New Atheism: A Critical Response to Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens. Westminster John Knox Press. p. 17. 
  37. ^ Williams, Peter S. (2013). C.S. Lewis vs. the New Atheists. Paternoster. p. 1928. 
  39. ^ Nagel, Thomas. "The Facts Fetish". The New Republic. Retrieved 22 December 2013. He says that the discovery of moral truth depends on science, but this turns out to be misleading, because he includes under "science" all empirical knowledge of what the world is like...Harris urges that we use scientific knowledge about humans to discover what will maximize their well-being, and thereby to discover the right way to live. 
  40. ^ Eagleton, Terry (2010). Reason, Faith, and Revolution: Reflections on the God Debate. Yale University Press. p. 6. 
  41. ^ Kenny, Anthony (June 2012). "True Believers". Times Literary Supplement. The main tenets of this philosophy are bracingly summed up in a series of questions and answers: Is there a God? No. What is the nature of reality? What physics says it is. 
  45. ^ Feyerabend & Feyerabend 1993, p. vii: 'Imre Lakatos loved to embarrass serious opponents with jokes and irony and so I, too, occasionally wrote in a rather ironical vein. An example is the end of Chapter 1: 'anything goes' is not a 'principle' I hold... but the terrified exclamation of a rationalist who takes a closer look at history'
  46. ^ Feyerabend & Feyerabend 1993, pp. viii, 9, 11.
  47. ^ Feyerabend & Feyerabend 1993, p. viii.
  48. ^ a b Lessl, Thomas M. (Fall 1996). "Naturalizing science: Two episodes in the evolution of a rhetoric of scientism.". Western Journal of Communication 60 (4): 1. doi:10.1080/10570319609374555.  Check date values in: |accessdate= (help);
  49. ^ Ward, Keith, Is Religion Dangerous? .
  54. ^ Random House Dictionary of the English Language, 1987 .
  55. ^ a b Webster 1983.
  57. ^ Webster 1983, Definition #3.
  58. ^ Webster 1983, Definition #2.
  61. ^ "Scientism", Faith and Reason, PBS .


External links[edit]