(January 20, 2020 at 8:35 pm)Peebo-Thuhlu Wrote:
It occurs to me that if people aren't clear on how I'm using the word "scientism," they may get the impression that I don't respect science. So let me define that as best I can. I'm using the word in the way that Michel Henry does in his books.
As you know, science works extremely well because it operates within very clear parameters. Science deals with that which is empirical, repeatable, intersubjective (that is, perceivable by all), and quantifiable. It conducts its inquiry as independently as possible of the researchers' personal feelings and ideologies.
Scientism has two aspects: the first is when the above parameters are said to apply in areas where they really don't. For example, I don't think that scientific principles can be used to determine aesthetic issues like quality in the arts. There is no empirical, repeatable, intersubjective, and quantifiable method for determining whether a novel or a painting is good or not. If someone tried to use science in this way, I claim it would not be real science. Therefore, if I look down on scientism, it is because someone is claiming to use science when they really aren't.
The second aspect of scientism is what Henry claims is dangerous. This is when people say, directly or tacitly, that things in the world which science can't address are unreal or have no value at all. Here again, I think of aesthetic issues. Although there can't be any scientific test to prove what constitutes quality in the arts, that doesn't mean that such quality doesn't exist, or isn't important. If there is no scientific test people may end up claiming that we have no reason at all to say one thing is better than another -- Proust's novel is as good as The Rise of Skywalker in that neither has provable quality.
At the moment I'm helping a grad student who is applying the principles of phenomenology to research about care for elderly people. Her claim is that those things which science can measure -- e.g. blood pressure -- are necessary but not sufficient for high-quality care. Non-quantifiable things like a sense of belonging, or a feeling of agency, are also important aspects of an elderly person's life which a focus on only measurable medical issues could ignore. Scientism, n this context, would be the claim that non-quantifiable things are "just feelings" and not something which carers can address. My student as well as Henry, in contrast, would say that those feelings are very real to the patient and may in fact need to be addressed in order to improve the blood pressure -- because humans are not separable into body and mind.
So a concern about scientism seeks to protect the integrity of science by keeping it pure, and not allowing it to be mixed up with feelings or ideology. And at the same time insists that things outside the realm of science can be real and important.
