Chapter 7 – Science and its critics
Many people take it for granted that science is a good thing: it gives us electricity,
safe drinking water, penicillin and air travel
Critics against science:
- Some argue that society spends too much money on science at the expense
of the arts
- Others observe that science has giving us technological capabilities we would
be better off without
- Feminists argue that science is inherently male-biased
Scientism
Scientific conduct is rational and praiseworthy.
Unscientific conduct is irrational and worthy of contempt (verdient minachting)
Scientists are treated as experts. Occasional mistakes of scientists tend to not shake
the public faith in science, nor the esteem (waardering) in which scientists are held.
In many countries, scientists are viewed much as religious leaders: possessors
(bezitters) of specialized knowledge that is inaccessible to the laity (liken)
'Scientism' is a pejorative term used by some philosophers to describe what they see
as science worship. Opponents of scientism argue that science is not the only valid
form of intellectual endeavour, and not the only way of understanding the world. They
are not anti-science per se; but they do oppose the assumption that scientific
methods are necessarily applicable to every subject matter.
Philosophy asks questions about the nature of knowledge, morality and human well-
being, which do not seem soluble by scientific methods. In the light of this, it may
seem surprising that some philosophers insist that science is the only legitimate path
to knowledge. Questions that cannot be resolved by scientific means are not genuine
questions at all (Russell). Russel wrote: ‘whatever knowledge is attainable, must be
attained by scientific methods; and what science cannot discover, mankind cannot
know’
The grounds of view lie in a doctrine called 'naturalism', which stresses that we
human beings are part and parcel of the natural world, not something apart from it,
as was once believed. Since science studies the whole of the natural world, surely it
should be capable of revealing the complete truth about the human condition, leaving
nothing left for philosophy?
Philosophy involved in clarifying scientific concepts, clearing the brush so that
scientists can go on with their work
Many philosophers reject this subordination of their discipline to science. They argue
that philosophical enquiry has its own proprietary methods, which can reveal truths of
a sort that science cannot.
Proponents (voorstanders) allow that philosophy should aim to be consistent with
science, in the sense of not advancing claims which conflict with what science
teaches us.
, Methods of philosophical enquiry include logical reasoning, the use of thought
experiments and conceptual analysis, which tries to delimit (afbakenen) a particular
concept by relying on our intuitions about whether a particular case falls under it. By
using conceptual analysis, we can establish that knowledge and true belief are not
identical - which is a substantive (inhoudelijke) philosophical truth.
How should this debate be assessed?
- On the one hand: there are examples of philosophical question which appear
to be genuine, to lie outside the provenance (herkomst) of any science and to
be answered by the distinctive methods of philosophers --> philosophy is NOT
subordinated to science
- On the other hand: many questions about perception, imagination and
memory have turned out to be matters for the empirical sciences in particular
psychology --> philosophy is subordinated to science
Relation between natural and social science
It is often felt that natural sciences (physics, chemistry etc.) are in a more advanced
state than social sciences (economics, sociology etc.).
Natural science can formulate precise laws with great predictive power because the
methods of the natural sciences are superior.
Social sciences need to catch up. They do this by ape (nabootsen) the methods of
natural sciences. The increasing use of mathematics in social sciences may be partly
a result of this attitude.
However, the methods of natural sciences are not necessarily appropriate for
studying social phenomena.
Wilhelm Dilthey and Max Weber, sociologists, argued that social phenomena must
be understood from the viewpoint of the actors responsible for them. What
distinguishes a social from a natural phenomenon is that the former is the result of
intentional action of humans.
Thus, a special type of understanding, called verstehen, is needed for social scientific
enquiry; this involves trying to grasp (begrijpen) the subjective meaning that social
action has for the actor. The doctrine of verstehen thus posits a shar (grote)
discontinuity between the natural and social sciences.
Science and religion
The tension between science and religion is old. Theological opposition to Darwin's
theory of evolution is nothing new.
The reason is obvious: Darwin's theory maintains that all species, including humans,
have descended from common ancestors over a long period of time.
This theory contradicts the Book of Genesis, which says that God created all living
creatures over a period of six days. --> ‘creationism’ / ‘intelligent design’
Approximately 40% of the adult population in the USA beliefs in a theory called
'creationism", which is in line with the Bible and thinks that Darwin's theory of
evolution is completely wrong.
Many people take it for granted that science is a good thing: it gives us electricity,
safe drinking water, penicillin and air travel
Critics against science:
- Some argue that society spends too much money on science at the expense
of the arts
- Others observe that science has giving us technological capabilities we would
be better off without
- Feminists argue that science is inherently male-biased
Scientism
Scientific conduct is rational and praiseworthy.
Unscientific conduct is irrational and worthy of contempt (verdient minachting)
Scientists are treated as experts. Occasional mistakes of scientists tend to not shake
the public faith in science, nor the esteem (waardering) in which scientists are held.
In many countries, scientists are viewed much as religious leaders: possessors
(bezitters) of specialized knowledge that is inaccessible to the laity (liken)
'Scientism' is a pejorative term used by some philosophers to describe what they see
as science worship. Opponents of scientism argue that science is not the only valid
form of intellectual endeavour, and not the only way of understanding the world. They
are not anti-science per se; but they do oppose the assumption that scientific
methods are necessarily applicable to every subject matter.
Philosophy asks questions about the nature of knowledge, morality and human well-
being, which do not seem soluble by scientific methods. In the light of this, it may
seem surprising that some philosophers insist that science is the only legitimate path
to knowledge. Questions that cannot be resolved by scientific means are not genuine
questions at all (Russell). Russel wrote: ‘whatever knowledge is attainable, must be
attained by scientific methods; and what science cannot discover, mankind cannot
know’
The grounds of view lie in a doctrine called 'naturalism', which stresses that we
human beings are part and parcel of the natural world, not something apart from it,
as was once believed. Since science studies the whole of the natural world, surely it
should be capable of revealing the complete truth about the human condition, leaving
nothing left for philosophy?
Philosophy involved in clarifying scientific concepts, clearing the brush so that
scientists can go on with their work
Many philosophers reject this subordination of their discipline to science. They argue
that philosophical enquiry has its own proprietary methods, which can reveal truths of
a sort that science cannot.
Proponents (voorstanders) allow that philosophy should aim to be consistent with
science, in the sense of not advancing claims which conflict with what science
teaches us.
, Methods of philosophical enquiry include logical reasoning, the use of thought
experiments and conceptual analysis, which tries to delimit (afbakenen) a particular
concept by relying on our intuitions about whether a particular case falls under it. By
using conceptual analysis, we can establish that knowledge and true belief are not
identical - which is a substantive (inhoudelijke) philosophical truth.
How should this debate be assessed?
- On the one hand: there are examples of philosophical question which appear
to be genuine, to lie outside the provenance (herkomst) of any science and to
be answered by the distinctive methods of philosophers --> philosophy is NOT
subordinated to science
- On the other hand: many questions about perception, imagination and
memory have turned out to be matters for the empirical sciences in particular
psychology --> philosophy is subordinated to science
Relation between natural and social science
It is often felt that natural sciences (physics, chemistry etc.) are in a more advanced
state than social sciences (economics, sociology etc.).
Natural science can formulate precise laws with great predictive power because the
methods of the natural sciences are superior.
Social sciences need to catch up. They do this by ape (nabootsen) the methods of
natural sciences. The increasing use of mathematics in social sciences may be partly
a result of this attitude.
However, the methods of natural sciences are not necessarily appropriate for
studying social phenomena.
Wilhelm Dilthey and Max Weber, sociologists, argued that social phenomena must
be understood from the viewpoint of the actors responsible for them. What
distinguishes a social from a natural phenomenon is that the former is the result of
intentional action of humans.
Thus, a special type of understanding, called verstehen, is needed for social scientific
enquiry; this involves trying to grasp (begrijpen) the subjective meaning that social
action has for the actor. The doctrine of verstehen thus posits a shar (grote)
discontinuity between the natural and social sciences.
Science and religion
The tension between science and religion is old. Theological opposition to Darwin's
theory of evolution is nothing new.
The reason is obvious: Darwin's theory maintains that all species, including humans,
have descended from common ancestors over a long period of time.
This theory contradicts the Book of Genesis, which says that God created all living
creatures over a period of six days. --> ‘creationism’ / ‘intelligent design’
Approximately 40% of the adult population in the USA beliefs in a theory called
'creationism", which is in line with the Bible and thinks that Darwin's theory of
evolution is completely wrong.
