Scientism and the Humanities

[DasFapital]

Interesting OP Ed piece in response to Steven Pinker
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/2013/08/14/should-the-humanities-embrace-scientism-my-postmodern-response-to-pinkers-patronizing-plea/

[ckaihatsu]

(Appropriate thread for posting some of my diagrams....)


Humanities - Technology Chart 3.0

http://s6.postimage.org/6psghrjot/120830_Humanities_Technology_Chart_3_0.jpg (http://postimage.org/image/6psghrjot/)


Humanities-Technology Chart 2.0

http://s6.postimage.org/kdlaul6nh/090923_Humanities_Technology_Chart_2_0.jpg (http://postimage.org/image/kdlaul6nh/)


philosophical abstractions

http://s6.postimage.org/i7hg698j1/120404_philosophical_abstractions_RENDER_sc_12_1.j pg (http://postimage.org/image/i7hg698j1/)

[Red Commissar]

Interesting OP Ed piece in response to Steven Pinker
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/2013/08/14/should-the-humanities-embrace-scientism-my-postmodern-response-to-pinkers-patronizing-plea/

I looked at that response as well as the original article and I agree with the response- the original piece did come off very condescending. It does highlight an ongoing problem at many universities though, with conflicts between humanities and science professors becoming more common with budget cuts looming. Some of this can be attributed to the fact that corporate sponsors often pump more resources into science and engineering labs than humanities programs and so universities focus on them more, but I can't help but feel that sometimes science professors tend to place themselves on a pedestal, simply by the fact that their field is the most objective and empirical of the disciplines in the college.

I studied Biology and for a good chunk of my last months as a sophomore and beginning as a junior, I came off prickish towards Liberal Arts in general thinking our sciences and engineering were superior. I don't think like this so much anymore though unfortunately I think it still comes through when I'm feeling angry.

[zoot_allures]

There seem to be a lot of people who see scientism as something positive, or who at least want to emancipate the term from its pejorative connotations. This is even the case within the humanities (to name four philosophers so inclined: Dan Dennett, Alex Rosenberg, James Ladyman, Don Ross).

Pinker describes the term as "anything but clear", as not labelling "any coherent doctrine". He's right, but so what? The same can be said for almost any term that names a general worldview: "postmodernism", "Christianity", "fascism", etc. Every one of these is subject to all sorts of different interpretations, and we frequently ambiguity and vagueness when talking about them. Note that each of those terms, just like "scientism", might also be said to be used by some people as a mere "boo-word".

Scientism is a general worldview. It essentially involves overestimating the value of science (and underestimating the value of other forms of inquiry), which, obviously, is not a good thing to do. It manifests itself in different ways. It consists of a cluster of beliefs and practices, and there is no particular belief or practice from this cluster that's in itself necessary or sufficient for being scientistic. There are different degrees of scientism, from the seemingly reasonable to the utterly idiotic. Included in this cluster are, e.g. (they are numbered for ease of reference later; they're not listed in any particular order):

(1) the belief that there is a strict demarcation between science and non-science;
(2) related to the above: the belief that the sciences are unified by a single scientific method, or at least some small set of scientific methods;
(3) the belief that science will render other traditions obsolete (philosophy and religion seem to be popular targets here);
(4) unreasonable faith in technology;
(5) related to the above: exaggerating the benefits brought by science, while downplaying the problems it's caused and the troubles it faces;
(6) the use of "science" and "scientific", etc, as honorifics;
(7) the belief that science is "objective" and "unbiased" in the sense of being essentially uninfluenced by culture, money, class, etc

and so on. Again, none of these in themselves are necessary or sufficient for scientism: somebody could hold (1) while nevertheless taking an extremely critical attitude to science. Similarly, whether the criteria are realized will depend on your beliefs: for example, there is much room for disagreement about what counts as "unreasonable faith in technology"; and whether somebody holds (3) depends on how you define those other traditions (thus the logical positivists didn't see themselves as trying to render philosophy obsolete but some might've felt they were).

All of this is really quite simple and obvious. I think "scientism" is a fine word, and I think scientism should be resisted. Of course, you're welcome to use "scientism" to describe a general pro-science worldview, but what's the point? We already have words that might work here: materialism, physicalism, rational skepticism, scientific skepticism, and so on. "Scientism" is used pejoratively to refer to an excessive belief in the value of science. I don't really what justification there is for trying to redefine it.

So I disagree with the basic motivation of Pinker's article.

[ckaihatsu]

I looked at that response as well as the original article and I agree with the response- the original piece did come off very condescending. It does highlight an ongoing problem at many universities though, with conflicts between humanities and science professors becoming more common with budget cuts looming. Some of this can be attributed to the fact that corporate sponsors often pump more resources into science and engineering labs than humanities programs and so universities focus on them more, but I can't help but feel that




sometimes science professors tend to place themselves on a pedestal, simply by the fact that their field is the most objective and empirical of the disciplines in the college.

I studied Biology and for a good chunk of my last months as a sophomore and beginning as a junior, I came off prickish towards Liberal Arts in general thinking our sciences and engineering were superior. I don't think like this so much anymore though unfortunately I think it still comes through when I'm feeling angry.


I've always bemoaned this humanities-science schism rooted in academia, and the illustrations I posted are meant to cut against that virulent knee-jerk perception of those fields.

I became enamored with the *idea* of the social sciences early on when I initially arrived at college -- that it *is* possible to describe all of the messiness of social relations in accurate terms, and becoming acquainted with revolutionary Marxism while at school only aided that conviction.

(Then, in more recent years, the diagrams....)


Political (educational) diagrams, for revolutionaries

tinyurl.com/ckaihatsu-diagrams-revleft

http://www.revleft.com/vb/political-educational-diagrams-t111586/index.html

[cyu]

Not directly related, but...

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=just-thinking-about-science-triggers-moral-behavior


Participants read a vignette of a date-rape and were asked to rate the “wrongness” of the offense before answering a questionnaire measuring their belief in science. Indeed, those reporting greater belief in science condemned the act more harshly.

Participants either had to unscramble science-related words or words that had nothing to do with science. being primed with science-related thoughts increased a) adherence to moral norms, b) real-life future altruistic intentions, and c) altruistic behavior towards an anonymous other.

...then again, there's also http://www.theguardian.com/books/2011/sep/07/reading-fiction-empathy-study