Skip to main content
Open Doubt

Scientism

Scientism is the view that the natural sciences are the only or the best source of genuine knowledge, with all other forms of inquiry either reducible to science or epistemically inferior.

The term is almost always used pejoratively, including by many people who hold something close to the underlying view. It comes in a strong form (only scientific claims count as knowledge; ethics, aesthetics, and metaphysics produce no real knowledge of their own) and a weak form (science is by far the most reliable source of knowledge about the natural world, and other disciplines should defer to it where their claims overlap). The strong form is hard to defend; the weak form is widely accepted across the analytic mainstream.

The strong form runs into a self-reference problem: the claim “only science produces knowledge” is itself not a scientific claim, and so by its own standard does not produce knowledge. This is the classic refutation, due originally to philosophers like Edmund Husserl and pressed in our era by people like Alvin Plantinga and Edward Feser. Most working scientists who get accused of scientism (Stephen Hawking, Lawrence Krauss, Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins) hold something between the strong and weak forms and respond to the charge in different ways.

Critics from religious traditions often use “scientism” as shorthand for a perceived overreach: scientists making metaphysical and ethical pronouncements as though those pronouncements followed from the science. This complaint is sometimes well-targeted (when the pronouncement does not in fact follow from the science) and sometimes a deflection (when the pronouncement does follow, or follows from science plus uncontroversial premises, and the critic does not want to engage).

Sam Harris's The Moral Landscape (2010) is the most prominent contemporary defense of something close to scientism in ethics: he argues that moral questions are questions about the well-being of conscious creatures, and so are in principle empirical questions for psychology and neuroscience. Most philosophers, even atheist ones, have rejected the argument as conflating descriptive and normative claims, but the broader question — how much of philosophy and ethics ultimately reduces to natural science — remains live.

Sources

Related terms

Ask anything