Logical positivism and scientism…

… I’m sick of hearing about them. Enough already, please.

I rejected logical positivism as soon as I had it proposed to me. It’s not even that common in science anyway, even amongst those who dabble in contemporary philosophy of science. Heck, it was even a bit of a fad movement in its heyday, relegated mostly to a circle of Germans back in the early 20th century. (I find the idea that the incorporation of some of its ideas into various scientific disciplines constitutes a spread of logical positivism to be spurious – not all ideas in a school of thought are essential, defining, unique or contentious which is obvious when you consider that Popper who objected to logical positivism, had agreements with some aspects of it.)

Simply asserting that interlocutor is a logical positivist without pretty good evidence just makes you look stupid. Don’t call me a logical positivist and I’ll be happy not to arbitrarily label you a phrenologist. It’s a good deal. Take it.

Scientism, yeah sure. I could see the problem from the outset. I’m no fan of the notion that science is the only way to know things.

For example… The history of science and its cultural context as a part of science education isn’t science per se. Perhaps at best such histories are underpinned by science. It doesn’t mean that I don’t value them and with the exception of some ideologically bent pedagogues, I can’t think of anyone who actually argues for it (said history and cultural context of science) to be kicked from curriculum frameworks.

There are very few scientists who are proponents of scientism, from your average labby through to your popular proponent of science (e.g. Richard Dawkins – who seems the archetypal whipping boy in this respect.) It’s a fringe belief amongst scientists even when including the possibility of it being held only in naivety.

I was actually going to do a post recently about a couple of examples of actual scientism on the blogosphere recently, but considering the quality and obscurity of these blogs I kept it on pause long enough to lose interest. (Yes, they were atheist blogs – both from recently ex-fundamentalists doing the uber-antitheist, out-atheist-the-atheists compensation number – not stupid but just over-zealous and a bit wrong-headed.)

If the public intellectual or scientist or philosopher or whatnot you are criticising is actually proposing that science is the best way to know anything (which is not the same as saying that science is our best attempt at getting to know the physical world – musical theory is yet to give as good an explanation of how to put an object in orbit). Please make sure that you know their argument well enough to ascertain that they don’t defer to other ways of knowing for various things.

If you are the kind of person who shoots off the allegations of logical positivism and scientism with so little thought, you’ve probably at some point felt hard done by that one of those evil logical positivist scientists have brushed off your (unsubstantiated) assertions. Perhaps you’ve just seen them being dismissive of such concerns and thought it was arrogant.

It’s not because they view scientism as a self-evident truth that they don’t take you seriously. Oh no. That’s not why.

Richard Dawkins on gorillas’ rights (4:25)

Richard Dawkins, as I’ve mentioned, is commonly accused of logical positivism and scientism. I defy you to watch the part from three minutes onward and tell me that Richard Dawkins thinks that science is the best way to explain everything. If you can, the world’s best Olympics gymnastics team could use your cognitive skills*.

The reason that people like Dawkins and others are dismissive of claims of positivism and scientism is not because they view these things as inherently valid concepts, but because they view the claims as obviously false. And for else anyone who does a bit of basic investigation, the falsity of these claims is obvious as well.

Which brings us back to the people making these claims.

You really do have to ask yourself what their motives are in all of this. Academically, there is the issue of power of course. Spurious allegations of scientism would be conspicuous without their usual partner – whinging about scientists not staying in their field.

The encroach of science upon areas traditionally the domain of branches of philosophy not always being enough to incite anti-scientist bigotry, the mere participation of people-who-are-scientists in philosophy will often do it. As if one can’t be multi-disciplined!

I could probably do a philosophy or a visual arts degree in addition to my science degree if I had the time and resources (which sadly I don’t.) You won’t see me getting angry at someone studying music for taking biology as an elective, or indeed, taking a science degree as a second qualification.

Daniel Dennett is one who takes an undue amount of opprobrium (with the scientism-police not far from the action at any given time) for straddling science and philosophy. Especially from theologians (no surprises there.) I’ve had a post in the works that goes into this in more detail, but I’ll say before moving on that I find the objection to his multi-disciplinary approach absurd.

Philosophy if anything is about problem solving and I’d direct those in the liberal arts to look to their colleagues in the philosophy of education on the matter of integrated-curriculum and the justifications for it. Problem solving is often multi-disciplinary. Heck, just watch an episode of Time Team if you want to see what I mean.

Having a scientific background can only be a boon to a philosopher. To varying degrees of course – bioethics will make more use of it than say axiology.

Instead of whining about the encroach of science upon other traditions, or more offensively, the encroach of people-who-are-scientists (but perhaps philosophers as well), the non-scientist philosophers should engage in a bit of introspection instead of the erection of straw-men. It may seem like a quick way to empower one’s position, but intellectual dishonesty is only ever going to be self-destructive to any worthwhile school of philosophy.

If in the meantime, if the scientism-police could just entertain the idea that people have quite easily stumbled onto the flaw in their jerimiad, and just go a bit easier on the sanctimony and spite. If they could show a love of wisdom and consider their accusations before levelling them, then this whole thing will go a lot easier, we will all be happier and they will look a whole lot less stupid.

~ Bruce

* Bonus points if you can do the mental back-flips required to reconcile Dawkins’ expressed opinion with the philosophy of social Darwinism.