 |
| from Tom Swanson's science cartoons |
scientism Pronunciation: /ˈsʌɪəntɪz(ə)m/
Definition of scientism
noun
[mass noun] rare
One of the great myths of the modern age is scientism, a
belief or assumption that the scientific method is applicable to everything.
Yet ironically enough, scientism itself isn’t a scientific belief in that it
can’t be proved experimentally.
Okay, that’s obvious enough and overt scientism isn’t all
that common, but what about covert scientism? Even more intriguing, what about
areas of study which are traditionally regarded as science, but where the
scientific method doesn’t work particularly well? Why doesn’t it work
particularly well – why is it incomplete?
What’s missing?
There are plenty of examples of subjects which seem to lie
on the borderline between science and non-science. Economics, psychology,
sociology – are they sciences or not? Or are they businesses? Does it matter
anyway? Maybe it doesn’t.
What about climate science? Do we know whether or not the
climate will give up its secrets to the scientific method? So far it hasn’t,
but what if it never does? How will we ever know? The climate hasn’t responded
very well so far, but maybe the science is young. Or maybe science just doesn’t
work on something as complex as climate.
What’s missing?
What if a natural phenomenon such as climate is too complex
for the scientific method? Well to uncover the answer to that question, first
we’d surely have to admit we’d failed. But when and how? Scientists very rarely
admit failure because science is supposed to be all about try, try again.
But isn’t try, try again just a little too convenient – for
scientists? In fact - don't some scientists build careers on try, try again?
So how then are we
supposed to assess scientific failure? How are we supposed to know we’ve
failed? Usually it’s when a better theory comes along, but what if one never
does? For how long does try, try again go on?
Until the funding runs out may be the honest answer. Until
then, never admit defeat, think of another angle, get some more funding for a
bigger computer. But climate scientists can’t do experiments on the climate, so they never get to do proper science where they might actually test a theory with
an experiment. How convenient is that? Especially for those with a long-term career in mind.
Bad science can be a sound career choice. Feyerabend was right – scientists are opportunists.
Bad science can be a sound career choice. Feyerabend was right – scientists are opportunists.
3 comments:
"climate scientists can’t do experiments on the climate, so they never get to do proper science where they might actually test a theory with an experiment."
Well, they can of course do observation, which puts them in the same situation as most sociologists and economists, but also the astronomers. I think the honest thing to do would be to say that these subjects aspire towards the scientific rigour established in the controlled experiment, but that there are a number of issues with the subject matter which militate against this. Huge complexity, of course, which stacks up the uncontrolled and unknown variables. But the main one seems to be lack of clear definitions of key concepts. Nobody is going to volunteer to be the first to say that there is no agreement on what "money supply", "alienation", or "poverty" actually mean.
There are plenty of examples of subjects which seem to lie on the borderline between science and non-science.
Economics
On that I'd say most definitely it's not a science.
Sam - astronomy has a long history of successful and accurate prediction which isn't so true of the other borderline sciences.
I think there is a problem with the aspiration side of it. Do you aspire to good science or a good career? Possibly both, but possibly not.
James - I think economics could be and should be, but isn't.
Post a Comment