The Scientific Worldview

The term “scientism” is anything but clear, more of a boo-word than a label for any coherent doctrine. Sometimes it is equated with lunatic positions, such as that “science is all that matters” or that “scientists should be entrusted to solve all problems.” Sometimes it is clarified with adjectives like “simplistic,” “naïve,” and “vulgar.” The definitional vacuum allows me to replicate gay activists’ flaunting of “queer” and appropriate the pejorative for a position I am prepared to defend.

Scientism, in this good sense, is not the belief that members of the occupational guild called “science” are particularly wise or noble. On the contrary, the defining practices of science, including open debate, peer review, and double-blind methods, are explicitly designed to circumvent the errors and sins to which scientists, being human, are vulnerable. Scientism does not mean that all current scientific hypotheses are true; most new ones are not, since the cycle of conjecture and refutation is the lifeblood of science. It is not an imperialistic drive to occupy the humanities; the promise of science is to enrich and diversify the intellectual tools of humanistic scholarship, not to obliterate them. And it is not the dogma that physical stuff is the only thing that exists. Scientists themselves are immersed in the ethereal medium of information, including the truths of mathematics, the logic of their theories, and the values that guide their enterprise. In this conception, science is of a piece with philosophy, reason, and Enlightenment humanism. It is distinguished by an explicit commitment to two ideals, and it is these that scientism seeks to export to the rest of intellectual life.

The first is that the world is intelligible. The phenomena we experience may be explained by principles that are more general than the phenomena themselves. These principles may in turn be explained by more fundamental principles, and so on. In making sense of our world, there should be few occasions in which we are forced to concede “It just is” or “It’s magic” or “Because I said so.” The commitment to intelligibility is not a matter of brute faith, but gradually validates itself as more and more of the world becomes explicable in scientific terms. The processes of life, for example, used to be attributed to a mysterious élan vital; now we know they are powered by chemical and physical reactions among complex molecules.


The second ideal is that the acquisition of knowledge is hard. The world does not go out of its way to reveal its workings, and even if it did, our minds are prone to illusions, fallacies, and superstitions. Most of the traditional causes of belief—faith, revelation, dogma, authority, charisma, conventional wisdom, the invigorating glow of subjective certainty—are generators of error and should be dismissed as sources of knowledge. To understand the world, we must cultivate work-arounds for our cognitive limitations, including skepticism, open debate, formal precision, and empirical tests, often requiring feats of ingenuity. Any movement that calls itself “scientific” but fails to nurture opportunities for the falsification of its own beliefs (most obviously when it murders or imprisons the people who disagree with it) is not a scientific movement.


Steven Pinker defends the "scientism" against critics in the humanities.

Folksonomies: science two cultures humanities

/science (0.528413)
/religion and spirituality (0.390092)
/law, govt and politics/legal issues/international law (0.316668)

scientism (0.988315 (negative:-0.322202)), Worldview Steven Pinker (0.983388 (negative:-0.387031)), current scientific hypotheses (0.952417 (neutral:0.000000)), open debate (0.947073 (neutral:0.000000)), subjective certainty—are generators (0.912142 (negative:-0.315822)), definitional vacuum (0.821979 (negative:-0.378404)), double-blind methods (0.803523 (neutral:0.000000)), coherent doctrine (0.802760 (negative:-0.387115)), lunatic positions (0.802345 (negative:-0.525447)), gay activists (0.800668 (negative:-0.378404)), imperialistic drive (0.799526 (neutral:0.000000)), science (0.794117 (positive:0.431474)), defining practices (0.787520 (neutral:0.000000)), good sense (0.786396 (positive:0.253352)), occupational guild (0.782503 (neutral:0.000000)), explicit commitment (0.782061 (positive:0.495047)), peer review (0.781730 (neutral:0.000000)), physical stuff (0.780365 (negative:-0.281283)), intellectual tools (0.779887 (positive:0.431474)), new ones (0.779839 (negative:-0.248571)), ethereal medium (0.778705 (positive:0.339724)), humanistic scholarship (0.778643 (positive:0.431474)), brute faith (0.778296 (neutral:0.000000)), Enlightenment humanism (0.776375 (positive:0.452063)), scientific terms (0.775677 (positive:0.214214)), traditional causes (0.770773 (neutral:0.000000)), intellectual life (0.770454 (negative:-0.377091)), scientific movement (0.769406 (negative:-0.411093)), fundamental principles (0.767944 (neutral:0.000000)), empirical tests (0.767418 (neutral:0.000000))

Steven Pinker:Person (0.829903 (negative:-0.387031)), coherent:OperatingSystem (0.742140 (negative:-0.387115))

Scientific method (0.974111): dbpedia | freebase
Science (0.639552): dbpedia | freebase | opencyc
Theory (0.533883): dbpedia | freebase
Epistemology (0.473026): dbpedia | freebase | opencyc
Mathematics (0.436081): dbpedia | freebase | opencyc
Social sciences (0.413432): dbpedia | opencyc
Humanism (0.412996): dbpedia | freebase
Experiment (0.411334): dbpedia | freebase | opencyc

 Science Is Not Your Enemy An impassioned plea to neglected novelists, embattled professors, and tenure-less historians
Electronic/World Wide Web>Internet Article:  Pinker, Steven (August 6, 2013), Science Is Not Your Enemy An impassioned plea to neglected novelists, embattled professors, and tenure-less historians, New Republic, Retrieved on 2013-12-10
  • Source Material []
  • Folksonomies: science culture two cultures humanities