[Return to Dmitry Sepety’s Personal
Page]
Afterword. Materialism as a Form of Scientism
Successes of natural and engineering sciences (physics, chemistry,
biology, computer technologies) in ÕVIII-ÕÕ centuries have made huge impression
upon minds of people and have led to propagation of the faith in the
omnipotence of science – absence of any limits for natural-scientific
knowledge; faith that methods and explanatory principles which happen to be
productive in the domain of natural sciences answer any significant question.
Such faith is called scientism. Scientists who are involved in
natural sciences are especially prone to scientism, for it gives the highest
prestige to their profession. Besides, for a person who, owing to professional
specialization, has got used to think in categories of physics, chemistry,
biology or computer technologies, it is natural to develop the propensity to look
through the prism of these categories on everything, without serious, critical reflection
as to whether it is appropriate.
Íowever, this faith in the omnipotence of natural sciences is noncritical, irrational, – it is not based on
rational research of possibilities and limits of scientific knowledge,[1] as well as specificity
of various domains of scientific knowledge. Scientism was exposed to sharp
criticisms by many scientists and philosophers of science. So, the outstanding
economist and philosopher of ÕÕ century, Friedrich von Hayek characterised scientism
as “an attitude which
is decidedly unscientific in the true sense of the word, since it involves a
mechanical and uncritical application of habits of thought to fields different
from those in which they have been formed. The scientistic as distinguished from
the scientific view is not an unprejudiced but a very prejudiced approach
which, before it has considered its subject, claims to know what is the most
appropriate way of investigating it.” Scientism is but “slavish imitation of the method and language of science”, – unlike
science as activity for which the main thing is “the general spirit of disinterested inquiry”.[2] Karl Popper thought
that the correction is needed to this description: it would be more correct to talk
about “imitation of what certain people mistake for the method and language
of science”.[3]
And here is how Thomas Nagel characterises scientism: “Scientism ... puts
one type of human understanding in charge of the universe and what cab be said
about it. At its most myopic it assumes that everything there is must be understandable
by the employment of scientific theories like those we have developed to date
− physics and evolutionary biology are the current paradigms − as
if the present age were not just another in the series. ... Too much time is wasted
because of the assumption that methods already in existence will solve problems
for which they were not designed; too many hypotheses and systems of thought in
philosophy and elsewhere are based on the bizarre view that we, at this point
in history, are in possession of the basic forms of understanding needed to
comprehend absolutely anything.”[4]
Propagation of materialism and its popularity among scientists doesn’t
testify its scientific character (rationality), but is only merely
manifestation of scientism. Materialism’s claims for truth and scientific authority
have no rational grounds. Actually, materialism is an irrational faith
based on authority. The fact that the authority is supposed to be natural
sciences does not change irrational (and hence, unscientific) character of
materialism.
Materialism appeals to the authority of science like
religious preachers appeal to the authority of God. The question is: whether
it is advisable to trust their words? whether they can prove their truth? How to distinguish genuine God’s prophets
from impostors and crazies?
Science (as well as philosophy) is, first of all, rational critical
activity. Judgements are rational in so much as they result from critical
research of available evidences and arguments. Judgements which are not such,
but appeal to the authority of a science, are not scientific, but quasi-scientific.
(A glaring example is so-called “scientific socialism” of Marx.)
Reality is not such simple and univocal as materialists believe.
Possibilities of natural sciences are limited and leave space for unscientific views.
Unscientific character not always means falsity or irrationality. Sometimes it happens
other way around: eagerness to hold only those views which fit
natural-scientific standards leads to acceptance of rationally unsatisfactory,
absurd and antihuman theories.
[1] I will remind
that Immanuel Kant considered such critical research of possibilities and
limits of scientific knowledge as one of the three main tasks of philosophy.
[2] Hayek F. The Counter-Revolution
of Science. – pp.15-16
[3] Popper K. The
Poverty of Historicism. – p.96
[4] Nagel T. The View from
Nowhere. – pp.9-10.