Editing Scientism (section)

==Definitions==
Reviewing the references to scientism in the works of contemporary scholars in 2003, Gregory R. Peterson{{Sfn|Peterson|2003}} detected two main general themes:
* It is used to criticize a totalizing opinion of science as if it were capable of describing ''all'' reality and knowledge, or as if it were the ''only'' true method to acquire knowledge about reality and the nature of things;
* It is used, often pejoratively,<ref>{{Citation | quote = The term scientism is ordinarily used with pejorative intent. | first = Donald R | last = Peterson | title = Science, Scientism, and Professional Responsibility | journal = Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice | volume = 11 | issue = 2 | pages = 196–210 |date=June 2004 | doi=10.1093/clipsy.bph072}}</ref><ref>{{Citation | quote = The term 'scientism' is sometimes used in a pejorative sense | first = C | last = Hakfoort | title = Science deified: Wilhelm Osstwald's energeticist world-view and the history of scientism | journal = Annals of Science | volume = 49 | issue = 6 | date = 1992 | pages = 525–44 | doi=10.1080/00033799200200441}}</ref><ref>{{Citation | quote = Scientism... a term of abuse since [[Friedrich Hayek]] first popularized it in the 1940s. | first = Robert C | last = Bannister | title = Sociology and Scientism: The American Quest for Objectivity, 1880–1940 | publisher = The University of North Carolina Press | date = 1991 | page = 8}}</ref> to denote violations by which the theories and methods of one (scientific) discipline are applied inappropriately to another (scientific or non-scientific) discipline and its domain. An example of this second usage is to term as scientism any attempt to claim science as the only or primary source of human values (a traditional domain of [[ethics]]) or as the source of [[Meaning (existential)|meaning]] and purpose (a traditional domain of [[religion]] and related [[worldview]]s).

The term ''scientism'' was popularized by [[F. A. Hayek]], who defined it in 1942 as the "slavish imitation of the method and language of Science".<ref name="Hayek1942">{{Cite journal |last=Hayek |first=F. A. v. |date=1942 |title=Scientism and the Study of Society. Part I |journal=Economica |volume=9 |issue=35 |pages=267–291 |doi=10.2307/2549540|jstor=2549540 }}</ref>

[[Mathematician]] [[Alexander Grothendieck]], in his 1971 essay "The New Universal Church", characterized scientism as a religion-like ideology that advocates scientific [[reductionism]], scientific [[authoritarianism]], political [[technocracy]] and technological salvation, while denying the [[epistemological]] validity of feelings and experiences such as love, emotion, beauty and fulfillment.<ref name=Grothendieck/> He predicted that "in coming years, the chief political dividing line will fall less and less among the traditional division between '[[right-wing politics|right]]' and '[[left-wing politics|left]]', but increasingly between the adherents of scientism, who advocate '[[Technological change|technological progress]] at any price', and their opponents, i.e., roughly speaking, those who regard the enhancement of life, in all its richness and variety, as being the supreme value".<ref name=Grothendieck>{{cite journal |last=Grothendieck |first=Alexander |author-link=Alexander Grothendieck |date=1971 |title=The New Universal Church |journal=Survivre et Vivre |issue=9 |pages=3–8 |url=http://publish.uwo.ca/~jbell/univ.pdf}} Translated by John Bell.</ref>

[[E. F. Schumacher]], in his ''[[A Guide for the Perplexed]]'' (1977), criticized scientism as an impoverished [[world view]] confined solely to what can be counted, measured and weighed. "The architects of the modern worldview, notably [[Galileo]] and [[Descartes]], assumed that those things that could be weighed, measured, and counted were more true than those that could not be quantified. If it couldn't be counted, in other words, it didn't count."<ref>{{Citation | url = http://www.schumachersociety.org/publications/orr_92.html | first = David | last = Orr | contribution = Environmental Literacy: Education as if the Earth Mattered | title = Twelfth Annual EF Schumacher Lectures | date = October 1992 | place = Great Barrington, [[Massachusetts|MA]] | access-date = 2011-03-24 | archive-date = 2005-11-08 | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20051108183748/http://www.schumachersociety.org/publications/orr_92.html | url-status = live }}</ref>

In 1979, [[Karl Popper]] defined scientism as "the aping of what is widely mistaken for the method of science".<ref>{{Cite book |url=https://archive.org/details/objectiveknowled00popp |url-access=registration |title=Objective Knowledge: An Evolutionary Approach |last=Popper |first=Karl R. |date=1979 |publisher=Oxford: Clarendon Press; New York: Oxford University Press |edition=Revised |lccn=79318586 |ol=OL4489088M|page=[https://archive.org/details/objectiveknowled00popp/page/185 185]}}</ref>

In 2003, [[Mikael Stenmark]] proposed the expression ''scientific expansionism'' as a synonym of scientism.<ref name="expansionism">{{Citation | first = Mikael | last = Stenmark | contribution = Scientism | editor-first = J Wentzel Vrede | editor-last = van Huyssteen | title = Encyclopedia of science and religion | edition = 2nd | publisher = Thomson Gale | date = 2003 | page = 783}}</ref> In the ''Encyclopedia of Science and Religion'', he wrote that, while the [[doctrine]]s that are described as scientism have many possible forms and varying degrees of ambition, they share the idea that the boundaries of science (that is, typically the natural sciences) could and should be expanded so that something that has not been previously considered as a subject pertinent to science can now be understood as part of science (usually with science becoming the sole or the main arbiter regarding this area or dimension).<ref name="expansionism" /> According to Stenmark, the strongest form of scientism states that science does not have any boundaries and that all human problems and all aspects of human endeavor, with due time, will be dealt with and solved by science alone.<ref name="expansionism"/> This idea has also been termed the [[myth of progress]].<ref>{{Citation | first1 = G | last1 = Monastra | first2 = MM | last2 = Zarandi | title = Science and the Myth of Progress | date = 2004}}</ref>

Intellectual historian [[T. J. Jackson Lears]] argued in 2013 that there has been a recent reemergence of "nineteenth-century positivist faith that a reified 'science' has discovered (or is about to discover) all the important truths about human life. Precise measurement and rigorous calculation, in this view, are the basis for finally settling enduring [[metaphysical]] and [[Morality|moral]] controversies." Lears specifically identified Harvard psychologist [[Steven Pinker]]'s work as falling in this category.<ref>{{cite magazine|last=Lears|first=T.J. Jackson|title=Get Happy!!|date=6 November 2013|url=http://www.thenation.com/article/177016/get-happy?page=full|magazine=The Nation|access-date=21 December 2013|archive-date=13 November 2013|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131113000458/http://www.thenation.com/article/177016/get-happy?page=full|url-status=live}}</ref> Philosophers [[John N. Gray]] and [[Thomas Nagel]] have made similar criticisms against popular works by moral psychologist [[Jonathan Haidt]], atheist author [[Sam Harris (author)|Sam Harris]], and writer [[Malcolm Gladwell]].<ref>{{cite magazine|last=Gray|first=John|title=The Knowns and the Unknowns|url=https://newrepublic.com/article/books-and-arts/magazine/102760/righteous-mind-haidt-morality-politics-scientism|magazine=The New Republic|date=20 April 2012|access-date=22 December 2013|quote=These theories show the continuing appeal of scientism—the modern belief that scientific inquiry can enable us to resolve conflicts and dilemmas in contexts where traditional sources of wisdom and practical knowledge seem to have failed.|archive-date=24 December 2013|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131224092408/http://www.newrepublic.com/article/books-and-arts/magazine/102760/righteous-mind-haidt-morality-politics-scientism|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite magazine|last=Gray|first=John|title=Malcolm Gladwell Is America's Best-Paid Fairy-Tale Writer|url=https://newrepublic.com/article/115467/malcolm-gladwells-david-and-goliath-fairy-tales|magazine=The New Republic|date=22 November 2013|access-date=22 December 2013|quote=... the mix of moralism and scientism is an ever-winning formula, as Gladwell's career demonstrates.|archive-date=4 December 2013|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131204193126/http://www.newrepublic.com/article/115467/malcolm-gladwells-david-and-goliath-fairy-tales|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite magazine|last=Nagel|first=Thomas|title=The Facts Fetish|date=20 October 2010|url=https://newrepublic.com/article/books-and-arts/magazine/78546/the-facts-fetish-morality-science|magazine=The New Republic|access-date=22 December 2013|quote=Harris urges that we use scientific knowledge about humans to discover what will maximize their well-being, and thereby to discover the right way to live. This is an instrumental use of science, starting out from his basic moral premise.|archive-date=27 October 2013|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131027065614/http://www.newrepublic.com/article/books-and-arts/magazine/78546/the-facts-fetish-morality-science|url-status=live}}</ref>

=== Strong and weak scientism ===
There are various ways of classifying kinds of scientism.<ref name= Metaphilosophy2020/><ref>{{Cite book |title=For and against scientism: science, methodology, and the future of philosophy |date=2022 |publisher=Rowman & Littlefield |isbn=978-1-5381-6334-4 |editor-last=Mizrahi |editor-first=Moti |series=Collective studies in knowledge and society |location=Lanham Boulder New York London}}</ref> Some authors distinguish between strong and weak scientism, as follows:

* {{em|Strong scientism}}: "of all the knowledge we have, scientific knowledge is the ''only'' 'real knowledge'"<ref name=":0">{{harvnb|Mizrahi|2022|p=106}}.</ref> (Moti Mizrahi), or, "the view that some proposition or theory is true and/or [[rational]] to believe if and only if it is a scientific proposition or theory"<ref name=":1">{{Cite book |last1=DeWeese |first1=Garrett J. |title=Philosophy made slightly less difficult: a beginner's guide to life's big questions |last2=Moreland |first2=James Porter |date=2021 |publisher=IVP Academic |isbn=978-0-8308-3915-5 |edition=2nd |location=Downers Grove, IL |pages=143}}</ref><ref name=":2">{{Cite book |last=Moreland |first=James Porter |title=Philosophical foundations for a Christian worldview |date=2017 |publisher=IVP Academic, an imprint of InterVarsity Press |isbn=978-0-8308-8917-4 |edition=2nd |location=Downers Grove, Ill |pages=348}}</ref><ref name=":3">{{Cite book |last1=Moreland |first1=James Porter |title=Love your God with all your mind: the role of reason in the life of the soul |last2=Willard |first2=Dallas |date=1997 |publisher=NavPress |isbn=978-1-57683-016-1 |location=Colorado Springs, Colo |pages=146 |language=en}}</ref> ([[J.&nbsp;P. Moreland]]<!--Moreland was a coauthor for all of these books, but he was the only author in common between all of them, and they all give these definitions verbatim, so they should probably be credited to him.-->), or, "only science yields epistemically credible data"<ref name=":4">{{Cite book |last1=Taliaferro |first1=Charles |title=The Routledge companion to theism |last2=Harrison |first2=Victoria S. |last3=Goetz |first3=Stewart |date=2013 |publisher=Routledge |isbn=978-0-415-88164-7 |series=Routledge philosophy companions |location=New York |pages=337}}</ref> ([[Michael W. Austin]])
* {{em|Weak scientism}}: "of all the knowledge we have, scientific knowledge is the ''best'' knowledge"<ref name=":0" /> (Moti Mizrahi), or, "science is the most valuable, most serious, and most authoritative sector of human learning"<ref name=":1" /><ref name=":2" /><ref name=":3" /> (J.&nbsp;P. Moreland), or, "scientific knowledge claims are the most credible knowledge claims"<ref name=":4" /> (Michael W. Austin)