Scientism, or
simple scientism, is the belief that knowledge can only come from science or
the scientific method. What follows is a knock-down argument against that
position. Why is it important? Because many skeptics will take this as an
epistemological starting point, and will proceed from there to denying
Christianity’s truth. Here is the argument:
1. I know that
2+2=4.
2. We can only
know truths via the scientific method.
3. 2+2=4 is not
known via the scientific method.
4. Therefore, I
do not know 2+2=4 (via 2-3).
5. Therefore, we
can know truths apart from the scientific method (via 1, 3 analytically).
Readers may
recognize this argument type as a reductio
ad absurdum, where one assumes a particular position in order to derive a
contradiction from its entailments, which effectively reduces the contention to
absurdity. The assumed premise is (2). Either one will claim not to know 2+2=4,
claim it is a truth known through the scientific method, or claim that we can
know things apart from the scientific method. Those are literally our only
options. Now obviously, we want to avoid (4). Who wants to say they don’t know
that 2+2=4? The only way to do that is to reject (2) or (3). (2) is equivalent
to the statement, “All truths are known through the scientific method,” and (3)
is the claim that 2+2=4 is not so known. So, why can’t we say that 2+2=4 is
known through the scientific method? Simply because of two things: first, one
cannot test it to find out if it is true. What if we wanted to line up two
things, and then two other things, and we see we have four things? See! Not
quite. For this relies on the mathematical truth it is trying to prove; that
two sets of two things are equivalent to four things. This leads to the second
reason: the scientific method presupposes
the truths of mathematics, but it doesn’t prove
them. So it’s not open to us to say that (3) is false. But if we don’t want to
reject that we know 2+2=4, and if we don’t want to reject that 2+2=4 is not known
through the scientific method, then the only other thing left to reject is (2),
or the simple scientism. It’s just that simple!
Neat argument. It seems pretty good as far as it goes. I would press back by saying, however, that scientism might be able to wriggle out of it by retreating to the more modest position (but which is also, as far as I can tell, the more popular and true to scientism position) of modifying (2) to read: we can only know synthetic truth via the scientific method. As 2+2=4 is an analytic proposition, your argument is no longer valid.
ReplyDelete(Of course, I do not think this move ultimately saves scientism, as it is still either self-referentially incoherent or groundless.)
Muck, thanks for commenting! I have actually experienced the opposite: most people don't know the difference between synthetic and and analytic truths, and thus they simply insist that science is the only form of knowledge (this is even true of scientists themselves, who are often woefully ignorant of philosophy).
DeleteHa, I didn't realize it was you, Craig. :)
DeleteHi Randy,
ReplyDeleteI was talking to someone on the net who, when offered links by me to articles outlining arguments/evidence for God's existence, responded (he didn't read the links or even know, it seems, what specific arguments they contained) by saying, "That's not good enough. I want proof". I then find that he defines "proof" as "100% irrefutable evidence" (not sure that's the correct definition of "proof"?). And finally he states that you can only find out if something exists "by using the scientific method." This leads to my question: if this is the case, does he not have to chuck all of ancient history out? That is, if we can only "prove" things through science, then surely that rules out historians proving, for example, that Jesus existed or that he was crucified? And since historians are pretty unanimous on both those things being true, doesn't that refute scientism? Now maybe historians wouldn't argue historical events are 100% proved in the way mathematical truths are but am I right that they can correctly say Jesus's existence is "proved" since definitions of words like "proof" vary depending upon which field we speak of (so, e.g., I hear people speak of legal proof, scientific proof, historical proof, etc).
Hi James, this is how "proof" is used in mathematics, or logic (that is, one has proven something if and only if it is impossible to be false). However, I would be greatly disturbed if he thought science proves things in this sense; almost all scientists (and all philosophers of science) recognize you don't--even can't--prove things scientifically on this account. Yes, that would ruin most knowledge, including scientific knowledge (and historical). Now perhaps this guy would say you can't prove things, but yet you can still know them. In that case, it remains confusing why he would insist that it be proven in order to be known. Actually, I think it's very illuminating: it demonstrates that commitment to Christ is a matter of volition: essentially, he's stating that he won't believe, even if all intellectual constraints on belief are removed so that he would at least be justified in belief. But if he won't believe, then there's nothing you can do for him, because his problem is either emotional or volitional, not intellectual. :)
DeleteHi Randy,
DeleteYou said: "Actually, I think it's very illuminating: it demonstrates that commitment to Christ is a matter of volition: essentially, he's stating that he won't believe, even if all intellectual constraints on belief are removed so that he would at least be justified in belief. But if he won't believe, then there's nothing you can do for him, because his problem is either emotional or volitional, not intellectual. :)"
Yeah, seems to be an emotional thing with this guy (though maybe he just hasn't thought it through). Since, with God's existence, we're dealing in probabilities rather than absolute proof, it is rather odd that, as I noted before, he refused to even look at the arguments I offered him for God's existence because they don't, according to him, constitute "proof" (as he defines it). After all, he hasn't got 100% proof that God doesn't exist and therefore looking at evidences like the Kalam, Moral & Teleological arguments might bring him to at least move towards agnosticism. And, presumably, if he thinks we need some sort of scientific evidence to prove God exists, I suppose it cuts both ways and that in order for him to be consistent he would need some scientific evidence against God's existence? D'you think that'd be the correct way of viewing it, Randy? Also, what would scientific evidence against God's existence even look like? I suppose one might say scientific evidence for an eternal universe/multiverse might count for atheism somewhat (it'd rule out the Christian view of creation) though it'd still run into the Leibnizian Argument.
Hi James! :) Yes, I think that's the correct way of looking at it. The criteria should be symmetrical: if one needs to be certain in order to make a claim, then he needs to be certain in order to make the opposite claim. So, at worst, he should be an agnostic, and one who merely withholds belief, not an atheist. I don't think there even is, in principle, any scientific evidence for the proposition "God does not exist." I do think science could be such that it weakens or even eliminates arguments for God's existence, but again, the absolute worst that follows from that is agnosticism, not atheism. Now perhaps one could combine this scientific evidence with an argument for God's non-existence, but then it would be that argument doing all the "positive" work, while science does the "negative" work (where "positive" refers to establishing the claim "God does not exist" with some level of probability, while "negative" refers to the undercutting of the claim "God does exist"). :)
DeleteSir,
ReplyDeleteI'm curious in your premise #1 "I know that 2+2=4." how did you get to that conclusion? For it posits knowledge "( "I know that...") That is not to say that you have that fact (2+2=4) committed to memory , let us say you did not know the answer but by some process "X" now you do. Was it a purely metaphysical process where no physical entities were involved? if so please elucidate, or where you actually were counting physical items. Thanks!
Hi Carlos. Mathematical truths are known by what is called "a priori," which is not knowledge on a process (though certainly a priori knowledge can then be used with reasoning, another a priori knowledge base, and *that* reasoning is a process). What the claim is (about mathematical truths) is that one cannot know them by counting some thing, or going through an empirical process, without *already* relying on a priori knowledge. Suppose I want to see what happens when I take a singular group of items and combine them with another group of identical-type items. I want to know how many there are. Any counting, adding, multiplying, etc., will all rely on reasoning I *already* have. It's bringing math "to the table" to do empirical exercises. And that's all we need in order for simple scientism to be false.
Delete