Scientism and‘Scientific Empiricism'

Scientism is the belief that science, especially natural science, is much the most valuable part of human learning—much the most valuable part because it is much the most authoritative, or serious, or beneficial. Other beliefs related to this one may also be regarded as scientistic, e.g. the belief that science is the only valuable part of human learning, or the view that it is always good for subjects that do not belong to science to be placed on a scientific footing. When, as has happened frequently since the seventeenth century, philosophers claim to have made morals, or history, or politics, or aesthetics, or the study of the human mind into a science, they take it for granted that for a subject to become a science is for it to go up in the world. ¹ The idea that the acquisition of scientific status is always desirable seems to be mistaken: it exaggerates the value of science. But this and other scientistic ideas, I am going to argue, are not properly rebutted by attempts to denigrate science or to expose as empty its supposed pretensions. A framework is needed that enables one to recognize the considerable value of science alongside the considerable value of many other parts of learning. Fortunately, a framework of this kind exists, though not in an entirely satisfactory form. Kant has a theory about the arts, sciences and religion that implies that all are means of developing a moral culture. The theory sometimes looks scientistic itself, but I offer an interpretation that dispels this impression and then a defence of the general approach in the face of some influential theories opposed to it.