 Alright, so far we've had a look at what scientism says roughly and also why the debate about scientism is important. What we're going to do next is consider what kinds of scientism there are, what varieties of scientism there are. And the main distinction I would like to make is that between restricted kinds of scientism and unrestricted kinds of scientism. And we're going to see in a minute what that amounts to. Alright, so restricted scientism is scientism in a specific realm or about a specific topic. Here's one example, scientism about human beings. Here's Carl Sagan, the American cosmologist. He's written much about science and recent discoveries in cosmology. And here's what he says about human beings. He says, I'm a collection of water, calcium and organic molecules called Carl Sagan. You are a collection of almost identical molecules with a different collective label. But is that all? Is there nothing in here but molecules? Some people find this idea somehow demeaning to human dignity. For myself, I find it elevating that our universe permits the evolution of molecular machines as intricate and subtle as we are. That's what he says. Now, he's not very explicit about his scientism here, it's rather implicit. The idea is, if we look at science, science mentions only molecules, right? Only water and calcium and those sorts of things. And since only science provides knowledge, that means that that's all there is to it. There is no value, no consciousness and that sort of thing. We are just bags of atoms basically, that's what we are, human beings. So that's scientism about human beings. Here's another topic, scientism about metaphysics. So scientism about a specific field in philosophy that scrutinizes what exists and what does not exist. Here's Otto Neurat, who was one of the members of the Vienna Circle at the outset of the 20th century. And he believes that metaphysics is a misguided project because he believes that only the sciences give us true knowledge. Here's what he says. How does the elimination of metaphysics proceed in practice? Men are induced to give up senseless sentences and freed from metaphysics. But must this always remain so? Must everyone in turn go through metaphysics as through a childhood disease? Perhaps the earlier he gets it, the less dangerous it is to be led back to unified science? No. Every child can in principle learn to apply the language of physicalism correctly from the outset. First in a crude form, then in a more refined and precise way. So the idea is that we should get rid of the metaphysical language, and people should learn the language of physics, so even the physicalist language from the very start. And again, the background ideas, this is true because only natural science provides us with knowledge about reality. And we find somewhat similar ideas in the views and books and writings of contemporary philosophers such as Patricia Churchland and Stefan Sticht. They are slightly more positive about metaphysics, about the project, but they still believe that it needs to be heavily informed by natural science, because otherwise it won't provide us with knowledge. Here's more examples. Again, restricted scientism, so scientism about a specific area, and this time it's free will, big topic these days. Here's Dick Swapp, who's a Dutch neuroscientist. He says, our current knowledge of neurobiology makes it clear that there is no such thing as absolute freedom. The only individuals who are still free to degree, apart from their generic limitations, are fetuses in the earliest stages of gestation. And a second example is by Sam Harris, so the well-known American adherent of scientism and one of the so-called four horsemen of atheism. Here's what he says about free will. He says, free will is an illusion. Our wills are simply not of our own making. Thoughts and intentions emerge from background causes of which we are unaware and over which we exert no conscious control. We do not have the freedom we think we have. And if you read the book you will find out that this is all based on, or allegedly based on, science. So again, science doesn't tell us that there is free will and even suggests that there is no free will, hence we should not believe that there is free will. Any beliefs about the existence of free will or that this freely or she did that freely will be irrational. That will be an instance of knowledge. So those are restricted versions of scientism. Scientism in a specific realm or on a specific topic. But there are also scientisms that are not restricted. So they are unrestricted. They are meant to apply across the board. So they are theses about reality as a whole. So they say that natural science provides as knowledge potentially about anything and that only science provides as knowledge about anything. You might find this surprising but there are quite a few people nowadays who say that they do believe this. They call themselves adherents of scientism and they defend this in detail. I'm going to give a few examples of this. Here's William Provine, an American biologist. Here's what he says about science and its role in our lives. Modern science directly implies that the world is organized strictly in accordance with mechanistic principles. There are no purposive principles whatsoever in nature. There are no gods and no designing forces that are rationally detectable. Modern science directly implies that there are no inherent moral or ethical laws. No absolute guiding principles for human society. Human beings are marvelously complex machines. When we die, we die and that is the end of us. Modern science directly implies that free will, as it is traditionally conceived, that is the freedom to make uncourced and unpredictable choices among alternative possible courses of action, simply does not exist. There is no ultimate meaning for humans. Again, that's supposed to be implied by science. So here we have a list, a long list of things that do not exist, that are illusions, free will, value, gods or other supernatural forces, guiding principles in nature. Those are all illusions because only science provides us with knowledge and science does not tell us that there are such things. So this is unrestricted scientism. He's not the only one. Here's another example, B. F. Skinner, a well-known American behaviorist. And here's what he says about scientism. What, after all, have we to show for non-scientific or pre-scientific good judgment? So that common sense would be an instance of that, an example of that. Or the insights gained through personal experience, it is science or nothing. So those are really the options, it's science or nothing. And here's a final example of unrestricted scientism. And in what follows, I'm going to appeal several times to this particular philosopher because he is probably the most well-known defendant of scientism. And that is Alex Rosenberg. Here's his book, The Atheist Guide to Reality. So that book provides a detailed exposition of scientism and also gives several arguments for scientism. Here's what he says about what he takes scientism to be. If we're going to be scientistic, then we have to attain our view of reality from what physics tells us about it. Actually, we'll have to do more than that. We'll have to embrace physics, and here it comes as the whole truth about reality. We trust science as the only way to acquire knowledge. So that's pretty much the strongest statement that you will find in the literature. So science is our only, our exclusive guide to reality. If you want to know anything, then you should rely on science because only science provides knowledge. So that's what scientism says in its strongest versions on its unrestricted versions. And in what follows, I'm going to consider several arguments. Some of them are arguments for restricted scientism and other arguments are arguments for unrestricted scientism.