 Hello, my name is Rick Peeles. I'm an assistant professor at the Freie Universität Amsterdam where I work in the philosophy department and over the last few years, I've been doing some research on scientism as well as a couple of issues in philosophy of religion and the ethics of belief as well as ignorance But today I'm going to talk about scientism And I'm going to address the question whether scientism is One could call the new scientific fundamentalism. So whether it's a kind of fundamentalism or maybe something else So that's going to be the topic today Let me start with an appetizer if you like So there is an American philosopher of science named Alex Rosenberg who has written on Scientism and who has defended scientism himself in detail. Here's how he defines the term He says scientism is the conviction that the methods of science are the only reliable ways to secure knowledge of anything The science's description of the world is correct in its fundamentals Science provides all these significant truths about reality and knowing such truths is what real understanding is about Being scientific just means treating science as our exclusive guide to reality to nature both our own and everything else is So this is a this is an incredible statement, right? If this is correct. It has tremendous implications This is what scientism on a on a strong version says So, um, let me start with a brief overview of um after this short appetizer of what I'm going to do today First I'm going to say a few words about what scientism is So what sort of a thing is it? Is it a thesis? Is it a stance and attitude? What does it say roughly? Then second, I'm going to look into varieties of scientism. So what what kinds of scientism are there? What varieties? third What arguments have been provided in favor of scientism? So what do adherents of scientism? Propose in defense of scientism fourth what has been said against it or could be said against it and finally I'm going to say something about how scientism relates to religious belief and to fundamentalism So that's the that's the plan for today So let's start with the question. What scientism is. I think this is uh, is a rather important question Um, and here's why let's start with this. Um, called by susan hag the american Um epistemologist from the university of miami. Here's how she defines the term scientism. She says Scientism is an exaggerated kind of deference towards science An excessive readiness to accept as authoritative any claim made by the sciences And to dismiss every kind of criticism of science or its practitioners as anti scientific prejudice This is how she defines the word several times actually, um in a couple of her books And many people have embraced similar definitions of scientism now My response to this is no, we shouldn't define scientism this way And here's why if we define it as an exaggerated kind of deference An excessive readiness to accept as authoritative and so on if that's how we're going to define scientism then Any substantial debate about scientism is is going to be impossible, right? Because it's been it's been described as exaggerated and excessive from the very start So I don't think this is very helpful And with certain other philosophers. I'm going to treat scientism as something different Let me explain how I'm going to treat it. Um, here's my alternative proposal First, um, I'm going to treat it as a thesis. So scientism is not An attitude of deference an excessive readiness. No, it's a thesis. It's a claim It's a statement And we're going to see in a second what it amounts to Second, I'm going to treat it as a neutral thesis in a way and by that I mean that the the way It is described should not imply that it's Unlikely or problematic or excessive, right? It should be neutral. It should be up to scrutiny And then finally I'm going to treat it as an epistemological claim So it's going to be a claim about rational belief or about knowledge More specifically Here's the claim only natural science gives us a rational belief And knowledge or and this is an alternative version of scientism There are no principle limits to science in the sense that it can give us knowledge about everything, right? So it gives us knowledge and rational belief about everything And an alternative version says only natural science gives us knowledge about anything and of course these two can can be combined So that's how I'm going to treat the word scientism. That's what's uh, what's the topic today? Well, um, if scientism says that only science provides rational belief or knowledge Then what doesn't provide rational belief or knowledge? What's what's the what's the contrast? Well, I think much of the contrast is common sense beliefs And here are a few examples. These are not all common sense beliefs But many of them are and by common sense. I mean the the kinds of belief many people have um In many places Many times in the course of history widely shared beliefs For instance beliefs based on memory, right? They're not based on science. I remember that I had Yogurt for breakfast this morning. That's based on memory It seemingly it's a rational belief and it's knowledge, but it's not it's not a belief based on science There are religious beliefs so believe for instance that god exists or Uh, that angels exist Basic mathematical and logical beliefs Such as 2 plus 2 is 4 or modus ponens is valid. So if p then q p hence q That's not a belief based on science Beliefs about free actions So I'm here today in adam burrow and I believe I freely came to adam burrow because I'm um I had the option of staying home in amsterdam, but I was fascinated by the topic and Like the invitation. So I came to adam burrow and I believe that it's a freely Beliefs about one's reasons So these are beliefs about why one did something or why one did not do something So I believe I I came to adam burrow to give this talk because I'm interested in And I think it's an important topic and I like the university of adam burrow the city of adam burrow So I believe I know my reasons for being here today Metaphysical beliefs are another example. So for instance the believe that If something is entirely transparent, it has no shadow That's a metaphysical belief. It's not based on science But many people hold that belief and they think it's irrational. There's nothing wrong with it And another example is moral beliefs, of course, we believe that The things ices does so the way they treat women and children, for instance Is often deeply immoral. That's not based on science And finally there are introspective beliefs. So these are beliefs about ourselves But they are not based On on science in any way. So I can believe that I'm hungry or that I would like to have a beer Or I can hold beliefs about my intentions So for instance the intention to go to oxford on the thursday So these are examples Of beliefs not based on science. So scientism on its stronger version would discount these beliefs But what is the purpose of my talk today? It is twofold. So on the one hand, I would like to Evaluate scientism in a sense that I want to sketch the arguments for scientism and also sketch the arguments against scientism And I'm not going to assess each of these arguments in detail because that would take me an entire day But I want to present them to you and then leave it to you to Well to decide whether or not they're convincing arguments And I'm also going to talk about whether scientism is an instance of fundamentalism So how does it relate to religion, for instance, and to worldviews? The final thing before we get to these arguments That I would like to say is why does the debate On scientism that we find nowadays in in philosophy in academics generally but also in for instance the atlantic So non-academic venues. Why does that debate matter? Here are three reasons. So why it matters first? It makes a difference to the scope of our knowledge and the way We want to acquire further knowledge about the world. So scientism is correct in its strong version Then the only way to get more knowledge about the world is by way of science If it's incorrect, then there are other ways to acquire knowledge about the world So it makes a big difference to how we think about about knowledge and about getting knowledge Second, it has quite drastic implications for religious beliefs and moral practices So if scientism is correct, then maybe Maybe we should give up certain religious practices or maybe religion altogether Same thing for morality. Maybe we should leave morality to scientists And a final important implication is that it might make a difference to certain judicious systems and Certain practices such as psychiatry So for instance if Only science can give us knowledge And if science doesn't give us any reason to think that there is free will or even reason to think that there is no free will Then maybe we should assume that people do not have free will in our judicious systems and in psychiatry So it should be based on on different ideas. So it potentially has Drastic implications and that's one of the so these are three reasons actually I think the debate about scientism matters Very much indeed