Transcendental Illusions: The Scientism Trap

[DocWatts]

Thought I might share this write-up for my philosophy book, '7 Provisional Truths', on how Scientism is an incoherent perspective that's parasitical upon genuine science.

Some additional context for this section is that it's part of a chapter which critiques Transcendental Rationality in favor of Metarationality, using conceptual categories to illustrate how context and perspective are features - not bugs - of human reason.

* Note that 'Transcendental' here, refers to the viewpoint that ideas and concepts transcend our human perspective, and are inherent features of a mind-independent Reality. (Plato's 'Theory of Forms' is an excellent example of this kind of thinking, along with Scientific Realism and Kantian Idealism).

____________________________________________________________

Transcendental Illusions: The Scientism Trap

At its core, this phenomenological approach to categories seeks to embrace, rather than transcend, the limitations of our human perspective. Beyond how counterintuitive this approach may seem, an additional objection might be raised. Doesn't a means of accounting for our human biases already exist, built into the structure of the scientific method? 

To address this objection, we first need to distinguish between simplified portrayals of the scientific method in popular culture, and how it operates in a real-world context. These portrayals  tend to overlook the integral role of human interpretation in scientific inquiry. In this folk understanding, scientific practice consists of a gradual accumulation of perspectiveless, uninterpreted ‘facts’, retrieved from a mind-independent Reality. In actuality, science is heavily interpretative; driven by a productive tension between competing viewpoints that, despite their differences, ultimately fuels scientific progress.

While this tension between competing viewpoints is crucial for scientific progress, it operates within a structured framework. This framework, known as the scientific method, provides the rigor and consistency that distinguishes science from other forms of inquiry. A more thorough characterization of science, therefore, must begin with the scientific method. The scientific method is a systematic process for investigating the behavior of the natural world. It uses careful observation and controlled experimentation to develop iterative, falsifiable models that distinguish true cause-and-effect relationships from coincidental patterns.

Much could be said about the degree to which science achieves this laudable aim in practice. For our present purposes, we’ll confine ourselves to what this more nuanced perspective on the scientific method means for our intuitions about categories. In essence, it demolishes the assumed link between ‘Transcendental Categories’ and genuine scientific principles, exposing noticeable shortcomings in folk theories of science. What’s essential to understand about this assumed link is that it’s derived from metaphysical assumptions, not a rigorous application of scientific principles. The supposition that our conceptual categories are transcendent representations of a mind-independent Reality is not a falsifiable conclusion that can be evaluated through controlled scientific experimentation. Instead, it’s a starting assumption that incorrectly gets associated with the precision and authority of science.

The same critique also applies to ‘‘Transcendental Objectivity’ and ‘Transcendental Reason’. At their core, these Transcendental epistemologies exhibit a parasitical relationship with science;  riding the coattails of its authority, while foregoing the rigor that makes science a credible source of knowledge. Unlike scientific theories, which are subject to testing and falsification, these transcendental concepts are beyond the scope of controlled experimentation. This would be fine, since not every type of truth is amenable to the methods of science (including many of the ideas within this book), except that Transcendental epistemology is often veiled within an aura of unassailable truth. This is problematic because it reinforces a distorted perception of science that’s disconnected from how the discipline actually operates. 

At its worst, Transcendental epistemology can morph into a view known as scientism. This perspective, while claiming to champion science, actually misrepresents it in a profound way. In contrast to genuine science, scientism is a murky chimera of scientific aesthetics and metaphysical suppositions. It contends that the only ‘valid’ forms of truth are those that are amenable to the scientific method. While at the same time, it insists that Transcendental metaphysical assumptions, which are beyond the scope of science, are absolutely true. Needless to say, this is an inconsistent, and arguably incoherent, viewpoint; it’s the epistemological equivalent of trying to have one’s cake and eat it too.

Edited August 11 by DocWatts

[Leo Gura]

6 hours ago, DocWatts said:

While at the same time, it insists that Transcendental metaphysical assumptions, which are beyond the scope of science, are absolutely true.

Worse than that, it tends to deny that it has any metaphysical assumptions by claiming that metaphysics is nonsense.

[DocWatts]

21 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Worse than that, it tends to deny that it has any metaphysical assumptions by claiming that metaphysics is nonsense.

 

Scientism is the 'I'm not like other girls' of epistemologies 😆