Scientism and Epistemological Problems
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
The question whether science can acquire true knowledge has been widely debated in the Philosophy of Science and Epistemology fields. Scientism upholds the belief that only scientific methods can access knowledge. Other methods cannot provide access to knowledge. This paper will present an epistemological problem in scientism regarding methodological scientism. This includes 1) the problem of objectivity and observation in science, and 2) the problem of inductive inference in science. This paper demonstrates that these two problems are the causes of why we cannot believe science in the way scientism proposes. It is therefore important to truly understand science, not only believing in the epistemic authority in science This paper proposes that educational institutions should teach Methodology and Epistemology as foundation knowledge, and that the understanding of science should be disseminated to the public by relevant organizations.
Downloads
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
References
Acar, O., Turkmen, L., & Roychoudhury, A. (2010). Student difficulties in socio-scientific argumentation and decision-making research findings: crossing the borders of two research lines. International Journal of Science Education, 32(9), 1191–1206.
Atkins, P. (1995). Science as truth. History of the Human Sciences, 8(2), 97-102.
Barbour, I. G. (1990). Religion in an Age of Science. New York: Harper & Row.
Barbour, Ian G. (1990). Religion in an Age of Science: The Gifford Lectures 1989– 1991. Volume 1. New York: SCM Press.
Bridges, D., & Smith, R. (Eds.). (2007). Philosophy, methodology and educational research. New Jersey: Willey-Blackwell. Couvalis, G. (1997). The Philosophy of Science: Science and Objectivity. London: Sage.
de Ridder, G. J. (2014). Science and scientism in popular science writing. Social Epistemology Review and Reply Collective, 3(12), 23–39.
Gasparatou, R. (2017). Scientism and Scientific Thinking: A Note on Science Education. Science & Education, 26(7-9), 799-812.
Hanson, N. R. (1958). Patterns of Discovery. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hartwig, M., & Nelson, P.A. (1992). Invitation to Conflict: A Retrospective Look at the California Science Framework. Colorado Springs: Access Research Network.
Hawking, S., & Mlodinow, L. (2010). The grand design. New York: Bantam Books.
Hume, D. (2000). An enquiry concerning human understanding: A critical edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kuhn, D. (1993). Science as argument: implications for teaching and learning scientific thinking. Science Education, 77(3), 319–337.
Kuhn, D., Schauble, L., & Garcia-Mila, M. (1992). Cross-domain development of scientific reasoning. Cognition and Instruction, 9(4), 285–327.
Ladyman, J. (2002). Understanding Philosophy of Science. London: Routledge.
Liu, S., & Roehrig, G. (2019). Exploring science teachers’ argumentation and personal epistemology about global climate change. Research in Science Education, 49(1), 173-189.
Medawar, P. B. (1963). Is the scientific paper a fraud. The Listener, 70(12), 377–378.
Nielsen, K. (1997). Naturalistic explanations of religion. Studies in Religion/Sciences Religieuses, 26(4), 441-466.
Peels, R. (2015). Het fundamentele argument tegen sciëntisme. Algemeen Nederlands tijdschrift voor wijsbegeerte, 107(3), 267-284. (In Dutch)
Peels, R. (2018). A conceptual map of scientism. In de Ridder, G. J., Peels, R., & van Woudenberg, R. (Ed). Scientism: prospects and problems, pp. 28-5, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Riggs, W. (2019). Open-Mindedness. In Battaly, H. (Ed.). The Routledge Handbook of Virtue Epistemology, pp. 141-154, New York: Routledge.
Rosenberg, A. (2011). The Atheist’s guide to reality: Enjoying life without illusions. New York: W.W. Norton.
Russell, B. (1946). History of Western Philosophy, and its Connection with Political and Social Circumstances from the Earliest Times to the Present Day. London: Allen and Unwin.
Saenkum, D. & Sangkachan, A. (2020). An Analysis of Thai State and Buddhism Reformation in the Reigns of King Mongkut and King Chulalongkorn. Political Science and Public Administration Journal, 11(1), 141-170. (In Thai)
Smith, R. (2008). Proteus rising: re-imagining educational research. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 42(1), 183–198.
Sriworakun, S. (1975). The problems of empiricism in understanding experience. Master Thesis, M.A. in Arts, Department of Philosophy, Graduate School, Chulalongkorn University. (In Thai)
Standish, P. (2012). Transparency, accountability, and the public role of higher education. Educational Futures, 5(1), 3–14.
Stenmark, M. (1997). What is scientism?. Religious Studies, 33(1), 15-32.
Stickney, J. (2009). Wittgenstein’s contextualist approach to judging “sound” teaching: escaping enthrallment in criteria-based assessments. Educational Theory, 59(2), 197–216.
Trigg, R. (1993). Rationality and Science: Can Science Explain Everything?. Oxford: Blackwell.
van Woudenberg, R. (2011). Truths that science cannot touch. Philosophia reformata, 76(2), 169-186.
Zeidler, D. L., Walker, K. A., Ackett, W. A., & Simmons, M. L. (2002). Tangled up in views: beliefs in the nature of science and responses to socioscientific dilemmas. Science Education, 86(3), 343–367.