Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community


Robert J. Marks: How materialism proves unbounded scientific ignorance

Mathematician Kurt Gödel showed that there is an infinite number of truths that are provably unprovable. That's bad news for scientism, though not for science. Read More ›

Philosopher Mary Midgeley (1919–2018) on scientism

At RealClearScience: Science is a method and discipline, but Scientism is something more – it establishes a set of beliefs by which to view things. It sees science as “realistic” or “just the facts”, like some objective totem. What’s more, Midgley argued that Scientism is invariably aligned with some kind of excessive reductionism, where everything is reduced to neurons or evolutionary psychology, for instance. Read More ›

We are urged to believe in the “facts” of science yet, historically, these facts often change

Nicoll: The "scientific" label comes freighted with assumptions that a matter is factual, proven, and settled. Yet the dust-bin of science is filled with once-settled "facts" that stand as reminders that scientific conclusions can be wrong—very wrong. Read More ›

John West: Science and scientism in the Age of COVID

David Klinghoffer: As Dr. West explains, for all the blessings of science, there are problems with saying, as some literally have done, “In Fauci we trust.” Read More ›

CS Lewis, COVID-19, and scientism

"Seventy-five years ago, C.S. Lewis published his novel ”That Hideous Strength,” which explored the dangers of government in the name of science. What relevance does Lewis's advice on the promise and perils of science-based public policy have in the age of COVID-19 and beyond? " Read More ›

Science historian asks, What kicked off the ID movement?

He offers three events that he thinks boosted ID specifically: You can read about the first two for yourself at the link but you may not even have ever heard of the third (the discrediting of the Vienna Circle): ... Read More ›

Rob Sheldon defends sociologist Steve Fuller against Nathaniel Comfort

Sheldon: Post-modernists, which Comfort seems to identify with, have a valid point about scientism's ideological foundation on MN, but rather than rationally correct the error, as Phillip Johnson spent 29 years doing, they treat it as an ethical lapse justifying their own ideological, irrational behavior. Read More ›

Nathaniel Comfort, fresh off an op-ed in Nature, skewers pop Darwinian Steven Pinker

It’s getting so that Darwinians are being treated like ordinary folk who could actually be wrong about some things. What is the world coming to? Where is Queen Umpadeedle when they need her? Read More ›

J. P. Moreland on when it is right to reject “science”

For example, "The presence of a band of highly trained, academically qualified scholars with a good track record for publishing in top journals or with highly regarded book publishers, and who are unified in rejecting the view held by even a vast majority of the relevant experts. " Read More ›

The academic study of stupidity has turned up some interesting findings

As Michael Egnor tells us, scientism is not a cure for stupidity. But never mind, quite a few science savants have rushed in fearlessly: Evolutionary biologist David Krakauer, President of the Santa Fe Institute, told Nautilus, “Stupidity is using a rule where adding more data doesn’t improve your chances of getting [a problem] right. In fact, it makes it more likely you’ll get it wrong.” I won’t contradict an evolutionary biologist on the topic of stupidity. In any event, Italian economic historian Carlo M. Cipolla (1922–2000) argued that “A stupid person is a person who causes losses to another person or to a group of persons while himself deriving no gain and even possibly incurring losses” (his Third Basic Law Read More ›

Why neither weak nor strong scientism can ground ethics

Paul Copan: Science has built-in limitations, but some moderns have placed a burden on science that it cannot—and was never meant to—bear. Theology, philosophy, and other sources of knowledge not only help supplement what science can show, but they can also enrich our study of science. Read More ›

“The Bible says it, therefore I believe it”

The Bible says it, therefore I believe it Sal wonders why someone might say “the Bible said it, therefore I believe it”, unless they are “supremely gullible”. This is an epistemological question. I approve of the formula, so I’ll try and answer why. Firstly, let’s clear away some possible misunderstandings. The formula presupposes that the Bible really does say whatever the “it” is. Someone might choose to apply the formula to something the Bible doesn’t say. The Bible teaches the world ended last Tuesday, therefore I believe it – except that, it doesn’t. Those reading the Bible can be caught up in misunderstanding, misinterpreting, twisting, mistranslating, and the like. Such cases are not in view in this discussion. Secondly, the Read More ›