Blinded by Scientism? The Proper Role—And Limits—Of Science in the Quest for Truth | Edward Feser
Apr 22, 2024
auto_awesome
Philosopher and author Edward Feser discusses the limitations of scientism and the role of philosophy in rationality. The podcast explores the challenges of physics in capturing qualitative aspects of nature, Russell's views on physics and causation, as well as critiques of Lawrence Krauss and Daniel Dennett's perspectives on scientism and consciousness.
Science cannot fully describe reality due to its quantitative focus, neglecting qualitative aspects like color and consciousness.
The concept of laws of nature in science faces limitations in explaining phenomena, questioning their nature and origin beyond scientific inquiry.
Scientism oversimplifies knowledge by equating science with all real knowledge, ignoring other valid sources and facing inherent contradictions in materialistic views.
Deep dives
Scientificism and its Flaws
Scientificism, the belief that science alone provides objective knowledge, faces significant challenges. The view that only scientific methods secure knowledge cannot be scientifically proven and relies on philosophical assumptions. Science cannot provide a complete description of reality, as it focuses on quantitative aspects, ignoring qualitative experiences. The dilemma for scientism lies in being either self-refuting or trivial, lacking solid justification.
Descriptive Limits of Science
Science's quantitative focus limits its ability to fully describe reality, especially in capturing qualitative aspects like color, taste, or consciousness. Physics' abstract nature contrasts with the qualitative richness of human experience. The primary-secondary quality distinction raises significant philosophical challenges in fitting subjective experiences into a purely quantitative physical world.
Explanatory Limits of Science
Science's use of laws of nature as explanatory tools faces limitations. Explaining phenomena solely through physical laws raises questions about the nature and origins of these laws. The attempt to explain the universe from 'nothing' highlights gaps in scientific explanations, indicating that laws of nature cannot provide ultimate explanations. The philosophical underpinnings of laws of nature go beyond the scope of scientific inquiry.
Different Interpretations of Laws of Nature
Interpretations of laws of nature vary, with some viewing them as mere regularities without explanatory power. This perspective posits that laws only describe patterns without elucidating the underlying reasons for these patterns. Additionally, considering laws as abstract entities akin to Plato's forms introduces the concept that physical entities participate in these laws. However, regardless of these interpretations, the ultimate explanation of the world remains elusive, requiring insights beyond the realms of scientific inquiry.
Critique of Scientism and Daniel Dennett's Views
Scientism, the belief in science as the ultimate source of knowledge, faces criticism for oversimplifying complex issues. One common argument for scientism highlights the predictive and technological successes of science, implying that science encapsulates all real knowledge. However, this argument is flawed as it equates predictive power with reality without considering other valid sources of knowledge. Furthermore, the summary of Daniel Dennett's book highlights how his materialistic view on mind and reality presents inherent contradictions, including the dismissal of aspects that materialism cannot explain as unreal, showcasing the limitations of scientism.
