“And it is this very intellectual arrogance propped up by the Capitalist values of the vertical hierarchy of classicism that Rorty and the pragmatic approach seek to undermine…. And no doubt he [John] can buttress his position with the fact that the money goes where he is going –something that the inquiries of science and mathematics seem blind to.
“But let us also look at the hypocrisy of passing off all processes that don’t bow to science and the capital that backs it (simply because they can’t produce an I-phone (as somehow beholden to the supernatural or a religion when, in fact, Science and Capitalism has become the new religion: a faith, according to the analytic approach (once again: backed by capital, that must condemn (by any means necessary (the non-believers: pragmatists, post-moderns, me….” –Rhizome 3/24/16
“Science thinks it knows more than it does.” –Donald Hughes
“I thought the whole idea behind science is that it is not infallible. That would make it fantastic. Like a deity?” –Tony Rothwell
I would first admit that Rhizome 3/24/16 was not one of my best moments in that it was primarily inspired by having nothing better to write about: to fill the 4 to 500 word space I have committed to everyday –that is except for Tuesday (the second day of my weekend (which I have delegated to being something like a normal person: no facebook and a barbecue –weather permitting. But I digress.
While it may have been a bit of an exaggeration to call science the new religion (and though I spent a lot of time at work last night second guessing myself (I would still argue that it is more of a faith than its advocates would like to admit. And I risk the informal fallacy of an appeal to authority in pointing out that Rorty and many postmodern thinkers point to the enlightenment folly of displacing religion only to put science in as a replacement that only continued many of the same hierarchal social dynamics. And I would also note science’s close relationship with Capitalism (via corporate financing (which can be seen to be a kind of religion in its faith in the god-like entity of the “Invisible Hand” of the market. As I like to say (exploiting the paradigmatic nature of language:
It use to be “pray hard and follow these principles, and you too may enter the kingdom of heaven”.
Now it’s “work hard and follow these principles, and you too may enter the kingdom of success”.
And I would argue this to be a dynamic at the back the minds of those who advocate fanatical scientism, those who would arrogantly assume that science and mathematics has some kind of privileged language game.
But let’s put aside the effect of Capitalism on science and focus on science in itself. As Donald and Tony rightly suggest, there is an element of faith involved in extreme scientism. And if you think about it, this faith is generally argued for based on what it believes science will eventually be able to do. It presumes a determined universe based on the few simple systems it has managed to predict via linear causality. For instance, it is based on this linear causality that it can present the homunculus problem as proof perfect of the non-existence of free will and the illusion of consciousness. But the homunculus problem seems to have no application to the causal (and likely non-linear (feedback loop that occurs between the body, the brain, and the environment they are working to negotiate.
What I’m struggling (fumbling even (to get across here is that what scientism is engaging in (including that which obtusely dismisses philosophy and the pragmatic approach (is, in fact, a form of faith in that it is working from its successes with finite systems and making totally unjustified leaps to the nature of reality: the infinite. Its claim to privilege is based on an assertion that everything is determined based on the few determined systems it has found (those it can predict ( and, therefore, can only prop up its privilege on what it assumes it will EVENTUALLY be able to do: the promise land of science (the kingdom of success.