The problem with scientism is that it is either self-defeating or trivially true. F. A. Hayek helps us to see why. Here is the first of a two-part series on the subject I wrote for Public Discourse. The second installment will appear on Friday.
Blinded by Scientism
by Edward Feser
Comments (4)
I wonder about Hayek's subjective/objective distinction. Could it not be supposed that the mind can be understood objectively. That if we really figured out all those bio-chemical processes in the brain we could understand what we now see as subjective in an objective way? That is it would depend on the observers brain but that could be part of the objective reality being studied.
Really it becomes a matter of faith when you suppose there is something non-material about the human reaction to things. That love, morals, beayty, etc. are actually not purely material interactions of matter. That there is something spiritual about them. I beleive that is true but it isn't obvious to everyone. Saying "the mind just is" seems to import that assumption. That the human mind is immune to being reduced to an object and completely understood in objective terms.
Posted by Randy | March 9, 2010 5:16 PM
Sheesh, Randy, did you just not read the article, or did you read it and simply fail to understand what Ed was talking about?
Posted by The Deuce | March 9, 2010 5:32 PM
From any sane philosophical point of view, the study of secondary causes acting in a (possibly) fallen cosmos would constitute the lowest form of human knowledge and understanding. Valuable, yes, but the pinnacle of knowledge and wisdom? Absurd. Worshiping science as if it were the holy of holies is its own punishment.
Posted by Matteo | March 10, 2010 12:26 AM
Kudos to you, Ed. And Wesley J. Smith has a post on the article, too!
Posted by Lydia | March 10, 2010 8:52 AM