Scientism "unscientific"

If science could not only reveal -- but determine -- questions about how individuals should live and how societies should function, it would be easier for people to express their unwarranted deniability of scientific claims than to question the unreasonable authority that limits us in the name of science.

When, during the Novel Coronavirus pandemic, the government claimed to be pursuing "evidence-based policy", it linked science to one of the most chaotic and disturbing social and political shifts in the country in living memory, so it was no wonder that public discontent was directed at science itself. The reality is that while the "science" view of the world becomes a political necessity, it also makes attacking science the only conceivable form of dissent.

By fostering this political culture, responsibility for political decisions is placed above science. This makes science a viable way to justify political decisions, and makes questioning science the only way to question political decisions. Yet whether defending or challenging, the discussion that should be about politics is misguided. Political decisions are not made by science alone, but the fact is that political decisions, or any decisions, are driven by ideas and values, not by facts alone. As Jana Bacevich wrote on the Guardian's editorial page recently: "The priority for policymakers at these times is a matter of political judgment. Are the lives of the old and the sick? Is it the national economy? Political approval ratings?" If our ability to argue about values is not deteriorating, we should demand that policymakers account for the precedence of some values over others, rather than succumb to the claim that scientific facts determine their choices, just as politicians have no choice.

For those unhappy with policy, denying scientific evidence is easy. Even when the evidence is strong and the argument against it is simply untenable, people will try to deny it rather than question the legitimacy of the claim that scientific evidence dominates choice. It doesn't take much of a psychological leap to discredit scientific claims -- after all, we're used to scientific theories being upended repeatedly -- so it shouldn't be surprising if theories that are currently proven to be true turn out to be false. On the other hand, it is harder to attack an entire worldview by denying the meaning of questions that cannot be answered with empirical evidence.

It is our descent into scientism that forces us to abandon public debate about questions that lack factual answers. Questions such as how the individual should act, what constitutes a happy life, and how society should be structured fall at best into the realm of private introspection. The reason these questions are rarely addressed in public discourse is because they are inconclusive. So when it comes to any question of value and meaning, the only thing left in politics is the liberal approach: leave the power of choice to everyone and interfere with it as little as possible. Even expressing opinions about other people's decisions is trespassing and officious, and it's up to individuals to clean up their own affairs. The best attitude towards problems that cannot be solved by science is to remain agnostic and let others do as they please. The fallacy is that just because we can't decide how to act and how to live does not mean we have completely lost the basis for judging other choices.

Scientists, public intellectuals and journalists all lament science denialism, but they have nothing better to do than urge us to do more to struggle through a sea of fake news. This is because they refuse to be drawn into the root of the problem, and doubling down on the denial that "there is a valid explanation outside of science" does nothing to solve the problem. After scientism has hollowed out certain objections and objections to individual values and ways of life, what is left for the public to complain about other than science itself when faced with policies that claim to "follow science"? Timothy Caulfield complained in a recent Nature editorial page, "I call this' exploitation science 'for the use of scientific language to promote untested ideas. The science of exploitation is used to justify their products. Alas, this is also too effective. Proponents claim that homeopathy and reiki therapy rely on quantum physics." Yet once scientism has stripped away the grounds on which some claims can be taken seriously, what Caulfield calls "the science of exploitation" is almost inevitable.

Homeopathy is an easy target, of course, but Caulfield also broadly assails less outdoorsy natural remedies. People seek medical unproven solutions not just because they defy the experts, but because health is so important that medical science often fails to help. Scientists' solution to medical pseudoscience should not be to insist that the science is true or that other ideas are irrational; Rather, it is to acknowledge the limitations of scientific knowledge and thus the legitimacy of decisions based on otherwise unscientific evidence. The untenable claim that alternative medicine is "fake pseudoscience" would not be necessary if medical science did not emphasize that treatments based on certain grounds are completely unreasonable. Alternative medicine, then, can be accepted for what it is -- unproven but backed up by hearsay or folk wisdom.

Our political discourse is similarly constrained by scientism, which in turn undermines public understanding of science. Political decisions are never "based on factual evidence," but rather evidence that tells us how to achieve political ends and minimize political threats. It is the values we hold that determine the political ends we pursue and then the decisions we make based on the evidence we have. Political goals are always controversial, and difficult and urgent political decisions have to be made at the expense of some values. This pandemic threatens the things we hold dear -- the vulnerable, public health, the economy, freedom -- and when choices are made, some must be sacrificed to preserve others. If policymakers can justify their decisions with their values, they may do better than pretending to just "follow the science". At the very least, these decisions allow them to be challenged for neglecting certain values, rather than forcing a denial of their scientific basis. Furthermore, it reduces the incentive for some politicians to obfuscate science, for example by devising a statistical approach that minimises the number of deaths recorded.

In a health crisis or any human life crisis, it really seems like there is no other option. We must follow science, whatever is necessary for the pure purpose of saving lives. Other ideas seem callous. However, the choice only seems simple, because the only values we can seriously discuss are the values of human life and the value of the economy. This is the minimum requirement to avoid a descent into nihilism. Nevertheless, it is inconsistent to claim that life has meaning without attributing meaning to its properties and attributes. Acknowledging that life has value is asking us to think more deeply about what it is and what else it is.

The Novel Coronavirus pandemic has revealed the fault lines between science, policy and public opinion, particularly in the more serious and looming crisis of climate change. In recent years, climate change denialism seems to be disappearing, but that may simply be because it is no longer necessary: the ideas of climate indifference and climate fascism have gained ground in the fight against reducing carbon emissions. Even those who believe that climate change is real and accelerating will conclude that it is too late to do anything about it.

This should come as no surprise, because the problem has never been the denial of scientific evidence, but rather our society's calculation of its own failure to value. It is these values that sacrifice human and ecological prosperity for material and personal gain. Scientism is responsible for this failure, for it teaches us that health, moderation, kindness, meaningful work, and social connections are not goals worth taking seriously, the very things we need to defend ourselves against selfishness and greed. They are completely disproved simply because they cannot be rigorously measured.

If scientists and defenders of science are to tackle the spread of pseudoscience and scientific denialism, and clear the way for the public to understand Novel Coronavirus, climate change and the like, they must get to the root of the problem -- scientism's refusal to take seriously any problem that cannot be solved by empirical research. As long as science is accompanied by scientism, and as long as policy is "dominated" by science, dissatisfaction with actual policy will shift from its serious goal (policy itself) to its less serious goal (science). Crises demand that we have serious political discussions about "important issues," but the prevailing scientific worldview makes those discussions impossible because we cannot empirically demonstrate what exactly "important issues" are. This is how scientism has undermined public debate and undermined trust in science and experts.

Scientism is the idea that science is regarded as the best or only objective means by which society determines its normative or epistemological values. The term "scientism" is often used for criticism, meaning the embellishment or embellishment of science in an inappropriate context. Applications in these contexts are considered to be inconsistent with methods of scientific application or similar scientific standards.

Homeopathy is a form of alternative medicine. Homeopathy is based on the theory that "the same agent cures the same disease," meaning that in order to treat a disease, a drug needs to be used that produces the same symptoms in healthy people. For example, the poisonous plant belladonna can cause a throbbing headache, high fever, and facial flushing. Thus, the homeopathic agent Belladonna is used to treat patients with fever and sudden throbbing headaches