A Place for Science at the University Level
Philosophy – A Science?
Kevin Lowell paints a grim picture of a phenomenon he calls “scientism”. He goes on to bemoan that scientism views philosophy and religion as irrelevant. It is the aim of all good philosophy to adhere to the same strict principles as all science, and often to go beyond these in the more theoretical contemplations of what others might carelessly call “reality”. But even though philosophy is repeatedly described as unscientific, this is just one of the many objections I have to the original article.
Other Truths
The reader is told that scientism illegitimately “seek
to shut down any other form of rational inquiry or debate”. The reader, and I suspect there would be many a follower of scientism among them – is not told just what these other forms of “rational inquiry or debate” are. How can we arrive at knowledge and “truth” with any degree of certainty without following the scientific method?
I suspect that these truths would amount to no more than mere opinion. And whilst anyone is entitles to their opinion, an opinion that goes contrary to what science or the scientific method tells us, is hardly the kind of truth that I would expect to be taught or even accepted in a university. It certainly is not the kind of truth that adheres to my (and science's) standards of what makes a notion true.
Are you a scientismist?
The article accuses members of the academic staff of promoting scientism in their lectures. Again, no examples are given and no names are named. A higher degree of not only intellectual honesty as well as scientific precision is called for and I am looking forward to the responses from some of the professors.
Evolution and Clever Apes
This part finally appears to repeal what the author's beef is with scientism. He has a personal dislike of what he believes to be one of the consequences of evolution. I will not go into why evolution has nothing to do with scientism and everything to do with science; but I will point out that is wrong to reject a scientific theory only because one doesn't like it. Nothing could be more unscientific. (I will also not go into why it is not a shortcoming that a scientific theory is a theory.)
It appears to be the author's opinion that if evolution was true, then humans and the human experience would not be special any more. Again, this is hardly an argument against the truth of the theory of evolution. Furthermore, this opinion of his is not dictated by the branch of philosophy that is logic. So I will offer an opinion of my own, fully aware that it is nothing more than this, but proud of the fact that it doesn't require for possible truths to adjust to it:
There is no master plan for the universe, no preset course of events that the cosmos should adhere to. Hence, there can be no accidents diverting from this course. Coincidental as it may be, my existence is no accident. My existence and that of the world around me is amazing, awe inspiring and fantastic in its own right. There is no need for a higher purpose as I can give my life meaning and purpose. That you might not like this view, doesn't make it wrong.
Evolution describes me as a clever ape, but it doesn't reduce me to a clever ape. This is a value judgement inherent to the authors worldview, but not one dictated by science and and it certainly is not substantiated by the author himself.
"Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?" - Douglas Adams, The Hitch Hikers Guide to the Galaxy
)