A NOTE ON SCIENTISM

by Yves Barbero

Skeptics, especially those organized into groups such as Bay Area
Skeptics, are often accused of 'scientism.' That particular term
is not always used and when it is, it is often misused to mean
that we make a religion of science.

My Random House Dictionary defines scientism as 1. Often
disparaging. the style, assumptions, techniques, practices, etc.,
typifying or regarded as typifying scientists. 2. the belief that
the assumptions, methods of research, etc., of the physical
sciences are equally appropriate and essential to all other
disciplines, including the humanities and the social sciences. 3.
Scientific or pseudoscientific language. [scient(ist) + ism]

The curious thing is that there are people who dislike us because
of this alleged 'religious' practice and others who, on
discovering that we're not structured to unquestioningly obey
whatever their notion of science is, walk away in disappointment.

In recent weeks, an astrologer accused CSICOP of worshipping
science in the body of a letter (Noe Valley Voice, Dec. 1988)
written in answer to one I wrote criticizing the community
newspaper for unquestioningly accepting the astrologer's
statements. In another case, a subscriber to our new electronic
bulletin board (The Skeptics Bulletin Board, 415-648-8944) was
angry that we had left a bulletin on the opening screen of the
Catholic Information Network BBS (CIN, 415-387-3251) promoting B.
Premanand's recent talk in San Francisco about the state of
skepticism in India. He didn't think we should traffic with
"miracle mongers." It struck me that he thought we were somehow
anointed and that we were soiling our purity by talking to a
religious group.

Much of the problem has to do with our culture which has many
carry-overs from a time when it was accepted practice to lay down
a foundation of premises, or ideology, or religious dogma before
even attacking a problem. To the novice, sound scientific
methodology is sometime mistaken for absolute and rigid rules
when it should simply mean insuring that personal prejudice
doesn't interfere with research (this can require some pretty
involved and precise procedures and still not need a foundation
of blindly accepted premises).

It is perfectly true that Skeptics 'borrow' from scientific
methodology and it is unfortunately true that without proper
scientific training, it's easy to fall into the trap of making
skepticism an ideology or a set of dogmas closely resembling
religion. Add to that the passion which often shows itself when a
group is expressing a minority viewpoint and a potent brew can
develop.

Indeed, there are fanatics expressing, as dogma, what mainline
skeptics only hold as tentative conclusions. Few of us, for
instance, think astrology or telepathy will ever be 'proven'
scientifically. But we have to recognize that our 'prejudice'
against these notions cannot stand in the way of our analysis of
such claims. We are therefore careful in the way we design
experiments.

Undoubtedly, more than a few people get involved with us because
they want to have like-minded people to talk to (I certainly came
in that way) and few of these people have formal scientific
training (I didn't). They soon discover that Bay Area Skeptics is
not a club as such (although friendships are made) and there is a
low tolerance of any dogmatic proclamations (even those which
"agree" with skepticism). It calls for a lot of self-education
and self-discipline. This is too much for some and they go on to
other, more club-like, organizations which comfort more than
educate.

The real goal is to understand the nature of things, to clear
away the clutter of culturally imposed assumptions about the
world and appreciate the raw beauty of nature. Mixed with an
appreciation of the arts and history, this approach beats the
hell out of any dogma, scientism included.


                                 -end-

Copyright (C) 1989 Yves Barbero
                   1073 Dolores Street
                   San Francisco, CA 94110