There is no doubt that science, as a discipline, has been the primary contributor to the relative well-being, and the greatest accomplishments, of our modern age. However this disproportionate contribution also brings problems of perspective with it.
Scientific "philoshopica" is used to denote the usefulness of current academia. Everything studied must have a use of industrial purpose for use in the market place... The familiar "what Job are you doing after you finish" may ring a bell. Essentaially this thread serves as a discussion of scientism i.e. Why is it that philosophy has been replaced in highschools with scientism & modern socialism such as evolutionary theory and history of revolutions. Many exit high school with a firm devotion to Darwin and Marx, who in reality, were very questionable individuals. (see modernism post).
One might argue that Western Thought justifiably gives a lot of credit to science. That may be so. In fact, one might say it gives it too much credit. To explain this, I must first define what I mean by science and scientism.
Science is that collection of disciplines which have one thing in common : they seek to describe and explain natural phenomena. The general method of science, although each discipline has its particular and numerous secondary methods, is called the "scientific method". It is a principle which states that when we observe a phenomenon that we need to explain, we must follow definite steps, like forming one or many hypothesis, seek to confirm or disprove them with objective experiments, see what predictions we could make on their basis and seek their confirmation, submit for peer review in various ways, and so on. This method is accepted because it works.
What do I call scientism then? The American Heritage Dictionary defines it as : "the belief that the investigative methods of the physical sciences are applicable or justifiable in all fields of inquiry". This is an appropriate definition for the phenomenon which seems endemic to Western thought. We see the success of science, and extrapolate that it must be the key to all problems. This is no doubt prompted by the apparent relative failure of philosophy.
The other side of Western thought that fulfills this role is religion. Many scientists, even in the Western world, give a lot of lip service to consilience between science and religion, although such a link is quite impossible. In the population at large, religion and science are both given a lot of lip service, but little else. This is why I say that the main struggle, and paradoxically the main fulfillment, of Western thought is between science and religion.
No doubt it is easy to recognize that scientism and humanism are in general better ideas than religions. Religious faith cannot bring anything, by its very nature, but grief and destruction. However, methods should not be chosen by a pragmatic "best fit", but rather by reality, and things just don't work that way. Science is a discipline with a definite field of application and limits.
We have to appreciate the limits of science in order to attain a true epistemic balance. As I said, science deals with tangible, natural phenomena - it cannot deal with all of the abstract or imaginary domain, such as disciplines like ethics, or ideas like supernaturalism. Its genesis and end is in measuring nature, and it can only discuss or refute things or effects which are grounded in concrete natural phenomena. Scientism is untenable because of this.
