I recently had an extended conversation with a young person who was totally convinced that science had all the answers to everything. Quite a claim. It was near impossible to develop a dialogue. Science as the explanation for all of\u00a0life is referred to as ‘scientism’.<\/p>\n
This issue of ‘scientism’ or science as religion is addressed in an excellent article by Age writer Barney Zwartz. Here’s a sampler:<\/p>\n
Where Lightman really impressed me was his acknowledgement that science, as a\u00a0 philosophical commitment rather than the specific practice of it, also requires\u00a0 a leap of faith. He talks of the “Central Doctrine of science”: “all properties\u00a0 and events in the physical universe are governed by laws, and those laws are\u00a0 true at every time and place in the universe. Although scientists do not talk\u00a0 explicitly about this doctrine, and my doctoral thesis advisor never mentioned\u00a0 it once to his graduate students, the Central Doctrine is the invisible oxygen\u00a0 that scientists breathe.”<\/p>\n
Thus, the doctrine goes, though we do not know all the fundamental laws now,\u00a0 and what we do know may change (as Einstein\u2019s law of gravity replaced Newton\u2019s),\u00a0 they exist and are in principle discoverable by humans. But of course, as\u00a0 Lightman admits, this cannot be proved. It is, as I said, a leap of faith.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Read Barney Zwartz’s excellent article (and some of the 235 comments!): Science as religion<\/a>.<\/p>\n
See my brief post, Science and faith<\/a>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
I recently had an extended conversation with a young person who was totally convinced that science had all the answers to everything. Quite a claim. It was near impossible to develop a dialogue. Science as the explanation for all of\u00a0life … Continue reading