Skip to main content

Quite Evidently Scientism

Sherlock Holmes paused momentarily and shifted the position of his pipe. His faraway look slowly changed to a look of resolute confirmation. “I conclude that the butler must have done it. I can see clearly here that his shoe prints are in the mud, as he is the only person in the area with those shoes, and this type of mud was found on his shoes at his house. We found a page from his personal stationary at the scene of the crime, and the knife has his fingerprints on it. The gardener saw him to it, and immediately reported it to the neighbors who were also watching. The butler claims to have no memory, but has no other alibi for the time in question, and we know that the butler had a deep hatred of the victim and was observed trying to get help to kill the victim.”

“Not so fast” say Dr. Watson. “You have used evidence to form your conclusion.  That is Scientism.”

“Evidence and deduction, Dr. Watson” replies Holmes. “I base my conclusion on firm reasoning based on the clearest of evidence.”

Watson: “But you seem overly confident in your evidence based conclusion. After all, there could be other ways to conclude who the murderer was besides the empiricism of observation and logic. Empiricism will only tell you things valid to science, but there are other philosophies than science.”

Holmes: “Still, it is immediately obvious. All the evidence points to one person, who had motive, and there is nothing here that contradicts this conclusion.”

Watson: “But have you actually proven that the butler did it?”

Holmes: “Well, no. In science, nothing is ever proven. We can conclude a given law of nature, and we might see things conform to that law a million times in a row, but there is no way to prove that all such occurrences will obey the law. I may see the sun rise 10,000 days in row, but there is no way to prove that the sun will rise tomorrow.  Without proof, I still have the requisite confidence.”

Watson: “But your confidence in your conclusion is evidence that you suffer from Scientism: an unjustified confidence in the methods of science. Since you can not prove that the butler did it from evidence, you should simply not be saying that the butler did it. There are other possibilities, and other methods to determine those possibilities. Have you tried divining the answer? Or checking today’s horoscope readings?”

Holmes: “I can’t prove the butler did it, however he is by far the most likely person to have done it. There is nobody else in the area that could possibly have done it, not to mention the virtual impossibility of entering and leaving the scene without leaving a trace. It is virtually certain.”

Watson: “Virtually certain is not certain. Science gives you a means to know some things, but we simply don’t know how much there is that we don’t know.”

Holmes: “I may not have proven that the butler did it, but I could assign a probability of being right. I could use the theorem of Reverend Bayes invented more than 100 years ago. By evaluating the likelihood of the various different occurrences. Given the specific number of things we know and can count on reliably occurring I would estimate at least 99% confidence in my conclusion.”

Watson: “However, that confidence is based only observable evidence. But you can not observe things that are outside the observable world. Science can only say things about the observable world, but it can say nothing about the unobservable world. With science, you can’t even say how large the unobservable world is. Who knows, unobservable world might be far larger, and more significant, than the observable world,and if that is true, then your confidence could not be higher than 50%. Only a fool would say that observation is a reliable way to know things.”

Holmes: “My Dear Dr. Watson, observation is the only way to make any conclusions about any crime scene.”

Watson: “There you are again: Scientism. You are completely ignoring and devaluing other ways of knowing things. It is possible that a miracle occurred; maybe a dragon walked on water or traveled backward in time.  You can’t rule these things out.”

Holmes: (obviously flustered) “Well, if you don’t think that the butler did it, then what evidence do you have to the contrary? Who do you think did it? What other possibility is there?”

Watson: “Well, I don’t know. You are the detective, not me. The problem is simply that you are expecting empiricism to tell you the full story. It is unscientific to say that science provides all the evidence. Anything outside of science can not be even discussed scientifically.”

Holmes: “But if we are to solve the crime, and if we are to identify the perpetrator, then it is imperative to have some evidence that leads to the conclusion. We can’t just go accusing people without any evidence.”

Watson: “Tut tut, that is Scientism again. All we know is that we don’t know if there is something we don’t know, and that empiricism will not be able to tell us if there is something we can’t observe. I am afraid you have to admit that you have not solved this case.”

Holmes: “But then who do you think did it?”

Watson: “I have no idea. I am just saying that to say that ‘the butler did it’ would be a gross misuse of the clues we have. We have no other candidate, and we have no other clues to go on, but the problem is simply expecting that clues will tell us anything about reality. It might be that you or I did the crime, and that the butler was the detective, because once you realize that clues themselves are unreliable, then anything is possible.”

Holmes: “It is almost as if that was your purpose in the first place for bringing up Scientism. It seems rather convenient that you wish to believe in something without any evidence. Therefor, cognitive dissonance has forced you to consider that evidence is over rated, and possibly even worthless. But this is the course to madness: if anything is possible, and evidence is meaningless, then what is to keep you from believing that Q is a real person, and chemtrails are a government plot? If clues are not reliable, then maybe you or I should be put in prison, and everyone else let free. This is insanity.”

Watson: “Right you are again. Learn to let go of your false belief in Scientism. I know this from the giant bunny in the sky who communicates to me through the floorboards of my house. Listen, there he is just now. I have this bottle of sulfuric acid to drink: would you like half of it? Don’t answer, because your answer would be just more empirical evidence which we know to be unreliable. Here, have some, the fact that you are kicking and struggling to get away should not be confused with actual knowledge that you don’t want it. Sherlock! Hey Sherlock! Come back here! Or maybe you are still here, and the evidence of you running away is not to be trusted.  Maybe Sherlock was never here at all, and the giant bunny sent an impersonator. Well well, keeping it all to myself means I have 5 times as much as I had before. . . . . . ”

Discussion​

Scientism is a name given to an overconfidence in the methods of science.  It is used almost exclusively by religious people in an attempt to undermine the confidence that scientist have in their world view.

Gödel has shown us that in any system of logic, there are problems that can not be solved inside that system of logic.  Similarly, a system of logic can not say anything about things outside that system.  Science is a method of obtaining knowledge based on observation.  Of course science can only talk about things that can be observed.  If there are things that are not observable, then clearly observation tells you nothing about them.

A mature scientist realizes that no amount of evidence will ever prove that something does not exist anywhere in the universe.  Thus nothing can be proven absolutely true everywhere.  All we can do is to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.  How much doubt is reasonable?  Quantum mechanics theory has been used to predict things to 14 digits of accuracy, but does that mean it is the truth?  A mature scientist can not say that anything is proven.

At the same time, it is reasonable to talk about things we are confident in as being true.  The Earth is a planet.  Gravity keeps the earth in its orbit around the sun.  The sun will rise tomorrow.  We know that science is never 100%, but the difference from 100% is simply not worth worrying about in polite conversation.  Speech is approximate, and a high confidence is so close to the truth that even though there is always the possibility of being wrong, we should call it the truth until something proves otherwise.

Burden of Question​

If Watson is going to question Sherlock’s conclusion, it would seem that there is a burden on Watson to provide an alternative.  It is not acceptable to simply say that “science is not completely reliable.”  It would seem that one must provide some alternative that is at least a fraction as reliable.

But how then do you to evaluate whether this alternative is worth considering?  You can’t ask for evidence since the alternative is offered as coming from an unobservable realm.  How does one determine if the alternative is reliable if one can’t observe it, or any of the effects of it?  This is the tree that the anti-scientismist gets wrapped around.

Arguing that unobservable things are reality is the way to madness.  But many people embrace that madness, and cry out that anyone who does not is guilty of Scientism.

A Desire to Believe at all Costs​

The only motivation that I can conceive is that these people simply do not want to believe in what is observably true. They are beholden to something, and there is no evidence, and so they really need some way to discount evidence as a category.

Even stating the preceding paragraph makes me sound arrogant and bigoted.  Which is how they play it.  Still, if you are going to reject evidence, then what can you use instead to determine whether something is true or not.   It just feels that way?  Feeling is not reliable at any level.

To the religious, I would say this:  If God gave you a universe that is primarily quite rational, and He gave you a brain capable of understanding the rational universe, why would He then go an undermine all that by presenting truths that violate all this?  If he wanted people to reject evidence, so that reality was illogical in the first place, so that the brain is always failing to discover truths about the universe, then why give Man a logical brain in the first place?

Malevolent Manipulation​

It is quite a bit more likely that this is the result of people manipulating other people.  One might easily see a charismatic, but evil, leader manipulating people to do things for him.  Such a leader will persuade with logic when available, but as a last ditch effort will insist that whatever evidence you think you have is invalid.  “Believe me and not your own senses,” is what the charismatic leader says.  This makes perfect sense.

Gaslighting is a term that has come into being recently, and it comes from the movie “Gaslight” where one person is manipulated by another to an extent that they doubt their own sanity.  It seems clear to me that the argument against Scientism is just an attempt to gaslight people into believing things which have no evidence.  It is sophistry designed simply to benefit those who undermine the work of others who make conclusions by observation.

You have Scientism on one hand, and Voodoo on the other.  Take your pick.