Scientism and anti-scientism as ideological attitudes of technogenic civilization

The cult of science and its proclamation as the highest value of the development of human civilization led to the establishment in the 20th century. scientistic worldview. Scientism (from Latin scientia - knowledge, science), presented science as a cultural and ideological model and was considered by supporters of this worldview as the ideology of “pure, value-neutral big science.” He prescribed focusing on the methods of natural and technical sciences, precise mathematized natural science, and extended scientific criteria to all types of human relationships with the world, to all types of knowledge and human communication as well; it is characterized by an absolutization of the role of science.

Simultaneously with scientism, anti-scientism also arose, proclaiming directly opposite attitudes, characterized by a very pessimistic attitude towards the possibilities of science. Antiscientism was based on the negative consequences of scientific and technological revolution and demanded a limitation of the expansion of science, a return to traditional values ​​and ways of activity.

Scientism and anti-scientism are two sharply conflicting orientations in modern world. Supporters of scientism welcome the modernization of everyday life and leisure, the achievements of scientific and technological revolution, are convinced of the limitless possibilities of science, in particular that it is capable of solving all the pressing problems of human existence, and enthusiastically welcome all new evidence of technological progress.

Antiscientists see purely negative consequences of scientific and technological revolution; their pessimistic sentiments intensify as the hopes placed on science in solving economic and socio-political problems collapse. Antiscientists emphasize the importance of art, religion, and morality in human life. Philosophical antiscientism contrasts science and freedom; religious anti-scientism insists on the religious motivation of all human manifestations.

It is important to emphasize that scientism and anti-scientism are universal in nature, permeating the sphere of everyday consciousness - the areas of morality and aesthetics, law and politics, upbringing and education - regardless of whether such mentalities are called the indicated terms or not. Sometimes the mentality of scientists and anti-scientists is frank and open, but more often they are expressed hidden and hidden. In philosophy, scientistic tendencies are manifested in ignoring its semantic problems and ideological character.

It is not difficult to identify supporters of scientism and anti-scientism: the arguments of scientists and anti-scientists are diametrically opposed. Scientists welcome the achievements of science - anti-scientists are prejudiced against scientific innovations; scientists proclaim scientific knowledge as the highest value of culture; anti-scientists never tire of emphasizing the inadequacy of science and a critical attitude towards it.

Scientists, looking for arguments in their favor, recall that modern science, refuting the shackles of medieval scholasticism, advocated the justification of culture and new, truly humane values. They quite rightly emphasize that science is the productive force of society and has unlimited cognitive capabilities.

Anti-scientists, as their argument, emphasize that, despite the numerous successes of science, humanity has not become happier and is exposed to dangers, the source of which was science itself and its achievements. Consequently, science is not capable of making its successes a benefit for all mankind.

Scientists consider science to be the core of all spheres of human life and strive to “scientify” the entire society as a whole, arguing that only through science can life become organized, manageable and successful. In contrast, antiscientists are convinced that the concept of “scientific knowledge” is not identical to the concept of “true knowledge” - the sphere of feelings and experiences is no less important for a person.

Scientists deliberately ignore many acute problems associated with negative consequences general technocratization. Antiscientists resort to extreme dramatization of the ritual, exaggerate the colors, drawing scenarios for the catastrophic development of humanity, thereby attracting a large number of their supporters.

Indeed, the danger of obtaining chemical synthesis products that are unsuitable for food, acute problems in the field of health and ecology force us to talk about the need for social control over the use of scientific achievements. However, rising living standards and the involvement of unprivileged sections of the population in this process add arguments in favor of scientism.

In the history of philosophy, there are cases of fierce resistance to the spread of the scientistic worldview. Thus, the representative of existentialism, Søren Kierkegaard, contrasts science as an inauthentic existence with faith as a genuine existence and, completely devaluing science, asks tricky questions: What discoveries has science made in the field of ethics? Does people's behavior change if they believe that the Sun revolves around a stationary Earth? Is the spirit capable of living while waiting for the latest news from newspapers and magazines?

“The essence of Socratic ignorance,” S. Kierkegaard summarizes a similar line of thought, “is to reject curiosity of all kinds with all the strength of passion in order to humbly appear before the face of God... The inventions of science do not solve human problems and do not replace the much-needed human spirituality. Even when the world is engulfed in flames and disintegrates into elements, the spirit will remain with itself, with the calls of faith. To interpret the invention of the microscope as a little fun is all right, but to attribute seriousness to it would be too much... Pretentious naturalists make a religion out of “laws.” The main objection raised by Kierkegaard against the natural sciences (and indeed against positivist scientism) is this: “Is it possible that a person, perceiving himself as a spiritual being, could be carried away by the dream of natural sciences (empirical in content)?” A natural scientist is a person endowed with talent, feeling and ingenuity, but at the same time does not comprehend himself. If science becomes a form of life, then the problem of realizing one’s spiritual essence remains unresolved.

Antiscientists are sure that the invasion of science into all spheres of human life makes life soulless and devoid of romance. The spirit of technocratism denies the world of authenticity, high feelings and beautiful relationships. An inauthentic world emerges, which merges with the sphere of production and the need to constantly satisfy ever-increasing “materialistic” needs. Adherents of scientism distorted the life of the spirit, denying it authenticity. Scientism, making capital out of science, commercialized science and presented it as a substitute for morality. Only the naive and unwary cling to science as a faceless savior.

The ardent anti-scientist Herbert Marcuse expressed his indignation against scientism by formulating the concept of “one-dimensional man,” in which he showed that the suppression of the natural, and then the individual, in man reduces the diversity of all its manifestations to just one technocratic parameter. Those overloads and overvoltages that befall modern man, testify to the abnormality of society itself, its deeply painful state. The situation is complicated by the fact that a narrow specialist (homo faber), who is extremely overloaded, overorganized and does not belong to himself, is not only a representative of technical professions; a humanist may also find himself in a similar dimension, whose spiritual aspiration will be squeezed by the grip of normativity and obligation.

The famous logician Bertrand Russell, who received his Nobel Prize in literature, in the later period of his activity he became a supporter of anti-scientism. He saw the main flaw of civilization in the hypertrophied development of science, which led to the loss of truly humanistic values ​​and ideals.

The author of the concept of personal knowledge, Michael Polanyi, emphasized that modern scientism fetters thought no less than the church did. It leaves no room for our most important inner convictions and forces us to hide them under the guise of blind and absurd, inadequate terms.

Representatives of extreme anti-scientism demand to limit and slow down the development of science. However, this position is short-sighted, since in this case there arises urgent problem meeting the needs of the ever-increasing quantitatively population in elementary and already familiar life benefits, not to mention the fact that it is in scientific and theoretical activity that “projects” for the future development of mankind are laid down.

The dilemma “scientism - anti-scientism” appears as an eternal problem of social and cultural choice. It reflects the contradictory nature social development, in which NTP turns out to be a reality, and its negative consequences not only affect culture, but are also balanced by the highest achievements in the field of spirituality. In this regard, the task of a modern intellectual is very difficult - according to E. Agazzi, it is to simultaneously defend the sciences and resist scientism.

It is also noteworthy that anti-scientism automatically flows into anti-technology, and arguments of an anti-scientist nature can easily be identified in purely scientific (scientist) issues, in the self-reflection of science, revealing difficulties and obstacles scientific research, exposing the endless debate and imperfection of science. It is no coincidence that Paul Feyerabend, analyzing the essence modern science, convinced that already in the distant past it was absolutely known that an attempt at a rationalistic study of the world has its limits and gives incomplete knowledge. He proposed a model of pluralistic epistemology that would use the heuristic potential of myth, play, and involuntary activity. Science, from his point of view, as the ideology of the scientific elite should be deprived of its central place and equated with mythology, religion and even magic. This strongly expressed anti-scientist position is directed against critical rationalism and suggests a reassessment of values. Moderate antiscientism finds its expression in environmental consciousness, forming its core.

Noteworthy in connection with the anti-scientist position are the arguments of Bishop J. Berkeley (1685-1753) that if people weigh the great labors, diligence and abilities that have been used for so many years to develop the sciences, and realize that, despite this, a significant, large part of the sciences remains full of darkness and doubtfulness, and will also take into account disputes that seem to have no end in sight, and the fact that even those sciences that are considered based on the clearest and most convincing evidence contain paradoxes that are completely insoluble for human understanding, and that, in the end, only a small part of them brings true benefit to humanity other than innocent entertainment and amusement; if people weigh all this, they will easily come to complete hopelessness and complete contempt for all learning.

The history of philosophy is rich in examples of complaints about the complexity of science. David Hume (1711-1776) argues that it is not even particularly necessary deep knowledge in order to notice the imperfect state of the sciences at the present time; after all, the crowd standing outside the temple of science can judge by the noise and the screams that it hears that not everything is going well inside it. There is nothing that is not the subject of controversy and about which people of science do not hold conflicting opinions. The most insignificant questions do not escape our debate, and we are not able to give any reliable answer to the most important ones.

Warnings against the sciences gained strength, paradoxically, precisely during the Enlightenment. According to Jean-Jacques Rousseau, one must go through many mistakes, a thousand times more dangerous than the benefits brought by the truth, in order to achieve this truth. He emphasized that if our sciences are powerless to solve the problems that they set for themselves, then they are even more dangerous due to the results to which they lead. Born into idleness, they, in turn, nurture idleness, and the irreparable loss of time is where the harm they inevitably bring to society is expressed first of all.

Russian philosophers also do not remain indifferent in discussing the issue of the shortcomings of science. N.P. Ogarev (1813-1877) is confident that science is not so ubiquitous that the movement of society can be accomplished solely on its basis; Science has not reached the fullness of content and certainty for every person to believe in it.

Another part of the criticism of science comes from spiritually oriented thinkers. P.D. Yurkevich (1804-1860), for example, sees the secondary nature, auxiliary and dependence of science on the more dominant world of hidden spiritual comprehension. Here the arguments are already directed from a sphere that is not science, but has been accompanying it since the earliest times: each science has value only as an aid to some craft, until it makes it possible to notice or feel that behind the external, which is the world, there is a higher world, spiritual, the world of light and truth."

The judgments of N. Berdyaev (1874-1948), L. Shestov (1866-1938), S. Frank (1877-1950) occupy a special place in the criticism of science and have enormous influence due not only to the conclusions given in them, but also to their fierce pathos and worries about the fate and spirituality of humanity. N. Berdyaev is convinced that faith in the God of science has now been shaken, trust in absolute science, in the possibility of building a scientific worldview that satisfies human nature, has been undermined. He sees the reasons in the fact that new phenomena are intruding into the field of scientific knowledge, which the official dogmatism of scientists had recently rejected as supernatural... On the other hand, philosophy and epistemology have found out that science cannot substantiate itself, cannot strengthen itself in within the limits of exact knowledge. Science has its roots in depths that cannot be explored simply scientifically, but with its tops science rises to the sky. Even for people of scientific consciousness it is becoming clearer and clearer that science is simply incompetent in resolving the issue of faith, revelation, and miracle. And what science will take upon itself the courage to solve these questions? After all, it’s not physics, not chemistry, not physiology, not political economy or jurisprudence? There is no science, there are only sciences, asserted N. Berdyaev. The idea of ​​science, united and all-resolving, is experiencing a serious crisis; faith in this myth has fallen. Science is only private form adaptation to particular forms of life.

Berdyaev solves the problem of scientism and anti-scientism in his own way, distinguishing between science and scientificity. He notes that no one seriously doubts the value of science. Science is an indisputable fact that people need. But one can doubt the value and necessity of scientificity. Science and scientificity are completely different things. Scientificity is the transfer of the criteria of science to other areas that are alien to spiritual life, alien to science. Scientism rests on the belief that science is the supreme criterion of the entire life of the spirit, that everything must submit to the order established by it, that its prohibitions and permissions are of decisive importance everywhere. Scientificity presupposes the existence of a single method... But even here we can point to the pluralism of scientific methods, corresponding to the pluralism of science. It is impossible, for example, to transfer the method of natural sciences to psychology and social sciences. And if science, according to N. Berdyaev, is the consciousness of dependence, then scientificity is the slavery of the spirit to the lower spheres of existence, the tireless and widespread consciousness of the power of necessity. Berdyaev comes to the conclusion that scientific universality is the formalism of humanity, internally torn and spiritually disunited. Discursive thinking is forced.

L. Shestov laments that science has conquered the human soul not by resolving all its doubts, and not even by the fact that, as most educated people think, it has proven the impossibility of resolving them satisfactorily. She seduced people not with her omniscience, but with worldly blessings, which humanity, which had been in poverty for so long, pursued with the same swiftness with which a beggar, exhausted by a long fast, pounces on a piece of bread offered to him. Tolstoy, Dostoevsky and others tried to restore morality against science - but their efforts in this direction were fruitless. Morality and science are sisters, born from one common father, called law or norm. At times they may quarrel with each other and even hate each other, as often happens between relatives, but sooner or later the blood will tell, and they will certainly reconcile.

Shestov draws attention to the real contradiction that nests in the core of mature science, when a huge number of individual facts are thrown overboard as excessive and unnecessary ballast. Science takes into its jurisdiction only those phenomena that constantly alternate with a certain correctness; the most precious material for it are those cases when the phenomenon can be artificially caused at will, i.e. when experimentation is possible. But what about isolated phenomena that are not repeated and cannot be caused? If all people were blind and only one of them regained his sight for a minute and saw the beauty and splendor of God’s world, states Shestov, science could not take into account his testimony. Meanwhile, the testimony of one sighted person means more than the testimony of a million blind people. Sudden insights are possible in a person’s life, even if only for a few seconds. Is it really necessary to remain silent about them, because under normal circumstances they do not exist and they cannot be called at every given minute?! Science demands it. Shestov appeals to his contemporaries to forget scientific quixoticism and try to trust themselves.

However, neither the end of the second millennium nor the beginning of the third offered a convincing solution to the dilemma of “scientism and anti-scientism.” Humanity, suffocating in the grip of rationalism, pins its hopes on spiritual salvation in numerous psychotherapeutic and meditative practices, while highly appreciating their scientific basis. Despite the dead ends of technological development, the progressive development of civilization is connected precisely with science, and not with spiritual and moral growth. In a scientific worldview, a person appears as a bearer of efficiency and normativity, as a completely rational being, subordinate to linear progress.

©2015-2019 site
All rights belong to their authors. This site does not claim authorship, but provides free use.
Page creation date: 2018-01-31

IN late XIX– at the beginning of the 20th century, an ideological direction emerged in philosophy that absolutizes the role of scientific knowledge in the cultural system. The emergence of this phenomenon became possible thanks to the dynamic development of science and the subsequent growth of interest among scientists in determining the role and place of science in the life of society. The described line of thought came to be called “ scientism».

It is generally accepted that the roots of the ideological position of scientism are contained in the utopia “New Atlantis”, written by Francis Bacon at the beginning of the 17th century. Scientist positions are strong in the philosophy of positivism. The tendency towards scientism is also easily found in Marxism.

The most typical representatives of scientism are considered to be logical positivists (M. Schlick, L. Wittgenstein, O. Neurath, R. Carnap, G. Reichenbach, etc.), who considered scientific only those statements whose truth or falsity can be verified experimentally or through a procedure verification. They considered all other statements meaningless and false.

Domination scientism at a certain stage led to negative phenomena in the development of socio-humanitarian knowledge. External imitation of the exact sciences led to the artificial use of mathematical symbolism in the analysis of socio-humanitarian problems, as well as to the deliberate giving of the study of philosophical problems the form of the exact sciences. Moreover, scientism absolutized the natural and exact sciences as the only knowledge. In its extreme manifestations (as, for example, in neopositivism), scientism came to a complete denial of the cognitive meaning and significance of philosophical problems.

During the scientific and technological revolution (STR), the concept of antiscientism, denying unlimited possibilities science in solving the problems of the existence of human society. The anti-scientist approach emphasizes the important, but not the dominant place of science in the organization of social life.

The anti-scientist approach draws attention to the limitations of possibilities scientific method in solving problems of the existence of human society. Extreme manifestations of anti-scientism lead to an assessment of science as hostile to human existence.

Antiscientism considers socio-humanitarian knowledge as a form of consciousness in relation to which the principle of scientific research is inapplicable. Philosophy is defined as something that stands above science and is fundamentally different from it. Science, which is utilitarian in nature, is not capable of achieving an understanding of the true problems of man and the world.

According to antiscientists, scientism suppresses personality and deprives it of a human face. In particular, the English physicist and philosopher Michael Polanyi argued that scientism is currently just as strongly constraining human thinking, as the Church did in the Middle Ages. German philosopher Herbert Marcuse, developing the concept of the “one-dimensional person,” showed how the diversity of personality is reduced to one technocratic parameter. The Japanese thinker Daisetsu Suzuki believed that the desire of scientism for objectivity in the knowledge of personality leads to the study of human life as scientific and conceptual, while a person lives a deep personal life, to which it is impossible to apply scientific terms.

In the 20th century, criticism of scientism became widespread in the format of dystopias, in which the authors showed perfect science, which led to the suppression of individuality and freedom. Outstanding dystopian works were created by such literary masters as H. Wells, E. Zamyatin, R. Bradbury, the Strugatsky brothers, O. Huxley and others.

The cult of science in the 20th century. led to attempts to proclaim it as the highest value of the development of human civilization. Scientism (from the Latin Scientia - knowledge, science), considering science a cultural and ideological model, in the eyes of its supporters appeared as the ideology of “pure, value-neutral big science.” He prescribed focusing on the methods of natural and technical sciences, and extending scientific criteria to all types of human exploration of the world, to all types of knowledge and human communication as well. Simultaneously with scientism, its antithesis arose - antiscientism, proclaimed exactly the opposite principles. He was very pessimistic about the possibilities of science and proceeded from the negative consequences of scientific and technological revolution. Antiscientism demanded a limitation on the expansion of science and a return to traditional values ​​and ways of doing things.

Scientism and anti-scientism represent two sharply conflicting orientations in the modern world. Supporters of scientism include all those who welcome the achievements of scientific and technological revolution, the modernization of life and leisure, who believe in the limitless possibilities of science and, in particular, that it is capable of solving all the pressing problems of human existence. Science turns out to be the highest value, and scientists with enthusiasm and optimism welcome more and more evidence of technological progress.

Antiscientists see purely negative consequences of the scientific and technological revolution; their pessimistic sentiments intensify as all hopes placed on science in solving economic and socio-political problems collapse.

The arguments of scientists and anti-scientists are easily decoded, having the opposite direction.

The scientist welcomes the achievements of science. An antiscientist is prejudiced against scientific innovation.

The scientist proclaims knowledge as cultural highest value. The antiscientist never tires of emphasizing a critical attitude towards science.

Scientists, looking for arguments in their favor, draw on their famous past, when the science of the New Age, refuting the shackles of medieval scholasticism, acted in the name of substantiating culture and new, truly humane values. They quite rightly emphasize that science is the productive force of society, produces social values ​​and has unlimited cognitive capabilities.

The arguments of anti-scientists are very winning when they notice the simple truth that, despite the numerous successes of science, humanity has not become happier and faces dangers, the source of which was science itself and its achievements. Consequently, science is not capable of making its successes a benefit for all people, for all of humanity.

Scientists see science as the core of all spheres of human life and strive to “educate” the entire society as a whole. Only thanks to science can life become organized, manageable and successful. Antiscientists believe that the concept of “scientific knowledge” is not identical to the concept of “true knowledge.”

Scientists deliberately turn a blind eye to many acute problems associated with the negative consequences of general technocratization. Anti-scientists resort to extreme dramatization of the situation, exaggerate the colors, drawing scenarios of catastrophic development of mankind, thereby attracting a larger number of their supporters.

However, in both cases, scientism and anti-scientism act as two extremes and reflect the complex processes of modernity with obvious one-sidedness.

Orientations of scientism and anti-scientism are universal in nature. They permeate the sphere of everyday consciousness, regardless of whether the corresponding terminology is used and whether such mentalities are called a Latin term or not. You can meet them in the sphere of moral and aesthetic consciousness, in the field of law and politics, upbringing and education. Sometimes these orientations are frank and open in nature, but more often they are expressed hidden and hidden. Indeed, the danger of obtaining chemical synthesis products unsuitable for food, acute problems in the field of health care and ecology force us to talk about the need for social control over the use of scientific achievements. However, the increase in living standards and the involvement of unprivileged sections of the population in this process adds points in favor of scientism.

Existentialists publicly declare the limitations of the idea of ​​epistemological exclusivity of science. In particular, Søren Kierkegaard contrasts science, as an inauthentic existence, with faith, as a genuine existence, and completely devaluing science, bombards it with tricky questions. What discoveries has science made in the field of ethics? And does people's behavior change if they believe that the Sun revolves around a stationary Earth? Is the spirit capable of living while waiting for the latest news from newspapers and magazines? “The essence of Socratic ignorance,” summarizes a similar line of thought by S. Kierkegaard, “is to reject curiosity of all kinds with all the strength of passion in order to humbly appear before the face of God.” The inventions of science do not solve human problems and do not replace the spirituality that is so necessary for man. Even when the world is engulfed in flames and disintegrates into elements, the spirit will remain with itself, with the calls of faith.

Antiscientists are confident that the invasion of science into all spheres of human life makes it soulless, devoid of a human face and romance. The spirit of technocratism denies the life world of authenticity, high feelings and beautiful relationships. An inauthentic world arises, which merges with the sphere of production and the need to constantly satisfy ever-increasing materialistic needs. Anti-scientists believe that adherents of scientism have distorted the life of the spirit, denying it authenticity. Scientism, making capital out of science, commercialized science and presented it as a substitute for morality. Only the naive and unwary cling to science as a faceless savior.

The ardent anti-scientist G. Marcuse expressed his indignation against scientism in the concept of “one-dimensional man,” in which he showed that the suppression of the natural, and then the individual, in man reduces the diversity of all its manifestations to just one technocratic parameter. The overloads and overstrains that befall modern man speak of the abnormality of society itself, its deeply unhealthy state. In addition, the situation is complicated by the fact that a narrow partial specialist (homo faber), who is extremely overloaded, overorganized and does not belong to himself, is not only a representative of technical professions. A humanist whose spiritual aspiration will be squeezed by the grip of normativity and obligation may find himself in a similar dimension.

Bertrand Russell, who won the Nobel Prize for Literature in 1950, leaned towards anti-scientism in the later period of his activity. He saw the main flaw of civilization in the hypertrophied development of science, which led to the loss of truly humanistic values ​​and ideals.

Michael Polami, the author of the concept of personal knowledge, emphasized that “modern scientism fetters thought no less than the church did. It leaves no room for our most important inner convictions and forces us to hide them under the guise of blind and absurd, inadequate terms.”

Extreme anti-scientism requires limiting and slowing down the development of science. However, in this case, the urgent problem arises of meeting the needs of an ever-growing population for elementary and already familiar life benefits, not to mention the fact that it is in scientific and theoretical activity that “projects” for the future development of mankind are laid down.

The dilemma of scientism - anti-scientism appears to be an eternal problem of social and cultural choice. It reflects the contradictory nature of social development, in which scientific and technological progress turns out to be a reality, and its negative consequences are not only reflected by painful phenomena in culture, but are also balanced by the highest achievements in the field of spirituality. In this regard, the task of a modern intellectual is very difficult. According to E. Agazzi, it consists of “simultaneously defending science and opposing scientism.”

It is also noteworthy that anti-scientism automatically flows into anti-technology, and arguments of an anti-scientist nature can easily be obtained in purely scientific (scientist) issues, revealing the difficulties and obstacles of scientific research, exposing endless disputes and imperfections Sciences. The pathos of warnings against the sciences, paradoxically, was strong precisely during the Enlightenment. Jean-Jacques Rousseau said: “How many dangers, how many false paths threaten us in scientific research!

How many mistakes, a thousand times more dangerous than the benefits brought by the truth, must one go through in order to achieve this truth? If our sciences are powerless to solve the problems that they set for themselves, then they are even more dangerous due to the results to which they lead. Born into idleness, they, in turn, feed idleness, and the irreparable loss of time is where the harm they inevitably bring to society is expressed first of all.” And therefore, doing science is a waste of time.

Judgments of Russian philosophers, in particular N. Berdyaev (1874-1948), L. Shestova (1866-1938), S. Frank(1877-1950), occupying a special page in the criticism of science, have a huge influence not only because of the conclusions they present, but also because of their fierce pathos and touching concern for the fate and spirituality of humanity.

Berdyaev solves the problem of scientism and anti-scientism in his own way, noting that “no one seriously doubts the value of science. Science is an indisputable fact that people need. But one can doubt the value and necessity of scientificity. Science and being scientific are completely different things. Scientificity is the transfer of the criteria of science to other areas that are alien to spiritual life, alien to science. Scientificity rests on the belief that science is the supreme criterion of the entire life of the spirit, that everything must submit to the order established by it, that its prohibitions and permissions are of decisive importance everywhere. Scientificity presupposes the existence of a single method.

But even here we can point to the pluralism of scientific methods, corresponding to the pluralism of science. It is impossible, for example, to transfer the method of natural sciences to psychology and social sciences.” And if science, according to N. Berdyaev, is the consciousness of dependence, then scientificity is the slavery of the spirit to the lower spheres of existence, the tireless and widespread consciousness of the power of necessity, dependence on “world gravity.” Berdyaev comes to the conclusion that scientific universality is the formalism of humanity, internally torn and spiritually disunited. Discursive thinking is forced.

L. Shestov aptly notes that science has conquered the human soul not by resolving all its doubts, and not even by proving the impossibility of their satisfactory resolution. She seduced people not with her omniscience, but with the blessings of life. He believes that “morality and science are sisters,” who will certainly be reconciled sooner or later.

Shestov draws attention to the real contradiction nesting in the core of established science, when “a huge number of individual facts are thrown overboard by it as excessive and unnecessary ballast. Science takes into its jurisdiction only those phenomena that constantly alternate with a certain correctness; The most precious material for it is those cases when a phenomenon can be artificially caused at will. When, therefore, an experiment is possible.” Shestov appeals to his contemporaries: forget scientific quixoticism and try to trust yourself. He would have been heard if man had not been such a weak creature in need of help and protection.

However, the beginning of the third millennium did not offer a convincing answer to the dilemma of scientism and anti-scientism. Humanity, suffocating in the grip of rationalism, with difficulty finding spiritual salvation in numerous psychotherapeutic and mediative practices, places its main bet on science. And how Doctor Faustus, having sold his soul to the devil, connects the progressive development of civilization with it, and not with spiritual and moral growth.

In the conditions of masculine civilization, the question of feminist criticism of science. As you know, feminism affirms the equality of the sexes and sees in the relations between men and women one of the types of manifestations of power relations. Feminism began to make itself known in the 18th century, first emphasizing the legal aspects of equality between men and women, and then in the 20th century. — the problem of actual equality between the sexes. Representatives of feminism point to different schemes of rational control in relation to men and women, to a constant deficit in the demand for female intelligence, organizational abilities and spirituality. They demand the removal of female talents from the “sphere of silence.”

The killer argument, when, starting from antiquity, a person was identified with the concept of a man and, accordingly, it was he who was delegated to all state roles, gave women the opportunity to blame masculine civilization for all the flaws and disasters and with particular force to demand the restoration of their rights. At the same time, even under the conditions of scientific and technological revolution, the situation of unrealistic equality of opportunity has been preserved. Women have the opportunity to participate in the economic labor market. But their opportunity to be chosen is small. A necessary component of choice preferences includes the presence of masculine traits: masculinity, initiative, aggressiveness.

And although history knows many names of female scientists, the problem of suppression of the feminine principle in culture, science and politics is very acute. Simone de Beauvoir in her famous book “The Second Sex” (1949) showed that society cultivates the masculine principle as a positive cultural norm and hurts the feminine as negative, deviating from standards.

The question is whether it is possible to talk about a feminist trend in science and how to define it - either as the simple actual participation of women in scientific research, or as their epoch-making contribution, determining the development of scientific knowledge, remains open. The notorious distinction between female and male logic is also problematic.

from lat. scientia - science) - absolutization of the role of science in the cultural system, in the ideological life of society, when taking as a model natural Sciences(especially physics - physicalization of everything), mathematics (mathematization of everything).

Excellent definition

Incomplete definition ↓

SCIENTISM (in sociology)

direction to burzh. sociology of the 19th–20th centuries, whose representatives are oriented towards sociology. research and sociology, theory on problems and methodology of natural sciences. Sci. S. is one of the integral elements of the concepts of Comte, Spencer, and others. The first stage of S. is characterized by the development of naturalistic-evolutionist concepts of societies. processes (Spencer, Tarde, Gumplowicz, Ward). The basis of sociology at this stage is the demarcation of social knowledge and philosophy, the desire to transform sociology into a positive science. The second stage in the development of S. begins in the 20s. 20th century as a result of the development of sociology as an empirical knowledge. The program of "scientist" sociology, formulated in the 30s. "sociological neopositivism" (J. Landberg) in the USA, includes opposition to sociologists-evolutionists 19 - early. 20th centuries Specific A feature of modern “scientist” sociology is the emphasis on the applied, social-engineering function of social knowledge. According to the views of modern “scientists”: 1) the sociologist does not determine the goals and problems of the study - this is decided by the “management” of society, 2) the “management” receives from the hands of sociologists “tools” (i.e. data, recommendations, advice), which it can apply or not apply at your own discretion, and if applied, then in any direction, 3) to develop these recommendations, sociology must abandon philosophy. view of society and from oneself. identifying trends in societies. development. It's pragmatic. understanding social function science is associated with the place it occupies in the system of social relations. Ch. S.'s supporters see the achievement of their discipline in the fact that it has taken the path of developing methods for the partial rationalization of capitalism. society in the field of production, everyday life, politics and makes available to monopolists and politicians the information necessary to mitigate contradictions and conflicts (crime, racial discrimination, unemployment, etc.). Sociology, which consistently and flawlessly fulfills the orders of the “leadership” (which is supposedly identical to meeting the needs of society as a whole), becomes, according to S., a force for the scientific development of society. The concept of socialism in sociology is closely related to bourgeois. utopian theories of a “scientifically organized” society, in which the growth trends of bureaucratic. organization of modern times capitalism are presented as a process of eliminating spontaneity and the formation of a “new type” of society. A number of liberal sociologists criticize S.'s program as a conservative social utopia, a myth. R. Mills, W. White and others characterize S. as an ordinary representation of the bourgeoisie. social scientist speaking in the 20th century. in the role of a cog in a monopoly. org-tions and ideological seeker. justification of his position and the tasks he performs. At the same time, S. is criticized from the standpoint of irrationalism (Hayek). The “scientist” worldview is in many ways a kind of screen behind which the bourgeois hides. intellectual in front of social problems, an excuse for apoliticality. Lit.: Novikov N.V., On the “scientist” trend in modern times. bourgeois sociology, in collection: Social studies, M.. 1965; ?nanieski F., The method of sociology. N. Y., 1934; Lundberg G.?., Foundations of sociology, N. Y., 1939; by him, Can science save us?, N.Y.–L.–Toronto, 1961; Hayek F.?., The counter-revolution of science, Glencoe (III.), 1952; Lundberg G.?., Schrag S. S., Larsen?. N.. Sociology..., N. Y.–L., 1954; Knox J. V., The sociology of industrial relations, N. Y., ; Whyte W. H., The organization man, N. Y., 1956; Mills Ch. Wr., The sociological imagination, N. Y., 1959; An outline of man's knowledge of the modern world, ed. by L. Bryson, N. Y., ; Gella?., Ewolucjonizm, a pocza.tki socjologii, Wr.–Warsz.–Kr., 1966. N. Novikov. Moscow.

Excellent definition

Incomplete definition ↓

SCIENTISM

SCIENTISM

In line with the struggle between S. and anti-scientism, the difference between speculative-philosophical and concrete scientific. thinking has taken on the character of opposition, when both sides consider essentially the same system of fundamental provisions, but with opposite axiological principles. signs; at the same time, at both poles it is actually recognized that scientific. methods are insufficient to solve fundamental human problems. being.

On the question of the attitude of philosophy. consciousness and scientific thinking, Marxism-Leninism proceeds from the thesis that the worldview is scientific and resolutely rejects the anti-scientist belittling of the role of science. The consistency and effectiveness of Marxist humanism is rooted in identifying the means of transforming the social world entirely along the paths of science. knowledge. At the same time, considering science as one of the decisive factors in societies. progress, Marxism-Leninism does not at all deny beings. meanings of other forms of culture. The essence of the position is dialectical. materialism in this matter is most fully and accurately revealed in the Marxist doctrine of practice as the basis of all forms of humanity. being.

Thus, behind S. and anti-scientism there is a broader problem of determining the specificity of different types of cultural elements from the perspective. their formation and receipt, their role in society. processes.

Lit.: Marx K., Theses on Feuerbach, Marx K. and Engels F., Works, 2nd ed., vol. 3; Problems of idealism, M., 1902; Pikkert G., Borders of natural science. education of concepts, St. Petersburg, 1903; his, Philosophy of Life, P., 1922; Windelband V., Preludes, trans. from German, St. Petersburg, 1904; Husserl E., Philosophy as a strict science, "Logos", 1911, book. 1; Natorp P., Kant and, in: New ideas in philosophy, collection. 5, St. Petersburg, 1913; Vysheslavtsev B., Ethics of Fichte, M., 1914; Bergson A., Creative, trans. from French, M.–SPB, 1914; Wittgenstein L., Logico-philosopher. treatise, trans. from German, M., 1958; Frank F., Philosophy of Science, trans. from English, M., 1960; Gaidenko P. P., Existentialism and the problem of culture, M., 1963; hers. The Tragedy of Aestheticism, M., 1970; Mamardashvili M.K., On the problem of the method of history of philosophy, "VF", 1965, No. 6; Kakabadze Z. M., The problem of the “existential crisis” and the transcendental of Edmund Husserl, Tb., 1966; Soloviev E. Yu., Existentialism and scientific. cognition, M., 1966; Motroshilova N.V., Principles and contradictions of phenomenological. philosophy, M.. 1968; Kopnin P.V., On the nature and characteristics of philosophy. knowledge, "VF", 1969, No. 4; Oizerman T.I., Problems of historical and philosophical. Nauki, M., 1969; Shvyrev V.S., Yudin E.G., About the so-called. scientism in philosophy, "VF", 1969, No. 8; Carnár R., Die Überwindung der Metaphysik durch logische Analyze der Sprache, "Erkenntnis", 1931, Bd 2, H. 4; Jaspers K., Philosophie und Wissenschaft, Z., 1949; Heidegger M., Einführung in die Metaphysik, Tüb., 1953; Garaudy R., Perspectives de l'homme, P., 1959; Dilthey W., Einleitung in die Geisteswissenschaften, 4 Aufl., Stuttg., ; Sartre J.-P., Critique de la raison dialectique, P., 1960; Natanson M., Literature, philosophy and the social sciences, The Hague, 1962.

B. Shvyrev, E. Yudin. Moscow.

Philosophical Encyclopedia. In 5 volumes - M.: Soviet Encyclopedia. Edited by F. V. Konstantinov. 1960-1970 .

SCIENTISM

SCIENTISM (from Latin scientia - knowledge, science) is an ideological position based on the idea of ​​scientific knowledge as the highest cultural value and the determining factor in a person’s orientation in the world. At the same time, the exact mathematized is considered as the ideal of science itself, under the influence of the successes of which in the knowledge of the laws of nature and related scientific and technological progress and scientism arises. Being not a strictly formalized system of views, but rather some kind of ideological orientation, scientism manifests itself in different ways in various forms sociocultural activities. Thus, in the approach to the role of science in the life of society as a whole, scientism manifests itself in the absolutization of this role, in an uncritical attitude towards the widespread scientific concepts, in underestimating the need for their constant correction, comparison with other possible views and positions, taking into account a wide range of social, cultural, and ethical factors. Scientism in philosophy manifests itself in ignoring its ideological character, in not understanding its specificity in comparison with special scientific knowledge (Positivism, Neopositivism). In social and humanitarian knowledge, scientism is associated with underestimating or ignoring the specifics of their subject in comparison with natural science objects, with attempts to uncritically and often very artificially introduce methods of its exact test knowledge into people and societies. A very dangerous (primarily for the most real scientific knowledge) consequence of the scientistic cult of science is its ideologization and dogmatization, in a kind of religion that supposedly gives the final answer to all the fundamental problems of existence, while genuine science lies in the openness and incompleteness of the historically transitory things it develops. models of reality. Avoiding the extremes of scientism, analyzing critically and impartially real opportunities science in the context of culture as a whole, at the same time it is dangerous to fall into no less one-sided “scientism” (see Antiscientism). Science is the most important stimulator of the dynamic development of all aspects of the life of human society, and its inherent scientific rationality is an essential cultural one, developed and approved in the complex and dramatic process of reproduction and development of culture.

V. S. Shvyrev

New Philosophical Encyclopedia: In 4 vols. M.: Thought. Edited by V. S. Stepin. 2001 .

See what "SCIENTISM" is in other dictionaries:

- (Latin scientia - knowledge, science) - a worldview position, the basis of which is the idea of ​​scientific knowledge as the highest cultural value and a sufficient condition for the establishment of a person in the world. Scientism focuses primarily on... Encyclopedia of Cultural Studies

Scientism- Scientism ♦ Scientisme Religion of science; science viewed as religion. The scientist claims that science speaks absolute truths, whereas it communicates only relative knowledge; that science is called upon to guide everything in the world, whereas... ... Sponville's Philosophical Dictionary