But let's be clear on my argument, I state and I quote CFeagans that there are two scientisms, the one associated with Comte (The assertion that everything will eventually be explained by the scientific method, by 'science'), and the one associated with strange bedfellows Merton and the PBS program Faith and Reason ("Scientism sees it necessary to do away with most, if not all, metaphysical, philosophical, and religious claims, as the truths they proclaim cannot be apprehended by the scientific method. In essence, scientism sees science as the absolute and only justifiable access to the truth.")
There are, I suppose, a few believers in the first kind of scientism, and I think you can find this in some of Dawkins' thinking. Frankly, I don't care (and my essay isn't about) if some people believe in this kind of assertion, since it has no relevance I can see to public policy.
My essay claims there are no well-known advocates of the second, apparently sinister kind of scientism, the kind Merton and (obviously) the Faith and Reason producers condemn. I await any evidence that such individuals exist or that those beliefs are widespread. If such beliefs were to exist and gather influence, I would oppose them. If they don't exist and their pretend existence is part of a "'wedge strategy' [that] dictates, among it's goals, to seed doubt among lay persons regarding the validity of the science" of evolution, global warming, and so on . . . well, that seems to be the case at this point, doesn't it?
For attractive lips, speak words of kindness, For lovely eyes, seek out the good in people, For a slim figure, share your food with the hungry. -- A-Hep
There are, I suppose, a few believers in the first kind of scientism, and I think you can find this in some of Dawkins' thinking. Frankly, I don't care (and my essay isn't about) if some people believe in this kind of assertion, since it has no relevance I can see to public policy.
My essay claims there are no well-known advocates of the second, apparently sinister kind of scientism, the kind Merton and (obviously) the Faith and Reason producers condemn. I await any evidence that such individuals exist or that those beliefs are widespread. If such beliefs were to exist and gather influence, I would oppose them. If they don't exist and their pretend existence is part of a "'wedge strategy' [that] dictates, among it's goals, to seed doubt among lay persons regarding the validity of the science" of evolution, global warming, and so on . . . well, that seems to be the case at this point, doesn't it?
For attractive lips, speak words of kindness, For lovely eyes, seek out the good in people, For a slim figure, share your food with the hungry. -- A-Hep