Moderate scientism is the view that empirical science can help answer questions in nonscientific disciplines. In this paper, we evaluate moderate scientism in philosophy. We review several ways that science has contributed to research in epistemology, action theory, ethics, philosophy of language, and philosophy of mind. We also review several ways that science has contributed to our understanding of how philosophers make judgments and decisions. Based on this research, we conclude that the case for moderate philosophical scientism (...) is strong: scientific practice has promoted significant progress in philosophy and its further development should be welcomed and encouraged. (shrink)

This paper argues that the proponents of epistemological scientism must take some stand on scientific methodology. The supporters of scientism cannot simply defer to the social organisation of science because the social processes themselves must meet some methodological criteria. Among such criteria is epistemic evaluability, which demands intersubjective access to reasons. We derive twelve theses outlining some implications of epistemic evaluability. Evaluability can support weak and broad variants of epistemological scientism, which state that sciences, broadly construed, are (...) the best sources of knowledge or some other epistemic goods. Since humanities and social sciences produce epistemically evaluable results, narrow types of scientism that take only natural sciences as sources of knowledge require additional argumentation in their support. Strong scientism, which takes sciences as the only source of knowledge, also needs to appeal to some further principles since evaluability is not an all-or-nothing affair. (shrink)

The move from respecting science to scientism, i.e., the idealization of science and scientific method, is simple: We go from acknowledging the sciences as fruitful human activities to oversimplifying the ways they work, and accepting a fuzzy belief that Science and Scientific Method, will give us a direct pathway to the true making of the world, all included. The idealization of science is partly the reason why we feel we need to impose the so-called scientific terminologies and methodologies to (...) all aspects of our lives, education too. Under this rationale, educational policies today prioritize science, not only in curriculum design, but also as a method for educational practice. One might expect that, under the scientistic rationale, science education would thrive. Contrariwise, I will argue that scientism disallows science education to give an accurate image of the sciences. More importantly, I suggest that scientism prevents one of science education’s most crucial goals: help students think. Many of my arguments will borrow the findings and insights of science education research. In the last part of this paper, I will turn to some of the most influential science education research proposals and comment on their limits. If I am right, and science education today does not satisfy our most important reasons for teaching science, perhaps we should change not just our teaching strategies, but also our scientistic rationale. But that may be a difficult task. (shrink)

Mizrahi (2017a) advances an argument in support of Weak Scientism, which is the view that scientific knowledge is the best (but not the only) knowledge we have, according to which Weak Scientism follows from the premises that scientific knowledge is quantitatively and qualitatively better than non-scientific knowledge. In this paper, I develop a different argument for Weak Scientism. This latter argument for Weak Scientism proceeds from the premise that academic disciplines that make progress are superior to (...) academic disciplines that do not make progress. In other words, other things being equal, it is generally better for an academic discipline to make progress than to make little or no progress, given that an academic discipline that is making little or no progress is an academic discipline that is failing to achieve its epistemic goals. Now, if there is no question among academic philosophers that science makes progress, and significantly so, but there is an open question among academic philosophers as to whether academic philosophy makes progress (and if so, how much), then academic philosophers would have to agree that science is superior to academic philosophy in terms of making progress. I develop this argument in this paper and provide empirical evidence suggesting that the premises would be acceptable to academic philosophers. (shrink)

In this paper, I report the results of an empirical study, which was designed to test the following hypotheses: (H1) Many philosophers find scientism threatening because they see it as a threat to the future of philosophy as a major in colleges and universities; (H2) Many philosophers find scientism threatening because they see it as a threat to the soul or essence of philosophy as an a priori discipline. My results provide some empirical evidence in support of H2. (...) These results are also in line with the results of other empirical studies that point to a methodological shift in philosophy from the armchair to the laboratory. (shrink)

Wittgenstein and Heidegger’s objections against the possibility of an aesthetic science were influential on different sides of the analytic/continental divide. Heidegger’s anti-scientism is tied up with a critique of the reduction of the work of art to an object of aesthetic experience. This leads him to an aletheic view of artworks which precedes and exceeds any possible aesthetic reduction. Wittgenstein too rejects the relevance of causal explanations, psychological or physiological, to aesthetic questions. His appeal to ordinary language provides the (...) backdrop for his critique of the philosophical tradition’s focus on a narrow range of evaluative aesthetic terms, thus excluding most of the language we ordinarily employ in the relevant cases. The main aim of this paper is to compare Heidegger with Wittgenstein, showing that: (a) there are significant parallels to be drawn between Wittgenstein and Heidegger’s anti-scientism about aesthetics, and (b) their anti-scientism leads them towards partly divergent criticisms of what I will call ‘aestheticism’. The divergence is mainly due to a disagreement concerning appeals to ordinary language. Thus situating the two philosophers’ positions facilitates a possible critical dialogue between analytic and continental approaches in aesthetics. (shrink)

Part 1 of this paper sketches Wittgenstein’s opposition to scientism in general. Part 2 explores his opposition to scientism in philosophy focusing, in particular, on philosophy of mind; how must philosophy of mind proceed if it is to avoid the kind of scientism that Wittgenstein complains about? Part 3 examines a central anti-scientistic strand in Wittgenstein’s Last Writings on the Philosophy of Psychology volume II: his treatment of the ‘uncertainty’ of the relation between ‘outer’ behaviour and ‘inner’ (...) experiences and mental states. (shrink)

Bernard Wills (2018) joins Christopher Brown (2017, 2018) in criticizing my defense of Weak Scientism (Mizrahi 2017a, 2017b, 2018a). Unfortunately, it seems that Wills did not read my latest defense of Weak Scientism carefully, nor does he cite any of the other papers in my exchange with Brown.

[This is an edited and improved version of "You Are Not Your Brain: Against 'Teaching to the Brain'" previously published in *Review of Higher Education and Self-Learning* 5(15), Summer 2012.] Since educators are always looking for ways to improve their practice, and since empirical science is now accepted in our worldview as the final arbiter of truth, it is no surprise they have been lured toward cognitive neuroscience in hopes that discovering how the brain learns will provide a nutshell explanation (...) for student learning in general. I argue that identifying the person with the brain is scientism (not science), that the brain is not the person, and that it is the person who learns. In fact the brain only responds to the learning of embodied experience within the extra-neural network of intersubjective communications. Learning is a dynamic, cultural activity, not a neural program. Brain-based learning is unnecessary for educators and may be dangerous in that a culturally narrow ontology is taken for granted, thus restricting our creativity and imagination, and narrowing the human community. (shrink)

In Ancient Greece, when philosophy began, it included all the theoretical knowledge. But later, in the time of Aristotle, specialized sciences started to emerge and the scope of philosophy grew smaller and smaller. The question is what to do when philosophy has lost its competence to deal with any relevant topic. The paper discusses three possible views of the relation between philosophy and science: anti-scientism, conceptual analysis and naturalism. All these approaches deal with various disadvantages. For anti-scientism it (...) is mainly the inability to explain the unprecedented success of modern science. Proponents of conceptual analysis are confronted with Quine’s attack on analytic statements and its consequences for a priori truths. Finally, naturalistic philosophers might be threatened by hegemony of science and its universal application of hypothetico-deductive method. The worst scenario for naturalistic philosophers is not as bad as some worry. Philosophers can solve their traditional problems using the knowledge of well-established special sciences, even though they might play the role of high-end science journalists. (shrink)

Le scientisme a plus de notoriété que l’histoire proprement dite, car il a été identifié avec le « positivisme », le « réductionnisme », le « matérialisme » ou le « marxisme », ou même tenu responsable de la domination de la science sur leur autres activités humaines. L’idée que la recherche scientifique produit les meilleures connaissances possible réside dans la définition même du « scientisme ». Cependant, alors même que la science peut se prévaloir d’un nombre considérable de succès (...) théoriques et pratiques, une confiance rationnelle envers elle comme moyen de résoudre tout problème factuel a été dénoncée comme illégitime, discutable ou dogmatique. Ainsi, après avoir passé en revue les diverses conceptions du scientisme, je défends une position raisonnable du scientisme contre certaines de ses critiques dominantes. Ainsi, on soutiendra que la science est l’approche la plus fiable pour acquérir des connaissances sans nuire à d’autres activités importantes dans la mesure où celles-ci ne traitent pas de questions factuelles ou cognitives ni ne sont en contradiction avec une vision du monde scientifique. (shrink)

Scientism has more notoriety than history proper for it has been identified with “positivism”, “reductionism”, “materialism” or “Marxism”, or even held responsible for the enforcement of science at the expense of other human affairs. The idea that scientific research yields the best possible knowledge lies at the very definition of “scientism”. However, even when science has shown a considerable amount of theoretical and practical successes, a rational confidence put on it as a mean for solving any factual problem (...) has been denounced as illegitimate, defective, or dogmatic. Thereby, after revisiting the varieties of the meaning of scientism, I argue for a reasonable defense of scientism against some of its prevailing criticisms. Hence, it will be sustained that science is the most reliable approach for attaining knowledge without detriment of other valuable human activities insofar these do not address factual or cognitive questions nor are at odds with a scientific worldview. (shrink)

I argue that we can profitably understanding Feyerabend’s work in at least the latter half of his career in terms of a series of experiments with ways of conceptualising and criticising scientism, under the aegis of a ‘critique of scientific reason’. The critique of science’s self-understanding was the more sophisticated and successful, while the critique of scientific modernity was more erratic and less effective, due mainly to the failure to take up the necessary resources.

In this chapter we examine Moti Mizrahi’s claim that philosophers’ opposition of scientism is founded on their worry that scientism poses “a threat to the soul or essence of philosophy as an a priori discipline”. We find Mizrahi’s methodology for testing this thesis wanting. We offer an alternative hypothesis for the increased resistance of scientism: the antipathy started as a reaction to the New Atheist movement. We also consider two varieties of weak scientism, narrow and broad, (...) and argue that narrow versions of scientism draw unnatural and unfounded distinctions within science. Mizrahi belongs somewhere between these two types, but he commits the same mistakes as proponents of the narrow variety. We demonstrate that Mizrahi’s defence of weak scientism is problematic, once again, due to methodological reasons. As an alternative, we propose that weak scientism should be based on epistemic opportunism. Epistemic opportunism explains the success of science with scientists’ willingness to adopt any methods that demonstrably work. We also show how opportunistic scientism can avoid charges of triviality. (shrink)

This paper argues that the main global critiques of scientism lose their punch because they rely on an uncharitable definition of their target. It focuses on epistemological scientism and divides it into four categories in terms of how strong (science is the only source of knowledge) or weak (science is the best source of knowledge) and how narrow (only natural sciences) or broad (all sciences or at least not only the natural sciences) they are. Two central arguments against (...) scientism, the (false) dilemma and self‐referential incoherence, are analysed. Of the four types of epistemological scientism, three can deal with these counterarguments by utilizing two methodological principles: epistemic evaluability of reliability and epistemic opportunism. One hopes that these considerations will steer the discussion on scientism to more fruitful pastures in the future. For example, there are interesting methodological considerations concerning what evaluability or reliability and epistemic opportunism entail. (shrink)

The advance of science is often depicted as the onward march of an army onto land that was previously farmed by the humanities. If this analogy were to be taken literally it would imply that scientism, understood as the view that there is no corner of reality that is beyond the reach of scientific knowledge, is the inevitable outcome of scientific progress. This paper argues that the analogy of territorial expansionism can be misleading insofar as it suggests that the (...) domain of inquiry of the humanities shrinks as science progresses. It argues that the progress of science poses no threat to humanistic understanding because more scientific knowledge is simply more knowledge of the same kind. Scientific and humanistic inquiries address and seek to answer not different questions, but different kinds of questions, and therefore do not compete with one another. It is not the progress of science that poses a threat to humanistic understanding, but the mistaken philosophical assumption that scientific and humanistic inquiries seek to answer the same kinds of questions. Having established that humanistic and scientific inquiry address and answer different kinds of questions, the paper proceeds to fend off the objection that the attempt to place limits onto what science can know (by claiming that there are questions science cannot answer) must be motivated by the attempt to make room for transcendent entities or for dubious alternative forms of knowledge of the kind that Karl Popper criticised as pseudoscientific. The paper argues that claiming that humanistic inquiry is concerned with different kinds of questions, questions which call for distinctive explanations, explanations which relieve one’s curiosity by bringing to light the point of what happened, is not the same as defending folk beliefs in the face of scientific evidence. One cannot, as a result, dismiss the idea that humanistic understanding addresses questions that are different in kind from those which science seeks to answer as an attempt to rehabilitate impostor sciences of the sort Popper critiqued. Key words: pseudoscience, scientism; humanistic understanding; territorialism . (shrink)

Although physicalism has been a received view in the philosophical community over the past half-century, scientism is by contrast a much more maligned position. And yet standard formulations of physicalism, as the view that the world is in totality the way physics says it is, can make physicalism look as if it is simply a reductionistic form of scientism. This chapter argues that attention to more subtle formulations of physicalism reveals the difference between these attitudes.

In “What’s So Bad about Scientism?” (Mizrahi 2017), I argue that Weak Scientism, the view that “Of all the knowledge we have, scientific knowledge is the best knowledge” (Mizrahi 2017, 354; emphasis in original) is a defensible position. That is to say, Weak Scientism “can be successfully defended against objections” (Mizrahi 2017, 354). In his response to Mizrahi (2017), Christopher Brown (2017) provides more objections against Weak Scientism, and thus another opportunity for me to show that (...) Weak Scientism is a defensible position, which is what I will do in this reply. In fact, I think that I have already addressed Brown’s (2017) objections in Mizrahi (2017), so I will simply highlight these arguments here. (shrink)

Critical notice of Tom Sorell's Scientism: Philosophy and the Infatuation with Science.

In a reply to Mizrahi (2019), Bryant (2020) raises several methodological concerns regarding my attempt to test hypotheses about the observation that academic philosophers tend to find “scientism” threatening empirically using quantitative, corpus based methods. Chief among her methodological concerns is that numbers of philosophical publications that mention “scientism” are a “poor proxy for scholarly sentiment” (Bryant 2020, 31). In reply, I conduct a sentiment analysis that is designed to find out whether academic philosophers have negative, positive, or (...) neutral sentiments toward “scientism.” The results of this analysis suggest that, for the most part, articles on “scientism” written by academic philosophers tend to contain mostly negative rather than positive (or neutral) sentiments about “scientism.”. (shrink)

This paper argues that the reading of Althusser which finds a pronounced continuity in his conception of the relations among science, philosophy, and politics is the correct one, this essay will begin with an examination of Althusser’s “scientism.” The meaning of this term (one that differs slightly from contemporary usages) will be specified before showing how and in what way Althusser’s political philosophy between 1960 and 1980 can be described as “scientistic.” The next section details the important political role (...) Althusser assigned to the sciences and particularly to the science of historical materialism during this period. This accomplished, the arguments of interpreters who emphasize the apparent difference in Althusser’s attitude towards science before and after 1980 will be considered. Here, possible reasons for such a reading will be rehearsed. Next, with the support of recently published and archival documents, this essay will engage in a close and comparative reading of Althusser’s texts from the 1970s and 1980s that have as their subject the relations among philosophy, science, and politics. This survey will show the continuity in Althusser’s position vis-à-vis the sciences: namely, that if we want good (i.e. desired) socio-politico-economic changes to result from our political actions, then it is necessary to engage in social scientific research or, at the very least, to consult such research and to use this knowledge in our political decision making. All this serves to support the conclusion that Althusser’s “new” political philosophy from the 1980s is not really so new. On the contrary, his writings on the materialism of the encounter and aleatory materialism represent prolongations and elaborations of positions and ideas already developed in the 1960s and 1970s and that include a mostly consistent understanding of the relations between scientific knowledge and political action. This is true even if the rhetorical and philosophical style in which these ideas are put forth in the 1980s differs from the ways in which these ideas were introduced during the prior two decades. (shrink)

As the English word “scientism” is currently used, it is a trivial verbal truth that scientism—an inappropriately deferential attitude to science—should be avoided. But it is a substantial question when, and why, deference to the sciences is inappropriate or exaggerated. This paper tries to answer that question by articulating “six signs of scientism”: the honorific use of “science” and its cognates; using scientific trappings purely decoratively; preoccupation with demarcation; preoccupation with “scientific method”; looking to the sciences for (...) answers beyond their scope; denying the legitimacy or worth of non-scientific (e.g., legal or literary) inquiry, or of writing poetry or making art. (shrink)

``People say again and again that philosophy doesn´t really progress, that we are still occupied with the same philosophical problems as were the Greeks. But the people who say this don´t understand why it has to be so. It is because our language has remained the same and keeps seducing us into asking the same questions. As long as there continues to be a verb ´to be´ that looks as if it functions in the same way as ´to eat and (...) to drink´, as long as we still have the adjectives ´identical´, ´true´, ´false´, ´possible´, as long as we continue to talk of a river of time, of an expanse of space, etc., etc., people will keep stumbling over the same puzzling difficulties and find themselves staring at something which no explanation seems capable of clearing up. And what´s more, this satisfies a longing for the transcendent, because, insofar as people think they can see the ‘limits of human understanding´, they believe of course that they can see beyond these.`` -/- This quote is from Ludwig Wittgenstein who redefined philosophy some 70 years ago (but most people have yet to find this out). Dennett, though he has been a philosopher for some 40 years, is one of them. It is also curious that both he and his prime antagonist, John Searle, studied under famous Wittgensteinians (Searle with John Austin, Dennett with Gilbert Ryle) but Searle more or less got the point and Dennett did not, (though it is stretching things to call Searle or Ryle Wittgensteinians). Dennett is a hard determinist (though he tries to sneak reality in the back door), and perhaps this is due to Ryle, whose famous book ´The Concept of Mind´(1949) continues to be reprinted. That book did a great job of exorcising the ghost, but it left the machine. -/- Dennett enjoys making the mistakes Wittgenstein, Ryle (and many others since) have exposed in detail. Our use of the words consciousness, choice, freedom, intention, particle, thinking, determines, wave, cause, happened, event (and so on endlessly) are rarely a source of confusion, but as soon as we leave normal life and enter philosophy (and any discussion detached from the environment in which language evolved—i.e., the exact context in which the words had meaning) chaos reigns. Like most, Dennett lacks a coherent framework - which Searle has called the logical structure of rationality. I have expanded on this considerably since I wrote this review and my recent articles show in detail what is wrong with Dennett's approach to philosophy, which one might call Scientism on steroids. Let me end with another quote from Wittgenstein--´Ambition is the death of thought´. -/- Those wishing a comprehensive up to date framework for human behavior from the modern two systems view may consult my book ‘The Logical Structure of Philosophy, Psychology, Mind and Language in Ludwig Wittgenstein and John Searle’ 2nd ed (2019). Those interested in more of my writings may see ‘Talking Monkeys--Philosophy, Psychology, Science, Religion and Politics on a Doomed Planet--Articles and Reviews 2006-2019 3rd ed (2019), The Logical Structure of Human Behavior (2019), and Suicidal Utopian Delusions in the 21st Century 4th ed (2019) . (shrink)

«Les gens disent encore et encore que la philosophie ne progresse pas vraiment, que nous sommes toujours occupés avec les mêmes problèmes philosophiques que les Grecs. Mais les gens qui disent cela ne comprennent pas pourquoi il doit en être ainsi. C’est parce que notre langue est restée la même et continue de nous séduire à poser les mêmes questions. Tant qu’il continue à y avoir un verbe qui ressemble à s’il fonctionne de la même manière que de manger et (...) de boire, tant que nous avons encore les adjectifs 'identiques', 'faux', 'false', 'possible', tant que nous continuons à parler d’une rivière du temps, d’une étendue d’espace, etc., etc., les gens continueront à trébucher sur les mêmes difficultés déroutantes et se retrouveront à regarder quelque chose qui ne semble pas capable de se dégager. Et qui plus est, cela satisfait un désir pour le transcendant, parce que, dans la mesure où les gens pensent qu’ils peuvent voir les ‘«limites de la compréhension humaine », ils croient bien sûr ce ils peuvent voir au-delà de ceux-ci. Cette citation est de Ludwig Wittgenstein qui a redéfini la philosophie il ya 70 ans (mais la plupart des gens n’ont pas encore de le savoir). Dennett, bien qu’il ait été un philosophe pendant une quarantaine d’années, est l’un d’entre eux. Il est également curieux que lui et son antagoniste principal, John Searle, étudié sous les célèbres Wittgensteiniens (Searle avec John Austin, Dennett avec Gilbert Ryle) mais Searle plus ou moins obtenu le point et Dennett n’a pas, (bien qu’il est étirer les choses à appeler Searle ou Ryle Wittgensteinians). Dennett est un déterministe difficile (bien qu’il essaie de se faufiler la réalité dans la porte arrière), et peut-être cela est dû à Ryle, dont le célèbre livre "Le concept de l’esprit" (The Concept of Mind) (1949) continue d’être réimprimé. Ce livre a fait un excellent travail d’exorciser le fantôme, mais il a quitté la machine. Dennett aime faire les erreurs Wittgenstein, Ryle (et beaucoup d’autres depuis) ont exposé en détail. Notre utilisation des mots conscience, choix, liberté, intention, particule, pensée, détermine, vague, cause, arrivé, événement (et ainsi de suite sans fin) sont rarement une source de confusion, mais dès que nous quittons la vie normale et entrer dans la philosophie (et toute discussion détachée de l’environnement dans lequel la langue a évolué-c’est-à-dire le contexte exact dans lequel les mots avaient un sens) chaos règne. Comme la plupart, Dennett n’a pas un cadre cohérent - que Searle a appelé la structure logique de la rationalité. J’ai développé sur ce considérablement depuis que j’ai écrit cette revue et mes articles récents montrent en détail ce qui ne va pas avec l’approche de Dennett à la philosophie, que l’on pourrait appeler Scientism sur les stéroïdes. Permettez-moi de terminer par une autre citation de Wittgenstein-- «L’ambition est la mort de la pensée. Ceux qui souhaitent un cadre complet à jour pour le comportement humain de la vue moderne de deux systèmes peuvent consulter mon livre 'The Logical Structure of Philosophy, Psychology, Mind and Language in Ludwig Wittgenstein and John Searle' 2nd ed (2019). Ceux qui s’intéressent à plus de mes écrits peuvent voir «Talking Monkeys --Philosophie, Psychologie, Science, Religion et Politique sur une planète condamnée --Articles et revues 2006-2019 3e ed (2019) et Suicidal Utopian Delusions in the 21st Century 4th ed (2020) et autres. (shrink)

This chapter considers the assumptions required to make scientisms of different forms genuinely threatening to philosophers, where a genuine threat would consist of a concrete risk to their statuses, the value of their teaching and research, their livelihoods, their preferred research methods, or the health of the discipline. I will find that strong and weak forms of scientism alike require substantive assumptions to make them threatening in those regards. In particular, they require sometimes heavy-handed circumscriptions of philosophy and science, (...) as well as their epistemic credentials and achievements, methods, and subject matters. They also require restrictive pronouncements upon the epistemic and non-epistemic goods that are valuable, worth promoting in academic contexts, and relevant to disciplinary health. My aim in this chapter will not to be defeat those assumptions but rather to make them explicit and to emphasize their frequent strength and contentiousness. (shrink)

I suspect many philosophers feel the deep reason the topic of scientism matters is that it wrongly questions or impugns the integrity and significance of the discipline of philosophy. Such metaphilosophical concerns may not always be at the forefront during debates about scientism. Sometimes, though, we should engage much broader metaphilosophical issues.

In their attempt to defend philosophy from accusations of uselessness made by prominent scientists, such as Stephen Hawking, some philosophers respond with the charge of ‘scientism.’ This charge makes endorsing a scientistic stance, a mistake by definition. For this reason, it begs the question against these critics of philosophy, or anyone who is inclined to endorse a scientistic stance, and turns the scientism debate into a verbal dispute. In this paper, I propose a different definition of scientism, (...) and thus a new way of looking at the scientism debate. Those philosophers who seek to defend philosophy against accusations of uselessness would do philosophy a much better service, I submit, if they were to engage with the definition of scientism put forth in this paper, rather than simply make it analytic that scientism is a mistake. (shrink)

Filozofie ve 20. století ztratila velkou část svých kompetencí a pro svou údajnou neužitečnost se stala terčem kritiky ze strany přírodních vědců. Vztah mezi filozofií a vědou lze řešit pomocí tří stanovisek, kterými jsou antiscientismus, konceptuální analýza a naturalismus. Obsahem článku je charakteristika jednotlivých přístupů a identifikace problémů, s nimiž se musí jejich zastánci potýkat. Autorovi se jako nejslibnější jeví Quinem inspirovaný naturalismus, podle něhož má veškeré poznání povahu syntetických aposteriorních výroků, a filozofie je proto kontinuální s přírodní vědou. Není (...) třeba obávat se zániku filozofie jako samostatné disciplíny, naturalismus může naopak přispět k dořešení mnohých filozofických problémů pomocí metodologie a poznatků přírodních věd. (shrink)

At the heart of Mizrahi’s project lies a sociological narrative concerning the recent history of philosophers’ negative attitudes towards scientism. Critics (e.g. de Ridder (2019), Wilson (2019) and Bryant (2020)), have detected various empirical inadequacies in Mizrahi’s methodology for discussing these attitudes. Bryant (2020) points out one of the main pertinent methodological deficiencies here, namely that the mere appearance of the word ‘scientism’ in a text does not suffice in determining whether the author feels threatened by it. Not (...) all philosophers use the term in ‘inherently negative’ (29) or pejorative ways. In this paper, I not only corroborate Bryant’s critical claim, but argue that Mizrahi’s response to this part of Bryant’s objection is inadequate. (shrink)

I would like to thank Renia Gasparatou, Philip Goff, and Andreas Vrahimis for contributing to the book symposium on For and Against Scientism: Science, Methodology, and the Future of Philosophy (London: Rowman & Littlefield, 2022). I am grateful to James Collier for hosting this book symposium on the Social Epistemology Review and Reply Collective. In what follows, I will reply to Gasparatou and Vrahimis’s contributions to this book symposium.1 Before I do so, I will summarize what I take to (...) be their main arguments against my conception of scientism. Briefly, my conception of scientism runs along the weak and broad lines of epistemological scientism (Mizrahi 2022a, 12). More specifically, Weak Scientism is the view that scientific knowledge is the best knowledge (or some other epistemic good, such as justified belief) we have. Weak Scientism is a weaker version of epistemological scientism than Strong Scientism, which is the view that scientific knowledge is the only knowledge we have. According to Weak Scientism, while non-scientific disciplines do produce knowledge, scientific disciplines produce knowledge that is superior—both quantitatively (in terms of research output and research impact) and qualitatively (in terms of explanatory, predictive, and instrumental success)—to non-scientific knowledge (Mizrahi 2017, 354; 2022a, 6–7; 2023, 41). (shrink)

My aim in this chapter is to reconstruct Feyerabend’s anti-scientism by comparing it with the similar critiques of one of his main philosophical influences – Ludwig Wittgenstein. I argue that they share a common conception of scientism that gathers around a concern that it erodes a sense of wonder or mystery required for a full appreciation of human existence – a sense that Feyerabend, like Wittgenstein, characterised in terms of the ‘mystical’.

In my (2017a), I defend a view I call Weak Scientism, which is the view that knowledge produced by scientific disciplines is better than knowledge produced by non-scientific disciplines. Scientific knowledge can be said to be quantitatively better than non-scientific knowledge insofar as scientific disciplines produce more impactful knowledge–in the form of scholarly publications–than non-scientific disciplines (as measured by research output and research impact). Scientific knowledge can be said to be qualitatively better than non-scientific knowledge insofar as such knowledge (...) is explanatorily, instrumentally, and predictively more successful than non-scientific knowledge. Brown (2017a) raises several objections against my defense of Weak Scientism and I have replied to his objections (Mizrahi 2017b), thereby showing again that Weak Scientism is a defensible view. Since then, Brown (2017b) has reiterated his objections in another reply on SERRC. In this paper, I respond to Brown's objections, thereby showing once more that Weak Scientism is a defensible view. (shrink)

In a recent paper in 'Social Epistemology' Dimitri Ginev aims to show that Ludwik Fleck uses transcendental arguments in two contexts in his work that are closely intertwined: the context of comparative cognitive sociology and the context of socio-historical epistemology. I am skeptical about Ginev’s interpretation and my aim is to show that at least the part of Ginev’s argument in which he aims to show Fleck’s use of transcendental arguments in the context of socio-historical epistemology is not convincing. To (...) my mind, a much better interpretation of Fleck’s argument in this context is to see Fleck as using scientisticinstead of transcendental arguments. (shrink)

This paper’s primary purpose is to show that there is a peculiar alternative to scientism whose central thesis is not about sources of knowledge or the existence of various objects, but it aims at setting out a strategy to help decide which of the two mutually exclusive beliefs is the better one to adopt. Scientophilia, to coin a term, recommends preferring, without any discussion, a position consistent with the consensus of credible and reliable experts in a given domain. In (...) case there is no such agreement, mainly because peers disagree with each other, or experts are difficult to identify, it is recommended for a scientophile to suspend judgment. Scientophilia is not a position on science or human knowledge boundaries, but it deals with the practical side of belief change. Verdicts made by this approach are partially similar to those offered by mild scientism, as scientophilia puts scientific knowledge as one of the most reliable sources. However, it is also consistent with mild antiscientism, as in some particular cases (for example, Moorean truths), it assigns reliable expertise to non-scientific experts. Therefore it is a third way. (shrink)

"Die Leute sagen immer wieder, dass die Philosophie nicht wirklich vorankommt, dass wir immer noch mit den gleichen philosophischen Problemen beschäftigt sind wie die Griechen. Aber die Leute, die das sagen, verstehen nicht, warum es so sein muss. Weil unsere Sprache gleich geblieben ist und uns immer wieder dazu verführt, dieselben Fragen zu stellen. Solange es weiterhin ein Verb "zu sein" gibt, das so aussieht, als ob es genauso funktioniert wie "essen und trinken" Solange wir noch die Adjektive "identisch", "wahr", (...) "falsch", "möglich" haben, solange wir weiterhin von einem Fluss der Zeit, von einer Weite des Raumes usw. sprechen, werden die Menschen immer wieder über dieselben rätselhaften Schwierigkeiten stolpern und auf etwas starren, was keine Erklärung zu klären scheint. Und darüber hinaus erfüllt dies eine Sehnsucht nach dem Transzendenten, denn insofern die Menschen denken, sie können die "Grenzendes menschlichen Verständnisses" erkennen, glauben sie natürlich,dass sie darüber hinaus sehenkönnen." Dieses Zitat stammt von Ludwig Wittgenstein, der vor etwa 70 Jahren die Philosophie neu definierte (aber die meisten Leute haben das noch nicht herausgefunden). Dennett ist einer von ihnen, obwohl er seit etwa 40 Jahren Philosoph ist. Es ist auch merkwürdig, dass sowohl er als auch sein Hauptgegner, John Searle, unter berühmten Wittgensteinianern studierten (Searle mit John Austin, Dennett mit Gilbert Ryle), aber Searle mehr oder weniger den Punkt bekam und Dennett nicht, (obwohl es die Dinge dehnt, Searle oder Ryle Wittgensteinians zu nennen). Dennett ist ein harter Determinist (obwohl er versucht, die Realität in die Hintertür zu schleichen), und vielleicht liegt das an Ryle, dessen berühmtes Buch "The Concept of Mind" (1949) immer wieder nachgedruckt wird. Dieses Buch hat einen großartigen Job gemacht, den Geist zu exorzisieren,, aber es verließ die Maschine. Dennett macht gerne die Fehler, die Wittgenstein, Ryle (und viele andere seither) im Detail aufgedeckt haben. Unsere Verwendung der Worte Bewusstsein, Wahl, Freiheit, Absicht, Teilchen, Denken, bestimmt, Welle, Ursache, Geschehen, Ereignis (und so weiter endlos) sind selten eine Quelle derVerwirrung, aber sobald wir das normale Leben verlassen und in die Philosophie eintreten (und jede Diskussion losgelöst von der Umgebung, in der sich die Sprache entwickelthat –d.h. der genaue Kontext, in dem die Worte Bedeutung hatten)herrscht Chaos. Wie die meisten, fehlt Dennett ein kohärenter Rahmen - den Searle die logische Struktur der Rationalität genannt hat. Ich habe auf diese erheblich erweitert, da ich diese Rezension geschrieben und meine jüngsten Artikel zeigen im Detail, was falsch mit Dennettansatz zur Philosophie,die man Scientismus auf Steroiden nennen könnte. Lassen Sie mich mit einem weiteren Zitat aus Wittgenstein enden - "Ambition ist der Tod des Denkens". Wer aus der modernen zweisystems-Sichteinen umfassenden, aktuellen Rahmen für menschliches Verhalten wünscht, kann mein Buch "The Logical Structure of Philosophy, Psychology, Mindand Language in Ludwig Wittgenstein and John Searle' 2nd ed (2019) konsultieren. Diejenigen,die sich für mehr meiner Schriften interessieren, können 'Talking Monkeys--Philosophie, Psychologie, Wissenschaft, Religion und Politik auf einem verdammten Planeten --Artikel und Rezensionen 2006-2019 3rd ed (2019) und Suicidal Utopian Delusions in the 21st Century 4th ed (2019) und andere sehen. (shrink)

My dissertation brings into conversation two thinkers who are seldom considered together and highlights previously unnoticed similarities in their critical responses to scientism, which was just as prevalent in the late nineteenth century as it is today. I analyze this attitude as consisting of two linked propositions. The first, which Nietzsche calls “the unconditional will to truth,” is that the aims of science, discovering truth and avoiding error, are the most important human aims; and the second is that no (...) practice other than science can achieve them. Both Nietzsche and James criticize the unconditional will to truth for privileging a transcendent ideal over the demands of human life. This unconditional will regards truth as valuable in itself and demands that we pursue it under all circumstances—even if that demand comes into conflict with other values. I lay out the ways in which Nietzsche and James view the value of truth and the imperative to pursue it as conditional on its promotion of human flourishing. In response to the second proposition of scientism, both philosophers argue that science can neither tell us what we should value, nor fully account for the value we in fact find in certain objects, activities, and experiences. And crucially, science cannot tell us whether or why its own goal of attaining truth is valuable. Nietzsche and James reach different conclusions about what is ultimately valuable, and whether traditional religious belief is defensible in light of the discoveries of science. Nonetheless, the hitherto unappreciated similarities I have uncovered in their arguments show that principled opposition to scientism need not be associated with any particular moral or religious viewpoint. This analysis is not only of historical interest: those who consider scientism to be ill-founded and intellectually confining can take some cues from our nineteenth-century predecessors’ strategies for combating it. (shrink)

this paper proposes and substantiates the core concept of‘methodological betrayal’ to reveal the shared internal logical predicament of two systems—scholasticism and scientism—that purport to offer ‘absolute explanations’. Through an internal critique, it argues that when scholastic philosophy employs rational argumentation to justify faith, it effectively elevates the rational method above the supreme status of faith itself. Meanwhile, scientism's claim to ‘fully explain the world’ logically necessitates reliance upon an act of faith prohibited by its own rules, thereby precipitating (...) its own self-destruction. Ultimately, this paper concludes that any system claiming to provide ‘absolute explanations’ cannot logically achieve self-consistency; the true spirit of philosophy lies in a sober recognition of this limitation. (shrink)

Mentalities like scientism and relativism idealise or belittle science respectively, and thus hurt science education and our literacy. However, it seems very hard to avoid the former mentality without sliding to the latter, and vise versa. I will suggest that part of what makes balancing between the two so difficult, is a representational account of meaning that science educators, like most of us really, usually endorse. Scientism then, arises from the assumption that ​there is such a thing called (...) science​. Relativism, on the other hand, assumes that ​there is no such thing called science,t​hereisnorealmeaningattachedtotheterm​.Wittgenstein'sremarksonrule-following then, could help us escape this twofold danger. Addressing scientism, Wittgensteinian writings remind us that, in order to understand the sciences, we do not need to point to some mental referendum of what science is. We rather need to grasp a matrix of overlapping, often implicit, always evolving rules that govern scientific practices. Addressing relativism, Wittgenstein's comments help us realise that there are always certain criteria about what kinds of things we call by a name; there are rules governing scientific practices, rules that even though they may be context dependent or evolving, are always in play. (shrink)

The term ‘scientism’ has not attracted consensus about its meaning or about its scope of application. In this paper, we consider Mizrahi’s suggestion to distinguish ‘Strong’ and ‘Weak’ scientism, and the consequences this distinction may have for philosophical methodology. While we side with Mizrahi that his definitions help advance the debate, by avoiding verbal dispute and focussing on questions of method, we also have concerns about his proposal as it defends a hierarchy of knowledge production. Mizrahi’s position is (...) that Weak Scientism should be adopted, stating that “of all the knowledge we have, scientific knowledge is the best knowledge”. This version of scientism, however, has consequences for philosophical methodology. In particular, if one conceives of philosophy as an a priori discipline and holds Weak Scientism, the introduction of empirical methods in philosophy may threaten its very essence or soul. In this chapter, we will defend the move to adopt empirical methods in philosophy and argue that, rather than threatening its essence or soul, these methods put philosophy in a better position to contribute to knowledge production, an endeavor shared with the sciences, and in a very interdisciplinary spirit. Our point of disagreement with Mizrahi is that we should avoid any hierarchy of knowledge, and instead focus on what each perspective -- scientific, philosophical, historical, or other -- can contribute to understanding phenomena. (shrink)

The cultivation of receptivity to the mystery of reality is a central feature of many religious and philosophical traditions, both Western and Asian. This paper considers two contemporary accounts of receptivity to mystery – those of David E. Cooper and John Cottingham – and considers them in light of the problem of loss of receptivity. I argue that a person may lose their receptivity to mystery by embracing what I call a scientistic stance, and the paper concludes by offering two (...) possible responses to combating that stance and restoring the receptivity to mystery that it occludes. (shrink)

Phenomenological realism, in the tradition of Dietrich von Hildebrand, is advanced as a promising methodology for a theistic philosophy of divine and human agency. Phenomenological realism is defended in contrast to the practice of historicalism -- the view that a philosophy of mind and God should always be done as part of a thoroughgoing history of philosophy, e.g. the use of examples in analytic theology should be subordinated to engaging the work of Kant and other great philosophers. The criticism of (...) theism based on forms of naturalism that give exclusive authority to the physical sciences is criticized from a phenomenological, realist perspective. (shrink)

Despite decades of contentions between moral legalists and legal positivists about the place of morality in law, moral law has vehemently stood out as the end of history. The scientific experiment has despondently failed to logically evict the moral law from the jurisprudential discourse. This research article posits that moral law is the End of History as far jurisprudential evolution is concerned. It argues that the mechanization of law through the positivistic experiment is a moral debacle dented with logical inconsistencies (...) and insurmountable fallacies. It thus uses the inseparability thesis to demonstrate the pivotality of moral law in every positive jurisprudence superstructure. It contends that law appeals to our moral sensibilities because it pre-supposes a conscience in the law giver, the law enforcer and the citizen who is supposed to abide by the law. This ought necessity therefore makes the trio morally credible to legislate, enforce the law and be legally bound by the principles and precincts established by the law. (shrink)

人们一再说,哲学并没有真正进步,我们仍然被和希腊人一样的哲学问题所占据。但是说这一点的人不明白为什么会这样。因为我们的语言保持不变,并不断引诱我们问同样的问题。只要继续有一个动词,看起来好像它的作用与 吃和喝一样,只要我们仍然有形容词[相同],[真],[false],只要我们继续谈论时间的河流,在广阔的空间,等等,人们会不断绊倒同样的令人费解的困难,发现自己盯着的东西,似乎无法解释,无法清除。更重要 的是,这满足了对超然的渴望,因为只要人们认为他们能看到"人类理解的极限",他们当然相信他们能看到超越这些。 这句话出自路德维希·维特根斯坦,他在大约70年前重新定义了哲学(但大多数人还没有发现这一点)。德内特,虽然他已经作为一个哲学家约40年,是其中之一。也奇怪的是,他和他的主要对手,约翰·西尔,在著名的维 特根斯坦人(西尔与约翰·奥斯汀,德内特与吉尔伯特·莱尔)下学习,但西尔或多或少得到了这一点,而德内特没有,(虽然它正在拉伸的东西打电话给西尔或莱尔·维特根斯坦人)。丹内特是一个强硬的威慑者(尽管他试图 在后门偷偷摸摸现实),也许这是由于莱尔,他的名著 《心灵的概念》(1949年)继续被重印。那本书在驱除鬼魂方面做得非常好,但它离开了机器。 德内特喜欢犯维特根斯坦、莱尔(以及许多其他人)已经详细揭露的错误。我们使用词的意识,选择,自由,意图,粒子,思维,决定,波,因,发生,事件(等等无休止)很少是混乱的来源,但只要我们离开正常生活,进入哲 学(和任何讨论脱离了语言演变的环境——即,单词含义的确切背景)混乱。和大多数人一样,德内特缺乏一个连贯的框架——西尔称之为理性的逻辑结构。我已经大大扩展了这一点,因为我写了这个评论,我最近的文章详细显 示了什么与Dennett的哲学方法是错误的,这可能称为类固醇的山达主义。让我以维特根斯坦的另一句话结束——野心是思想的死亡。 那些希望从现代两个系统的观点来看为人类行为建立一个全面的最新框架的人,可以查阅我的书《路德维希的哲学、心理学、Min d和语言的逻辑结构》维特根斯坦和约翰·西尔的《第二部》(2019年)。那些对我更多的作品感兴趣的人可能会看到《会说话的猴子——一个末日星球上的哲学、心理学、科学、宗教和政治——文章和评论2006-20 19年第3次(2019年)和自杀乌托邦幻想21篇世纪4日(2019年)。.

[लोग बार बार कहते हैं कि दर्शन वास्तव में प्रगति नहीं करता है, कि हम अभी भी एक ही दार्शनिक समस्याओं के साथ कब्जा कर रहे हैं के रूप में यूनानियों थे. लेकिन जो लोग यह कहते हैं, वे समझ नहीं पा रहे हैं कि ऐसा क्यों होना चाहिए। ऐसा इसलिए है क्योंकि हमारी भाषा वही रही है और हमें एक ही सवाल पूछने में seducing रहता है. जब तक कोई क्रिया होती रहती है, तब तक ऐसा प्रतीत होता है (...) जैसे कि वह उसी तरह कार्य करता है जैसे कि वह खाने और पीने के लिए उसी तरह कार्य करता है, जब तक कि हमारे पास अभी भी विशेषण [अद्वितीय] है, [गलत] , [गलत] , जब तक हम समय की नदी की बात करना जारी रखते हैं, तब तक हम समय की एक नदी की बात करते रहते हैं , अंतरिक्ष के विस्तार, आदि, लोगों को एक ही puzzling कठिनाइयों पर ठोकर रखने के लिए और खुद को कुछ है जो कोई स्पष्टीकरण को साफ करने में सक्षम लगता है घूर पाते हैं. और क्या अधिक है, यह उत्कृष्ट के लिए एक लालसा को संपीड़ित करता है, क्योंकि, जहाँ तक लोग सोचते हैं कि वे 'मानव समझ की सीमाओं को देख सकते हैं], वे निश्चित रूपसे था टी वे इन से परे देख सकते हैं पर विश्वास करतेहैं. यह बोली लुडविग Wittgenstein से है जो दर्शन को कुछ 70 साल पहले फिर से परिभाषित किया है (लेकिन ज्यादातर लोगों को अभी तक यह पता लगाना है). Dennett, हालांकि वह कुछ 40 साल के लिए एक दार्शनिक किया गया है, उनमें से एक है. यह भी उत्सुक है कि दोनों वह और उनके प्रधानमंत्री विरोधी, जॉन Searle, प्रसिद्ध Wittgensteinians के तहत अध्ययन किया (जॉन ऑस्टिन के साथ Searle, गिल्बर्ट Ryle के साथ Dennett) लेकिन Searle अधिक या कम बात है और Dennett नहीं किया था, (हालांकि यह बातें खींच रहा है Searle या Ryle Wittgensteinians फोन करने के लिए). Dennett एक कठिन determinist है (हालांकि वह पिछले दरवाजे में वास्तविकता चुपके की कोशिश करता है), और शायद यह Ryle, जिसकी प्रसिद्ध पुस्तक के कारण है - मन की अवधारणा (1949) के लिए reprinted जारी है. उस किताब ने भूत को भगाने का बहुत अच्छा कामकिया, लेकिन उसने मशीन छोड़ दी। Dennett गलतियों Wittgenstein बनाने आनंद मिलता है, Ryle (और कई अन्य लोगों के बाद से) विस्तार से उजागर किया है. शब्द चेतना, पसंद, स्वतंत्रता, इरादा, कण, सोच, निर्धारित करता है, लहर, कारण, हुआ, घटना (और इतने पर अंतहीन) का हमारा उपयोग शायद ही कभी भ्रम का एक स्रोत हैं, लेकिन जैसे ही हम सामान्य जीवन छोड़ और दर्शन में प्रवेश (और किसी भी चर्चा उस वातावरण से अलगहो गई जिसमें भाषा विकसित हुई थी ,अर्थात्, जिस संदर्भ में शब्दों का अर्थ था) अराजकता राज करतीहै। सबसे अधिक कीतरह, Dennett एक सुसंगत ढांचे का अभाव है - जो Searle तर्कसंगतता की तार्किक संरचना कहा जाता है. मैं इस पर काफी विस्तार किया है जब से मैं इस समीक्षा लिखा था और मेरे हाल के लेख विस्तार से क्या दर्शन के लिए Dennett दृष्टिकोण के साथ गलत है दिखानेके लिए , जो एकस्टेरॉयड पर वैज्ञानिकता कह सकते हैं. मुझे Wittgenstein से एक और उद्धरण के साथ समाप्त करते हैं - महत्वाकांक्षा सोचा की मौत है. आधुनिक दो systems दृश्यसे मानव व्यवहार के लिए एक व्यापक अप करने के लिए तारीख रूपरेखा इच्छुक लोगों को मेरी पुस्तक 'दर्शन, मनोविज्ञान, मिनडी और लुडविगमें भाषा की तार्किक संरचना से परामर्श कर सकते हैं Wittgenstein और जॉन Searle '2 एड (2019). मेरे लेखन के अधिक में रुचि रखने वालों को देख सकते हैं 'बात कर रहेबंदर- दर्शन, मनोविज्ञान, विज्ञान, धर्म और राजनीति पर एक बर्बाद ग्रह --लेख और समीक्षा 2006-2019 3 एड (2019) और आत्मघाती यूटोपियान भ्रम 21st मेंसदी 4वें एड (2019). (shrink)

The intellectual culture of scientism clouds our understanding of science itself. What’s more, it eclipses alternative ways of knowing — chiefly the philosophical — that can actually yield greater certainty than the scientific. While science and philosophy do at times overlap, they are fundamentally different approaches to understanding. So philosophers should not add to the conceptual confusion that subsumes all knowledge into science. Rather, we should underscore the fact that various disciplines we ordinarily treat as science are at least (...) as — if not more —philosophical than scientific. (shrink)

This chapter outlines ways in which Wittgenstein’s opposition to scientism is manifest in his later conception of philosophy and the negative attitude he held toward his times. The chapter tries to make clear how these two areas of Wittgenstein’s thought are connected and reflect an anti-scientistic worldview he held, one intimated in Philosophical Investigations §122. It is argued that the later Wittgenstein’s metaphilosophy is marked out against two scientistic claims in particular. First, the view that the scientific method is (...) superior to all other means of learning or gaining knowledge. Second, the view that scientific knowledge is superior to all other kinds of knowledge and understanding. Wittgenstein’s opposition to these claims is brought out through examining a fundamental aim of his later philosophy, producing the ‘kind of understanding which consists in “seeing connections”’ (PI §122), and his attempts to expose certain philosophical confusions. It is argued that these reflect his antiscientistic worldview. Through discussion of Oswald Spengler’s influence on Wittgenstein, the chapter outlines how Wittgenstein’s opposition to scientism underwrites his negative cultural outlook and how this is connected with the anti-scientistic elements of his later philosophy discussed. The work of Ray Monk (1999; 1990) and Hans-Johann Glock (1996) is instrumental in what follows. (shrink)

These last decades have seen many publications dealing with science and religion. The overall debate seems to have settled on the idea that dialogue between these disciplines is of utmost importance. Bolger’s book, therefore, comes as a surprise because he seems to take issue with this consensus. Is it the case that a subtle form of scientism is infecting large areas of theological discourse, with the result that the dialogue between these two disciplines is often seriously misguided?

A humorous treatment of scientism within the context of the television series, The Big Bang Theory.

This chapter critically examines the dominant tradition in formal education as an indirect driver of biocultural homogenization while revealing that there is an alternative tradition that fosters biocultural conservation. The dominant tradition, originating in the Seventeenth Century scientific revolution effected by René Descartes, Thomas Hobbes, Isaac Newton, John Locke and allied thinkers, privileges science, seen as facilitating the technological domination of the world in the service of economic growth, as the only genuine knowledge. This is at the foundation of a (...) globalized, homogenizing culture that reduces everything and everyone to instruments of the globalized economy. The alternative, now recognized as the Radical Enlightenment, has its roots in the Renaissance. Represented by thinkers such as Giordano Bruno, Giambattista Vico, Gottfried Herder and Friedrich Wilhelm Schelling, it challenges such dogmatic scientism and upholds the value of diverse cultures, past and present. It offers an alternative tradition and model of education fostering imagination, understanding and appreciation of diversity in the quest for wisdom. It is a model of education which engenders respect for and appreciation of the value of different cultures, including indigenous wisdom with very different attitudes to nature, thereby developing the capacity to reflect on, question, criticize and overcome the homogenizing imperialism of mainstream modernist culture. (shrink)