NEWS CENTER – “Scientism” is a kind of religion of science, of modern science, which is supposed to provide authentic knowledge of reality and also solve, with its technical applications, all human problems and lead to a bright future. This passion made its first appearance at the beginning of the century, even finding a choreographic expression in the ballet “Excelsior”, in which the achievements of science at the time were extolled and the victory of Reason and Science, instruments of Progress, over “obscurantism”. “, a victory that would also lead to universal fraternity.
Despite everything that has happened in the meantime, and despite the emergence of an immanent critique of science, this attitude still persists in certain circles. Although Ugo Spirito (once a gentilian and now a communist) as a philosopher is a nonentity, he also offers us a characteristic example of enduring scientism. According to Spirito, science takes the place of metaphysics and philosophy, and as there is a universal consensus regarding the truths of science, beyond all borders, science can also find the basis for the unity of peoples. It is unfortunate that with the title “Twilight or Eclipse of Traditional Values?”
Two aspects must be considered when taking a critical position on modern science. The first concerns the knowledge value of science, the second concerns its applications.
Regarding the first aspect, the value of science has been relativized for some time, not by outsiders but by epistemologists. Sermonti resumed his arguments, making two points clear. Modern science (especially as a science of nature) was constructed and developed based on a limiting (not to say mutilating) choice made in reality; in reality, it considers only what is measurable and translatable into mathematical formulas. The rest – everything that is qualitative, unrepeatable and linked to meanings – she finds non-existent, irrelevant, “subjective”, disturbing. The result is the creation of something abstract and even inhuman, to which one cannot attribute the value of knowledge in an authentic, concrete and living sense: so much so that the most recent science, completely algebraized, has become incomprehensible outside a restricted circle of experts.
Therefore, all “scientific” knowledge is detached from human experience, it is in no way an integration of it. The ultimate meaning of what I see, of every process and phenomenon – light, sun, fire, sea, sky, plants that bloom, beings that are born and die – does not become more transparent. Rather, on the contrary: in charge of scientific knowledge one must place not only this displacement of thought into an abstract sphere, but also the “desacralization” of the world in general, the obscuring of what in it can have the character of a symbol, of a meaning, of reflection of a higher order. Those who had their minds filled with “positive” scientific notions already at school, cannot help forming a look that sees everything around us in a dull and gray way and which, therefore, acts in a destructive sense.
The reality is that modern science, instead of aiming at knowledge in the integral and traditional sense, is informed by practical necessity, by the impulse to dominate the world and this already in its procedures. The whole system of science – we had already written – “is a net that is tightening more and more around a quid that remains incomprehensible, with the sole purpose of being able to subject it to practical purposes”. And scientism finds its preferred alibi in everything that science has made possible through its technical applications; in fact, today science is not so much interesting as knowledge, as an efficient instrument to increase well-being, wealth and material power.
Now, putting some sectors aside, perhaps those of medicine and hygiene, here, however, we must consider the responsibility that science has had in the construction of a society that ended up having the face of a merely consumerist and technological society that arouses growing reactions contestatory. After all, there is nothing that is not paid for. These are not the most conspicuous aspects, and too often highlighted, of the possible catastrophes caused by the non-peaceful use of thermo-nuclear energy and the multiple contaminations that nature suffers in the air, water and soil. Internal processes must also be taken into account, in the context of the contributions of science and technology to the economic developments that have taken hold of man. We are referring to the situation where products are not so much created for man’s natural needs as they tend to arouse and feed desires in the masses because of the proliferation of products on the market. From this derives a growing conditioning of modern man (also highlighted by Marcuse), a conditioning, moreover, that most of our contemporaries are unconcernedly accepting, since for him to abandon comfort and ease is too high a price to guarantee a greater degree of autonomy.
Rêber APO when approaching the topic of scientism says:
“We must emphasize that law, philosophy and even “scientism” are laden with metaphysics. All these areas are qualitatively and quantitatively full of metaphysical works of art. Bearing in mind the important status of metaphysics in the life of the individual and society, we can continue to develop a more meaningful approach:
1. Metaphysical approaches have been hailed as fundamental truth or have been regarded as fictitious, as words and tools to deceive man. These approaches are either completely unaware of the society’s history or are exaggerated. What these two approaches ignore is the social and individual need that gives rise to metaphysics. Those who hail metaphysics have denied its relationship to the physical world and perceive it as infinitely free. By denying the relationship between thought and spirit, or by confusing the metaphysical with the physical world, they fell into obsessions or exaggerations of transcendental divine orders – they even exalted humans as gods. The hierarchical and statist order has had a major effect on these developments. Those who deny the importance of metaphysics (for example, rationalists and positivists) have attacked it fiercely and hailed the materialist world and civilization: anything resembling metaphysics is a tool of deception and must be rejected completely.
In hindsight, we understand that rationalism and positivism paved the way for the “fascist herd”, the “robotic and mechanical human being” and the “simulated” perceptions of life, destroying the environment and the history of society. Extreme adherence to the laws of physics cannot prevent the destruction or dissolution of society; “scientism” thus proved to be the worst metaphysics of all. I must emphasize that “scientism” is the most superficial materialism and the most knowledgeable specialist in power and exploitation. Whether consciously or not, he is the greatest deceiver and the representative of the worst form of metaphysics. Those who say they don’t belong to either side, who we might call nihilists, claim that there is no need to be pro or anti-metaphysical and that one could live in complete independence. While they may appear to be the most harmless of the groups, in essence they are the most dangerous – at least the other two have high ideals and are aware of what they stand for; they strive to reform society and to rebuild the individual. Nihilists, who believe that total independence is possible, pay no attention to these discussions. Their numbers have been enormously increased by capitalist modernity, in which they constitute the déclassé elements of dissolved society. Although football hooligans are the most notable example of this grouping today, the number of similar movements is on the rise.
2. The difference between two opposing approaches to metaphysics, the pro-school and the anti-school, in reality comes down to modernity. While the religion of the anti-school is positivism – which is metaphysics in disguise – the god of both groups is the nation-state. The god who has taken off his mask is being sanctified in the form of the nation-state in all modern societies.
3. I believe that there is a need and opportunity to develop a more balanced approach. I realize that metaphysics is a social construction, that’s why I feel obliged to develop a metaphysics in morals, art, politics and life, thinking that it will be closer to the ideal of the good, the beautiful, the free and the true. The essence of a virtuous life is the continuation of the pursuit of the good, beautiful, free and true, as it was in historical societies. I believe that a meaningful life within society is only possible when lived according to this art of virtuous living.
We are not, of course, bound by metaphysics, but we cannot simply give up our pursuit and development of the “better, fairer, freer and truer.” Just as we are not bound by the ugly, the evil, the unfree and false, it is also not impossible to live a good, beautiful, free and true life. Nor are we obligated to go through life as nihilists. This argument has continued since the beginning of time, since the era of early social construction. What is unique about this issue today is that we are in the dissolution phase of capitalist modernity, exactly the period when a struggle for the good, the beautiful, the free and true is necessary for new social reconstructions. And, we don’t just need a loving passion, but also the most scientific pursuit – which is a real method and regimen. The arguments I set out above for overcoming capitalist modernity and developing and spreading democratic modernity need to be developed further.”
