科学主义与科学原教旨主义:科学可以从主流宗教中学到什么

IF 1 4区 综合性期刊 Q3 MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES Interdisciplinary Science Reviews Pub Date : 2022-12-21 DOI:10.1080/03080188.2022.2152246
R. Peels
{"title":"科学主义与科学原教旨主义:科学可以从主流宗教中学到什么","authors":"R. Peels","doi":"10.1080/03080188.2022.2152246","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT An increasing number of scientists, philosophers, and popular science writers claim that science is the measure of all. They assert that science can answer all questions, that there are no limits to science, or that only science provides reliable knowledge, either in a particular realm, such as morality, or about any subject matter whatsoever. This view is often referred to as ‘scientism’. But what exactly is scientism? What is to be said in favour of it and against it? This paper suggests, after a careful evaluation of the arguments for and against scientism, that a helpful way to think of scientism is as of a variety of fundamentalism. It turns out that scientism meets nearly all conditions formulated in family resemblance accounts of fundamentalism. Finally, it is suggested that science and scientists can learn much from religion when it comes to how to deal with scientific fundamentalism.","PeriodicalId":50352,"journal":{"name":"Interdisciplinary Science Reviews","volume":"48 1","pages":"395 - 410"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Scientism and scientific fundamentalism: what science can learn from mainstream religion\",\"authors\":\"R. Peels\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/03080188.2022.2152246\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT An increasing number of scientists, philosophers, and popular science writers claim that science is the measure of all. They assert that science can answer all questions, that there are no limits to science, or that only science provides reliable knowledge, either in a particular realm, such as morality, or about any subject matter whatsoever. This view is often referred to as ‘scientism’. But what exactly is scientism? What is to be said in favour of it and against it? This paper suggests, after a careful evaluation of the arguments for and against scientism, that a helpful way to think of scientism is as of a variety of fundamentalism. It turns out that scientism meets nearly all conditions formulated in family resemblance accounts of fundamentalism. Finally, it is suggested that science and scientists can learn much from religion when it comes to how to deal with scientific fundamentalism.\",\"PeriodicalId\":50352,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Interdisciplinary Science Reviews\",\"volume\":\"48 1\",\"pages\":\"395 - 410\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-12-21\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Interdisciplinary Science Reviews\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"103\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/03080188.2022.2152246\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"综合性期刊\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Interdisciplinary Science Reviews","FirstCategoryId":"103","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/03080188.2022.2152246","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"综合性期刊","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

越来越多的科学家、哲学家和科普作家声称科学是衡量一切的标准。他们断言科学可以回答所有问题,科学没有限制,或者只有科学才能提供可靠的知识,无论是在特定领域,如道德,还是关于任何主题。这种观点通常被称为“科学主义”。但科学主义到底是什么?赞成和反对它有什么可说的呢?在仔细评估了支持和反对科学主义的论点之后,本文认为,将科学主义视为各种原教旨主义是一种有益的方式。事实证明,科学主义几乎满足了原教旨主义家族相似性描述中所表述的所有条件。最后,有人建议,当涉及到如何处理科学原教旨主义时,科学和科学家可以从宗教中学到很多东西。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Scientism and scientific fundamentalism: what science can learn from mainstream religion
ABSTRACT An increasing number of scientists, philosophers, and popular science writers claim that science is the measure of all. They assert that science can answer all questions, that there are no limits to science, or that only science provides reliable knowledge, either in a particular realm, such as morality, or about any subject matter whatsoever. This view is often referred to as ‘scientism’. But what exactly is scientism? What is to be said in favour of it and against it? This paper suggests, after a careful evaluation of the arguments for and against scientism, that a helpful way to think of scientism is as of a variety of fundamentalism. It turns out that scientism meets nearly all conditions formulated in family resemblance accounts of fundamentalism. Finally, it is suggested that science and scientists can learn much from religion when it comes to how to deal with scientific fundamentalism.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Interdisciplinary Science Reviews
Interdisciplinary Science Reviews 综合性期刊-综合性期刊
CiteScore
2.30
自引率
9.10%
发文量
20
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Interdisciplinary Science Reviews is a quarterly journal that aims to explore the social, philosophical and historical interrelations of the natural sciences, engineering, mathematics, medicine and technology with the social sciences, humanities and arts.
期刊最新文献
Transcatheter aortic valve intervention in hospitals without cardiac surgery departments: a future scenario? Critical Doses: Nurturing Diversity in Psychedelic Studies ‘Everybody’s creating it along the way’: ethical tensions among globalized ayahuasca shamanisms and therapeutic integration practices Critical Doses: Nurturing Diversity in Psychedelic Studies Mysticizing medicine: incorporating nondualism into the training of psychedelic guides
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1