While the title, “Maladies of Modernity,” may be unappetizing, leaving many a potential reader to pass over this book, the argument set forward is a well-researched narrative at the forefront of many minds. For example, recently Ben Shapiro, a popular Right-leaning pundit, published a book making a similar argument where he attempted to blame the Enlightenment and atheism for the current range of social and political problems.
While Shapiro’s solution was to return to religious doctrines, Dr. Whitney’s book is an exploration of moments where science has been treated with dogmatism. This difference in approach is likely to have arisen from their professions: Shapiro makes a living off of shock value, while Dr. Whitney is an educator. The difference in tone as well as approach is noticeable, as the professor does not insult his readers with rhetorical tricks; instead, he explains 7 points that he argues are key to understanding the phenomena he refers to as scientism.
The starting point is found in the appropriate target of Francis Bacon. Bacon, and the more prominent DesCartes, can be attributed with starting the enlightenment movement. DesCartes produced more lasting philosophical work, but Bacon could be granted setting the tone. The philosopher Roger Scruton, in his book “A Short History of Modern Philosophy,” distinguishes between the “History of Ideas” and the “History of Philosophy,” to which he places Bacon in the former. Even so, he affords Bacon a few paragraphs in his introduction: “For all his brilliance and learning, it is difficult to see him as the founder of modern, rather than the destroyer of the medieval, modes of thought.”
Bacon was an advocate of science, held a strong opinion of inductive reasoning, and believed that it could reshape the world. Dr. Whitney argues that Bacon failed to account for politics under his scientific umbrella. It is fair to charge Bacon on this front and perhaps to go further, this is me speaking and not Dr. Whitney, and add hypocrisy to the list. In Novum Organum, arguably Bacon’s greatest work, Bacon lays out a number of “idols” which impede human thought: “Idols of Tribe” of perceptual illusions, “Idols of Cave” personal bias, “Idols of the Marketplace” or linguistic errors, and “Idols of Theatre” or dogmatism. Bacon’s New Atlantis and overall faith in inductive reasoning are in violation of both cave and theatre.
Of course, as Dr. Whitney notes, Bacon’s optimism would likely not have become widespread without the success of Isaac Newton. The following chapter gives a summary of Newton’s success and how it fundamentally changed the West. According to Dr. Whitney, Newton explained how the universe operated, and not why. In his opinion this is in contrast to modern science. This is a bold claim, but modern science will be addressed later.
The narrative progresses to Auguste Comte, who attempted to established a religion based around science or “Religion of Humanity.” Dr. Whitney draws a clear link from Bacon to Comte, though he notes that while Bacon left the spiritual aspect alone, Comte appropriated Christian principles and attempted to fuse the two.
The next pivot is a stretch and is prefaced, “While the continuity between Bacon and Comte is apparent, the jump to Marx requires a little more explanation.” Indeed it does; as noted, Marx rejected “social utopias.” The book correctly draws attention to Marx’s poorly considered conclusion that violent revolution would solve society’s problems – a reader need go no further than Orwell’s Animal Farm for a glimpse of the aftermath of revolution gone wrong. It is quite compelling when Dr. Whitney draws attention to the utopian nature of such a promise. Marx pushes this claim by alleging it has been enabled through science. Once again Dr. Whitney can be accused of being too soft in his criticisms when he states, “Yet Marx maintains ‘true’ human nature will only emerge once the revolution has occurred.” To this it can be added: it did.
If the book had ended with only its foundation it still would have been worth reading as a well examined illumination into what conclusions thoughtless worship can lead a society, but of further interest are the book’s exploration into the modern state of political affairs.
“The central argument of this work is that scientism stands as the key crisis of our age,” says Dr. Whitney. “Yet, as I have shown throughout the analysis, the problem is not a new one.”
The final two chapters give an opinion on the evolution of terms: reason, experience, facts, empiricism, and science. This alteration, Dr. Whitney argues, becomes a problem when developing political science because, while he uses many terms to define the non-material aspects of humankind, humankind is more than the sum of its parts, and Politics encompasses all of human existence. He then proceeds to touch on the New Atheist movement expounding on Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins. Language is ever-changing with old terms evolving and new words entering, and this has never inhibited politics previously therefore it seems strange place for concern. As for the New Atheist movement, that takes a few words.
The movement began in response to the the events of September 11, 2001 when a group of religious extremists transformed a crowded jet into a missile and decimating a building full of people. This act of war was carried out by a terrorist organization following an interpretation of Islam. The New Atheists were led by four men: Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris, and the late Christopher Hitchens. Dawkins has become impatient in his dealings with religion, and as Dr. Whitney notes, uses science as a cudgel to strike back. Whitney is also fair in his representation with Harris. Harris seeks to find scientific explantations for morality, though I would add he is also more open to spiritual claims than the other 3. Dennett would probably require too long of an explanation than the book or this piece can afford, but his theories on human consciousness are incredible and cannot be recommended enough (From Bacteria to Bach and Back: The Evolution of Minds). In Hitchens, it’s likely Dr. Whitney would have found an ally against scientism. Hitchens was actually in disagreement with the other members of the movement. He neither thought religion would ever go away nor wished it to. Hitchens also criticized both Dennett and Dawkins for suggesting atheists were “brighter” than those with deistic inclinations.
Anyone who has read my writing will be familiar with my avoidance of self-insertion; however, a disagreement Dr. Whitney and I had is very informative to his book. Left unfinished, the argument was such: I claimed that scientific fundamentalism was different from religious fundamentalism. He disagreed, and I understood, and understand even more now, that “scientism” is a tricky word. As a term of abuse, it lacks a single defining feature. Recognition of scientism can best be summarized by Justice Pother Stewart when he defined obscenity, Jacobellis vs Ohio (a case concerning hardcore pornography). Justice Stewart defined it as such, “I know it when I see it.”
On his behalf, Dr. Whitney provides this, “Scientism is a deformation of science and arrogates the name of science to psuedo-scientific, and often politically motivated, endeavors. It refers to the intellectual movement that places primacy on the methods of the natural sciences. It can be characterized as a pseudo-religion or form of idolatry since its adherents express a dogmatic faith in the power of science.”- page 7.
On page 92, he adds a bit more, “It is important to recall that the main features of scientism include a dogmatic faith in the methods of the natural sciences, a materialistic worldview, rejection of bios theoretikos, the prohibition of philosophical questions, and an emphasis on immanent fulfillment through the power of science.”
It is my understanding that the root of natural sciences is the scientific method: 1) observations, 2) form a hypothesis, 3) test the hypothesis, and 4) it must hold up to repetition. This is why, when it is argued that the ills we face today arise from unwaivering faith in the scientific method, I find myself in disagreement. This was my point, perhaps poorly stated, during the argument about scientific fundamentalism. Fundamentalism is a rigid following of the doctrine: in the scientific instance, this would be the scientific method, the last of which states that if a theory ever fails during repetition the theory is incorrect. The key last step, if followed, corrects for error.
I sympathize with fears regarding scientism, but I am unconvinced that it lies in the method or faith therein. Having grown to adulthood during a deluge of misinformation about tobacco, sugar, and fossil fuels, I have witnessed each seek validation for their claims in science. Given time, the method has disproven each falsehood. Each has done its damage to society, but it is not faith in the method which failed – after all, the method worked. Rather, it was a lack of skepticism which led to harm. If humans arrive at a better tool than the scientific method, for testing theories and weeding out human error, it should be adopted, but the method is currently the best in this regard.
While the public can be faulted with being wooed by appeals to authority, the fault also lies elsewhere. Media outlets have done a poor job reporting on findings. Seeking attention, and frankly insulting the public’s intelligence, has led to headlines such as, “The Health Benefits of Smoking” or equivalent piffle without mentioning the detrimental effects until the last line – if at all. Furthermore, the apparatus which publishes scientific findings deserves its share of guilt when it doesn’t spare the space to publish experiments which disprove accepted theories. Take, for instance, a recently published article in Slate.
On June 20, 2019, the authors spoke of how they attempted to publish findings which disproved the theory that conservative and liberal brains reacted differently to threats. The findings the authors were challenging were published in Science in 2008, and featured on NPR’s Hidden Brain in 2018. The team drafted a paper, linked in the article, reporting the failed replication. According to the authors, Science chose not to publish their paper. They claim a summary rejection was received stating that the advisory board and editorial team felt the findings were better suited for a “less visible subfield journal.”
If true, the author’s opinions seem rather reasonable:
“We believe that it is bad policy for journals like Science to publish big, bold ideas and then leave it to subfield journals to publish replications showing that those ideas aren’t so accurate after all. Subfield journals are less visible, meaning the message often fails to reach the broader public. They are also less authoritative, meaning the failed replication will have less of an impact on the field if it is not published by Science.”
For those interested here is the address: https://slate.com/technology/2019/06/science-replication-conservatives-liberals-reacting-to-threats.html
As for the dangers this poses to politics, while fear of misinformation is valid, scientism as the primary danger is probably an overstatement. Politicians, and businesses for that matter, will abuse scientific findings whether correctly or not for their own ends. This is nothing new. Those seeking or holding power will adopt whatever publicly accepted authority is present to bolster their cause, whether this be Obama or Gore using science, Bush or Trump using Christian belief, Sanders’ appeals to socialism, or Stalin’s appeals to communism. The problem predates democracies, and will outlast our own. So long as freedom of speech exists, scientism, like any other religion, will be kept in check. As this book demonstrates, as long as people are willing to criticize excesses, society will be properly forewarned.
In closing, perhaps these lingering words by the aforementioned Hitchens serve well enough:
“Beware the irrational, however seductive. Shun the ‘transcendent’ and all who invite you to subordinate or annihilate yourself. Distrust compassion; prefer dignity for yourself and others. Don’t be afraid to be thought arrogant or selfish. Picture all experts as if they were mammals. Never be a spectator of unfairness or stupidity. Seek out argument and disputation for their own sake; the grave will supply plenty of silence. Suspect your motives, and all excesses. Do not live for others any more than you would expect others to live for you.”
Lucid Ink 