SCIENTISM, INTERPRETATION, AND CRITICISM |
| |
Authors: | Philip S. Gorski |
| |
Affiliation: | Philip S. Gorski is a graduate student in the Department of Sociology, Barrows Hall, the University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720. |
| |
Abstract: | Abstract. What is the relationship between natural science, social science, and religion? The dominant paradigm in contemporary social science is scientism, the attempt to apply the methods of natural science to the study of society. However, scientism is problematic: it rests on a conception of natural science that cannot be sustained. Natural scientific understanding emerges from an instrumental and objectifying relation to the world; it is oriented toward control and manipulation of the physical world. Social-scientific understanding, by contrast, must begin with a practical and meaningful relation to the world: it is oriented toward the mediation of values and objective possibilities in the social world. Social science is therefore a form of practical reason based on objective claims. But while social-scientific understanding starts with interpretation, its possibilities by no means end there. In particular, by developing abstract and objectified models of society as a system, social science opens existing social organization to critical reflection. Religion, by contrast, is a form of speculative reason about ultimate values, based on subjective claims of religious experience. Social science nevertheless shares with religion an orientation toward values and concern with the “good life.” |
| |
Keywords: | critical reason hermeneutics instrumental reason meaning model practical reason pragmatic criterion praxis scientism |
|
|