Without scientist Kseniia Petrova’s expertise, no one can fully unlock the data’s potential, putting crucial advancements in early cancer detection at risk.
If and when we find a better method than the scientific method, I’ll start getting concerned with “Scientism.” Until then, I’ll keep on cheering on our best and greatest doing the hard work of making new medicine and technology for the public.
I find Scientism concerning because I am a scientist who is quite concerned by the gap between actual science, and how people use science-shaped rhetoric. An example of this is how in the UK, during COVID, the government repeatedly claimed they were “following the science”, despite many of their policies being completely contrary to what the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE) had recommended.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m a big fan of the scientific method — I wouldn’t be a scientist otherwise. But writing news headlines about the achievements of scientists exists beyond science. Being opposed to Scientism isn’t being opposed to the scientific method. Rather, it’s more like acknowledging that science isn’t a universal tool for solving all ills. Personally, being against Scientism also means being against the weird way we put science, and scientists on a pedestal. I understand the sentiment (and hell, I’m probably a scientist in part because a younger me was chasing that pedestal), but I think it’s probably harmful long term — both to society and to science
I see what you mean. Science is a fantastic tool but when leaders just wave it around with vague claims that “experts have done studies that agreed with me.” . . . It always spells trouble.
If and when we find a better method than the scientific method, I’ll start getting concerned with “Scientism.” Until then, I’ll keep on cheering on our best and greatest doing the hard work of making new medicine and technology for the public.
I find Scientism concerning because I am a scientist who is quite concerned by the gap between actual science, and how people use science-shaped rhetoric. An example of this is how in the UK, during COVID, the government repeatedly claimed they were “following the science”, despite many of their policies being completely contrary to what the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE) had recommended.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m a big fan of the scientific method — I wouldn’t be a scientist otherwise. But writing news headlines about the achievements of scientists exists beyond science. Being opposed to Scientism isn’t being opposed to the scientific method. Rather, it’s more like acknowledging that science isn’t a universal tool for solving all ills. Personally, being against Scientism also means being against the weird way we put science, and scientists on a pedestal. I understand the sentiment (and hell, I’m probably a scientist in part because a younger me was chasing that pedestal), but I think it’s probably harmful long term — both to society and to science
Edit: fixed grammar
I see what you mean. Science is a fantastic tool but when leaders just wave it around with vague claims that “experts have done studies that agreed with me.” . . . It always spells trouble.
I think I’m missing something. How is making false claims about science related to scientism?