Op-ed in science journal Nature disses science and “scientism”, questions


Excellent source article,

How science has shifted our sense of identity

Biological advances have repeatedly changed who we think we are, writes Nathaniel Comfort, in the third essay of a series marking Nature ’s anniversary on how the past 150 years have shaped science today.


I like Coyne’s article better :slight_smile:


Ironically, the Enlightenment philosopher David Hume shines a bright light on this subject:

The Is/Ought problem sits right at the center of these questions. We can start with the fact that the HIV virus causes AIDS, but what tells us that we should seek treatments that cure or prevent these infections? The science can’t tell us what we should do. The science can only describe what is, and it is up to our sense of morality and ethics to determine what we ought to do. Science can tell us what effects our actions will have in a pragmatic and physical sense, but it can’t tell us what actions we should take to begin with.

The type of scientism described in the article seems to ignore the Is/Ought problem. I think it is entirely proper to understand what separates morality from science, and point out where people have incorrectly conflated the two.

1 Like