Let’s start from the definition. Scientism is a combination of uncritical belief in science and rationalism with atheism. For the scientists, all significant problems of the mankind are solved by science, and, at the same time, the essential human problems are only those, which are solved by science. Other are either unimportant or imaginary. That is why it is so easily connected with atheism. However, according to the scientists, God is an imaginary problem, especially since science explains everything, there is no place for him in the scientific world.
Scientism was born in the Age of Enlightenment together with the faith in the inevitable progress of humanity, which is driven by science. And the faith in Progress has become a new religion, which gave its followers a coherent description of the whole reality, easy and consistent with the common sense, strengthened by the authority of science. Touching the absolute truth and the discovery of a deeper meaning of history, that came with it, gave the "enlightened" a truly neophyte enthusiasm for the fight with the anachronistic God of cruelty and superstition. The sacred goal sanctified the unholy means, because the goal was to "crush the villain" (“ecraser l'infame”) - as Voltaire used to refer to Christianity.
This aggression will be taken up by a large part of nineteenth-century scholars, and the progress of medicine and economics, and especially physics, which on the one hand has exceedingly influenced the development of mathematics, and on the other hand, the technical revolution, and hence the industrial one, will also add vanity to it - a certainty that science has solved all the most important problems of humanity. Such view was promoted, among many others, by a German biologist Ernst Haeckel. In his book "The riddles of the world", translated into 24 languages, including Chinese and Sanskrit (over a quarter of a million copies of the English edition were sold in several years), he argued that all the significant problems have already been solved by science. The measure of fame and the influence of Haeckel's views was naming of massive mountain peaks in New Zealand and the USA Mount Haeckel. Many other physicists had a similar view that all major discoveries have already been made, which can be illustrated by the statement of the American Nobel prize winner, Albert Michelson, who said that the task of the physicists of the next generations is to supplement the sixth decimal place in all the previous calculations.
The ideal of science was physics, and the ideal of a scientist was Newton, who discovered an invisible force, connecting all the objects of the Universe. The great English physicist was extremely valued by the socialists who aspired to be scientists, among whom Charles Fourier and Henri Saint-Simon were leading, searching for the Newtonian regularities in political science. Fourier created a vision of a new era, in which Earth was to be inhabited by 37 million physicists, equal to Newton. He was looking for an ethical principle, acting universally and ubiquitously, following the model of Newton's law of gravity. Saint-Simon, on the other hand, made visions of the world, governed by the Newton’s World Council, elected by the whole humanity. It would govern the "Newton regional Councils", and the centers of religious cult would be the "Newton's temples".
But even earlier, the ambition and goal of Etienne de Condillac, the founder of the school of ideologists, was to become the “Newton of psychology”, while in the area of medicine Newton's mechanics inspired Julian de La Mettrie to write the book entitled "L'homme-machine", in which he attempted to describe the man from a mechanistic-materialistic perspective. In economics, this role was played by the "invisible hand", the impersonal law that guided the behavior of the consumers and producers. Mechanics also inspired Comte in the area of sociology, who rather used the term "phisique sociale" than "sociologie."
There is nothing wrong with inspiration, but it becomes a problem when methods from one domain of knowledge are transferred without verification to another field of study. And it is definitely reprehensible to confirm the concept of one field of science with the achievements of another field. Unfortunately, the representatives of the European elites of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, mesmerized by the development of science, did not respect this elementary scientific rigor very much, and they were stretching the facts to the constructed theories, when necessary. As a result, "the scientific determinism, in the beginning limited to the physical world, was now extended to biology and social sciences. The economists of the nineteenth century, like Ricardo and James Mill, understood the economic laws in a manner, similar to mechanical laws in physics, thus they excluded all moral and spiritual factors, preparing the way for the materialistic interpretation of history. In biology, however, Darwin himself was influenced by both physicists and economists" - wrote Charles Dawson, a British lawyer and archaeologist.
Even worse, the sociologists were under the overwhelming influence of Darwin, (especially the most influential of them, Herbert Spencer), who would transfer his biological theories to the field of social sciences. The base of Spencer's thinking was the statement that "moral action and natural action are the same", that is, a view that abolished ethics and went far beyond the boundaries of science. One of the creators of ordoliberalism, Wilhelm Roepke, commented on this view: "determinism is not only raised anew to the rank of dogma, but also dominates sociology, either in the form of a materialistic understanding of Marx's history or as a geographic determinism, as developed by Ritter and Ratzel" - recognized scientists, who developed, among others, the Lebensraum theory, the necessity of extending the living space by the German tribes
In this way, science loses its "scientific" character, and thus the status of striving to explore the reality and discovering the truth about it with methods that gained the value of objectivity, owing to the fact that they are verifiable.
And in the nineteenth century we observe the phenomenon of an uncritical transfer of ideas from one field to another. I call it "scientistic resonance." It has little to do with science, but it builds a coherent system of description of reality, which is almost not subject to scientific verification, as it is supported by the authority of the absolute truth about the inevitability of progress. This way, faith in science turns into an ideology, or, in other words: "science is a religion," as Ernest Renan, the author of the atheistic bestseller "The Life of Jesus", proudly stated.
The inevitable progress carried the triumphalist vision of a man who, owing to his faith in science, rose from his knees: "Not as a humble, submissive slave of a supernatural master, not as a hopeless toy in the hands of heavenly powers, but as a proud and free son of Nature, understanding its rights and aware of how to run them for his benefit, a creation of the modern civilization appears - the Freethinker, the embodiment of the most powerful efforts of Nature"- wrote the German thinker, Georg Büchner.
VICTIMS OF PROGRESS
The famous “Essay on the Inequality of Human Races” by Arthur de Gobineau, who wished to develop the "chemistry" of races and the moral "geology", is a classic example of "a scientistic resonance". Parascientical racists were already "enlightened", but only the various applications of Darwinism to the human community have strengthened and "scientified" the racist ways of thinking. Their result was the emergence of a new field of science, named in 1883 “eugenics” by the naturalist and doctor, Francis Galton. He was the one to popularize the view that Christian myths, supporting ethics, blocked the process of evolution, protecting imbeciles, criminals, weaklings and losers from the objective verdict of nature, and therefore it is necessary to create a program of selective reproduction.
The ideal of "racial hygiene", postulated by scientists, has not only attracted the members of numerous forming eugenic societies, but also conquered - with few exceptions - the world of science, politicians, creators of culture and media representatives. It was not surprising at all, since such a views were backed by influential writers, such as H.G. Wells (who promoted forced sterilization and killing of morally and physically weak people, because “those who kill the weak will have a fuller understanding of life possibilities from this we have now, and will have an ideal that will be worth killing for”) or G. B. Shaw (a literary Nobel Prize winner in 1925), who at the beginning of the 20th century, like Wells, would call for "death chambers" within the frames of eugenics.
These ideas were supported by the ingenious inventor, Alexandar Graham Bell (who was "scientifically" proving the necessity to ban the marriages of deaf people), the feminist icon Margaret Sanger (who wrote her book “NegroProject” to limit the reproduction of black US citizens), the economist John Maynard Keynes (who was promoting contraception among workers, "so that the working class would not expand, because it is too sotted and crude"), or the marriage of Alva (Nobel 1982) and Gunnar (Nobel 1973) Myrdal, prominent social activists and diplomats, whose book "Crisis in the Population Question" (1934) has had a huge impact on the introduction of the policy of forced sterilization in the Western democracies. In Poland - thankfully with less radicalism - the proponents of eugenics were such prominent people, as Ludwik Krzywicki, Tadeusz Boy-Żeleński or Janusz Korczak.
These "scientific" theories were not detached from real life. In 1896, in Connecticut, a ban on marriages by epileptics and the mentally ill persons was passed (later on linked to sterilization and extended to subsequent states). In 1927, after a trial in which Emma Buck and her daughter Carrie were considered mentally handicapped (as they had illegitimate children). The doctor said that Carrie’s seven-month-old daughter shows symptoms of delayed development, the Supreme Court allowed forced sterilization of "socially deficient” people in the whole of the United States. "Three generations of imbeciles are enough" - judge Olivier Holmes justified his decision.
And for decades, until the mid-20th century, this approach to "unadjusted" and "defective" people was strongly present not only in the scientific and public debate, but also in legislation in other Western countries (including Switzerland, Sweden, Norway, Finland, Denmark, Canada, Australia). Some of these "laws" survived until the 1970s of the previous century. People who, according to the "scientific" truth, were "socially maladjusted" (epileptics, tuberculars, ethnic minorities, mentally and physically disabled, prisoners) were publicly stigmatized, struggled with difficulties while getting married, getting a job or education. They were also isolated from the society without a verdict and forcibly sterilized.
Let us add to this picture the genocide in Africa, carried out at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries by the Belgians and Germans, which was also the result of a "scientific" approach to whole ethnic groups and the British government's permission for the terrible famine in Ireland and India in the name of scientific laws: not disturbing the biological "natural selection" and harmful economic and demographic effects, driven by "the invisible hand of the market"
Everything I wrote above, refers to the elites of the countries with the highest civilizational level, the most educated Western societies, the elites, certain of their "objective" and "scientific" approach to reality. In other words, the SAP representatives. In a somewhat more simplified version, a bit more brutal and on, beyond comparison, on a more massive scale, such views resulted in the genocide of national socialism (which cared very much about its scientific legitimacy) and the "scientific socialism" in the vast areas of Europe and Asia.
Because SAP divides reality into a scientific and unscientific one, it is difficult for him to define the racist views, which have dominated for several generations at universities, as unscientific ones. Instead, he rather talks about erroneous theories that have been rejected over time and the inability to prove the fact that Nazism was the result of scientism. Indeed, it is difficult to deduce a specific thesis from the fact that in 1905 there were 6,000 books, dedicated to "scientific racism" in the University of Strasbourg library, but it should be alarming. Also, the fact that the book of the British scholar Huston Chamberlain (in which he argued that the history of the West is a history of the struggle of divine Arians with diabolical Jews), reached the status of a bestseller in Germany (250,000 copies were sold in the beginning of the 20th century) and it became compulsory reading in Protestant high schools (Chamberlain argued that Christ was Arian, while the Jews founded the Catholic Church). However, I would not agree with the statement that because there is no research proving that Chamberlain's writing supported the later success of Adolf Hitler, this view is irrational.
Making an Absolute out of science and an object of a quasi-religious cult, and thus transforming science into ideology, had far-reaching consequences, as ideology, while offering a comprehensive explanation of the world, does not tolerate rivals. So, it is a natural enemy of religion. Mechanics, adapted from the Newtonian world of celestial bodies in the nineteenth century, was extended to all reality: physical, botanical, zoological and human, which meant determinism and materialism in the description of reality, and thus atheism as well. "At the age of eighteen I believed in what most people, known as educated, believed in at the time. In all its extent I recognized the monist and mechanistic hypotheses as right: I believed that this world is an inexorable chain of causes and effects, with which tomorrow or the day after tomorrow science will deal perfectly ", noted the French poet and diplomat, Paul Claudel. "All (allegedly) great people of this ending century distinguished themselves with their hostility towards the Church."
And because in the entire nineteenth century there was no greater promoter of scientism and opponent of religion, especially Catholicism, effectively combining the figure of a wiseman, prophet and celebrity, than the aforementioned Ernst Haeckel (being "by the way”, a promoter of racism and eugenics), so - for the benefit of science - he was forgiven for quite a bit of deviations from the very science. As he had created many erudite theories based on the manipulation of facts, which – owing to his fame - were treated seriously for years. The most important of them was the theory of recapitulation. Haeckel was convinced that during development, vertebrate embryos recapitulate the earlier stages of development. Thus, the human embryo was to evolve through the stage of fish, lizard, turtle, chicken and mammals: a pig, a cow and a dog, until reaching the stage of a human embryo.
The first version of the drawings, illustrating these views, was published by Haeckel in 1866 and they became the most famous drawings in the history of biology, recognized as evidence of the universality of the laws of evolution. The problem is that this "proof" was created by Haeckel on a drawing board.
Under the pressure of other scholars, he finally admitted faking drawings - an act that should have eliminated him from the ranks of serious scholars. However, this did not refer someone with the Haeckels’ fame and position, who with an even greater fantasy began matching the drawings to his theory. And as they were suggestive and fit the worldview of most scientists, they were reprinted in biology textbooks for over one hundred years (sometimes they are even used today), although the theory of recapitulation has been rejected long time ago. The scholar is still considered a pioneer of progress. In 1992, one of the asteroids was named after Ernest Haeckel.
An example of another influential scheme are the reports "Sexual behavior of men" and "Sexual behavior of women", which in the mid-twentieth century was published by Alfred Kinsey (professor of entomology, supporter of eugenics and a committed atheist). Nobody questions that in detail (asking over 500 questions), he interviewed a large group of men and women (over 11,000 people) about their sexual experiences. And if his work was a just research report, there would be nothing to question. But this report not only claimed to talk about the sexuality of American men and women (and the group was deeply unrepresentative, as there were almost three times more single men and non-believers than on average), but it generally discussed the sexual life of all people. And that is why Kinsey's works should be included in the category of science-based ideology.
Kinsey studied only volunteers who wanted to talk about their sexual behaviors themselves. In addition, some of them received gratification, which could have encouraged them to color their confessions (this is especially true for a numerous group of male prostitutes). In addition, up to one third of all respondents were convicted of sexual offenses, and 10 percent of the male sample were regular visitors of gay clubs (quite limited in the 1940s). Particularly appalling was the fact that the source of information on erotic behavior of children were the accounts of nine pedophiles. The most degenerated of them was the basic "scientific" source, because - as Kinsey's colleague wrote - "he had a scientific flair and made detailed records of each such event" for 30 years. No wonder that Kinsey's report very positively assessed the sexual relations between children and adults.
Due to the lack of volunteering married couples, Kinsey considered as a "marriage", every relationship of a man and woman, which lasted for over a year (as "marriages" he also considered relations between prostitutes and their pimps), and he covered the under-representation of people with higher education by considering all of those who attended any academic course as university graduates. Therefore, such eminent scholars as Abraham Maslow, who co-participated in the program, criticized the base of the research from the very beginning, believing that polling only volunteers leads to the distortions of results. Kinsey, however, preferred to break off the cooperation with Maslow, rather than change the method. After the publication of the report, the famous mathematician John Tukey, analyzing Kinsey's methods, stated that "a random selection of three people would be more representative than the group of 300 people chosen by Mr. Kinsey", and the most prominent statisticians prepared a devastating report for the American Statistical Association, proving that the Kinsey’s report does not meet the scientific criteria.
It would seem that the matter is obvious. For the SAP, however, it was more important to free the humanity from the "unscientific" approach to sex and the "irrational" sexual taboos. The report - publicized by the media - had a powerful impact on shaping not only the imagination and morality of Westerners, but also on the shape of school programs and legislation. "Kinsey is one of the greatest pioneers of sexology”, - says Prof. Lew-Starowicz - “he was the first one to conduct a great empirical research on sex and obtained specific, quite shocking results. His works caused a breakthrough in mentality and contributed to the subsequent sexual revolution." And Professor Zbigniew Izdebski adds: "Kinsey was the first to prove the conflict of moral principles with the real behaviors of man, especially women. " Please note the word "prove.". "Prove" equals "indisputable".
Ideology versus religion
Why were the obvious, publicly disclosed impostures never rejected, and scientists stigmatized? The answer is contained in the dichotomy: scientific - unscientific, rational - irrational.
Because Haeckel and Kinsey (but the issue also refers to multitude of less-recognized scholars) fought against what was "unscientific" and "irrational", so they stood on the side of science and rationality. And as they undermined the "traditional" unscientific ethical norms and weakened the strength of religious irrationalism; therefore, their merits were covered by small workshop failures (the word "cheat" would be too much). This is how two-mindedness of the followers of scientism was born. The entire sphere of religion is pushed into the space of what is "unscientific" and "irrational". It is not worth to make any dialogue with it. "The believers are told that their language is internally incomprehensible and that they themselves cannot understand it" - described the process Leszek Kołakowski. And he explained further: "This is because their language fails before the rules of intelligibility imposed by philosophical ideology, the main task of which is to shape these rules so that religious language can be excluded from what is understandable”.
This exclusion not only includes religion, which falls at most to the rank of "religious feelings”. Also, ethics and the whole world of values (as they are not "rational" in a "scientific" way) become a sphere of subjective feelings. However, elementary common sense suggests that the division of the whole reality into what is rational (based on principles of logic or empirically verifiable) and what lacks rationality (irrational) is unwise. There are, after all, huge areas of human experience that escape from such a dichotomy. Everything, which refers to love and faith and good and beauty cannot be locked within logical results and is not subject to experiments. True, love should always be wise, and I should also be able to show the rationales of my faith, as well as logically argue why I consider a particular thing good or beautiful. But faith and love, goodness and beauty exceed the category of rationality - they must be wise, but they are supra-rational.
Throughout the whole antiquity, the most remarkable minds have tried to prove that people are inherently unequal. It was owing to Christianity that the ideal of equal dignity of all people began to spread. Today, it is obvious for the Westerners. But the fact of the equality of all people cannot be proved by purely logical results, and science will never construct an instrument that could measure the value of dignity. So, is the notion of equality irrational, and therefore dangerous?
Let us add that the SAP mind has been subjected to cultural brainwashing for almost 300 years, and it honestly believes that science after the ancient period of development has been suppressed in the “dark ages” until Renaissance, that religion is a source of intolerance and violence, that human rights were invented by the French Revolution, that universities emerged in the fight against the Church, and modern science flourished thanks to freeing the minds from the bonds of dogma, and that Church has been teaching for ages that Earth is flat, or forbade autopsies. Just add the contemporary facts: media-advertised cases - often unfortunately true - of the clergy's hypocrisy, or – also often true - cases of a magical approach to Christianity, so that the SAP mind would be perfectly impregnated to open itself to faith and the Church.
I had something to think about when as an element of arguments I was attacked for criticizing the scientist view I cited after the prominent 20th century science philosopher, Hans Reichenbach: "The faith that science is to answer every question, and that when you need technical help, when you are ill or experience any psychological problems, it is sufficient to turn to a scholar for an answer - is so widespread that science has taken over the function of providing a sense of security. The faith in science has largely replaced faith in God. "
It would seem that faith in science as God is an obvious abuse of both concepts and that the faith that science will answer every human question possible is naïve and unscientific. Only later I realized that, according to SAP, God is a being that is a response to human helplessness, ignorance and fears, filling the gaps of current knowledge, while offering comfort of safety. In other words, what I kept telling my unbelieving friends: "If I believed in the God that you believe in, I would not believe either".
For a believer, as the catechism of the Catholic Church says - "God excels all creatures. We must, therefore, constantly purge our language from what is limited, pictorial and imperfect, not to confuse the unspeakable, incomprehensible, invisible and elusive God with our human ways of expression. It must be remembered that when we point to a similarity between the Creator and the creation, the incongruity between them is always greater, and that speaking about God, we cannot determine who He is, but only who He is not".
God is therefore a being beyond all our categories of understanding and treating it as a "gap filler" is a magical approach that is deeply contrary to Christianity.
On the other hand, science, a great and wonderful achievement of the human mind, is a systematically collected and expanded resource of knowledge, that describes phenomena, strives to explain their causes, connections and laws governing them, subjecting their claims to methodical control by verifying established results.
For a Catholic believer, there is a huge gap between faith in God and faith in anything else. For a non-believer, the case looks different. Science is a rational method of solving human problems, whereas God is an unscientific and irrational filler of unmet human needs. The British biologist (scientist and eugenic supporter), Julian Huxley, put it concisely: "The universe can live, work, plan, as it has created God in the mind of a man". This view was expressed in a manifesto of prominent mathematicians, logicians and physicists who created the so-called Vienna Circle in the 1920s of the 20th century in a more scientific form. They rejected with contempt the "metaphysical astray", because "the scientific worldview does not know unsolvable riddles", as "everything is available to man, man is the measure of all things".
This overbearing of judging, the certainty of having the absolute, scientific truth that dominated science for nearly two centuries, began to pound in the beginning of the last century, until it finally fell apart. The emergence of quantum mechanics and the theory of relativity crashed the world of naive determinism and materialism. What is more, Kurt Goedel, an Austrian logician and mathematician, showed that there are limits to cognition in mathematics, and Werner Heisenberg, one of the founders of quantum mechanics, proved the same in physics. So, science itself launched a process of erosion of pride, self-confidence and unwavering optimism that characterized scientism.
The limits of the scientific method have also been noticed. Even such a prominent man, as the excellent logician, eugenics supporter, apostle of atheism and laureate of the Nobel Prize for literature for a book, promoting sexual freedom, Bertrand Russell, who dedicated his life to the creation of scientific ethics, found it unattainable: "We believe that a man who contributes to the greater good, paying for it with his own suffering, is a better man from the one who making himself happy, causes others to suffer”, - wrote this mathematician and philosopher - “I do not know any rational basis for this view, and perhaps for even more rational view that what the majority wants is more desirable than what the minority wants”. True, these are ethical problems, but I do not know any other way, besides politics or war, to resolve them. All I can say about this is that opinions in ethics can be defended by the reference to an ethical axiom (an imperturbable presupposition, the absolute - MZ). However, if this axiom is not recognized, then there is no way to come to a rational conclusion".
These restrictions apply not only to ethics. The whole world of good and beauty, faith and love, although it should have a rational character, it is not subjected to scientific methods and strictly rational analysis. As one of the creators of quantum mechanics, Erwin Schroedinger, put it in the introduction to his book: "Dear reader, or even better - dear female reader: recall the bright, radiant, joyful eyes of your child ... Let then the physicists tell you that in the objective reality nothing emanates from these eyes ... In "reality". What a terrible reality. Something important seems to have died in it”.
What many years ago has become obvious for the representatives of exact sciences, is not so obvious for the SAP, and the reality does not induce him to review his views. And yet, his worldview is an anachronism. His vision of history, and hence the present, is extremely untrue, saturated with deceitful clichés from 200-300 years ago.
Nearly a hundred years ago, the founder of quantum electrodynamics, Paul Dirac, described the destruction of a naive, commonsense description of the world: "Recently it is becoming more and more clear that Nature operates according to a completely different plan than it was thought earlier ".
Therefore, given the scientific exposure of the unscientificity of scientism by the "queen of science" of the last centuries, physics, the 21st century scientists are trying to transfer their mechanics and determinism to other sciences: genetics, brain science and social sciences, because they do not have such an extensive verification and falsification mechanism, as exact sciences. Let’s hope that since inanimate matter has broken down most of the categories of our cognition, it should not succeed in inserting much more complex structures into the nineteenth-century corset.
THE INVISIBLE HAND OF HUMAN BEHAVIOR
The purpose of this brief presentation of the ideology, accrued on science is not stigmatizing or tracing those responsible for the shape of history. However, the experiences of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, in a too cruel way to ignore them, forces out a conclusion that when the search for the truth turns into a belief in its possession, pride will replace humility with reality. If science stops remembering about the limits of the scope of reality, which it describes, it will transform into a dangerous ideology.
After all, I am convinced that if in the nineteenth century the "scientistic resonance" phenomenon would not occur (which had little to do with science); if there was no certainty of reaching the absolute truth; if it was not thought that science is the only criterion for the organization of social life (which was precisely captured by the motto of the Exhibition World in Chicago in 1933: "Science Finds - Industry Applies - Man Adapts"), the history of the bloodiest century in human history would look completely different.
It is worth thinking about it to be able to learn from the past. Scientism still plays an important role on the cultural map of the whole West. Its myths and stereotypes still - to a large extent - shape the Western mentality. The certainty of the acquired truth and crossing the limits of their disciplines by scientists are not a thing of the past.
In addition to brain and genetics sciences mentioned above, today's social sciences (with economics at the forefront) are based on them. The philosophy of the "invisible hand" not only still dominates the universities of the West, but also conquers the subsequent areas of the social life. Therefore, it should not come as a surprise that ethics and religion have been pushed by scientism into the sphere of subjective feelings.
Even the stock exchange tycoon George Soros began to alarm: "Over the course of history people have been regretting the fall of morality, but today a different factor is involved that makes the current situation different from the old days. It is about widespread market values. They have permeated into those areas of society that were once under the influence of non-market factors. By this I mean personal and political relationships and professions such as law and medicine ".
Also, in biology, at least since the creation of the works of the fighting atheist and eugenicist, Richard Dawkins, who developed the concept of a selfish gene, materialism and determinism are the axiom.
"If I get involved in any form of cooperation with anyone (especially an economic one), either in a competitive fight in the profession, or in courtship, or in the defense against theft, or in taking care of their offspring, or in efforts to raise their position on the income ladder, power or prestige - each of these actions can be interpreted as conducive to my reproductive success "- wrote the professor of biology Bogusław Pawłowski.
Many evolutionary sociologists are equally certain of owning the absolute truth about the origin of the human behavior: "Many aspects of the human activity seem unique: art, inventiveness, and science. They all seem to be the result of the free will. All of them, however, are evolutionarily justified. Each of them, without exception, has a hidden meaning and contributes to our reproductive success "- says Tomasz Kozłowski, doctor of sociology.
Such views are today preached at universities throughout the West, though they are merely an arbitrary pushing of biology and sociology into the corset of crude materialistic philosophy and have little to do with science. This is another, popular today, mutation of the "scientistic resonance": Newton's idea, copied into the world of economy, is transferred to the world of human societies as the "invisible hand of human behavior". Its main thesis is: modern science has proved that all human behavior is directed by egoism.
Since this thesis is, by definition, unverifiable, and is a conclusion from the authoritarian assumptions and encompasses all human behaviors, it can be freely used. After all, if owing to science it is known in advance that the motivation of all van Gogh’s, Norwid’s and Vivaldi's actions was economic and reproductive success, then their actions should be interpreted accordingly. Nolens volens, the author of this article is also striving for reproductive success in this way. And if he is not, then nature will reasonably throw his genes on the dustbin of history.
It only seems ridiculous. These grotesque concepts replicated at universities and in the media of the whole West become part of the self-knowledge of subsequent generations of SAP. And this is a quite frequently followed 21st century mutation of scientism. It is only secondary on what science scientism is built. It will always be an ideology. And so, it means that the world, built according to its principles, will always be an inhuman world.