Against Scientism

Scientism is the thesis that we should only believe claims that can be derived from empirical observation.

Scientism, if true, would undercut vast swathes of our knowledge.  Moral claims, aesthetic claims, and mathematical and logical truths.  Induction itself, central to the scientific enterprise, cannot be derived from empirical experience.  Other key components of science are also not justifiable on Scientism:  The external reality of the world, and perhaps Occam’s Razor(?).  

Scientism also cuts out philosophical rationalism, which is well defended by Bonjour in his book In Defense of Pure Reason.  If philosophical rationalism can be established on independent grounds, then Scientism is defeated.

The epistemology of Scientism is just badly formed on more broad epistemological grounds.  It doesn’t adequately account for how we know that other people have minds, or for basic justified beliefs in general.  If Reliabilism can be defended, this also seems a path to knowledge that Scientism would disallow.

Scientism is also self-refuting.  The thesis itself: “we should only believe claims that can be derived from empirical observation,” is not derivable from sense-experience, so should be rejected according to its own standard.