Yes, Science is a Belief System – and That’s OK

Apparently attempting to jump on the “IFL Science” bandwagon, comedian John Cleese tweeted that “science is a method of investigation, and NOT a belief system”. Notwithstanding that the first part of his argument is only partly true, and the second completely false, Cleese’s tweet quickly spread, eagerly repeated by fans, science bloggers and heavyweights like Richard Dawkins.

The viral spread of such a poor argument shows the creeping scourge of scientism, the contemptuous and bullying attitude that science is the only intellectual game in town. Peddlers of arrogant scientism not only, wrongly, attempt to over-extend science beyond its proper uses, they also damage science itself.

It is broadly correct that science is, indeed, a process, a scientific method. But, science is also a body of knowledge. But essential to the scientific method are certain beliefs, such as critical enquiry, testing hypotheses, falsification, and changing and adapting concepts in the light of new knowledge.

So, what is a belief? Essentially, to have a belief is simply to regard something to be true, or take it to be the case. For instance, that Paris is the capital of France, that horses exist, and so on. Philosophers being philosophers, naturally can’t let it rest at that, and epistemology (the philosophy of knowledge and justified belief) is a vast and complex field. But the basic principle needn’t be more complicated than that: the mental state of having the attitude that a proposition is true.

A belief system is a set of mutually supporting beliefs. As we can see, science is predicated on many mutually supporting beliefs: not just that a great many facts are true, but also that the world can be explained in terms of fundamental natural laws, for instance, or that the same experiments, repeated by different experimenters operating under the same conditions, will yield the same results, and so on.

It would seem, then, that it should be uncontroversial that science is a belief system – so why do so many people resist the notion? At the heart of the matter is a semantic contest over the word belief.

Increasingly, today, many are choosing to conflate science and atheism. Indeed, some argue that a scientific worldview necessitates atheism. Religion, then, is the enemy of science. And so, the word belief is deliberately conflated with religious belief.

The falseness of this claim should be immediately obvious. Just because some beliefs are religious, clearly does not mean that all beliefs are religious beliefs. Yet, this is the implicit argument being made. Ironically, the same argument is made by those who wish to argue that “science is just another religion”.

Another common semantic gambit is to argue that “I don’t believe in science, I trust science”. There is a modicum of soundness to this argument – it is, after all, now impossible for anyone to be fully conversant in even one of the major branches of science – but at heart, it is, in fact, a deeply anti-science argument. Science is organised scepticism. No-one should “trust” anyone in science. Hence the Royal Society’s motto: “On the word of no-one”.

Other common variants on the “trust” meme – such as, “I accept science”, and so on – can be similarly dismissed. Such semantic language-twisting is a destructive and crude power games.

Wielding science as a blunt weapon to tilt at religious windmills falls into the trap of scientism, which does far more damage to science than it does any religious bogey-men.

Scientism broadly describes the over-use of science in unwarranted situations, beyond the remit of the scientific method, be it politics, religion, or social policy. Broadly, it is the belief that science is the only branch of learning that matters, indeed that science is the only source of real knowledge, capable of solving all human problems.

As physicist Ian Hutchinson says, scientism is “arrogance and intellectual bullyism”, which damages science. Today, scientism is everywhere, especially among scientific media tarts like Neil DeGrasse Tyson, or Richard Dawkins. When Bill Nye claims to “save the world”, that is scientism gone crazy.

Scientism is bad for policy and bad for science. Ivory-tower academics, immune to the real-world consequences of their theories, are lousy, irresponsible policy-makers. Unelected technocrats, arrogantly prescribing economy-crippling policies from the safety of the academies, and making purposely scary predictions, do nothing but damage their own cause.

Yes, science is a belief system – and that’s OK. Some scientists might be better served examining their own beliefs, rather than sneering at others’.

Do you want:

  • Ad-free access?
  • Access to our very popular daily crossword?
  • Access to daily sudoku?
  • Access to Incite Politics magazine articles?
  • Access to podcasts?
  • Access to political polls?

Our subscribers’ financial support is the reason why we have been able to offer our latest service; Audio blogs. 

Click Here  to support us and watch the number of services grow.

Who is Lushington D. Brady?

Well, a pseudonym. Obviously.

But the name Lushington Dalrymple Brady has been chosen carefully. Not only for the sum of its overall mien of seedy gentility, reminiscent perhaps of a slightly disreputable gentlemen of letters, but also for its parts, each of which borrows from the name of a Vandemonian of more-or-less fame (or notoriety) who represents some admirable quality which will hopefully animate the persona of Lushington D. Brady.