Scientism and Values.pdf - Ludwig von Mises Institute

Science and the Studies of Man 79
Coon's story is all we can give in answer to the question how an
unknown animal became man. Had the answer been couched in
these terms, Mr. Coon could not have written his long and lively
book; he would have written a much smaller one, and a more
sober one. But he would not have been open to criticism.
It follows from what I have said that I do not reject the naturalistic
faith because I believe in man's special creation or in divine
miracles. I believe in only one miracle-the miracle of the universe.
As to creation of any kind-whether that of man or the
world-which is to say, as to the generative processes with which
the universe teems,-these are too mysterious or miraculous. for
me to advance anything resembling a "hypothesis." about them.
I am content to let Messrs. Hoyle and Gamow speculate about
them. As for myself, all I can do is to respond to these processes
with awe and piety. And with unappeased wonder.
That this is not acknowledged frankly, that conscientious scientists
do not see that their argument is enthymemic and the
implicit premise is a philosophic assumption and not an empirically
demonstrated proposition, is a fact that it is, most
important to notice, because only by noticing it do we grasp the
true nature of the conviction that these men possess. It is a faith.
And for this reason, when the studies of man claim to be scientific,
they are merely scientistic.
NOTES
1. In the writing of this paper I have not had history in mind, for I take
it that history is still fortunately free from scientistic contagion. But in
so far as the assertion is made that history is a science, in the sense of
the word here employed, what I say about the scientistic studies of man
applies to history.
2. Gobbledygook is not to be identified indiscriminately with the technical
language of a discipline, in which terms that are relatively precise are
introduced by scholars to save laborious periphrasis and mental effort.
For a deliberate attempt to introduce gobbledygook into a discipline, see
E. W. Count et ale "Do We Need More Becoming Words?" American
Anthropologist, Vol. LV, No.3 (1953) pp. 395 ff.
3. A valuable contribution towards defining the relation of psychology to
the human being is made by Paul Lafitte, The Person in Psychology,
Reality or Abstraction (London, 1957).