Scientism and Values.pdf - Ludwig von Mises Institute

Science and the Studies of Man 81
Being in the Peak-Experiences." His recent papers all indicate that the
subject matter in which he is interested, which is of great importance,
cannot be handled within the restrictions of scientism.
10. Thus, one of the contributors to this volume, Professor von Bertalanffy,
seems to hold (I say "seems," because I am not certain that I have
understood him) that teleology is no longer a problem among biologists.
II. Philosophers of science will consider this account of what scientists do
superficial and inaccurate. But a more accurate account of the matter
would take us too far afield. The essential point I want to make is that
the student of man, for complex reasons, cannot handle value data as
the scientist handles merely factual, value-free data.
12. Redfield, Ope cit.} p. 40.
13. S. F. Nadel, The Foundations of Anthropology (Glencoe, 111., 1951-but
the Preface is dated November, 1949). A. Irving Hallowell, "Personality
Structure and the Evolution of Man," American Anthropologist) Vol.
LII, No.2 (April-June, 1950), pp. 159 ff. Since failure of communication
at this point would lead to a total misunderstanding of my point, let me
emphasize that I am not speaking here about the cluster of problems
brilliantly elucidated by Redfield in The Primitive World and Its Transformations
(Ithaca, New York, 1953). Redfield starts with beings that are
already human. I am referring to the critical period during which the
transition took place between a prehuman animal and the culturerearing,
symbol-using animal, the full human beings we now are.
14. Carleton S. Coon, The Story of Man (New York, 1954), pp. 11-12. If
Hiirzeler's Oreopithecus is accepted, Mr. Coon's ape took to the grass in
vain, for he was too late to found a dynasty. And, what is more amusing
to the student of philosophy, Bishop Wilberforce's query to Huxley had
a point in spite of His Grace's prejudice and ignorance. But our problem
is not changed by little Oreopithecus.
15. Ope cit.} p. 18.
16. Ope cit.) p. 28, p. 32.
17. Ope cit.} pp. 96 fI.
18. Ope cit.) pp. 45, 47, 61, 65.
19. Ope cit.) p. 101.
20. Ope cit.) p. 105.
21. Loc. cit. I may be giving the reader the impression of being a carping,
implacable, and even picayune critic. So be it. But these are important
questions, and one cannot stand by and watch them settled in such a
cavalier manner by a man who speaks in the name of science. On Mr.
Coon's conception of religion and of art, they are both means of restoring
equilibrium. It would seem that the difference between one mode of
experience and the other requires careful discrimination, in which the
anthropologist would be as seriously interested as the student of philosophy.
But note that I am not complaining that Mr. Coon failed to
elucidate the distinction between religion and art; that is not within his
professional competence. The complaint is that he did not indicate in
passing that this difference constitutes a difficult problem. Is it not desirable
that the scientist who writes for the general public should point