This week, we examine the question whether science overreaches. It our sixth and final episode onour series on Intellectual Humility.

科学通常不会被认为是一种知识分子的傲慢。Indeed, like faith, which we examinedin an earlier episode, an argument can be made that science is a form of intellectual humility. After all, the scientific method is about making sure your beliefs are regulated by observations and experiments rather than by personal biases, subjective preferences, or mere stubborn pride. If science is understood in this way, it may sound odd to suggest that science sometimes overreaches. What would could such a thing even mean? Without science we’d be back on the Savannah hunting with stone axes.

But science has the tendency to believe that it is the measure of all things—of what is, that it is; and of what is not, that it is not. On this view, science belongs in every lane. But this is where the charge of arrogance starts to gain some bite. Science is not the measure of beauty. It is not the measure of meaning. Nor is it the measure of right and wrong. More generally, science may be the measure of whatis. But is it really the measure of whatoughtto be? And if it tries to tell us not just what is, but what ought to be, isn’t it stepping out of its lane?

但是，我必须承认，要把我们可能称之为“不可接触的人”的名单完全排除在科学范围之外，这比我迄今为止所说的要难一些。例如，假设我们问这些不可触及的事物是客观的还是主观的。问题是，如果我们的答案是肯定的，也就是说，美或对与错或意义是客观的，那么似乎科学就能最终决定它们的存在或不存在。毕竟，发现和解释世界的客观特征不正是科学和科学本身的工作吗?所谓世界的客观特征，我指的是所有在那里的东西，独立于我们的主体性。首先想想夸克，胶子和所有不那么基本的东西，比如岩石，细胞和动物，它们都是由基本的东西构成的。关键是，如果美是真实存在的，那么它必须以某种方式融入这幅美丽的画面中。如果科学最终发现美不是这幅图的一部分，那么我们就只能得出结论，美不是真实的!在这种情况下，美将不得不走所有已经消亡的教条、迷信和幻想的道路，而科学已经逐步迫使我们抛弃这些教条、迷信和幻想。

That gives a lot of power to science. And if this sounds a tad reductionistic, that’s because it is. It’s the very heart and soul of reductionism to insist that the only objectively real things are those things that are either themselves fundamental constituents of mind-independent reality or those additional things that have their being by way of arrangements and collections of more fundamental things.

Reductionism is widely endorsed among many scientists and many philosophers—though hardly any literary types are reductionists. The former wear the word ‘reductionist’ as a badge of honor. The latter see it as more of swear word. But I should say that even some scientists and philosophers also reject reductionism. One kind of anti-reductionist (there are many) might insist that even if it turned out that beauty is not included in the final inventory of the objective features of the world, all that would show is that beauty is an ineffable property of human experience, beyond the reach of science. “You mean, like a figment of the imagination, perhaps?” the reductionist might arrogantly retort. "Not at all," the anti-reductionist will respond. She will insist that even if beauty is not “out there” somewhere, it might still be something real. "After all," she will say, "we are real. And if we’re real, then so are our many experiences. To deny that beauty isobjectivelyreal is not to deny that it issubjectivelyreal."

Of course, philosophers go back and forth about the meaning of ‘reality.’ And some reductionists will want to deny that so-called subjective reality is a genuine form of reality. After all figments of our imagination, to return to an earlier point, are real in this sense. Perhaps it’s only philosophers, however, who will care to debate the true meaning of the term ‘real.’ So, I will set that issue aside for now.

反简化论者想要提出的更深层次的观点是，像美这样的主观现实(如果只是为了当前的论点，我们承认美不存在客观的标准或基础)，早在我们对科学如此痴迷之前，就已经在人类思想中占据了主导地位。她会说，即使我们决定放弃科学，它对我们的影响也会持续下去。并不是说她预测这样的悲剧结局永远不会发生。她只是想说，天堂和地球上有比科学教科书梦想的更多的东西。例如，她还坚持认为科学永远不会取代文学。文学所做的事情是科学无法企及的!Science mayexplain他的整个世界。But literaturenarrates他的整个世界。解释是关于原因和结果;叙述是关于经验、意义和价值的。Similarly, science will never replace morality, which also is not in the business ofexplainingthe world, but the entirely distinct business ofevaluating他的整个世界。

然而，还原论者还没有完全准备投降。她认为解释、评价和叙述之间的区别是深刻而重要的。但她也会坚持认为，我们人类在解释、叙述、评估或仅仅是体验这个世界时，可以——确实必须——有一门科学。毕竟，她会说，我们人类是自然的一部分!我们人类是由物质和能量组成的，而不是令人毛骨悚然的东西。作为自然的一部分，我们所经历、所重视、所创造或所经历的一切，最终都必须植根于我们纯粹的自然力量。她会问，解释宇宙中每一种自然力量的运作方式，包括我们人类解释、叙述和评价的能力，难道不是我们的工作吗?

最后这个想法有一点是对的。但这里面到底有没有一丝傲慢的科学主义潜伏呢?Scientism is the view that everything has to bow toScience, the Almighty Ruler! Scientism knows the fact of everything but the value of nothing! Science is good; scientism bad. Scientism is what science becomes when its transgresses its boundaries and engages in intellectual overreach.

T他的回答不明显。即使是顽固的简化论者也应该承认科学有其局限性。至少，她应该承认，好的科学和坏的科学，伪科学和真正的科学是有区别的。但这并不是我们要讨论的重点。One who rejects scientism isn’tipso facto致力于纯粹的伪科学她的观点是，有许多问题，即使是最好的科学也不能指望回答——其中最主要的是关于意义和价值的问题。她坚持认为，这些问题根本就不是科学的首要任务。她愿意承认科学和伪科学之间是有区别的。但她也坚持认为，有许多研究领域与科学无关，因此科学没有必要介入。当它真的入侵时，它就变成了一种智力上的傲慢。

Personally, I find the task of drawing sharp boundaries between genuine science, pseudoscience, and that which is not in the business of science exceedingly difficult. But I certainly think it's a thing worth trying to do. We could definitely use your help, however. So, take a stab at it. Join the conversation. Let’s see what we can come up with together.