A science enthusiast, in light of the wonders of scientific exploration and discovery, might be tempted to adopt science as their sole mantra and belief system for understanding the world around them. One must be cautious, however, to avoid stumbling into the pitfalls and short-sightedness of scientism, which does not allow for any other systems of evaluation or understanding. While I believe the methods of objective scientific experimentation cannot devise the nature of all things, I would argue that science can and does explain a lot more of our world than we realize.
Scientism’s detractors often cite beauty in art as a problematic point for the scientific method (Haack). It is highly unlikely that multiple observers will categorically agree on the artistic value of Beethoven’s Moonlight Sonata, Dali’s Persistence of Memory, or the latest Gucci handbag. Studies have demonstrated that an individual’s sense of beauty has less to do with any set of absolute factors and is more concerned with a person’s unique preferences as a result of their own life experience and familiarity (Peskin). Our subconscious minds “contain important information that can help us rapidly process the outside world” (Cozollno et al.), which might seem like an innate quality, but is really just an efficient means of applying what we have logically assimilated in the past. For example, in perceived beauty, Fibonacci’s sequence and “the golden ratio is aesthetically pleasing because it’s common in the natural world” (Obermiller and Berndt), allowing the possibility that the ratio is a scientific phenomenon. Similarly, much of what is considered physically attractive in the human figure is based on health and reproductive viability, as demonstrated by a natural inclination toward a taller stature in men, a rosy complexion, or large hips in women. While it’s true that we mistakenly attribute innate intuition for impressions that are actually brief synopses of past data from memory and nature, we must also allow that our ideas of beauty or “aesthetic verifications… are typically based on each evaluator’s direct sense experiences of objects’ particular features, not on universally agreed-upon procedures of interpreting them” (Naukkarinen), as each individual’s life experiences are also unique.
In summary, I believe that it is wise to err on the side of objectivity and the “absence of bias” (Godfrey-Smith 6) in all things, but allow for the possibility that, by degrees and from person to person, not all observations are categorically definable and empirically measurable. Not everything has already been seen and understood in this wide world of ours, but so much more than we realize – in terms of a common human experience and scientific discovery – has. The complexity of an individual’s response to their experiences, however, makes any concise evaluation of our surroundings elusory to scientific methods. It is an algorithm as complex as the human mind is changeable.
Works Cited:
Cozollno, Lou, et al. “The Science of Intuition.” Psychology Today, Sussex Publishers. Web. 20 Oct. 2021.
Godfrey-Smith, Peter. Theory and Reality : An Introduction to the Philosophy of Science. University of Chicago Press. EBSCOhost. Web. 2003.
Haack, Susan (2012). Six Signs of Scientism. Logos and Episteme 3 (1):75-95. Web. 1 Jan. 2014.
Naukkarinen, Ossi. “Why Beauty Still Cannot Be Measured.” Contemporary Aesthetics, Michigan Publishing, University of Michigan Library. Web. 16 Sept. 2010.
Obermiller, Jacob, and Sandra Berndt. “Golden Ratio: A Beginner’s Guide | Adobe.” Adobe Creative Cloud. Web. 2020.
Peskin M, Newell FN. Familiarity breeds attraction: effects of exposure on the attractiveness of typical and distinctive faces. Perception. Web. 2004.
The Thinker 