Name: CABRERA, JOHN LLOYD S.

Date submitted: June 22, 2023

Course/Code: GE 5 STS – 10917

Assignment 6: Documentary Film Analysis

1. Why was C. S. Lewis very much a skeptic and critic of scientism? Was
he against science?
- Despite his opposition to scientism, which holds that science is the only
method to explain the universe and that it has all the answers, C. S. Lewis
was not anti-science. Lewis thought that there are alternative ways to
understand the universe, such as through philosophy and religion, and that
science can only fully explain some aspects of it. In his perspective,
scientism can result in a reductionist worldview in which everything is seen
in terms of its physical components and morality or spirituality is irrelevant.

2. How did C.S. Lewis explain the following:

- Science as religion, Lewis provided a fairly simple framework for the
interaction between science and religion. Science is only one of the
domains that is impacted by religion, which is the worldview that defines all
aspects of existence. Lewis believed that it was a failure to recognize what
religion is to discuss the relationship between science and religion as if
they were two distinct branches of knowledge.

- Science as credulity, He understood that most of the time, when people

heard claims made in the name of science, they readily trusted them. even
if there aren't any justifications or supporting facts. He was merely trying to
make the point that before accepting something as true, we should
investigate it further.

- Science as power, C.S. Lewis wrote a great deal about the relationship
between science and power, frequently examining the conflict between
modern science and traditional beliefs. C.S. Lewis also held that science
can lead to an isolation of reality and a lack of respect for traditional moral
and spiritual values when it is utilized as a tool of power. He claimed that
in order for science to be a tool for understanding and bettering the world
rather than a means for dominating and controlling it is critical to maintain
a balance between scientific advancement and traditional values.
3. Why did C. S. Lewis think that modern science is far more dangerous
than magic?
- According to C.S. Lewis, modern science poses a much greater threat
to society than magic since it may be utilized to produce harmful objects
like nuclear weapons. He thought that magic could not produce such
things because it is constrained by natural rules. Lewis also thought that
the study of scientific knowledge for its own sake, without taking into
account the moral impacts, can result in the dehumanization of humans as
well as the loss of wonder and reverence for the natural world.

4. Why did C. S. Lewis become increasingly concerned about the rise of

scientocracy? How does scientocracy relate to scientism?
- On the other side, scientism is a philosophical perspective that asserts
that science is the only valid method of learning about the world and
resolving issues. Scientism encourages the notion that scientific
professionals should have more influence over decision-making than other
types of expertise or values, which can lead to the emergence of the
scientocracy. In conclusion, C.S. Lewis viewed scientocracy as a threat
because it could result in a reductionist view of humanity and the loss of
other types of knowledge and wisdom, whereas scientism is a
philosophical position that can help scientocracy flourish by endorsing the
notion that science is the only trustworthy method of comprehending and
resolving issues.

5. Based on what you learned in the documentary film, how does scientism
pose a threat to the human person flourishing in science and
technology? Why should science be guided by an ethical basis that is
not dictated by science itself?
- Scientism is the idea that science should be the exclusive source of
information and that all other knowledge must be rejected. Given that
science cannot provide answers to all of the crucial concerns for human
flourishing, this perspective can result in a reliance on science for moral
and ethical judgment. The search of knowledge, advancement, and
efficiency by science is not value-neutral and may result in unforeseen
consequences. Science should be governed by an ethical framework that
takes into account moral issues at every stage of the research process,
from funding decisions to the design of experiments and the distribution of
findings, in order to advance human wellbeing. This harmonizes scientific
advancement with societal ideals and objectives, promoting the welfare of
all people.