History (at least the evidence based parts of it – “the historical method” is a subset of the scientific method) is very much a science as I’m sure you are aware. Philosophy is a grab bag of various fields. There are forms of philosophy dealing with logic and the like that could reasonably be grouped in with science, but the parts that claim to have insight into “morality” are no more scientific than religion.
Poetry, painting, music, etc. are fine endeavors, but they can’t generate knowledge. Many of them can popularize and spread knowledge (like how the Renaissance artists spread knowledge of human anatomy to those who had never seen cadavers themselves, but they were based on the scientific ), or promote ideologies as Christian and Soviet art did, but that’s not the same thing.
Let’s not forget that science has been used by actual scientists to do horrific things to people. Eugenics was once considered a serious science, which is easy to wave away now, but it was studied seriously as a science.
And religion was and is being used by actual clerics to do horrific things to people, The difference is science can (and does) say that things it did in the past were wrong, but even generally well meaning clerics like Pope Francis can’t do that with his religion because once a religion admits it was wrong, it’s done for.
Scientists are human beings and are as prone to making bad moral judgements and letting their biases sneak in as anyone of us. Morality isn’t the same as scientifically derived knowledge because there is often not clear cut answers to moral questions.
Yes, but that’s largely because “moral questions” aren’t knowable things. They are just opinons, like “Chocolate ice cream is the best!”.
Anyways, from that hotbed of anti-science thinking checks notes the American Association for the Advancement of Science, here is a clearly anti-science screed against scientism full of lies, half-truths, and superstitious nonsense…
No. That was published in Science magazine as an editorial, but is in no way the official position of the AAAS (as mentioned). The author works for the John Templeton Foundation, which if you don’t know, is an organization that is trying to promote religion among scientists. It really stunk up the issue of Science to see such stuff there, and it got many angry letters in response.