THEY ALWAYS PRETEND TO HAVE THE WHOLE TRUTH—How the epistemization of politics endangers democracy, and what this may have to do with scientism in school science

Abstract

The core of this essay is a review of Alexander Bogner's book “The Epistemization of Politics” (2021). It fits into the ongoing discussion about the role of scientism in science education. Bogner makes the provocative case that science denialism inadvertently points to contemporary scientism in the public sphere, and he observes that many science deniers mobilize (counter)experts and (counter)expertise because better knowledge seems to be “the harder currency” than softer values and interests, emotions, fears, or epistemological dissent. In this way, Bogner explains, the struggle for political hegemony has turned into a struggle for better knowledge. He calls this the epistemization of politics—a new form of political scientism. In this essay, I describe why reading this book was so valuable to me as a teaching professional and why I decided to share some important points with other science educators and scholars. I pose four important questions that I asked myself after reading Bogner's book—about scientism in school science paving the way for scientism in policy, about Science Studies positions in science education as a possible backdoor to science denial, about the role of the naturalistic fallacy in science education (do we always distinguish between facts and values?), and about how scientism in school science threatens the agency of our students. I discuss these points in light of recent publications in the science education literature. The essay is concluded with a number of original quotes from the last chapter of Bogner's book, which revisits his main points and can serve as a stimulus for further reflection.