Plain Language Translation

Scientism refers to the belief that the scientific method is the only valid approach to acquiring knowledge and understanding the world. Scientism can lead to a reductionist and narrow understanding of reality, overlooking the complexities and nuances of human experience and the limitations of scientific inquiry.

Scientism often arises from a reductionist view of the world, where everything can be reduced to its fundamental components and explained solely through scientific principles. It dismisses other forms of knowledge, such as philosophical, sociological, or experiential knowledge, as inferior or irrelevant.


This narrow perspective can lead to epistemic injustice, which is the unfair distribution of knowledge and credibility based on social, cultural, or institutional biases.

Epistemic injustice occurs when the knowledge of marginalized people is dismissed due to social biases and inequalities.

Scientism contributes to epistemic injustice by encouraging disregard for the complexities of human experience, emotions, values, and subjective aspects of reality that cannot be fully captured by scientific methods alone.

To counteract this, a syncretic traversal of semiotic domains can be employed.

Syncretism refers to the merging or blending of different beliefs or practices. By exploring and integrating multiple domains of knowledge, we can promote epistemic justice and create serendipitous discoveries.

Semiotic domains are different realms of meaning-making, such as art, literature, and personal experiences. By acknowledging and valuing diverse ways of knowing and understanding, epistemic justice can be achieved.

Epistemic justice recognizes that different cultures, perspectives, and ways of understanding the world contribute to a more comprehensive understanding of truth.

Epistemic justice brings about created serendipity, which refers to the intentional creation of opportunities for unexpected discoveries and insights. This approach encourages openness to different perspectives and allows for the emergence of new knowledge and understandings.

Through the practice of epistemic justice, we can avoid falling into common cognitive traps such as the fundamental attribution error. This error involves attributing someone’s behavior solely to their internal characteristics, while ignoring situational factors. By considering the broader context and acknowledging the influence of social and environmental factors, we can avoid making unfair judgments.

Another trap that can be avoided through epistemic justice is the triple empathy problem. This problem arises when individuals fail to empathize with others who have different cultural backgrounds or experiences. Epistemic justice promotes the recognition and understanding of diverse perspectives, fostering empathy and reducing this problem.

Furthermore, epistemic justice challenges the notion of the “conquering gaze from nowhere.” This concept refers to the belief in an objective and detached perspective that is free from biases and situatedness. Epistemic justice challenges this notion by recognizing that all knowledge is situated and influenced by the social, cultural, and historical contexts of the observer and the observed.

Epistemic justice encourages us to critically examine our own perspectives and biases, promoting humility and self-reflection in our pursuit of knowledge. While objectivity is important in scientific research, it can also lead to a disregard for subjective experiences and alternative ways of knowing. Epistemic justice reminds us to value and include diverse perspectives.

Epistemic justice encourages us to consider the social, cultural, and contextual influences that shape individuals’ actions and beliefs, preventing us from making hasty and biased judgments.

Epistemic justice recognizes that all knowledge is situated and influenced by various factors, such as power dynamics and social identities. By acknowledging these influences, we can dismantle the myth of meritocracy and challenge the marginalization of certain groups.

In summary, by embracing a syncretic traversal of semiotic domains, we can overcome the limitations of scientism and avoid epistemic injustice. This interdisciplinary approach allows for a more inclusive and comprehensive understanding of the world, fostering serendipitous discoveries and promoting a more equitable distribution of knowledge.

Design is tested at the edges. Recognize and validate lived experience and situated forms of knowledge. Doing so generates serendipity, fuels emergence, and celebrates interdependence.

For more in-depth analysis, refer to the article “Scientism and Epistemic Injustice: On the Problems with “Science of Reading”“.

AI Disclosure: The summary above was created with the help of Elephas AI Assistant.