The dangers of scientism

According to Wikipedia, scientism is the opinion that science and the scientific method are the best or only way to render truth about the world and reality. Followers of scientism tend to be zealots, more devout even than the average followers of traditional religions. What makes them especially stubborn is that they tend to not think of their beliefs as their “religion;” instead, they think scientism is simply the default way of thinking for any person and so they cannot comprehend any argument made from a different point of view. To them, if something can't be examined scientifically, it can't be true.

Now, you would think that people who practically worship science would welcome scientific debate. They say they do. Actually, they brag that they do. In the new Cosmos series, Neil deGrass Tyson offered these five, simple rules for science:

 

(1) Question authority.

(2) Think for yourself.

(3) Test ideas by the evidence gained from observation and experiment.

(4) Follow the evidence wherever it leads.

(5) Remember: you could be wrong.

Ignore the self-contradiction going on here, like in Rule #3: how can someone test the idea that we should test ideas by evidence?  My point in citing these “rules” is to show how skepticism is supposed to be at the heart of science. According to Tyson, I'm not supposed to accept a conclusion just because someone in authority says it's true. I'm supposed to think for myself. Right? I could be wrong but maybe it's the person making the claim who is wrong.

There are real scientists who are skeptics. At the risk of sounding cliché, scientific advancement often comes when people think outside of the box. Science Alert once published a list of 8 scientific papers that were rejected during peer review before going on to win a Nobel Prize. Obviously, these authors were on to something and the scientific establishment just couldn't see it. How often has one radical idea, one that other scientists may have thought sounded crazy, turned out to be true? Maybe we should ask Galileo.

Devout members of scientism aren't skeptics. They claim to be but they aren't. They blindly follow the majority opinion without question. You can often identify them by their frequent use of the phrase, “The science is settled.” To them, truth is whatever is accepted by a majority of scientists. Anyone who disagrees is considered a heretic. Actually, they don't call them heretics – they call them, “science deniers” but, in scientism, it means the same thing. Doubters of some scientific theory aren't ever called “skeptics” or “free thinkers;” they're “deniers.”

One ardent proponent of scientism is a YouTuber who posts under the name King Crocoduck.  Some time back he did a video series called, The Arrogance of Creationism.  By “arrogant,” I could only conclude he meant that we dared to object to the conclusion of secular scientists about evolution.  I was especially amused by the 4th video in his series.  I literally laughed out loud about 58 seconds into the video where he said, “Science works. Hate the method for being so rigorous – hate the conclusions for not conforming to your expectations – but do NOT deny its power!” He sounds like a super-villain.  Anyway, at one point in the video, he asserts, “Theology and philosophy simply cannot compete with science if the goal is to construct accurate models of reality.”  Yep, that’s textbook scientism all right.  This is the kind of attitude you can expect to see whenever you try to discuss any topic with a science zealot.  To them, science is the only way to learn about and understand reality.  

The failings with scientism are myriad but I’ll try to cover a few of the most obvious difficulties.  Take morality, for example. Is there really such a thing as morality? Certainly the universe doesn't care what we do. Science can only describe what happens but can't say if a thing is right or wrong. What some might call “murder” is just one animal killing another. It happens all the time in nature and it's no more wrong than an apple falling from a tree.  Theology and philosophy are far better tools for examining the reality of good and evil.

Science is also limited when examining history. Pick any person from history and try to prove – scientifically – that he really lived. The best evidence we have for people or events of antiquity is what has been written down about them. The evidence we have for the life, miracles, crucifixion, and resurrection of Jesus is the same type of evidence we have for Columbus having sailed to the Americas.

The worst thing about scientism, though, is that it retards critical thinking. Skepticism is supposed to be at the heart of scientific inquiry. In practice, though, once a majority of scientists accept any particular conclusion, it becomes, “settled science.” After that, any expression of doubt about the conclusion is met with ridicule, insults, and the label of being called a “science denier.” 

Let me give you a few examples of scientism's doctrine. The first is obviously evolution. I cannot tell you the number of times I've heard rabid evolutionists defend their theory by saying no credible scientist denies that evolution happened. Note the use of the word “credible,” but never mind blatant No True Scotsman fallacy. Truth is not decided by popular vote. Evolutionists often refuse to debate creationists on the grounds that “the science is settled,” “there is no debate among scientists whether evolution is true,” and debating the theory with creationists gives the impression there is still doubt over the theory.

Another long standing doctrine of this godless faith is climate change. Once upon a time, it was called “global warming” but after decades of no noticeable increase in the global, mean temperature, they had to replace “warming” with the much more ambiguous term, “change.” Actually, none of the dire predictions made by these alarmists have happened. In 2008, ABC aired a video montage showing all the terrible things that would happen by 2015 because of climate change: New York flooding, hundreds of miles of scorched earth, and skyrocketing food and fuel prices. I remember 2015. It was nothing like the predictions made by the video but followers of scientism aren't embarrassed by their failed predictions; The “science is settled” concerning climate change and bad things are going to happen unless we do something now. //RKBentley shakes his head//

A while back, Bill Nye was embarrassed by Tucker Carlson when he tried to pull that “the science is settled” crap. Carlson was asking basic questions about climate change and Nye was obviously making up the answers. Before we spend trillions of dollars on this “crisis,” we need to have some answers: the most fundamental question is, is there even any warming? If it is happening, to what extent are humans causing it? If we could stop warming, should we? What is the earth's temperature supposed to be?  Plants require CO2; what would happen to our forests if we could reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere? These are legitimate questions but they are heresy to dogma-driven zealots like Nye.  We are not allowed to ask any questions.  For me to even bring them up puts my own social media accounts at risk.  The expectation is that lay peasants like me need to shut up and trust the scientific elite!  

There are many other scientific issues that have become political - things like vaccinations, masks, and gender dysphoria.  We have been told by all the big tech organizations that simply asking questions about these topics means we’re spreading misinformation.  Mr. deGrass Tyson, where are you now?  You should be leading the charge against such censorship but you’ve been strangely silent.  How can there even be science if no one is allowed to ask questions?  This type of belief actually hinders science.  What has been passing as science in the media is simply blind allegiance to religious dogma.  Believers in this brand of “science” aren’t “scientists” - they’re zealots!