The Hidden Enemy of Science

Could a worldview that praises science actually destroy the foundations of science? In this episode, Karlo Broussard explains why scientism—the belief that science is the only source of real knowledge—ends up undermining rational inquiry, the human mind, and even science itself.

 

TRANSCRIPT:

Is it possible to promote science in a way that actually undermines the very foundations of science?

Believe it or not—yes.

And the irony is pretty striking.

The very worldview that claims to champion science can end up pulling the rug out from under it.

The name of this worldview is scientism.

So what exactly is scientism? And how could something that praises science end up undermining it?

Stick around, and you’ll find out.

>>>>>

Hey friends! Welcome back to the channel. I’m really glad you’re here. If you haven’t done so already, be sure to subscribe and hit that bell so you don’t miss upcoming videos. And if this podcast has been helpful to you, please consider supporting us on Patreon over at doctorkarlo.com—with “doctor” spelled out. If you’re already a patron, we want to say, “thank you.” Seriously, we’re grateful for your support because without your help we can’t keep doing this podcast.

>>>>

So let’s start with a definition. 

Scientism is a philosophical worldview that says scientific knowledge is the only real kind of knowledge. Or, scientific explanations are the only real kinds of explanations.

According to this view, if what you claim to know can’t be verified by the methods of modern science, then it doesn’t count as genuine knowledge. Or, if you try to offer a non-scientific explanation of something—like a philosophical explanation—then it isn’t a real explanation.

Now right away you can probably see why this view is often used as an obstacle to religious belief.

Claims about God, the soul, heaven, Jesus, and so on go beyond what the methods of modern science can test or verify.

If scientism is true, then religious belief would automatically be ruled out as real knowledge.

I actually addressed scientism in a previous episode called “Religion: A Betrayal of the Intellect” where I connected this view to contemporary atheists like Richard Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss.

In that episode I offered two major critiques.

First, scientism is self-refuting.

Second, it confuses methodology with ontology.

Briefly, here’s what I mean.

Take the statement: “Scientific knowledge is the only real kind of knowledge.”

That claim itself is not something science can verify.

Or, if you prefer a revised version: “scientific explanations are the only real kinds of explanations.”

That claim itself cannot be scientifically explained.

You can’t run an experiment to prove these claims. You can’t test them in a lab. You can’t capture them with any sort of mathematical equation.

What that means is that—according to its own standard—scientism itself can’t count as real knowledge or a real explanation.

So the claim undermines itself.

The second problem is that advocates of scientism often confuse how science works with what reality is.

Science uses methods designed to detect physical phenomena. But many who embrace scientism assume that because science studies the physical world, the physical world must be all that exists.

If you want a deeper dive into those critiques, be sure to check out that earlier video.

But today I want to explore two additional problems with scientism.

And these problems are especially interesting because they show that scientism isn’t just an enemy of religion.

It’s an enemy of science as well.

In fact, it actually undermines science.

And that’s definitely not a good outcome for a worldview that claims to defend science.

Let’s start with the first issue.

Scientism undermines science as a rational form of inquiry—or, as Richard Dawkins likes to say, a “real explanation.”

Here’s why.

Science depends on several assumptions that science itself cannot prove.

For example:

• that there is an external world outside the minds of scientists
• that the world operates through cause-and-effect patterns
• that the human intellect is capable of discovering those patterns

Think about it.

You can’t even start doing science unless you assume there’s a real world out there to investigate.

You also have to assume that nature behaves in a consistent way—that certain causes reliably produce certain effects. Otherwise experiments would be pointless.

And finally, you have to assume that the human mind is capable of understanding reality.

Without those assumptions, science never even get off the ground.

But here’s the key point.

Because these assumptions are presupposed by science, they cannot be scientifically verified.

You can’t use science to justify the very principles that make science possible in the first place.

Any attempt to justify them would require stepping outside science altogether. As philosopher Edward Feser explains in his book Five Proofs of the Existence of God:

“Such an extrascientific vantage point would falsify the claim that science alone gives us a rational means of investigating objective reality” (p. 274).

In other words, if we need non-scientific reasoning to justify science itself, then science clearly isn’t the only rational way to understand reality.

But scientism says it is.

So here’s the problem.

If scientism were true, then the basic assumptions of science would not count as real knowledge, because they aren’t scientifically verified. Or, to state it differently, those assumptions wouldn’t count as real explanations of the world because they can’t be scientifically explained.

And if the basic assumptions that science depends on don’t count as real knowledge or real explanations, then science itself can’t give us real knowledge or real explanations.

So the person who embraces scientism faces a choice:

Either accept scientism and reject science…

Or accept science and reject scientism.

You can’t consistently hold both.

The second problem goes even deeper.

Scientism ultimately undermines the reality of the human mind.

And that’s a serious issue—because without a real mind, there can’t be any scientific investigation in the first place.

Here’s how the argument works.

First, remember that scientism says scientific knowledge is the only real knowledge.

Anything that science can’t verify doesn’t count a real knowledge.

Now many advocates of scientism don’t take that to mean our intellects are simply in principle incapable of knowing what might be beyond the boundaries of scientific investigation. Rather, they take it one step further.

They argue that if science can’t verify something, then it probably isn’t real at all. This is the confusion of methodology with ontology that I spoke about in my video “Religion: A Betrayal of the Intellect.”

So the claim isn’t just epistemological—about knowledge.

It becomes metaphysical—about reality itself.

For example, atheist philosopher Alex Rosenberg writes in his book The Atheist’s Guide to Reality:

“physics is the whole truth about reality.” (p. 25)

In other words, physical reality is all that exists.

The next piece of the puzzle is this: Science, by its very nature, studies physical things.

That’s what its methods are designed to detect.

Now think about the human mind.

Mental activities—like forming hypotheses, weighing evidence, understanding concepts, recognizing logical connections—are not things you can observe under a microscope.

There is no telescope that can detect a thought.

Yes, we can detect brain activity, but brain activity is not the same thing as the thought itself.

The intellectual content of reasoning—the meaning of ideas, logical relationships, and abstract concepts—cannot be captured by the language of mathematics or measured in physical units.

So the mind is not something science can verify.

But scientism says that what science cannot verify is not real.

And that leads to a pretty startling conclusion: the mind itself isn’t real.

But now we have a huge problem.

Science requires the mind.

Scientific reasoning depends on the ability to:

• form hypotheses
• interpret evidence
• recognize logical relationships
• draw rational conclusions

But if the mind isn’t real, none of that is possible.

Which means science wouldn’t be possible.

So once again, the advocate of scientism faces a dilemma.

Either:

1. a) Reject scientism in order to preserve the reality of the mind and science.

Or

1. b) Keep scientism and give up both the mind and science.

And that’s obviously not a very attractive option.

For more information on this argument, check out Ed Feser’s article “Blinded by Scientism” over at publicdiscourse.com.

Now, suppose someone accepts the second option and says:

“Fine. The mind isn’t real. Our thoughts are just physical brain processes.”

This position is often called eliminative materialism.

But now another problem arises.

If our thoughts are nothing more than physical processes in the brain, then our beliefs—including the belief that scientism is true—are simply the result of blind physical causes.

They wouldn’t be the result of rational evaluation.

They would just be the product of neurons firing.

Which means the belief in scientism wouldn’t be true or false in any meaningful sense.

It would just be something your brain happens to produce.

And if that’s the case, there’s no reason for anyone else to believe it.

In fact, you wouldn’t even be free to believe it.

Your belief would be determined entirely by physical processes.

So the question becomes:

How could someone rationally conclude that scientism is true if scientism denies the very thing needed to make rational judgments—namely, the mind?

The answer is simple.

He can’t.

Which means this version of scientism collapses under its own weight.

If you want to explore this argument further, I discuss it in my book Prepare the Way: Overcoming Obstacles to God, the Gospel, and the Church, available at shop.catholic.com.

Now at this point someone might ask:

“If scientism has all these problems, why do so many intelligent people believe it?”

That’s a great question.

One reason is what we might call the hypnotic success of science.

Science has been incredibly successful—producing astonishing technological achievements and extremely accurate predictions about the natural world.

And some people conclude from this success that science must be the only reliable path to knowledge.

Alex Rosenberg makes this argument explicitly in The Atheist’s Guide to Reality:

“We have the best of reasons to believe that the methods of physics—combining controlled experiment and careful observation with mainly mathematical requirements on the shape theories can take—are the right ones for acquiring all knowledge . . . The phenomenal accuracy of its prediction, the unimaginable power of its technological application, and the breathtaking extent and detail of its explanations are powerful reasons to believe that physics is the whole truth about reality.” (pp. 23–25)

Now that might sound persuasive at first.

But when you think about it, the reasoning is deeply flawed.

Edward Feser illustrates the problem with a helpful analogy.

Imagine someone arguing like this:

Metal detectors are incredibly successful at detecting coins and other metallic objects.

Therefore, metal detectors must be the only way to discover what exists in reality.

That would obviously be absurd.

Metal detectors are designed to detect metal.

Their success tells us something about metal—but nothing about everything else that might exist.

The same logic applies to science.

The methods of modern science are designed to study physical reality.

Of course they’re successful in giving us knowledge about the physical world—that’s exactly what they’re built to do.

But it doesn’t follow that physical reality is all that exists, or that science is the only way to know what’s real.

There may be aspects of reality that simply fall outside the scope of scientific methods.

And the fact that science can’t detect them says nothing about whether they exist.

It just reflects the limitations of the method.

So let’s bring everything together.

Scientism claims that science is the only source of real knowledge.

But we’ve seen that this view runs into several major problems.

First, it undermines science as a rational enterprise by denying the legitimacy of the non-scientific assumptions that science depends on.

Second, most views of scientism undermine the reality of the human mind—which is necessary for doing science in the first place.

And third, its main argument based on the success of science commits a basic logical mistake.

Science is powerful and incredibly successful. But its success doesn’t prove that science is the only path to knowledge. In fact, the very existence of science depends on philosophical truths that science itself cannot prove.

So in the end, scientism doesn’t elevate science.

It actually undermines it.

Well, my friends, that’s it for today.

If you found this video helpful, be sure to like it, comment below, and share it with someone who might benefit.

And don’t forget to subscribe if you haven’t already.

For more resources, check out catholic.com and my personal website karlobroussard.com.

If you’d like me to speak at your event, visit catholicanswersspeakers.com.

And please consider supporting this work on Patreon. For just $5 a month you’ll get early access to episodes, ad-free viewing, and access to my six-hour online course How to Talk About Morality in an Age of Moral Relativism.

You can sign up at doctorkarlo.com—with doctor spelled out.

Thanks for hanging out with me.

I’ll see you next time.

God bless.