top of page

SCIENTISM. What does it means? and Why is it important to understand it?


Science, which has always been regarded as a method or system of verification, is currently at the centre of the Covid discourse, because of its claims to make people accept the whole issue, through a concrete act of faith, just as happens with religion, so much so that it is now defined as a real widespread and pragmatic Scientism, which does not consider alternatives for treatment (see the role of vaccines).

Instead of accepting and analyzing hypotheses with different variables or opening up to new and transversal fields, the dangerous dogmatic Scientism meanders unchecked, identifying itself as a true scientific moralizer, with the aim of:

  • to be able to solve any problem, including man's moral needs;

  • not to directly confront opposing sides in the ongoing scientific debate and to listen to other truths on the subject;

  • to blindly accept the only truth proposed and expressed by the new religion, namely Science or Scientism.

The consideration given to Science in recent times also raises important questions on which to reflect today; namely the tangible role it represents, but also its limits and advantages, in a world that is undergoing continuous and rapid transformation. Let us then see together in detail what the salient points of this premise are.


"There are two different types of people in the world, those who want to know, and those who want to believe."

(Friedrich Nietzsche)

It is not just anyone who reminds us of this, but Albert Einstein, who in one of his last lectures, later included in a famous collection of essays, called Out of my Later Years, tells us that:

"Science is the age-old effort to assemble into as complete a whole as possible the perceptible phenomena of this world by means of systematic thought, or rather to put it clearly, the attempt to reconstruct existence a posteriori through a conceptual process."

Thus, according to Einstein's 'enlightened' reasoning, which left a certain margin of ambiguity about his personal thoughts on Religion or the reality of a Personal God, one can perceive a certain degree of ontological disquiet about the existential questions that science is objectively incapable of answering and that Religion itself is valid to address with deep devotion and conviction, without the slightest doubt "about the meaning and nobility of those supra-personal goals and objectives that do not require and could not present any rational foundation.

While Science does nothing more than ascertain what is, and not what should be, Religion, on the contrary, cannot speak of facts and relations between facts, but only of faith and the evaluation of human action.

Today, however, we are spectators of their total overturning; in fact, we often hear people say: 'science has said, and science says to do...', precisely because the overlap between the two fields caused by the strong and reciprocal growing relationship, takes on less and less clear-cut nuances, in which one needs the other, just as the scientist himself quoted:

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
Albert Einstein

The current visceral trust that has matured over the last two years with regard to science is therefore one of the reasons why both the media fury of a pseudo-propagandistic nature and the absence of doubt (no longer decisive, since it is filled by the blind certainty of the representation of a single fact) have become its two main aspects.

This excludes the need for any of the variables or hypotheses of change in the context represented (in truth all objective qualities of it), and there is also complete confusion as to its meaning and the role it should occupy, and the denial upstream of its limited and never declared inability to discuss the multiple data and facts, if not the impossibility of grouping the complexity of the entire phenomenon to arrive at a single and obvious solution.

While Nobel Prize winners such as the (real) scientist Luc Montaigner (who discovered AIDS and unfortunately recently died) are being downgraded with impunity for their theses because they disagree with the prevailing Scientism, it is clear that on the other hand there is a growing appreciation for the crowds of Virologists, On the other hand, it is clear that a strong appreciation is growing for the large number of virologists, immunologists and all those advocates who sing the praises of a single voice, highlighting a grotesque alteration of scientific reality, which is no longer considered as continuous research and pressing doubt, but as the obvious flywheel of a single unchanged and unchangeable truth both in space and in the present and future.


"answers to problems always pave the way for other unresolved problems'.
Immanuel Kant

The implicit acquisition of Science as being today authoritative beyond the only credible and respectable authority in the eyes of the naive average man, who clings to it without posing any opposition and sees in such a technique the only lifeline, poses perhaps the main paradox of the whole issue, already explained by Einstein when he sees how science tries to talk about morality in the same way as religion and that is:

To the moral and practical (economic) reasons sometimes linked to principles and domains that science cannot overcome and setting concrete limits of application, it is worth noting some interesting points namely:

  • that Science apparently has no limits;

  • that a science of the future can solve what has not yet been discovered today.

This is underlined by the University of Pittsburgh professor Nicholas Rescher, a well-known American philosopher, who, in an interesting text on the issue published a few years ago and entitled "The Limits of Science", contemplates the so-called scientific boundary, highlighting the importance it represents, namely as the main and best cognitive projection of the world's reality, but at the same time highlighting its three limiting aspects:

  1. Fallibility: the impossibility of success with regard to the myriad of new problems arising from old problems, and as reflected in the Kantian principle of the propagation of problems, highlights an insurmountable conceptual limit for Science itself;

  2. Provisionality: from the emergence of new problems, the best theory is the one that is expressed pragmatically, with the use of various applications, but which never lead to the definitive truth;

  3. Contingency: In science, a multitude of possibilities and favorable circumstances are expressed, both for the present and the near future, but which are "impossible in principle to infer from the characteristics which science has in a given period, and what its substance will be in a different period."

Therefore, the argument that Rescher proposes on the philosophical level on the role of science in the world is manifested almost through two objective realities:

  1. In what science can or cannot achieve and not in what science must at all costs achieve;

  2. On its inability to foresee the future so as to outline a final and ultimate conclusion, which can be translated into the guarantee of absolute truth, recognized and firm in space and time.

Rescher relies completely on the Kantian principle, in the conviction "that whatever solution we find to the problem, we can always dig deeper, questioning ourselves about it," and we might add, never abandoning such reflection, given the incessant becoming of the problem itself.


In addition to those who blindly believe in science, there is also a large group of people who have doubts about it and see it as playing a much more politicizing role than a search for truth, especially now with the Covid and vaccine issues.

In this regard, there is an interesting experiment carried out in some American colleges, the purpose of which is to understand how the common thought about the idea of a trustworthy and truthful science is already subtly incorporated in young students, who are asked to make an effort to 'sincerely' analyze the following question, namely:

  • why do people not trust Science and Scientists nowadays?

There is of course a conclusion included in the question, which benefits Science and not those who fail to grasp its messages. But then, can those who do not understand Science (and therefore most people) be considered unintelligent?

The brilliant article in the blog turns that question on its head in order to make room for free thinking and to steer people away from the so-called propaganda indoctrination, which only those who 'think inside the box' and agree with teachers and the Mainstream, and thus with science, are good at.

"This is simple: Because many scientists have been caught lying and misrepresenting their data to fit the conclusions they want rather than the facts at hand. Science is often politicized to serve an agenda. This is not a conspiracy theory, this is demonstrable fact."

Articolo Scritto da Brandon Smith (Alt-Market)

Where there is a possible inability to understand the scientific data on the part of the common man, this should not, however, justify the confusion of transmission and vacuity expressed by the same data presented in these two years, which in fact exclude any negative information released on mRNA vaccines, and as pointed out by the author of the article Brandon Smith, channels Science on a completely different plane than usual, based first on assumptions and continuous and different variables, and now as a source of absolute truth and unique analysis; capable of surmounting both politics and religion, with a propaganda agenda that winks at Big-Pharm and the centralization of global control inspired by the World Economic Forum.

Finally, Brandon Smith's provocation comes as straight as a train when he says that dozens of independent studies confirm that "the median mortality rate from covid infection is only 0.27%. This means that on average 99.7% of the population at any one time has nothing to fear from the virus." We agree, that even if the Establishment ignores so-called studies and data it doesn't like, Science has a duty to consider all available data in full, even at the expense of an unambiguous reading deliberately omitted by the Mainstream, for reasons still obscure to humanity.


"Behind every problem there is an opportunity."
Galileo Galilei

Once its limits have been outlined, rediscovering an opportunistic logic in the role of Science (and this also applies to Religion and Philosophy among all), should be the first step towards understanding it, so that:

  • Every action and truth presents itself as a proposal of real contribution to the improvement of things in the world and for the man who chooses to follow or not to follow that indication.

Therefore, in order to understand and make the best use of Science, a critical and detached understanding of its main value, understood above all as a proposal and opportunity, is unquestionable; first and foremost, the idea that opportunity means the cancellation of individual freedoms and the free market, to guarantee only a small and powerful elite unconditional control. Without forgetting that the central peculiarity of Science, and certainly not of the much acclaimed Scientism, is precisely that it is a method that tells one of the realities represented, in a world of infinite possibilities and eternal change. An opportunity to be exploited to the full, therefore, but not the only and sole solution and definitive way to the problem, as it is often portrayed.

Instead of relying on the only truth told and disseminated, as has been the case for the past two years, in which virologists are now seen as the oracles or high priests of modern society, and in which every day the news does nothing but destabilize people and increase collective instability, both psychophysically and mentally, the time has come to recover the original role that belongs to Science, moving legitimate doubts and perplexities in continuous individual research, and to leave the field open to philosophical and religious arguments concerning human values and morals, capable of interpreting with greater introspection and clarity these strange times we all live in.

bottom of page