| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| − | [[Image:Cartoon Fauci speaking to Bill Clinton.jpg|left|thumb|400px|Fauci smitten with [[Bill Clinton]] at [[NIH]] in 1995]] | + | [[Image:Cartoon Fauci speaking to Bill Clinton.jpg|left|thumb|500px|Fauci smitten with [[Bill Clinton]] at the [[NIH]] in 1995]] |
| − | [[Image:Billcraig_czvx.jpg|thumb|150px|[[William Lane Craig]] ]]
| + | '''Scientism''' is the false pretension that the [[scientific method]] has no limits and should be applied with [[atheist]]ic or [[liberal]] bias to virtually all aspects of life. |
| − | '''Scientism''' is the false pretension that the [[scientific method]] has no limits and should be applied with [[atheist]]ic or [[liberal]] bias to virtually all aspects of life. A recent example is [[COVID-19]] and [[Hillary Clinton]]-supporter Dr. [[Anthony Fauci]]'s failed approach to it. Scientism funded "gain-of-function" research to develop the deadly virus that reportedly killed more than 5 million people, and then officials lie about it.<ref>https://nypost.com/2023/06/14/us-taxpayers-funded-2-million-for-research-in-wuhan-report/</ref> [[Eugenics]] is another example of scientism, which resulted in mandatory sterilization and even [[genocide]]. | |
| | | | |
| − | '''[[Conservative]]s oppose scientism, as it misleads people, facilitates lying in the name of science for a political agenda, creates deadly dangers (like man-made viruses), and devalues an individual belief in [[God]] and religious principles'''. "In the modern world, people will believe almost anything if it is dressed up in the name of science," observed C.S. Lewis in criticism of it.<ref>https://www.alecsatin.com/what-is-scientism/</ref> | + | '''''A pervasive flaw in scientism is to quietly assume what's needed for a pre-ordained conclusion, and then ignore all [[counterexample]]s and evidence to the contrary'''''. ("See also" below) Often circular in its fallacious reasoning, scientism is essentially a [[religion]] dating back to the early 1800s, whereby its followers (pseudo-scientists) worship rituals of [[science]] and preordained results.<ref>Ashgate Science and Religion Series</ref> Scientism is hostile to [[Biblical scientific foreknowledge]], and pretends that moral philosophy, the [[Bible]], and all sources other than narrow atheistic science are not credible sources of knowledge. True science is logic-based and explores the world with unbiased experimentation, while scientism relies on preconceived [[atheism|atheistic]] or [[socialist]] notions. [[Liberal]] public health bureaucrats tend to believe in scientism, such as circular reasoning to push mandatory [[vaccine|vaccination]], at the expense of [[freedom]] and the truth. |
| − | | |
| − | A pervasive flaw in scientism is to assume as much as needed to reach a pre-ordained conclusion, and then ignore all counterexamples and evidence to the contrary. Often circular in its fallacious reasoning, scientism is essentially a [[religion]] dating back to the early 1800s, whereby its followers (pseudo-scientists) worship rituals of [[science]] and preordained results.<ref>Ashgate Science and Religion Series</ref> Scientism is hostile to [[Biblical scientific foreknowledge]], and pretends that moral philosophy, the [[Bible]], and all sources other than narrow atheistic science are not credible sources of knowledge. True science is logic-based and explores the world with unbiased experimentation, while scientism relies on preconceived [[atheism|atheistic]] or [[socialist]] notions. [[Liberal]] public health bureaucrats tend to believe in scientism, such as circular reasoning to push mandatory [[vaccine|vaccination]], at the expense of [[freedom]] and the truth. | |
| | | | |
| | + | [[Conservative]]s oppose scientism, as it misleads people, facilitates lying in the name of science for a political agenda, creates deadly dangers (like man-made viruses), and devalues an individual belief in [[God]] and religious principles. '''''"In the modern world, people will believe almost anything if it is dressed up in the name of science," observed [[C.S. Lewis]] in criticism of it.'''''<ref>https://www.alecsatin.com/what-is-scientism/</ref> |
| | Approaches superior to scientism include logic and reason, [[Romanticism]], [[faith]], and real science that does not assume what it pretends to prove. | | Approaches superior to scientism include logic and reason, [[Romanticism]], [[faith]], and real science that does not assume what it pretends to prove. |
| | | | |
| | + | A recent example of scientism is [[COVID-19]] and [[Hillary Clinton]]-supporter Dr. [[Anthony Fauci]]'s failed approach to it. Scientism funded "gain-of-function" research to develop the deadly virus that reportedly killed more than 5 million people, and then officials lie about it.<ref>https://nypost.com/2023/06/14/us-taxpayers-funded-2-million-for-research-in-wuhan-report/</ref> [[Eugenics]] is another example of scientism, which resulted in mandatory sterilization and even [[genocide]]. |
| | According to [[Discovery Institute]], scientism is an effort to use the methods of science to explain and control every part of human life, in other words, the misguided effort to apply science to areas outside its proper bounds.<ref name="Magician">{{cite web |title=The Magician's Twin: C. S. Lewis on Science, Scientism, and Society - Product Description|author=N/A |publisher=Discovery Institute Press |url=http://astore.amazon.com/discoveryinsti12-20/detail/1936599058 |accessdate= November 30, 2014 |quote=Beloved for his Narnian tales for children and his books of Christian apologetics for adults, best-selling author C.S. Lewis also was a prophetic critic of the growing power of scientism in modern society, the misguided effort to apply science to areas outside its proper bounds. In this wide-ranging book of essays, contemporary writers probe Lewis's warnings about the dehumanizing impact of scientism on ethics, politics, faith, reason, and science itself. Issues explored include Lewis's views on bioethics, eugenics, evolution, intelligent design, and what he called "scientocracy."}}</ref> [[C.S. Lewis]] was skeptical and highly critical of scientism as an ideology which in his view was confused with science and which tried to [[Reductionism|reduce]] everything that we can learn scientifically to materialistic blind undirected causes.<ref>{{cite web |title=The Magician's Twin: C.S. Lewis and the Case against Scientism|publisher=DiscoveryInstitute|date= 18 Nov 2012|pages=02min:20sec|url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FPeyJvXU68k&list=PLF3F6DFC4CC901818|accessdate=27-April-2013}}</ref> He argued that scientism has the dehumanizing impact on [[ethics]], [[politics]], [[faith]], [[reason]], and science itself.<ref name="Magician"/> | | According to [[Discovery Institute]], scientism is an effort to use the methods of science to explain and control every part of human life, in other words, the misguided effort to apply science to areas outside its proper bounds.<ref name="Magician">{{cite web |title=The Magician's Twin: C. S. Lewis on Science, Scientism, and Society - Product Description|author=N/A |publisher=Discovery Institute Press |url=http://astore.amazon.com/discoveryinsti12-20/detail/1936599058 |accessdate= November 30, 2014 |quote=Beloved for his Narnian tales for children and his books of Christian apologetics for adults, best-selling author C.S. Lewis also was a prophetic critic of the growing power of scientism in modern society, the misguided effort to apply science to areas outside its proper bounds. In this wide-ranging book of essays, contemporary writers probe Lewis's warnings about the dehumanizing impact of scientism on ethics, politics, faith, reason, and science itself. Issues explored include Lewis's views on bioethics, eugenics, evolution, intelligent design, and what he called "scientocracy."}}</ref> [[C.S. Lewis]] was skeptical and highly critical of scientism as an ideology which in his view was confused with science and which tried to [[Reductionism|reduce]] everything that we can learn scientifically to materialistic blind undirected causes.<ref>{{cite web |title=The Magician's Twin: C.S. Lewis and the Case against Scientism|publisher=DiscoveryInstitute|date= 18 Nov 2012|pages=02min:20sec|url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FPeyJvXU68k&list=PLF3F6DFC4CC901818|accessdate=27-April-2013}}</ref> He argued that scientism has the dehumanizing impact on [[ethics]], [[politics]], [[faith]], [[reason]], and science itself.<ref name="Magician"/> |
| | | | |
| Line 17: |
Line 16: |
| | | | |
| | == Scientism and atheism == | | == Scientism and atheism == |
| − | | + | [[Image:Billcraig_czvx.jpg|thumb|150px|[[William Lane Craig]] ]] |
| | ''See also:'' [[Atheism and scientism]] | | ''See also:'' [[Atheism and scientism]] |
| | | | |
| Line 31: |
Line 30: |
| | Scientism is the religion of worshiping science as a source of explanations about the universe. It is based on their faith that science will provide answers because Scientists have a declared "objective" point of view.<ref>http://www.enformy.com/Religion_of_Scientism.htm</ref> | | Scientism is the religion of worshiping science as a source of explanations about the universe. It is based on their faith that science will provide answers because Scientists have a declared "objective" point of view.<ref>http://www.enformy.com/Religion_of_Scientism.htm</ref> |
| | | | |
| − | Believers of Scientism deny the existence of God, and instead worship pseudoscientific methods. They seek to use what they claim to be as "science" to replace God as the source for infinite knowledge, and the foundation of society. Scientists generally think of themselves as being Gods while practicing their scientific rituals, because they think they are coming up with answers. However, they really just pretend that they are God to feel superior to the faithful. | + | Believers of Scientism deny the existence of [[God]], and instead worship pseudoscientific methods. They seek to use what they claim to be "science" to replace God as the source of infinite knowledge, and the foundation of society. Scientists generally think of themselves as being Gods while practicing their scientific rituals, because they think they are coming up with answers. However, they really just pretend that they are God to feel superior to the faithful. |
| | | | |
| | Worshipers of Scientism also believe that science should replace traditional [[morality]], so that they can do whatever they want as long as it is dictated by "science".<ref>http://www.crosswalk.com/news/exposing-the-religion-of-scientism-11598780.html</ref> | | Worshipers of Scientism also believe that science should replace traditional [[morality]], so that they can do whatever they want as long as it is dictated by "science".<ref>http://www.crosswalk.com/news/exposing-the-religion-of-scientism-11598780.html</ref> |
| Line 38: |
Line 37: |
| | | | |
| | == Debunking Scientism == | | == Debunking Scientism == |
| − | Scientism is in essence a [[gnostic]] culture applied onto realms of science hence scientism can be often debunked by pointing to the gnostic traits. As such it also exhibits many characteristics of [[moral relativism]]. For example, moral relativism doesn't follow its own rules, the rules it judges everyone else by.<ref name="Dobson">{{cite book | + | Scientism is a [[gnostic]] culture applied to realms of science hence scientism can be often debunked by pointing to the gnostic traits. As such it also exhibits many characteristics of [[moral relativism]]. For example, moral relativism doesn't follow its own rules, the rules it judges everyone else by.<ref name="Dobson">{{cite book |
| | |author=Ryan Dobson, Jefferson Scott | | |author=Ryan Dobson, Jefferson Scott |
| | |title=Be Intolerant in Love: Because Some Things Are Just Stupid | | |title=Be Intolerant in Love: Because Some Things Are Just Stupid |
| Line 50: |
Line 49: |
| | | | |
| | === Vagueness and word-spinning === | | === Vagueness and word-spinning === |
| − | Gnostic works are marked by [[psychological manipulation|manipulative]] vagueness, word-spinning and tedium, so is scientism. On top of that, it usurps the right to be labeled as "modern," yet it is in many respects expressing merely modernized pagan beliefs under the fig leaf of "science," it is often meticulous in detail and yet bristling with [[contradiction]]s and tendentious arguments, boldly [[Logic of possibility|imaginative]] and yet often already outdated.<ref name="Rappaport1997">{{cite book |title=When Geologists Where Historians, 1665-1750 |author=Rhoda Rappaport |publisher=Cornell University Press |place=Ithaca and London |year=1997 |pages=232 |isbn=978-0801-433863 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=30U3W2kI7foC |quote=}}</ref> For example, the textbook legend of [[James Hutton|Hutton]] and [[Charles Lyell|Lyell]], partisans of scientism, has been declared to be dim and confused compared with that of [[Copernicus]] and [[Galileo]].<ref name="GOULDinNYT">{{cite web |title=IT'S AN OLD, OLD , OLD, OLD WORLD |publisher= NYT |author=D. R. Wallace |date= June 14, 1987 |url=https://www.nytimes.com/books/97/11/09/home/gould-arrow.html |accessdate=7 June 2015 |quote=Hutton's theory of the earth ... was not based on field observations but on his wishful, speculative confusion of geological process with Newtonian physics....Hutton and Lyell were dedicated not to modern notions of geological dynamism but to antique ones of geological steady-state...The textbook legend of Hutton and Lyell seems dim and confused compared with that of Copernicus and Galileo.}}</ref> Another proponent of scientism, [[Darwin]], wrote books in a way that they were compared to a Victorian curiosity shop where the main message was somewhat lost in the clutter.<ref name="Larson">{{cite book | + | [[File:Bill Nye 2.PNG|right|250px|thumb|[[Bill Nye]], [[PBS]]'s "Science Guy" doing a [[Hitler]] salute at a pro-scientism rally.<ref>https://t.me/Jack_Posobiec/56461</ref>]] |
| | + | Gnostic works are marked by [[psychological manipulation|manipulative]] vagueness, word-spinning and tedium, so is scientism. On top of that, it usurps the right to be labeled as "modern," yet it is in many respects expressing merely modernized pagan beliefs under the fig leaf of "science," it is often meticulous in detail and yet bristling with [[contradiction]]s and tendentious arguments, boldly [[Logic of possibility|imaginative]] and yet often already outdated.<ref name="Rappaport1997">{{cite book |title=When Geologists Where Historians, 1665-1750 |author=Rhoda Rappaport |publisher=Cornell University Press |place=Ithaca and London |year=1997 |pages=232 |isbn=978-0801-433863 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=30U3W2kI7foC |quote=}}</ref> For example, the textbook legend of [[James Hutton|Hutton]] and [[Charles Lyell|Lyell]], partisans of scientism, has been declared to be dim and confused compared with that of [[Copernicus]] and [[Galileo]].<ref name="GOULDinNYT">{{cite web |title=IT'S AN OLD, OLD, OLD, OLD WORLD |publisher= NYT |author=D. R. Wallace |date= June 14, 1987 |url=https://www.nytimes.com/books/97/11/09/home/gould-arrow.html |accessdate=7 June 2015 |quote=Hutton's theory of the earth ... was not based on field observations but on his wishful, speculative confusion of geological process with Newtonian physics....Hutton and Lyell were dedicated not to modern notions of geological dynamism but to antique ones of geological steady-state...The textbook legend of Hutton and Lyell seems dim and confused compared with that of Copernicus and Galileo.}}</ref> Another proponent of scientism, [[Charles Darwin]], wrote books in a way that they were compared to a Victorian curiosity shop where the main message was somewhat lost in the clutter.<ref name="Larson">{{cite book |
| | |author=E.J. Larson | | |author=E.J. Larson |
| | |title=Evolution: The Remarkable History of a Scientific Theory | | |title=Evolution: The Remarkable History of a Scientific Theory |
| Line 61: |
Line 61: |
| | <blockquote>"Working with Prof. Edward Farhi and others, Guth has explored the question of whether it is in principle possible to ignite inflation in a hypothetical laboratory, thereby creating a new universe. The answer is a definite maybe. They showed that it cannot be done classically, but with quantum tunneling it might be theoretically possible. The new universe, if it can be created, would not endanger our own universe. Instead it would slip through a wormhole and rapidly disconnect completely."</blockquote> | | <blockquote>"Working with Prof. Edward Farhi and others, Guth has explored the question of whether it is in principle possible to ignite inflation in a hypothetical laboratory, thereby creating a new universe. The answer is a definite maybe. They showed that it cannot be done classically, but with quantum tunneling it might be theoretically possible. The new universe, if it can be created, would not endanger our own universe. Instead it would slip through a wormhole and rapidly disconnect completely."</blockquote> |
| | Analysis of contradictions in the text: | | Analysis of contradictions in the text: |
| − | * Ad. ''"the question of whether it is in principle possible to ignite inflation in a hypothetical laboratory, thereby creating a new universe."'' In hypothetical laboratory, anything is possible, because it rests solely on the imagination of the author of the idea and his bare assertion. Unlike science, scientism is based on ''just-so stories'' and ''bare assertion fallacy'' (also known as ''proof by assertion'') and tries to shake off the [[burden of proof]] for its claims. | + | * Ad. ''"the question of whether it is in principle possible to ignite inflation in a hypothetical laboratory, thereby creating a new universe."'' In a hypothetical laboratory, anything is possible, because it rests solely on the imagination of the author of the idea and his bare assertion. Unlike science, scientism is based on ''just-so stories'' and ''bare assertion fallacy'' (also known as ''proof by assertion'') and tries to shake off the [[burden of proof]] for its claims. |
| | * If somebody something shows (''"They showed that"''), then the terms like ''"it might be theoretically possible"'' and conditional sentence ''"if it can be"'' become surplus. On the other hand, if it is not sure ''"if it can be"'' or not, then the expression ''"They showed"'' is clearly a [[lie]]. | | * If somebody something shows (''"They showed that"''), then the terms like ''"it might be theoretically possible"'' and conditional sentence ''"if it can be"'' become surplus. On the other hand, if it is not sure ''"if it can be"'' or not, then the expression ''"They showed"'' is clearly a [[lie]]. |
| − | * Ad. ''"The answer is a definite maybe."'' In fact, ''"a definite maybe"'' is not answer at all, it leaves question undecided, in the same status as before asking. | + | * Ad. ''"The answer is a definite maybe."'' In fact, ''"a definite maybe"'' is not an answer at all, it leaves the question undecided, in the same status as before asking. |
| | | | |
| | === [[Ipse dixit]] camouflaged as "[[scientific consensus]]" === | | === [[Ipse dixit]] camouflaged as "[[scientific consensus]]" === |
| − | In his 1615 Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina of Tuscany, [[Galileo]] complained about "academic philosophers" and "no small number of professors" who were opposing his novel discoveries just because these discoveries were in contradiction to the physical notions of the Aristotelian and Ptolemaic world system commonly held in academies of that time. Galileo portrays these academicians and professors as hurling various charges, publishing "numerous writings filled with vain arguments", and as "resolved to fabricate a shield for their fallacies out of the mantle of pretended religion and the authority of the [[Bible]]."<ref name="LetterToChristina">{{cite web | + | In his 1615 Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina of Tuscany, [[Galileo]] complained about "academic philosophers" and "no small number of professors" who were opposing his novel discoveries just because these discoveries were in contradiction to the physical notions of the Aristotelian and Ptolemaic world system commonly held in academies of that time. Galileo portrays these academicians and professors as hurling various charges, publishing "numerous writings filled with vain arguments", and as "resolved to fabricate a shield for their fallacies out of the mantle of pretended religion and the authority of the [[Bible]]."<ref name="LetterToChristina">{{cite web |
| | |url = http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/galileo-tuscany.asp | | |url = http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/galileo-tuscany.asp |
| | |title = Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina of Tuscany, 1615 (Modern History Sourcebook) | | |title = Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina of Tuscany, 1615 (Modern History Sourcebook) |
| Line 73: |
Line 73: |
| | |publisher = Fordham University | | |publisher = Fordham University |
| | |location = New York | | |location = New York |
| − | }}</ref> This approach when wider scientific community refuses to accept [[scientific observation]](s) or argument(s) with appeal to so called [[scientific consensus]] was further adopted in [[evolutionism]] and it can be classified as form of [[ipse dixit]] fallacy. It is another trait helpful in identifying scientism and distinguishing it from a science. For example, the typical usage can be demonstrated in claim: ''"NPR featured Wyler for being ex-gay and allowed him to testify about all the promise he believes [[reparative therapy]] offers to people not happy with their [[same-sex attraction]]s, despite the fact that there is [[scientific consensus]] that ex-gay therapy is harmful and ineffective."''<ref>{{cite web |title=NPR’s Featured ‘Ex-Gay’ Guest Commits Over $200,000 To Dangerous, Unscientific Ex-Gay ‘Coachings’ |author=Zack Ford |publisher=ThinkProgress |date=3 Aug 2011 |url=https://thinkprogress.org/nprs-featured-ex-gay-guest-commits-over-200-000-to-dangerous-unscientific-ex-gay-coachings-3afcbd21b4bb/ |accessdate=10 Dec 2017 |quote=National Public Radio has yet to apologize for the platform it provided Rich Wyler on Monday to spout as many lies about sexual orientation as he could fit into the segment. NPR featured Wyler for being ex-gay and allowed him to testify about all the promise he believes reparative therapy offers to people not happy with their same-sex attractions, despite the fact that there is scientific consensus that ex-gay therapy is harmful and ineffective. But NPR made another big journalistic mistake besides its inappropriate framing of ex-gay therapy — the story neglected to mention that Wyler makes his entire living off of providing ex-gay therapy to vulnerable and insecure men he convinces to try to change.}}</ref> Even if the [[militant gays]] do not like some people like ex-homosexuals who left the homosexual lifestyle, they cannot get rid of the physical notions of their existence just by spreading the numerous writings filled with vain arguments such as fallacious [[ipse dixit]] one (e.g. ''"there is scientific consensus that ex-gay therapy is harmful and ineffective"'') and by hurling various charges (e.g. ''"NPR featured Wyler for being ex-gay and allowed him to testify about all the promise he believes [[reparative therapy]] offers to people not happy with their [[same-sex attraction]]s"''). | + | }}</ref> This approach when wider scientific community refuses to accept [[scientific observation]](s) or argument(s) with appeal to so called [[scientific consensus]] was further adopted in [[evolutionism]] and it can be classified as form of [[ipse dixit]] fallacy. It is another trait helpful in identifying scientism and distinguishing it from science. For example, the typical usage can be demonstrated in this claim: ''"NPR featured Wyler for being ex-gay and allowed him to testify about all the promise he believes [[reparative therapy]] offers to people not happy with their [[same-sex attraction]]s, despite the fact that there is [[scientific consensus]] that ex-gay therapy is harmful and ineffective."''<ref>{{cite web |title=NPR’s Featured ‘Ex-Gay’ Guest Commits Over $200,000 To Dangerous, Unscientific Ex-Gay ‘Coachings’ |author=Zack Ford |publisher=ThinkProgress |date=3 Aug 2011 |url=https://thinkprogress.org/nprs-featured-ex-gay-guest-commits-over-200-000-to-dangerous-unscientific-ex-gay-coachings-3afcbd21b4bb/ |accessdate=10 Dec 2017 |quote=National Public Radio has yet to apologize for the platform it provided Rich Wyler on Monday to spout as many lies about sexual orientation as he could fit into the segment. NPR featured Wyler for being ex-gay and allowed him to testify about all the promise he believes reparative therapy offers to people not happy with their same-sex attractions, despite the fact that there is scientific consensus that ex-gay therapy is harmful and ineffective. But NPR made another big journalistic mistake besides its inappropriate framing of ex-gay therapy — the story neglected to mention that Wyler makes his entire living off of providing ex-gay therapy to vulnerable and insecure men he convinces to try to change.}}</ref> Even if the [[militant gays]] do not like some people like ex-homosexuals who left the homosexual lifestyle, they cannot get rid of the physical notions of their existence just by spreading the numerous writings filled with vain arguments such as fallacious [[ipse dixit]] one (e.g. ''"there is scientific consensus that ex-gay therapy is harmful and ineffective"'') and by hurling various charges (e.g. ''"NPR featured Wyler for being ex-gay and allowed him to testify about all the promise he believes [[reparative therapy]] offers to people not happy with their [[same-sex attraction]]s"''). |
| | | | |
| | == See also == | | == See also == |
| Line 91: |
Line 91: |
| | *[[Directed evolution]] | | *[[Directed evolution]] |
| | *[[Science denialism]] | | *[[Science denialism]] |
| − | | + | *[[Psychobabble]] |
| − | == References ==
| |
| − | {{reflist|2}}
| |
| | | | |
| | == External links == | | == External links == |
| − | * [https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/scientism Scientism] (Merriam Webster Online Dictionary). | + | * [https://www.crossway.org/articles/what-is-scientism/ What Is Scientism?], Crossway.org |
| | * [https://www.pbs.org/faithandreason/gengloss/sciism-body.html Scientism] (American Public Broadcasting Service). | | * [https://www.pbs.org/faithandreason/gengloss/sciism-body.html Scientism] (American Public Broadcasting Service). |
| | * [http://www.philosophyetc.net/2007/08/scientism.html Scientism] (Philosophy, etc.) | | * [http://www.philosophyetc.net/2007/08/scientism.html Scientism] (Philosophy, etc.) |
| Line 103: |
Line 101: |
| | *[https://rwmalonemd.substack.com/p/science-versus-scientism-part-1 Science versus Scientism (Part 1)], Dr. [[Robert Malone]] | | *[https://rwmalonemd.substack.com/p/science-versus-scientism-part-1 Science versus Scientism (Part 1)], Dr. [[Robert Malone]] |
| | *[https://rwmalonemd.substack.com/p/science-versus-scientism-part-2 Science versus Scientism (Part 2)], Dr. [[Robert Malone]] | | *[https://rwmalonemd.substack.com/p/science-versus-scientism-part-2 Science versus Scientism (Part 2)], Dr. [[Robert Malone]] |
| | + | |
| | + | == References == |
| | + | {{reflist|2}} |
| | + | |
| | [[Category:Methodology of Science]] | | [[Category:Methodology of Science]] |
| | [[Category:Religion]] | | [[Category:Religion]] |