Science is a method of learning.  It involves observing and reporting, with some safeguards to make sure biases and confounding variables don't get in the way.

Scientistism is a system of thought-control, which involves a priestly class of authority figures who act as gatekeepers and arbiters of "truth."

Science is a way of acquiring beliefs.  It's an inquiry.  

Scientistism is a set of established beliefs.  It includes:

Science is an act - a verb in its essence.

Scientistism is an existing structure - a solid and unchanging noun.  

What does scientistism look like, in practice?

Here's an example.  Imagine the following conversation:

Water is healthier than soda.

Interesting claim.  Do you have any science to support it?

Uhh... like what are you looking for?

Peer reviewed studies, published in respected scientific journals.

I don't need that.  It's common sense.

That's a fallacy.  There's no such thing as common sense.  A claim is either scientific, or it's not.

But dude.  WATER.  Vs.  SODA.  This is obvious.

Why is it obvious?

Because water is natural.  It's been here for billions of years - soda hasn't.  Every living organism drinks water - not soda.  We evolved with water... and not with soda.

The appeal to nature is a fallacy.  There is no such thing as natural.  It's a word made up by quacks and pseudoscientists.  Do you have any actual science?


Scientific evidence or nothing!  

You are completely insane.

And you're unscientific!  Come back when you have science!  

Keep in mind that there are actually people who think this way.  And their number includes the most influential and powerful leaders of industry and technology, who are making key decisions about our world and the path we take.  

No wonder our world is in dire straits.  


1.  linear progress, our civ is best and brightest wisest cleverest
    past cultures didn't havegadgetsand skyscrapers, lived in balance with nature, 100000, incredible feat, moreimportant than everything we'vedone combined.  add up every invention and development that our civ hasever done ,addthem up, combinetheir value into one gigantic value of all good our civ has ever done, and it is less importantthan  the ability tolive in balance with nature, becausethat's the foundation for civ to exist at all.  if civ doens't, it doens't exist, and then allprogrees for nothing
2.  current body of knowledge of universe is accurate.  our academy funda understand universe and nature of reality. maybe a few holes to fil in and gaps to bridge,but big pic we got
2.  what we can detect is all there is. only one layer level plane of reality
3.  consciousness is epiphen of phys, generatedby brain, and therefore from within physical
4.  absence of proof is evidence of absence
5.  every techdev is intrinsic positive, nosuch things ad bad tech or baddevelop, whatever direction weprogressedin was theonly we couldhavfe, never any other options,

Certain things that belong in the domain of science, and certain things that don't. 

Science should investigate laws of physics, and search for specific values.  Not connections.  Whenever we ask the question, "is X connected to Y?", the answer is YES, because everything is connected to everything.  We live in an ecosystem, both biologically and socially, in which every part is connected to, and has an affect on, every other part, either directly or indirectly.  If you had to ask the question, the answer is YES. 


If this resonates with you,

then please get involved!

Visit the Blog!

Follow us on Social Media!

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • YouTube
  • Instagram

Don't know where to start?

Subscribe to the newsletter!

Subscribe to the Earth Party weekly newsletter!


Want to discuss these topics with others?

Join the Forum!


To donate, visit our Patreon Page.


Questions?  Comments?



Thank you for your support!

This site was designed with the
website builder. Create your website today.
Start Now