[JGT]

Science cannot be your sole guide to universality, especially given the fact that it is subject to the human passions (as you yourself stated). What if this “objective” rationalized science says that the redistribution of income is the most efficient and effective remedy for curing poverty? You are giving the human foundation of scientism far too much credit. Your scientism can give rationalistic explanations, but it cannot tell why one is “better” or more moral than another. That is the fatal flaw in blind obedience to the god of science.

[sparklite2]

I’ll take scientism over whatever is in second place.