The statement is not non-sense if you actually spent some time reading.
Science, and its study has boxed itself into a corner.
It is Reductionist and Materialist and MUST be, by its own definition.
Someone posted this on FR a number of years ago.
It is a very long read, but well worth it.
The Folly of Scientism
Austin L. Hughes;
.....Carolina Distinguished Professor of Biological Sciences at the University of South Carolina.
http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-folly-of-scientism
snip
When I decided on a scientific career, one of the things that appealed to me about science was the modesty of its practitioners. The typical scientist seemed to be a person who knew one small corner of the natural world and knew it very well, better than most other human beings living and better even than most who had ever lived. But outside of their circumscribed areas of expertise, scientists would hesitate to express an authoritative opinion. This attitude was attractive precisely because it stood in sharp contrast to the arrogance of the philosophers of the positivist tradition, who claimed for science and its practitioners a broad authority with which many practicing scientists themselves were uncomfortable.
The temptation to overreach, however, seems increasingly indulged today in discussions about science. Both in the work of professional philosophers and in popular writings by natural scientists, it is frequently claimed that natural science does or soon will constitute the entire domain of truth. And this attitude is becoming more widespread among scientists themselves. All too many of my contemporaries in science have accepted without question the hype that suggests that an advanced degree in some area of natural science confers the ability to pontificate wisely on any and all subjects.
snip
It’s 15 pages and over 8 thousand words.
Enjoy !!!
I enjoyed the snip and also have serious problems with scientism.
This: “It is Reductionist and Materialist and MUST be, by its own definition.”
Is absolutely true.
I don’t think anything you’ve said, though, detracts or contracts my observation.
Perhaps you can provide more detail or clarity.
“Both in the work of professional philosophers and in popular writings by natural scientists, it is frequently claimed that natural science does or soon will constitute the entire domain of truth.”
If the rest of the 8,000 words are strung together like this, it’s nonsensical gibberish.