How The Language Of Scientism Is Not About Science But Mass Control

In psychology, resilience takes on a significant value. Resilience is an attitude that, in case of a trauma or any other negative impact, instead of trying to change the object that caused that suffering, allows to adapt to withstand the sorrow better.

Unfortunately, resilience has now garnered a positive meaning applicable to any circumstance. Whatever it takes. Rather than opposing resilience in its legitimate sense, it would be more appropriate to put forward a healthy critique of the ideological and totalitarian use of this “virtue” and the underlying “mystique of tolerance” today.

Specifically, resilience can be accepted and welcome as something positive in the context of what can be considered an “immutable” or “inevitable” event over which man has no control, such as a family bereavement or the diagnosis of an incurable disease.

But what happens when the same concept is shifted to the frames of what can be “avoidable” in the life of an individual? For example, what does it mean to be resilient within the premises of a labor reform or a national recovery plan that paradoxically contemplates job instability and precariousness?

Through the ideological use of resilience, they pretend to treat any area of life in an objective fashion, as if whatever happens were inevitable for the individual who is encouraged and praised for an omnipresent resilience.

Going on in this way, “the strong powers” try to accustom people, without realizing it, to accept a distorted meaning of every concept, science included. The purpose of such a process is to condition people toward choices no longer led by their free will and, above all, emptied of the most profound value of their individual conscience.

Indeed, an absolutely absurd paradigm successfully pushed throughout during the pandemic was precisely the one concerning science, “Trust the Science.” A parallel identical to what already seen with the toxic sugarcoating of resilience.

The omnipositive connotation of science as the one fixing solution is an even riskier entourage. Science, in fact, is the confluence of theories, theses, observations and, above all, discussion and debate. As science can provide results we can discuss, these results are not fixed, they may change with a new study, a new research. Even if it provides an immense value for human life, science has recently been lauded as if it were the only legitimate knowledge. The one knowledge able to explain everything, even what’s beyond its purpose, like the metaphysical dimension of life. For example, the mystery of transcendent connection between two human beings, the sphere of alienation or even the philosophical or theological truth, and art and creativity.

A large part of what today is improperly called “science” is, in reality, a forced projection, the chimeric fruit of an ideological and rigid dogmatism called scientism. When the slogan “Believe in the Science” is pushed 24/7 like a top-down cult, most people exposed to this mantra don’t realize how such a claim is intimately anti-scientific. Science, in fact, doesn’t precede by belief but conjecture and refutation.

Science is a process whereby a research produces scientific certainties, but certainty does not equal truth because it’s an in-fieri process of results, new observations and new results, not a religion. For example, when the husband tells his wife that he loves her, it’s not the truth, but his sincerity to feelings of affection for a specific person. When a passer-by asks another person direction to go to a specific place, the informer is not providing the truth but the truthfulness of their information. Two plus two that equals four is a certainty, not the truth.

Because truth is something transcendent and is the object of philosophy, which implies a relationship between the totality of humanity and an infinite order of ideas. So, truth cannot be object of science exclusively.

Similarly distorted concepts have become like passepartout fetishes that, polished through the sneaky abuse of a monolithic and obsessive communication, become perfectly functional to mantain an asymmetric system of control. This type of system is fondly pushed by an oligarchy of “unelected” to govern masse of people in auto-pilot. This manipulative pattern slowly gets so intimately internalized by the masses that, even at the cost of their lives, they will tend to protect it from any sabotage, but with no negative consequences for the narrative and hubris of the unelected.

In fact, in order to manipulate the masses, the most effective method is precisely the linguistic one. Premeditated words and expressions, successfully resonant in true-and-tried thought trajectories, can reset and reprogram critical thinking, ultimately leading to totalitarian mass control.

Hasn’t always been the dream of the powerful to have docile “resilient” servants? In The Divine Comedy, Dante Alighieri referred to these damned in Hell as “those who lived without infamy and without praise,” that is those unable to take sides for a just cause out of cowardice, indolence, or quiet living. Consciences merely existing without ever distinguishing themselves and taking a critical position, like the lukewarm Christians in the Apocalypse.

Today, ironically, the nature of the resilient who passively bears anything, through what “the power” wants, with a tailored language, has been overturned in a celebratory key.

It is no coincidence that the age of resilience and adaptive society focuses everything on science to justify everything. Because science is ascertaining knowledge, and between ascertaining and accepting, there’s a stronger correlation than what we can imagine.

Science is, by definition, knowledge that ascertains reality, and accepts it. Philosophy, on the other hand, is a knowledge that is critical of reality and, if necessary, feeds doubts on an observed reality.

It is curious to notice that the history of modernity features examples of philosophical, but not scientific, martyrdom. Let’s take Giordano Bruno vs. Galileo Galilei. Galilei abjures to save his life because he knows well that what they asked him to say against his scientific certainty is falsehood. On the other hand, if Giordano Bruno had abjured, he would have betrayed his truth, which was the awareness that all human beings participate to the universal truth in a shared logos, where debate and doubt cannot banned.

Today, instead, they ask us to be “scientific,” coercing us not to question anything presented to us with a pseudo-scientific legitimation. But let’s be careful to surrender to a harmful scientism that claims to extend science to every area of knowledge while denying the others. That’s reason one why critical minds are constantly punished with censorship in recent times, with a silent but heavy violence that rejects the healthiest groundings of democracy.

5 1 vote
Article Rating