In a recent essay for American Thinker, Anthony J. DeBlasi challenges the notion that science holds the ultimate authority over human affairs. He argues that the sciences—particularly the social and political ‘sciences’—have come to dominate public discourse and policy-making, yet they systematically neglect the very elements that make life meaningful.
DeBlasi points to the paradox that while science excels at measuring weight, height, pulse, cholesterol, and even intelligence, it offers no numbers for love, hate, compassion, or sympathy. He asks: How can justice, good government, or sound social policy emerge when the most important aspects of human existence are left out of the equations?
The essay, titled ‘Science is not the ultimate authority,’ draws on the writing of Austin L. Hughes, a scientist who appreciated the modesty of true researchers—those who know one small corner of the natural world deeply but hesitate to express authoritative opinions outside their expertise. DeBlasi contrasts that humility with the arrogance of ‘positivist’ traditions that claim broad authority for science.
DeBlasi criticizes what he calls ‘practitioners of fake science’—professionals in the social and political fields who, often at public expense, present their work as indisputable. He invokes the principle GIGO (Garbage In, Garbage Out) to argue that vulgarized science yields vulgarized results, regardless of the scientific labels attached.
He further suggests that some researchers and advocates, including figures like Anthony Fauci and Al Gore, have used the power of science to promote particular agendas, and he cautions against treating science as the only valid way of knowing. He distinguishes between science as a method of acquiring knowledge and ‘scientism’ as a belief system that holds science as the supreme arbiter of truth.
The essay also raises concerns about the influence of unelected government agencies, which DeBlasi argues can be as coercive as any tyrannical rule. He observes that in the modern democratic republic, rule by an iron hand has been replaced, in his view, by the rule of a ‘brainwashed majority’ thanks to the political intervention of elites. He argues that ethics in such a ‘counterfeit democracy’ tend to favor might over morality.
DeBlasi acknowledges that science has produced astonishing accomplishments that lead the public to regard scientists as modern ‘wizardry’ akin to the witch doctors of primitive societies. But he reminds readers that profound changes in the world have also come from nonscientists like Confucius, Christ, Plato, and Gandhi, questioning why these contributions are often overlooked.
Ultimately, DeBlasi calls for a return to a broader understanding of knowledge—one that includes literature, the arts, theology, and other nonscientific investigations of the world. He argues that full knowledge perpetually fades from our vision, like a faint star that disappears when stared at directly. He concludes that the starting point for any serious effort to promote human progress must be the acceptance that the world is ‘irreducibly to neat, rational terms.’
‘Let science be science for its important work, but let it remain free of the corrupting influence of politics,’ DeBlasi writes, offering a modest proposal in a time of intense debate over the role of expertise in public life.
Source: www.americanthinker.com — https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2026/09/science-is-not-the-ultimate-authority/