The Philosophical Hypocrisy Of Those Enamored With Science Over Rationalism

I have had conversations with science-fixated people whose subjective love of science drove them to the verge of scientism even as they appealed to explicitly philosophical concepts that fall outside the scope of science.  On one hand, they attempt to throw epistemological and metaphysical issues settled only by logic behind them, as if they can escape logical truths simply by misunderstanding or ignoring them.  On the other hand, they are quick to appeal to irrelevant scientific figures who promote or hypothesize about some of the very things they only just tossed behind them, wrapping those broader philosophical matters in a needlessly specific cloak of scientific application.  The philosophical hypocrisy of those who think science is anything other than wholly inferior to undiluted rationalism cannot even be hidden well given its foundational nature!

They erroneously dismissed the objective epistemological disconnect between most sensory perceptions and external stimuli (with the exception of the sense of touch being impossible to have without possessing some sort of physical body) when the matter was framed as an explicitly philosophical issue, only to parrot what some particular scientist said about sensory organs evolving for survival rather than conformity to external objects.  This kind of person tosses the infallible shortcut of pure reason aside in favor of scientific possibilities that are usually acknowledged only thanks to someone else already popularizing the idea.  In other words, those gratuitously fixated on science, the lowest aspect of philosophy, try to sidestep philosophy only to embrace lesser versions of philosophical concepts.

The same kind of person might also scoff at a rationalist who, after merely contemplating the epistemology of the senses by looking to reason alone, says that perceiving an object does not mean it exists, only to turn around in excitement when a random and likely philosophically inept scientist says that we might be living in a simulation constructed by advanced technology.  The hypocrisy is incredibly obvious to anyone who is philosophically capable of analyzing things rationalistically.  Science is no substitute for philosophy, and many lovers of science fail to see the utter inferiority of the former.  In many cases, they will not even come to philosophical ideas about science without being spoon-fed by articles and hearsay about scientific consensus!

It is asinine to reject pure reason as a basis for understanding philosophical proofs and possibilities, for without reason nothing is true, knowable, or possible in the first place, but it is even more asinine to reject pure rationalism and then entertain certain ideas in the guise of science when they would be ignored otherwise.  Scientific concepts are either true or false.  However, science does nothing more than illuminate perceptions of the physical world and how it behaves.  It never provides actual knowledge about the world beyond one's perceptions or about nonphysical existents like reason or time.  Only logic itself can accomplish that.