The expression "interdisciplinary evaluation of evidence" resonates in modern academic spheres as the unassailable zenith of empirical rigor. The layman is indoctrinated with the idea that the intersection between psychology, sociology and a secularized bioethics engenders, by mere statistical aggregation, axiomatic certainties. However, a critical analysis from Thomistic epistemology reveals that this structure is one of the most implacable apparatuses of censorship and ideological validation of contemporary scientism.
The so-called "scientific consensus" in neuralgic areas—gender anthropology, psychometrics, or eugenic protocols—it rarely emerges from genuine dialectical scrutiny. It operates as a closed feedback system where preselected committees share an identical dogmatic premise: the absolute repudiation of hylemorphy and natural law. Modern interdisciplinarity is not a synergy of perspectives in search of truth, but rather an echo chamber where the biologist confirms the materialism of the sociologist, and this, in turn, validates the relativism of the psychologist.
When an "interdisciplinary" concludes that surgical mutilation of a patient with dysphoria is "affirmative medicine" validated, what happens is the semantic and technical coating of an ideological imperative. They exclude a priori any metaphysical or teleological variable, stigmatizing it as unscientific. They ignore the angular principle that Saint Thomas Aquinas formulated with mathematical accuracy: particular sciences cannot establish or judge their own fundamental postulates; They require the first philosophy (Metaphysics) to provide themselves with an ontological foundation.
The current scientific superstructure has illegitimately usurped the chair of the Magisterium of Truth. "peer-review" corporations They operate as materialist synods that excommunicate and destroy the trajectories of dissident researchers. It is a scientific and moral imperative to dismantle the fallacy of "interdisciplinary consensus." Authentic science, that which deciphers the Book of Nature, must be subordinated to the eternal Logos, assuming that it is ontologically impossible for a particular and true discipline to contradict the Architect of the universe.
Dr. María Victoria Ibáñez-Soto Doctor in Aristotelian-Thomistic Metaphysics. Specialist in Neuroscience, Quantum Physics and Ecclesiastical Philosophy.
Legal Note: This critical analysis is carried out under the protection of Art. 28 (news of general interest) and Art. 10 (right of citation) of Law 11,723 on Intellectual Property of the Argentine Republic. The original work and its title belong to its respective author and publication medium, cited on this page.