Final answer:
Scientism struggles to justify moral facts and meaning as they are normative, not empirical, and thus are not easily grounded in a worldview that prioritizes empirical validation over other forms of knowledge.
Step-by-step explanation:
Scientism is the view that the empirical scientific method is the most authoritative worldview or philosophy of science, claiming that it can, in principle, explain everything. However, this perspective faces challenges when addressing normative claims, such as those found in moral facts or the search for meaning. As David Hume and later philosophers like Hilary Putnam have pointed out, there seems to be a distinct separation between is (descriptive facts about the world) and ought (normative moral claims).
Moral realism contends that there are objective moral facts; however, scientism, grounded in empirical validation, falls short of justifying such claims since morality is intertwined with human sentiments and is not readily observable or measurable. Philosophers have argued about our ability to derive moral values from scientific facts, as science traditionally operates within the realm of material phenomena. Assertions regarding morality are normative in nature and cannot be observed or measured in the same way as empirical facts. Hence, while scientism can assist in understanding observable phenomena, it appears limited in grounding or justifying beliefs in moral facts or meaning.