I believe his claim is that scientism is illogical, because it dismisses non-physical, non-empirical evidence. If that's the correct definition, then I'll cop to scientism because the lack of consistency and coherence in "non-scientific" evidence makes it impossible to use that evidence to determine anything for certain, even to the individual in question (IMO).
"Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape- like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered."
-Stephen Jay Gould
-Stephen Jay Gould
