Speechless

[Alex K]

From the text in your link

These are the “six signs of scientism” to which my title alludes.
Briefly and roughly summarized, they are:
1. Using the words “science,” “scientific,” “scientifically,” “scientist,”
etc., honorifically, as generic terms of epistemic praise.

Huh. Does that ever happen outside of crappy advertising? From her elaboration, she seems to blame any misinterpretation of preliminary scientific results on "scientism".

2. Adopting the manners, the trappings, the technical terminology, etc.,
of the sciences, irrespective of their real usefulness.

kind of tautological

3. A preoccupation with demarcation, i.e., with drawing a sharp line
between genuine science, the real thing, and “pseudo-scientific”
imposters.

That she is complaining about that is very suspicious.

4. A corresponding preoccupation with identifying the “scientific
method,” presumed to explain how the sciences have been so successful.

Seriously? Trying to identify the scientific method in order to find an explanation why the sciences are so successful is a sign of scientism? Someone has an axe to grind here.

5. Looking to the sciences for answers to questions beyond their scope.

again a bit tautological

6. Denying or denigrating the legitimacy or the worth of other kinds of
inquiry besides the scientific, or the value of human activities other than
inquiry, such as poetry or art.

Ok, I've never seen anyone seriously do that. but ok.

She has this collection of a variety of problems and non-problems and red herrings she wants to summarize as "scientism", from misinterpretation of scientific results, to the use of inappropriate methods, to the mere mention that there is such a thing as a successful scientific method? This seems very forced. I'm far from convinced that there is a unified thing that can sensibly called scientism and that is actually a problem.