I see indeed appropriation of language used to address oppression by minorities etc. (eg ‘tone policing’), but so far saw scienticism as independent dimension. I’m trying to analyze different dimensions to get a better handle in how to understand and rebut the derailing tactics.
-
-
Replying to @IrisVanRooij @Abebab and
So far it seems that my brute force approach worked ;)
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
I saw, but I'm a more analytic type ;)
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
-
Nah, just joking around ;)
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @IrisVanRooij @twitemp1 and
I wrote a blog about this. I think these 'scientism-ists' (o dear) are either 1) Dogmatic believers in a Church that the priests themselves (actual scientists) have very different (more subtle) ideas about. 2) Mistaking 'science' for 'reality' http://www.jellevandijk.org/science-is-not-what-you-think-it-is/ …
2 replies 5 retweets 10 likes -
Replying to @theblub @IrisVanRooij and
Abeba Birhane Retweeted Abeba Birhane
Ha! I didn't know what to call scientism-ists either.https://twitter.com/Abebab/status/783704959279923200 …
Abeba Birhane added,
1 reply 2 retweets 5 likes -
We used "scientismist".
1 reply 0 retweets 6 likes -
I think you can also use (neo) logical positivist.
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
In the blog I refer at some point to the call-out for the science-march, in which it said "to all science-lovers". I'm not that at all although I am a scientist (of sorts). Many of these scientismists are hard-core "science-lovers".
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes
Absolutely.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.

?