I saw, but I'm a more analytic type ;)
-
-
-
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 -
Yeah and slogans like "science, bitches! It works." piss me off to no end.
2 replies 0 retweets 5 likes -
*shudder* They mean engineering almost always anyway.
2 replies 0 retweets 4 likes
That brings to mind this awesome comic:
"Sad truth: Most "mad scientists" are actually just mad engineers"
pic.twitter.com/Bl0osXjcv7
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.
