> One huge problem with scientism is that it invites, as an almost allergic reaction, the total rejection of science. As we know to our cost, we witness this every day with climate change deniers...<p>Just a few paragraphs later he celebrates how irritating philosophy is while sidestepping how much its pompous pedanticism encourages anti-intellectualism. If it's a "huge problem with scientism" then it should also be a huge problem with philosophism.<p>It's also unclear how exactly "scientism" is responsible for climate change deniers. Somebody says "I believe someday science will explain everything!" and so somebody else says "Oh yeah? Climate change is a hoax by the government to get money!" Perhaps the author uses the word to describe being arrogant about science but you can be plenty arrogant about it without adopting a view of "scientism".
"As we know to our cost, we witness this every day with climate change deniers".<p>Denial? No one will deny there's an asteroid bearing down on us, if there is. No one will deny that an appalling virus released from a research lab can kill us all, if in fact it was released and can do that. Denial is reserved for deviation from a faith. Such deviants are called heretics. The religious terminology says it all. Why talk about denial if the evidence is screaming at us. Please point to it; that's all you have to do. The heretics will recant immediately. Is CAGW a 'faith'? I guess so.