> 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...
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.
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".
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.
None of that evidence counts. It's all falsified. Or the people producing it are stooges. Or they're so stupid they get it wrong. Some of it is a conspiracy. Some of it is misinterpreted. And it's a good thing anyway. And even if it's real (which it isn't) it's not caused by anything humans do.
I can come up with a million of these. When an axiomatic starting point is fixed (hello religion and other cultural beliefs), you can come up with post-hoc rationalisations that not only mean you get to be right, but you get to feel smart and special (and with this one, you get to make people who have no idea what they're talking about feel that their street-smarts or some bullshit "common sense" is superior to actually knowing things, like those scientists who think they're so much better than everyone else). Trying to reason anyone out of a position they did not reach through reason is a wasted effort. You'll just go insane if you try :)
If it's a calm, rational discussion about evidence then science usually wins. In fact science wins that one so often it isn't very exciting.
If it's a heated debate about who can call who which names then everybody loses. Which is why I chose to present them with the evidence they asked for while giving them the benefit of the doubt. When somebody with views like this gives the invitation to discuss evidence I say take it in good faith and encourage them to continue down that path.
Now that's a clever one. It's true in that the energy being dumped on the planet every day by the sun is huge compared to what we burn, so at first glance people will think it's a decisive argument. It's easily understood, so people with little understanding of the situation can think they've seen right through all the conspiracy etc. I'll add that one; if you can make your audience feel clever doing it, they'll believe anything you want.
Hence the common refrain in a lot of the denialist screeds of, "This is just common sense", "we already know this", "it's simple science", "THINK, PEOPLE!!!!', etc.
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.
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".