What Do You Call Believer in Scientism? Contest

Suggestion: “rationer”.
Simple, clear, and today it implies science.

Or “Reasoner”, in the English verson. “Rationer” is more latin.

I just tweeted Scientismist before being directed to this site. My (preferred) alternative is Scientite :o)

Ok. So with this new qualifier:Showing scientism is bad thing, what about narrow minder?

Fatuotist as in “fatuous” – “Foolish or silly, especially in a smug or self-satisfied way” 🙂

A few candidates for your consideration:

Scientizer
Scientaster
Sci-follogist
Sci-phist

Science Zombie

Dawkinsian has a nice ring.

Or maybe a nod to L. Frank Baum. Thinkologist. …if I only had a brain

“The horrible thing about the Two Minutes Hate was not that one was obliged to act a part, but that it was impossible to avoid joining in. Within thirty seconds any pretence was always unnecessary. A hideous ecstasy of fear and vindictiveness, a desire to kill, to torture, to smash faces in with a sledge hammer, seemed to flow through the whole group of people like an electric current, turning one even against one’s will into a grimacing, screaming lunatic. And yet the rage that one felt was an abstract, undirected emotion which could be switched from one object to another like the flame of a blowlamp.”

Spock-ists?

Would be crazy to suggest: inscienaty? mixing in-science-naty

42 sourced suggestions:
scientismeler (gospeler or gospeller)
scientiscubus (incubus/succubus)
scientismoblolly (loblolly)
scientismor (mentor)
scientismophant (hierophant)
scientisment (exponent)
scientisponent (proponent)
scientismald (herald)
scientismocate (advocate)
scientismion (champion)
scientismare (from Late Latin sponsare–to betroth–wedded to the idea)
scientiskite (blatherskite)
scientismoltroon (poltroon)
scientismotron (Megatron)
scientismaton (automaton)
scientismafuego (Cacafuego)
scientismahanger (crepehanger)
scientiganger (doppelganger)
scientismarridan (Harridan)
scientarridan (Harridan)
scientismidelle (haridelle)
scientismidel (infidel from fidelity–faithful)
scientismubber (Slubberdegullion)
sciention (scion)
scientidant (descendant, pedant)
scientild (child)
scientith (Old English cith–sprout, shoot)
scientiphile (audiophile)
scientiplast (chloroplast)
scientivan (sylvan)
scientigeon (burgeon, surgeon)
scientator (commentator)
scientistician (statistician)
scientistutator (amputator)
scientator (commentator)
scientor (doctor)
scientistico (medico)
scientismigullion (Slubberdegullion)
scientilic (pilgarlic)
scientismacca (Chewbacca)
scientismaker (Shumaker)
scientismake (rake)

I’m a fan of the term “scientician” from the classic Simpsons episode “Lisa the Vegetarian.”

Video link http://youtu.be/FB-JO2j7MEQ

Aloysius wins…

scientiphile

Although I don’t like Spock-ist, his most famous ‘quote’, “The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few,” goes right to the heart of the problem.

Applied scienctism all to often uses this rationale to ban large soft drinks, close coal mines, etc.

When the state follows this premise, self sacrifice morphs into state sanctioned murder.

What nobody has suggested “Bright” yet?

Edward Fesar, philosopher, has addressed scientism at some length. His analysis, Recovering Sight after Scientism, March 12th, 2010, is very insightful. There he observes:

“What happens when we do reject this bias [the bias being a preference for science, “scientism”]?

“The right answer, in my [Feser’s] view, is a return to the philosophical wisdom of the ancients and medievals. Their physics…was indeed sorely lacking. But their metaphysics has never been surpassed.”

According to Feser, scientism isn’t just an over-valuation of modern research , it requires the overt rejection of knowledge for a medieval antecedent expressly accepted as flawed.

Feser’s “ancients and medievals” referent, including the rejection of new knowledge and the appear for metaphysics, leads to many places, here’s one popular conclave: http://www.consciouslifeexpo.com/-home-page.html.

Feser’s is a nearly foolproof strategy to lead one right where one wanted to go in the first place. Don’t believe that?, then observe anyone who hasn’t glommed on to the philosophy and watch how their predispositions take them right where you’d expect them to go anyway. Which is really right where they’ve been all along. Never fails. Ever.

Thomas B. Lounsbury observed: “We must view with profound respect the infinite capacity of the human mind to resist the inroads of useful knowledge.”

* E. Feser’s essay is available at: http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2010/03/1184/

Sciencista?

supercilioust

Why not;
scientocracy – scientocrat?

I didn’t read the assignment

Recently I saw a video on C.S.Lewis and intelligent design.C.S, based on the book Magician´s Twin (See the book http://astore.amazon.com/discoveryinsti12-20/detail/1936599058).

Lewis argued that those who defend naturalism (atheism) based on reason forget that reason can not be based on nothing. Reason cannot be based on irrationality. Lewis is arguing for intelligent desing.

Scientism is not scientific. Thinking about this, it is really tough to reach a name. It is like to be half pregnant.

But what about “sciencerapist”? Like someone raping the science. Maybe too long, but this is what I can thinking about.

How about sciphist as a play on sophist?

John,

I beat you to sciphist, bro (see 9:45 am). All rights reserved.

Scimoron

Surely just ‘positivist’, as in August Comte? ‘Logical positivist’ is a purely philosophical position referring to people such as Carnap and Wittgenstein.

Scidolator, if that hasn’t been suggested yet.

psysciphilliac

Scientophile

hi:

The rightest answers are “Spocks” or “Sheldonists”

The realist answer is “Optimist”

Since we can’t assume a sperical chicken in a vaccuum… my personal vote is for “triverist” – (cf Trivers’ theory of self-deception ) because policy should indeed be set by research based reasoning but, in reality, we never have enough information to do this well.

knowlatan
pedantocrat
patronisiac

by way of a start

If it’s dismissive you want, look to the triumvirate of Communist thought: Engles, Lenin, and Trotsky — we’ll give Marx a bye this time.

Paraphrazing Engles: What about “unscientific hucksterists”?

Paraphrasing Lenin: you got “philistine scientists” or simply “philistines,” which seemed to work for almost anything. Or there is “scientific excrescence”? Talk about dismissive. Or ever, “those whose science sounds like they are chewing rags in their sleep.”

Paraphrasing Trotsky: simply put, “scientists.”

Inspired by Gavin Schmidt…

Sigh-intists.

Academagogue, maybe?

Or technogogue, techogogue or scientologue to keep with the theme, although the last one appears to be the French word for Scientologist.

scientificant
saintificist
saintologist
scientificist

weepees

Scientificalist
(as in scientificalistic)

Mike,

I like your Sciencista? However, it rolls off the tongue better if spelled ‘Scienista’. Like fashionista, which I hope was your meaning.

obfuscator

As a fan of messrs Jagger and Richards, perhaps Scisyphist, or Scisyphean?

Scienterrific!

scienzealot

You want obscure? I’ll give you obscure:

aoristicist! 🙂

Evidencist

Scienticist perhaps ?
It’s simple and clear enough, though i can’t tell whether or not it breaks any rule of etymology.

Sciphiliac.

I like “logical positivist” though since A J Ayer said of Logical Positivism, “Almost all of it was false”.

Nothing beats “the Brights” for sheer irony.

Scienticist is less of tongue twister…

Scientipher, sort of half scientist and half philosopher. Or Scientifie, a post-modern contraction of “scientist” and “selfie”.

BRIGGS RE: “Scientism is the belief that all questions can be answered by science, which itself isn’t a scientific belief.”

THAT’s NOT WHAT Fesar says; he says “all real knowledge” is scientific, which is a very very different perspective than asserting ‘all questions can be answered by science.’ Here’s Feser’s definitions:

“Scientism is the view that all real knowledge is scientific knowledge—that there is no rational, objective form of inquiry that is not a branch of science.” FROM: http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2010/03/1174/

“As I argued in part I, scientism—the view that all real knowledge is scientific knowledge—is either self-refuting or trivial.” FROM: http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2010/03/1184/

That’s another tactic from the New Age movement’s playbook — redefine terms to mean whatever’s desired (better, skip any formal definition & leave it implicitly understood so that all audience members can project their particular wants to allow them to see whatever they want…).

Ken, glad to see that I am not the only one fighting this battle. Also I see that my Orwell quote is being amplified by all and sundry.

I’m going with, ‘scientomancer,’ on the model of ‘necromancer.’

Anthropodogmatists

I forgot this paraphrase from Lenin and Marx, “Vulgar scientists.”

Sci-atollah

Scatomancer

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/20/scatomancer_n_4309974.html

RE: BRIGGS: “Feser nails it. … Scientism is either self-refuting or trivial.”

Feser & other create the term & concept of “scientism” to then refute it. It’s a form of the “self-licking ice cream cone.” Mental masturbation (term & concept courtesy of the lyrics to Sammy Hagar’s “There’s Only One Way to Rock”).

Feser asserts the following, for example (http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2010/03/1174/ ):

“Indeed, the culture at large seems beholden to an inchoate scientism—“faith” is often pitted against “science” (even by those friendly to the former) as if “science” were synonymous with “reason.””

I’ll leave it as an exercise to others to find the interview in some documentary or other that was aired in the past year or two with the Vatican’s astronomer. In that interview he addressed head-on the science vs. faith theme — noting (among other things) that when the religion was founded and its core writings written there was no science, no scientific method or anything conceptually approaching that. Thus, matters of faith and matters of science cannot practically be mingled. The interview was much longer than a “soundbite” remark such as this, which doesn’t really begin to do it justice.

Which logically leads to the next question, “Why make the effort?” (such as Feser’s discourses on the contrived concept of “scientism” and so forth.

First, there’s good reasons NOT to do so–any objective analysis of the “logic” applied by the likes espousing New Age themes is basically indistinguishable from that applied by Feser & his ilk (and we know with certainty much of the New Age themes are utter nonsense). That indicates a fundamental problem with the method as the method itself is so malleable to lead one to any conclusion. And that conclusion is invariable one the philosopher was predisposed for at the outset; no surprises there.

Second, and most importantly, matters of faith are matters in the realm of faith — a place inaccessible to science & related tools. Making attempts to objectively bridge that gap is no different than what that famous guy had to do to have (tangible proof) to accept what was standing right before & talking to him (“Doubting Thomas” was his name).

Anyone inclined to force “logic” & science into a realm it cannot go is deluding themselves about the exercise, much less the content of the exercise — what they’re really doing is trying to force proof of something in which they lack faith…they need proof to have faith…but…refuse to acknowledge that fundamental [& painful] issue–they lack faith.

It’s a behavior psychologists call a “reaction formation” — you can look that up easily enough.

EPILOGUE: One comment, less than 500 words, entwining masturbation, religious faith, Vatican science, Feser’s philosophy of “scientism,” the psychological term “reaction formation,” and more…my work here is done!

Scientient,as in sentient. Perhaps suggested already. Or terrible. Or both.

Scinsist