Talk:Scientism

message: Hi,
Greetings, Requesting you to have a look at 
* Superstitions in Muslim societies and also Talk:Superstitions in Muslim societies
Requesting article expansion help, if above topics interest you.
Thanks and regards
Bookku (talk) 08:54, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requesting help in article expansion  

message: Hello,
Since some editors are contesting existence of articles associating religions and religious communities to superstitions, One of the article which concerns this project/topic has been nominated for deletion. You can support or contest the deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Superstition in Judaism by putting forward your opinion.
Thanks and regards
Bookku (talk) 08:39, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:   Article [[Superstition in Judaism]] has been nominated for deletion  

message: Isn't "We are academia, we are right, all others are crackpots." called scientism, too? TBH, this is more near to fascism. --VictorPorton (talk) 04:15, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: No, not if the academic subject isn't related to science. Only those subjects that are scientific can have a relation to scientism. Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 14:59, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Third kind of scientism? 

message: Currently the opening sentence makes scientism sound virtually the same as science. It does not explain why people use the term to criticize limits of science. As is, the sentence also assumes that "objective" means are the only means to every form of "truth." Only the second sentence attempts to explain the difference between scientism and science. The second sentence, however, emphasizes "religious scholars." By doing so it makes it sound like the criticism of scientism generally comes only from those of faith. 
The two sentences read as follows:
<<Scientism is the view that science is the best or only objective means by which society should determine normative and epistemological values. While the term was originally defined to mean "methods and attitudes typical of or attributed to the natural scientist", some religious scholars (and subsequently many others) adopted it as a pejorative with the meaning "an exaggerated trust in the efficacy of the methods of natural science applied to all areas of investigation (as in philosophy, the social sciences, and the humanities)".[1]>>
As the very first thing a reader sees, the first sentence should at least allude to the difference between science and scientism. It should also rely on an authoritative source. 
The second sentence, then, should make the best case for criticizing the kinds of science that show a belief in scientism. 
Here is a draft revision of both:
Scientism is "The belief that only knowledge obtained from scientific research is valid, and that notions or beliefs deriving from other sources, such as religion, should be discounted." While it originally meant merely "A mode of thought which considers things from a scientific viewpoint," the term "scientism" came to refer more specifically to "an exaggerated trust in the efficacy of the methods of natural science applied to all areas of investigation (as in philosophy, the social sciences, and the humanities)." [this requires the Webster's citation already posted]
[1 new citation] Oxford English Dictionary. (n.d.). "scientism, n.". https://www.oed.com/view/Entry/172696?redirectedFrom=scientism 
Because I am not skilled at the insert reference footnote functions, I have made an even simpler revision. It maintains the Webster's reference, shortens both the first and second sentences to make them more accurate and inclusive of the criticism.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rtorosyan (talk • contribs) 16:18, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Disagree, stable version is more nuanced than your edit. tgeorgescu (talk)  16:59, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposing a more accurate opening sentence 

message: Hi, I have added a "Strong and weak scientism" subsection to "Definitions", mostly because I heard the distinction made by JP Moreland and thought it might be worth noting. I have not yet read any of the sources with "broad" and "narrow", but I should. Thiagovscoelho (talk) 19:31, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Strong and weak added