[WikiEN-l] Perceived scientism just doesn't exist

[Toby Bartels]

RK wrote in part:

>First off, please stop using ad homenim attack-words like
>"scientism"; this is grossly offensive to those of us who
>use science to separate claims from facts.  If you want to
>discuss a specific issue, please discuss the issue without
>the words that show anger and fear of scientists.

Of course, many people use the term "scientism"
that are not angry or fearful of scientists.
Even some people that *are* scientists!
Of course, this is to be expected.

>The only useful categories are these:

>(A) There exists peer-reviewed data, duplicated by many
>reseachers, that a claimed technique actually works.

>(B) No such data exists, and we are expected to take
>someone's word, or believe in anecdotes.

>This isn't western or eastern. It is about facts versus a
>charlatan taking your money.

So if data doesn't exist, then it's from a charlatan?
Or is the dichotomy in the last sentence different from the A/B dichotomy?
If the latter, then you might elaborate.

>Viajero wrote:

>>however, there vast realms of human knowledge which
>>have not yet been verified by these means, and to
>>dismiss such empirical knowledge out of hand is both
>>foolish and not our job.

>I totally agree; yet I have no idea why you believe such a
>thing is happening here.

Perhaps Viajero believes it because you say things like A/B above.
This (false) dichotomy suggests that if a practice is not yet verified,
that then we are expected to believe it without verification.

It's a darned good thing that other people noticed MNH before you did, RK,
or it might have been EoT all over again -- where the regular Wikipedians
ignore your charges because you back them up with exaggerations
and biased rhetoric.  Next time leave it to people like Viajero.


-- Toby