> If "scientism" is a real thing there have to be answerable questions that not addressable by science. No. The existence of scientism doesn't imply that some

> If "scientism" is a real thing there have to be answerable questions that not addressable by science. No. The existence of scientism doesn't imply that some questions don't have scientific answers, any more than fanboyism implies nobody has any true talent. Scientism merely means that some people are extremely persuaded by "sciency" things, even if they lack the rigor and reproducibility of actual science. So, if I'm wearing a business suit and present an economic theory based on the history of people's behavior, you're skeptical. However, if I wear a professor's cardigan and present the exact same theory with some equations and graphs instead (generated using the historical assumptions), you suddenly think it's very believable and impervious to challenge. That's what scientism is. It's confusing the appearance of science, the language of science, for the essence of science (reproducibility, verifiability, empirical predicates, etc). Edit: Additionally, people who are hardcore fans of science as drivers of change usually ignore the reality that science came around to a political opinion, rather than the other way around. People protested the idea that they were inferior, got the political environment changed, and in this new environment, "new facts" came to light that came to challenge old conclusions. If bad science based on bad observations leads to bad policy that then creates more bad observations, you can easily end up with a self-fulfilling prophecy.