I am not sure the author is being entirely consistent here. For example, in #3, identifying and rooting out pseudo-science is listed as a sign of scientism, yet

I am not sure the author is being entirely consistent here. For example, in #3, identifying and rooting out pseudo-science is listed as a sign of scientism, yet in #2, we are told that the signs of scientisim incude "inappropriately borrowed scientific trappings." This looks to me to be a pretty good definition of pseudo-science, in which case the author is performing, in section 2, an analysis that she deprecates in section 3. On second reading, I think the author is objecting to the practice of denigrating respectable modes of inquiry as "pseudo-science" merely because they cannot match some idealistic standard of rigor.