Scientism seems to be more of an invented position than a position actually held, and those who do hold it seem to comprise only a small minority. It is mostly used around these parts as a smear: an exaggerated misrepresentation intended to damage the credibility of the other person in a debate.

Would you say that the methods of a plumber, a machine operator, a lighting technician, or a cook are based on his criterion? I wouldn't. — Moliere

They may occasionally do some experimental testing.

In fact, experimental testing is a systematic protocol in various supply chain situations. It is often specified upfront in commercial contracts. The next paragraph describes a very common commercial practice:

In destructive testing (or destructive physical analysis, DPA) tests are carried out to the specimen's failure, in order to understand a specimen's performance or material behavior under different loads. These tests are generally much easier to carry out, yield more information, and are easier to interpret than nondestructive testing. Destructive testing is most suitable, and economic, for objects which will be mass-produced, as the cost of destroying a small number of specimens is negligible.

You can ask Walmart how they make sure that their Chinese suppliers do not get into a habit of filling the containers with mere sand. The fact that Walmart does not report on their work in experimental testing, is mostly because they do not carry it out with a view on black-swanning a scientific theory.

Still, according to Nassim Taleb, most (empirical) theory was born from recording, systematizing and idealizing existing practice:

Theory is born from (convex) practice more often than the reverse (the nonteleological property). Textbooks tend to show technology flowing from science, when it is more often the opposite case, dubbed the "lecturing birds on how to fly" effect v vi. In such developments as the industrial revolution (and more generally outside linear domains such as physics), there is very little historical evidence for the contribution of fundamental research compared to that of tinkering by hobbyists.

So yes, plumbers, machine operators, lighting technicians, cooks know a lot of things that were never systematized scientifically. They may have stumbled upon them through sheer serendipity, through trial and error, and possible also by experimentally testing them. These things have never been documented or otherwise formalized into science or engineering, because nobody has ever bothered to do so. I personally suspect that the entire industry would collapse if this knowledge does not get transmitted from one generation of workers to the next.

So to you "science" is knowledge specifically, it seems. Yes? — Moliere

To me, "science" is every belief that you can justify by experimentally testing it; and therefore, that you can also "black-swan", by systematically looking for counterexamples in such tests.

If you can justify a belief, then yes, then it is knowledge.

Science are beliefs that are backed by experimental test reports, i.e. their justifications. Mathematics is different. Mathematics are beliefs that are backed by axiomatic derivation from other beliefs, i.e. their justifications, and ultimately always from unexplained beliefs, i.e. the axioms of the theory.

As far as I am concerned, every legitimate knowledge-justification method will generate around itself its epistemic domain of knowledge. Epistemology itself does that too.

So yes, plumbers, machine operators, lighting technicians, cooks know a lot of things that were never systematized scientifically. They may have stumbled upon them through sheer serendipity, through trial and error, and possible also by experimentally testing them. These things have never been documented or otherwise formalized into science or engineering, because nobody has ever bothered to do so. I personally suspect that the entire industry would collapse if this knowledge does not get transmitted from one generation of workers to the next. — alcontali

Of course. To say that their knowledge is not-scientific is not the same as to say that their knowledge is not-valuable. In fact, in terms of our day-to-day lives, such knowledge is more valuable than systematic theories about how the world works -- at least I believe so.

But do you see how, if we admit that these professions have knowledge that is not-scientific, the point you were trying to make originally is simple to make? That not all knowledge is scientific after all?

In which case the kind of scientism you are arguing against would be unjustified.

Though I don't know if anyone would agree to that belief, as @S states above. Still a worthwhile point of reference in situating ourselves, I suppose. What do you think of my notion that scientism is not a set of beliefs as much as it is a character trait -- the trait of feeling too strongly about science?

Of course. To say that their knowledge is not-scientific is not the same as to say that their knowledge is not-valuable. — Moliere

In that case, mathematics is also not valuable, because it is also not-scientific, and staunchly so.

This kind of fake morality ("not-scientific knowledge is not-valuable") is a mainstay in the vulgarizing and ultimately also vulgar, pseudo-scientific mainstream press. You will see CNN journalists displaying their amazing ineptitude -- the blind leading the blind -- when they further mislead the already delusional unwashed masses.

As long as it has the trappings and superficial appearance of science, the delusional populace will swallow it all. Of course, they will never ask to repeat any inexistent experimental tests, because they do not even understand the nature of their own fake religion.

Scientism is a mental disease. Seriously.

In which case the kind of scientism you are arguing against would be unjustified. — Moliere

Science is a one epistemic domain in the field of knowledge. There is nothing wrong with that.

It is the beliefs [1] that it is the only epistemic domain [2] that it is complete (can answer every question), that irritate me to no end.

What do you think of my notion that scientism is not a set of beliefs as much as it is a character trait -- the trait of feeling too strongly about science? — Moliere

Scientism is so incredibly widespread, and its fake morality so prevalent with the unwashed masses, especially in the West, that it cannot merely be a character trait. There is an entire, organized media-clergy preaching its heresies. The political class loves it too. The political manipulators happily subscribe to it, because it increases their power. Scientism is a fake religion that comes with its own fake morality. It is simply obnoxious.

You should read Quine's two dogmas. He makes a good case against apriori justification. — aporiap

Interesting.

Concerning Quine's dogma one, "Analyticity and circularity", and "the notion of synonymy, which Quine holds as unexplained", I certainly agree. Furthermore, it is exactly because of this problem that Alonzo Church spent an inordinate amount of effort avoiding sheer naming in his lambda calculus.

The λ-calculus incorporates two simplifications that make this semantics simple. The first simplification is that the λ-calculus treats functions "anonymously", without giving them explicit names. The second simplification is that the λ-calculus only uses functions of a single input.

This dogmatic simplification was absolutely necessary for Alonzo Church to be able to give an answer to Hilbert's Entscheidungsproblem (negative), along with Alan Turing, who arrived there via an independent route, both of them coincidentally in 1936.

So, now the answer to David Hilbert's Entscheidungsproblem goes by the name of Church-Turing thesis.

Quine only published his dogma one in 1951. Hence, he was in fact, a bit late to the game for his dogma one.

Concerning Quine's dogma two, "Quine maintains that reductionism is another "metaphysical article of faith", yes, I completely agree.

Axiomatic derivation reduces theorems to underlying, unexplained axioms. So, if we equate the term "metaphysical" with presuppositionalism (apriori knowledge), then yes, mathematics is by design indeed presuppositionalist.

So?

Isn't this again a case of fake morality concerning the term "metaphysical", considered "bad"? Why is it "bad"?

The entire domain of mathematics, generated by the axiomatic method, is staunchly presuppositionalist. Does that mean that mathematics is "bad"?

Concerning Quine's holism:

Instead of reductionism, Quine proposes that it is the whole field of science and not single statements that are verified. All scientific statements are interconnected.

That is utterly wrong.

No, Quine's holistic solution is not even wrong.

A scientific statement stands by itself, because it can only be tested experimentally by itself. Experimental testing of one scientific statement says nothing about any other scientific statement. You would have to experimentally test that one too.

Mathematical theories are indeed axiomatic systems, of which the statements are interconnected.

An entire such system has indeed its systemic (system-level) properties.

Scientific theories are not axiomatic systems.

Quine fails to distinguish between mathematics (provability) and science (testability). That is why the holistic amalgamation that he proposes, is rather silly.

Scientism is so incredibly widespread, and its fake morality so prevalent with the unwashed masses, especially in the West, that it cannot merely be a character trait. There is an entire, organized media-clergy preaching its heresies. The political class loves it too. The political manipulators happily subscribe to it, because it increases their power. Scientism is a fake religion that comes with its own fake morality. It is simply obnoxious. — alcontali

Yes, rant some more, I love it!

Axiomatic derivation reduces theorems to underlying, unexplained axioms. So, if we equate the term "metaphysical" with presuppositionalism (apriori knowledge), then yes, mathematics is by design indeed presuppositionalist. — alcontali

How would you define "axiom"? Do you see a difference between an axiom in mathematics and an axiom in metaphysics? In mathematics an axiom is produced and stated to serve some purpose, and accepted because of its usefulness. In metaphysics an axiom is stated as something self-evident, and therefore is supposed as a truth.

Now consider the problem which is the societal illness called scientism. When modern science first began developing centuries ago, it was based in solid metaphysics, truths, and it was designed to bring forth further truths, by employing valid logic to truthful premises which were demonstrated to be sound through empirical process. Notice the base, sound empirically proven premises, not mathematical axioms. But mathematics proved to be an extremely useful form of logical. However, mathematicians are prone to produce premises which are simply useful axioms, rather than sound truths. They are useful for the purpose of solving a mathematical stumbling point. Many axioms simply veil, or make vague such mathematical stumbling points. So, into science creeps unsound premises, from mathematicians, which are accepted because they are extremely useful. Now pragmatism has invaded science. Science is no longer guided by the desire for truth, it has turned into the art (because mathematics is an art, and it has subdued science) of statistics and probabilities, because the goal is not to know the truth, but to predict the future.

But I'd say the emphasis on observe-hypothesize-test-revise misses out what's going on in theoretical discussions. The Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies doesn't have observations and tests and so forth. It is largely an argument from the basis of what difficulties are resolved -- towards a more coherent theory.

Surely you'd include this in your notion of science. — Moliere

Actually, I'd say that insofar as something isn't based on observations, hypotheses, testing hypotheses, etc., it's philosophy at best. Which of course doesn't mean that it's not valuable as such--philosophy is more "where I'm coming from" than science, after all.

Keep in mind that Einstein had a "Library of Living Philosophers" volume: Albert Einstein: Philosopher-Scientist

In mathematics an axiom is produced and stated to serve some purpose, and accepted because of its usefulness — Metaphysician Undercover

Most generally, axioms are arbitrary:

These terms and axioms may either be arbitrarily defined and constructed or else be conceived according to a model in which some intuitive warrant for their truth is felt to exist.

In this context, I certainly subscribe to the formalist philosophy in mathematics:

According to formalism, mathematical truths are not about numbers and sets and triangles and the like—in fact, they are not "about" anything at all.

So, into science creeps unsound premises, from mathematicians, which are accepted because they are extremely useful. — Metaphysician Undercover

Mathematics helps science maintain consistency in its theories. Nothing more. Nothing less. It is up to the scientists themselves to determine if they want to use a particular tool and if they find the tool actually useful. In my impression, scientists generally consider the consistency-maintaining contribution of mathematics to be useful to them.

It is a similar situation with spreadsheets and accountants. A spreadsheet helps accountants to maintain consistency in their one-off financial reporting tasks. Accountants seem to be quite ok to use spreadsheets as a tool in their jobs.

Concerning Quine's holism:

Instead of reductionism, Quine proposes that it is the whole field of science and not single statements that are verified. All scientific statements are interconnected.

That is utterly wrong.

No, Quine's holistic solution is "not even wrong".

A scientific statement stands by itself, because it can only be tested experimentally by itself. Experimental testing of one scientific statement says nothing about any other scientific statement. You would have to experimentally test that one too. — alcontali

This would be how a "falsificationist" is an "anti-inductivist", I dare say?

The only kind of links, by which it makes sense (on this view) to connect scientific statements into some larger web, is the deductive kind of links. If the whole thing appears to hang together tighter than the known deductive links would themselves suggest, or if we are asked what brought this (rather than any other) particular set of largely unlinked statements together, we must still resist recognising any other kind of linkage.

And if we succeed in this resistance, we will find it easy enough to deny any holistic influence among scientific statements. Because we recognise far fewer links than the holist typically does.

Is this fair? Do you identify as "anti-inductivist" in this sense, of recognising only deductive links between scientific statements?

In that case, mathematics is also not valuable, because it is also not-scientific, and staunchly so.

This kind of fake morality ("not-scientific knowledge is not-valuable") is a mainstay in the vulgarizing and ultimately also vulgar, pseudo-scientific mainstream press. You will see CNN journalists displaying their amazing ineptitude -- the blind leading the blind -- when they further mislead the already delusional unwashed masses.

As long as it has the trappings and superficial appearance of science, the delusional populace will swallow it all. Of course, they will never ask to repeat any inexistent experimental tests, because they do not even understand the nature of their own fake religion.

Scientism is a mental disease. Seriously. — alcontali

I think you missed a "not" my statement. I said the opposite of what you're responding to here. Granted it was a confusing way of wording things, but we are in agreement -- not-scientific knowledge is valuable.

Scientism is so incredibly widespread, and its fake morality so prevalent with the unwashed masses, especially in the West, that it cannot merely be a character trait. There is an entire, organized media-clergy preaching its heresies. The political class loves it too. The political manipulators happily subscribe to it, because it increases their power. Scientism is a fake religion that comes with its own fake morality. It is simply obnoxious. — alcontali

How do you know it is widespread?

Sure. We're in agreement about the value of things which are not-science, then.

But I would at least say that while of course you can double down on your theory, you are in the curious position of calling canonical papers in the history of science as being something other than science. Not that that is necessarily a bad thing -- my own position has its faults, in particular it doesn't really give a definition of science as much as rely upon our intuitions of what counts as a scientist and encourages people to look at what those people are doing to get a feel for it.

But for me, at least, calling that paper philosophy rather than science isn't a bullet I can bite.

How do you know it is widespread? — Moliere

It's widespread at TPF, although it has a bad reputation so many who practise it here, claim not to.

I would say that there are two distinct forms of scientism, those who believe "only science can give us truth", and those who believe "if it's claimed by scientists, it must be science". The op seems to focus on the former, but there may be some conflation between the two. The latter is much more prevalent, and extremely difficult to reckon with. The difficulty arises from the problems with defining what qualifies as science. Philosophers of science cannot even decide this, so how could the average person? The average person believes that if it is claimed by a scientist, or if the news media reposts it as "science", it is science. This is the scientism which is most widespread.

Alcontali has described a division between science and mathematics. Further, the axioms of mathematics are said to be arbitrary. If this is the case, then there is an incompatibility between using mathematics and practising the scientific method, because science requires premises which are empirically proven.

How do you know it is widespread? — Moliere

Let's check what the top search results are for e.g. "I believe in science".

• Why I Don’t “Believe” in “Science”. or some years now, one of the left’s favorite tropes has been the phrase “I believe in science.” Elizabeth Warren stated it recently in a pretty typical form: “I believe in science." So what Warren really means by saying “I believe in science” is “I believe in global warming.” They use it as a way of declaring belief in a proposition which is outside their knowledge and which they do not understand. It is meant to use the reputation of “science” in general to give authority to one specific scientific claim in particular, shielding it from questioning or skepticism. In support of one particular political solution: massive government regulations.
  
• “I Believe in Science!” – Something No One Should Say. “I believe in science,” said Hillary Clinton. “We should not have people in office who do not believe in facts and truths and modern science,” said Leonardo DiCaprio. What these two have in common with the general public is their misunderstanding of the nature of science. The physical sciences are not, cannot possibly be the only means of gaining knowledge. The view that science (physical sciences) is the only means of gaining knowledge about reality is called scientism – a patently false proposition. It’s an unsettling sign of an imminent idiocracy – incredibly naive statements made by public officials and laymen who increasingly believe that science is the new god – the new idol of worship and infallibility. It is a sad day when science becomes an idol of worship – a compulsory belief system with its own initiations, rites, and hymns.
  
• I Believe in Science. It implies that I can’t be a believer in science and also believe in God. In other words, science has disproven God. Or science and God don’t go together, or science and religion are mutually exclusive. It’s strange in part because science is tasked with studying the way the natural world works and is thus not even capable of disproving something beyond its scope. So why is this such a popular view in today’s society? There are certainly also many in the scientific and academic community who propagate this view as well.

There are undoubtedly other search terms that can shed light on the world of that fake scientist religion, its media-clergy, and how the manipulative political class seeks to handsomely benefit from further deceiving the already delusional unwashed masses.

So, yes, the fake religion of scientism is incredibly widespread.

Richard Dawkins is dead now. So, one of the popes of scientism is no longer advocating their scientism faith. As Richard M. Stallman said on Steve Jobs: "I'm not glad he's dead, but I'm glad he's gone."

How do you know it is widespread? — Moliere

Another search term yields some more interesting results: how widespread is scientism?

• The Folly of Scientism. A forthright expression of this viewpoint has been made by the chemist Peter Atkins, who in his 1995 essay “Science as Truth” asserts the “universal competence” of science. In their 2007 book Every Thing Must Go: Metaphysics Naturalized, for example, philosophers James Ladyman, Don Ross, and David Spurrett go so far as to entitle a chapter “In Defense of Scientism.” An additional strength of the falsifiability criterion is that it makes possible a clear distinction between science properly speaking and the opinions of scientists on nonscientific subjects. We have seen in recent years a growing tendency to treat as “scientific” anything that scientists say or believe. The debates over stem cell research, for example, have often been described, both within the scientific community and in the mass media, as clashes between science and religion. If we confine our definition of the scientific to the falsifiable, we clearly will not conclude that a particular ethical view is dictated by science just because it is the view of a substantial number of scientists.
  
• Against scientism.I posit that scientism is an underrated problem in the modern world, causing a large amount of damage. The appeal of science had the required overinflated trust of a significant part of the population, to make them override both their common sense and natural inclinations. “Science shows” is a ubiquitous statement in science reporting, and it is mostly a lie. Scientific journalism thus foists these uncertain facts into the minds of the unsuspecting populace. A recent example is from this Guardian article, with the first line: “We may have suspected it already, but now the science backs it up: unmarried and childless women are the happiest subgroup in the population.” “Science backs it up” — the motto of scientism. In conclusion, scientism is causing large amounts of misinformation and harm. My hope is that as more people become more aware of this issue, they will show more epistemological humility; and that scientific reporters will oversell scientific results less, and people will be more sensibly critical when they do.
  
• Science beyond Scientism. Others make even bolder claims, namely that all knowledge is to be delivered by the natural sciences or that only those things exist which are mentioned in our best scientific theories. What these varieties of scientism have in common is that they imply that the boundaries of science are to be extended (far) beyond what most people consider to be limits of science. There is the claim, especially in neuroscience, that free will is an illusion. Morality is an illusion. Religious belief is illusory.
  
• The Problem with Scientism. That said, there is a pernicious and increasingly influential strand of thought these days — normally referred to as “scientism” — which is not only a threat to every other discipline, including philosophy, but risks undermining the credibility of science itself. Scientism is explicitly advocated by a good number of scientists (predictably), and even some philosophers. The first sign is when words like “science” and “scientific” are used uncritically as honorific terms of epistemic praise. For instance, in advertisement: “9 out of 10 dentists recommend brand X.”
  
• Science and scientism. The purpose of this book is to show the pervasiveness of the doctrine of scientism. But how could it have come about that this mistake is so widespread, if it is a mistake? Most of the theologically liberal wing, in contrast, long ago adopted scientism, because they confused it with science. What's more, as we will see, several of the historic forms that scientism has taken actually do involve ceremonials and rituals of religious intent.

So, yes, the fake scientism religion is literally everywhere. Wherever you find the delusional, unwashed masses, you will be able to admire the artifacts, ceremonials, and rituals of scientism. They simply believe it. They don't care that they shouldn't, because they find solace in the false promise of the omnipotence of science.

Unfortunately, my wife falls for these snake oil vendors frequently. I haven’t been immune myself in the past. This is an important thread that you’ve started here.

Richard Dawkins is dead now. — alcontali

No he isn't.

No he isn't. — Wayfarer

O sorry, you are right. He is still there. He must have paperwork problems with Satan's immigration office. They will let him through some day. They always do! ;-)

another one of his pamphlets has been sent to the printers, according to the news.

Yes yes yes, and that scientism runs deep. Look at this link from Richard Dawkins' website: https://www.richarddawkins.net/2013/09/why-i-dont-believe-in-scienceand-students-shouldnt-either/

Why I Don’t Believe In Science…And Students Shouldn’t Either
I don’t believe in science. So why am I so passionate about something I don’t believe in?

At first glance it would then seem that Dawkins is not an adept of scientism, but let's keep reading:

"I don’t believe in evolution – I accept the evidence for evolution." The believing isn’t what makes evolution true or not, it’s that there is evidence that supports it.

Ok so they don't believe in science, they accept the evidence for science. Now what does 'accept' mean? Let's look at the dictionary https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/accept : one of the definitions is "to recognize as true: believe".

So they don't believe in science, they believe in the evidence for science. Dawkins says evolution is true because there is evidence that supports it, so he believes that evidence proves scientific theories are true. Which is scientism in disguise. An observation can be interpreted in many different ways, it can be seen as evidence for many different theories, yet he believes observations prove scientific theories.

That's probably why many people don't see scientism as widespread, because it usually isn't explicit, usually it isn't stated explicitly like "I believe in science" (even though there are plenty of examples of people saying that as you mentioned), rather it is implicit, they don't say they believe in science or in scientific theories, they say they accept the evidence or the facts, but then they don't realize or don't say that they believe that this evidence or those facts prove that some scientific theories are true.

In the religion of scientism people believe in some facts. But what makes something a fact? That's where the belief resides. Scientism has been defined for instance as "the view that the characteristic inductive methods of the natural sciences are the only source of genuine factual knowledge and, in particular, that they alone can yield true knowledge about man and society". They believe that their facts are the true facts, the ones people ought to believe. They believe that the things they call evidence prove that such or such scientific theory is true. And so fundamentally they believe in scientific theories, contrary to what they claim. And that is really, really widespread.

I think that you yourself believe that observations can prove a theory, or at least that observations can falsify a theory, but that's not the case either, any theory can be saved from falsification as I explained in other threads. There is always belief involved in what we call knowledge or truth, and science doesn't escape that.

Let's check what the top search results are for e.g. "I believe in science". — alcontali

Is the answer just a google search away? That seems odd to me. At least it's unconvincing for myself because, supposing a google search finds me an example of scientism this would not then support the inference that scientism is widespread. It would just be an example of scientism.

But let's take your notion of scientism -- that there is only one knowledge-justification method -- and look at these examples.

Why I Don’t “Believe” in “Science”. or some years now, one of the left’s favorite tropes has been the phrase “I believe in science.” Elizabeth Warren stated it recently in a pretty typical form: “I believe in science." So what Warren really means by saying “I believe in science” is “I believe in global warming.” They use it as a way of declaring belief in a proposition which is outside their knowledge and which they do not understand. It is meant to use the reputation of “science” in general to give authority to one specific scientific claim in particular, shielding it from questioning or skepticism. In support of one particular political solution: massive government regulations. — alcontali

Believing in science, or as this person puts it, believing that global warming is a real phenomena is not the same thing as believing that there is only one knowledge-justification method. I believe that anthropocentric caused global warming is real. I also believe that there is more than one knowledge-justification method. This isn't inconsistent. So it is possible to believe a scientific thesis while at the same time not subscribing to scientism, and therefore simply stating "I believe in science" to mean "I believe global warming is real" is not evidence of scientism.

“I Believe in Science!” – Something No One Should Say. “I believe in science,” said Hillary Clinton. “We should not have people in office who do not believe in facts and truths and modern science,” said Leonardo DiCaprio.

The same analysis applies here, though with other scientific theories. These come closer to your notion of scientism because they don't express just one proposition with the phrase, but at the same time both of these persons exhibit a belief that there are more ways of knowing than science only. They are also a politician and an actor, and know how to go about their profession in those fields -- they have a knowledge of their field which is not-scientific. So I don't think that these qualify as scientism as you describe it.

What these two have in common with the general public is their misunderstanding of the nature of science. The physical sciences are not, cannot possibly be the only means of gaining knowledge. The view that science (physical sciences) is the only means of gaining knowledge about reality is called scientism – a patently false proposition. It’s an unsettling sign of an imminent idiocracy – incredibly naive statements made by public officials and laymen who increasingly believe that science is the new god – the new idol of worship and infallibility. It is a sad day when science becomes an idol of worship – a compulsory belief system with its own initiations, rites, and hymns.
I Believe in Science. It implies that I can’t be a believer in science and also believe in God. In other words, science has disproven God. Or science and God don’t go together, or science and religion are mutually exclusive. It’s strange in part because science is tasked with studying the way the natural world works and is thus not even capable of disproving something beyond its scope. So why is this such a popular view in today’s society? There are certainly also many in the scientific and academic community who propagate this view as well.

That's just a bias of the authors. "I believe in science" does not imply that the author cannot be a believer in God, even in the examples cited.

There are undoubtedly other search terms that can shed light on the world of that fake scientist religion, its media-clergy, and how the manipulative political class seeks to handsomely benefit from further deceiving the already delusional unwashed masses.

So, yes, the fake religion of scientism is incredibly widespread.

I'd say "widespread" is a large chunk of the population. It doesn't have to be a majority, but let's just say 20% of people believe in scientism is the benchmark for widespread. We can restrict our claim to, say, Europe, North America, and Australia because that's where a lot of us come from and that's the sort of culture we're trying to analyze. Now a google search might supply examples of scientism, but it does not demonstrate that 20% of the people believe that science is the only knowledge-justification method.

So how do you get from some examples of scientism to widespread?

This applies to your gathering of more search terms as well, and is a response to this:

So, yes, the fake scientism religion is literally everywhere. Wherever you find the delusional, unwashed masses, you will be able to admire the artifacts, ceremonials, and rituals of scientism. They simply believe it. They don't care that they shouldn't, because they find solace in the false promise of the omnipotence of science — alcontali

Even the quotes you supply don't say scientism religion is literally everywhere. They qualify that there are "strands of thought", or "good many scientists and some philosophers" or something along those lines. They certainly don't make claims about the "delusional, unwashed masses" -- a phrase that I don't particularly like, but hey, we all have to be the target of insults sometimes. ;)

Also I'd say that your second post is more in line with what @Metaphysician Undercover is calling scientism, which is different from what you started out calling scientism. Would you agree with him in saying there are at least two kinds of scientism?

So they don't believe in science, they believe in the evidence for science. Dawkins says evolution is true because there is evidence that supports it, so he believes that evidence proves scientific theories are true. Which is scientism in disguise. — leo

That doesn't follow at all. I believe "X" because there is evidence that supports it does not imply that evidence proves "X" is true.

Is it scientism to believe that a scientific theory is true because the evidence is convincing?

Exactly. I say that plenty of things are true because there is supporting evidence, but I wouldn't say that any empirical claim is provable.

Just so novices don’t get confused, global warming is real. It’s a measure of temperatures taken across the globe and averaged out over time. Pretty simple and almost impossible to get wrong. Carbon emissions have steadily increased since the industrial revolution, inarguably man-made. Carbon and methane found in ice core samples of glaciers (is this right? Check me on this if I’m wrong) show what the levels in the atmosphere were in earlier eras. The deeper you go, the farther back in the past it was. Comparing the ice-core samples to geological evidence of where sea levels were at the time, is further evidence of the correlation of carbon in the atmosphere to sea levels link. I’m not a geologist, so I can’t speak to that science, but I think it has to do with erosion and other phenomena including what types of rocks one finds in the layers of rock. Once again, the deeper you go, the farther back in the past. Can someone check me on this?

So I believe that global warming is real and it is caused by humans.

That said, don’t buy every consumer product on TV that says “science shows.” They are capitalists trying to make money.

That doesn't follow at all. I believe "X" because there is evidence that supports it does not imply that evidence proves "X" is true. — Moliere

But that's not what he said. He said "X" is true because there is evidence that supports it:

The believing isn’t what makes evolution true or not, it’s that there is evidence that supports it.

Another quote from him, in case you think he sees himself as believing:

Evolution is a fact. Beyond reasonable doubt, beyond serious doubt, beyond sane, informed, intelligent doubt, beyond doubt evolution is a fact. The evidence for evolution is at least as strong as the evidence for the Holocaust, even allowing for eye witnesses to the Holocaust. It is the plain truth that we are cousins of chimpanzees, somewhat more distant cousins of monkeys, more distant cousins still of aardvarks and manatees, yet more distant cousins of bananas and turnips…continue the list as long as desired. That didn’t have to be true. It is not self-evidently, tautologically, obviously true, and there was a time when most people, even educated people, thought it wasn’t. It didn’t have to be true, but it is. We know this because a rising flood of evidence supports it. Evolution is a fact, and this book will demonstrate it.

If you characterize Dawkins as a believer then I think it's fair to call him a religious fundamentalist.

The way I read you was with an emphasis on proof rather than truth.

I think I'd say I believe "X" because there is evidence that supports it implies that the evidence supports "X" is true.

But then I'd ask again: Is it scientism to believe that a scientific theory is true because the evidence is convincing?

Is it scientism to believe that a scientific theory is true because the evidence is convincing? — Moliere

What would it mean to say that a scientific theory is true? That its predictions are confirmed by observation or something more than that?

What would it mean to say that a scientific theory is true? That its predictions are confirmed by observation or something more than that? — Janus

It would mean that the propositions of a theory are true. I'd also qualify that any proposition could actually be false. That's part of the whole kit and caboodle. So at some later point, with more evidence, it may be shown that the propositions of evolution are not true -- but it's warranted to believe they are true given what we know at the moment.

True, but with fallabalism "Baked in" so to speak.

That sounds reasonable. Evolution is a tricky one, because there seems to be no definitive way to test it. Having said that I think we have every reason to believe that evolution has occurred. It is one of the "mechanisms" of evolution: namely random mutation that seems impossible to test.

Well it's definitely different from say chemistry or physics. There isn't a lab where we isolate variables or some such. But I'd say that evolution makes novel predictions about the sort of evidence we'd expect to see in the world, and that this evidence has been found. There are similar predictions in other sciences like geology -- it's not a controlled experiment, but there are facts you'd expect to find if a proposition is true, and many of said facts have been discovered and explained by the theory, such as the theory of plate tectonics.

It's not a lab, but it's still science. It's just a different kind of science than many of the physical sciences.

A physical science that kind of mirrors this approach is actually astronomy, now that I think of it -- not that I know much of astronomy. But they don't exactly perform experiments in a lab either.