Here are a few examples I can find after a quick search. In these posts I’ve made it clear that science cannot deal with such subjects as
the afterlife, non-measurables or philosophical issues .
If such examples, showing an awareness of what science cannot, and should not, be required to deal with, make me a proponent of ‘scientism’, then I don’t know how to express myself in a manner that’s simple enough for you to understand that I’m not.
This leads me back to the subject of the sub-thread - that ESA scientists were surprised and initially disbelieving of the results coming from Rosetta. I’d like to know why you think that my pointing out to Starbinder the obvious fact that these scientists, facing such unexpected results, now have to clear the slate and re-think what they thought they knew about comets - in order to advance scientific knowledge of comets – makes me a scientismist, or whatever the silly noun is.
I personally do not believe you are guilty of "scientism", ie, the belief that science can do no wrong
but you do suffer from scientific "cognitive dissonance"
Belief disconfirmation paradigm
Dissonance is felt when people are confronted with information that is inconsistent with their beliefs. If the dissonance is not reduced by changing one's belief, the dissonance can result in restoring consonance through misperception, rejection or refutation of the information, seeking support from others who share the beliefs, and attempting to persuade others.
when confronted with the same information (on the ESA video)about
the ESA being surprised about the findings and the need to rethink things....
over several threads over several months
you denied the head of the ESA said what he said
you told everyone who objected they were the ones hearing things incorrectly
and appealed to higher authority (jonny) for help
as somebody said upthread
This process is only baffling to pseudo-scientists who cling rigidly to dogmatic theories, and refuse to budge when challenged.