I hear about scientism frequently from scientists and philosophy majors, your lack of hearing it might come from a perceived hostility due to the fact that you imply people who speak of "scientism" are akin to creationists.
It's quite probable that I've heard it most from those who reject geological evidence or evidence for evolution for belief based reasons, because of my personal history, and, well, apparently my lack of engaging with philosophy majors[0] and scientists who apparently discuss it frequently (although it strikes me that it'd be people specialising in the philosophy of science who'd use it, rather than people doing actual scientific research). Also, I'm not entirely sure why I should care about what philosophy majors think about the scientific method.
That said, if you have blogs etc. from scientists or scholars of the philosophy of science I can read discussing "scientism" (FYI, my spellcheck is insistent that's not a word) , then I'll happily read them.
[0] Can I make the usual philosophy major joke about how I don't interact with them "other than when I'm ordering my burger at the drivethrough"? Heyoo, please, take my wife, I can't get no respect.
> although it strikes me that it'd be people specialising in the philosophy of science who'd use it, rather than people doing actual scientific research
I think this might to some degree demonstrate the point (lack of self-awareness/criticality among practicing scientists).
> Also, I'm not entirely sure why I should care about what philosophy majors think about the scientific method.
Cross-domain perspectives can offer valuable insight into complex problems is one reason, but there are surely many others.
> That said, if you have blogs etc. from scientists or scholars of the philosophy of science I can read discussing "scientism" (FYI, my spellcheck is insistent that's not a word) , then I'll happily read them.
Is constraining one's information sources to only the ideas of those who are being critiqued a logically, epistemically, and scientifically sound approach?
> Can I make the usual philosophy major joke about how I don't interact with them "other than when I'm ordering my burger at the drivethrough"? Heyoo, please, take my wife, I can't get no respect.
You can, and I encourage it - the more information you reveal about the manner in which you think, the more data it gives others to model the style and quality of your cognitive abilities (and luckily, this opportunity exists at the individual level, and collective level). Observing people describing how "science" appears to them (aka: "is", circa 2022) is one of my hobbies, and there seems to be substantial clustering of very common logical, categorical & epistemic errors in people's thinking across different dimensions. Ironically, this seems like the type of thing that science would/"should" be very interested in, considering the causal importance of human cognition in the end state of the world we live in. But alas, hyper-complex non-deterministic environments seem to have a repulsive affect on the curiosity of Scientific Materialists. Since this seems to be the predominant (and increasingly so) metaphysical framework in advanced western nations in this era of human history, I do not expect things to get better anytime soon, assuming something unusual does not occur to change the path we are currently on.
