"Is" does not imply "Ought" - Why Scientism is Wrong - Penguins

Recently, I've been assaulted from several different directions by variations on the same stupid arguments. For the most part, I've been keeping out of things, but now I'm here to set shit straight. The current turmoil has centered on the confluence of a few major threads: evo psych, morality, nature, law, and rather centrally... science.

From time to time, I have been accused of being (or assumed to be) a scientismist.

Now, I defer to no one in the enormity of my appreciation for science. But I deny being a scientismist. Scientism (as I understand it) is just plain wrong, and is practically a strawman, if it weren't for the fact that there are some stupid shits who hold that position (and a larger fraction of people whose philosophical foot occasionally steps on a metaphorical bananaskin, slipping into scientism). This represents one extreme.

At the other extreme are the antiscientists. Again, science is so fucking awesome that this position is practically a strawman, except that there are some stupid shits who hold anti-science positions (and a larger fraction of people whose philosophical foot occasionally steps on a metaphorical bananaskin, slipping into antiscience).
( Science .... ur doin' it wrong )