3. What is actually happening in academia
I think most people exposed to science#3 from the inside can agree that science#2 works – and indeed works surprisingly well – despite science#3, not because of it.
> 3. What is actually happening in academia
While we're enumerating, I think there's a fourth definition:
4. "Science" as a belief system rather than as a tool/technology. I think in this respect, there's often an unacknowledged (or denied) blurring between science and science fiction (the more traditional "spaceship books" kind, as well as overconfident speculation). There's also a tendency to claim the prestige and authority of science for one's own personal opinions and preferences.
1. The belief that the scientific method and the assumptions and research methods of the physical sciences are applicable to all other disciplines (such as the humanities and social sciences), or that those other disciplines are not as valuable.
2. The belief that all truth is exclusively discovered through science.
Maybe the second definition kind of fits if you stretch it. I think 'futurism', not in the sense of the artistic movement, is a closer fit; '2. The study and prediction of possible futures.'
Meanwhile, these people mock the religious [in their imagination] for "being" insular/fundamentalist.
A key feature of scientism is that science itself is never well defined or understood by its adherents, so science is a floating signifier that can mean whatever its proponents want it to mean. Typically, these are not people with firsthand experience doing science, but consumers of second and thirdhand science media and science culture (TED Talks, "I fucking love science", NASA t-shirt, "I believe in science" bumper sticker, etc.). Lack of scientific literacy results in science taking on a ritual status, where following the ritual (scientific method, peer review, etc.) produces truth, and failure to find truth is always the fault of the mislead individual scientist. Because science is the ultimate source of truth, it is also the organizing principle for society, and those "anti-science" people who would question science are dangerous and stand in the way of progress--basically a religion.
I agree.
> A key feature of scientism is that science itself is never well defined or understood by its adherents, so science is a floating signifier that can mean whatever its proponents want it to mean. Typically, these are not people with firsthand experience doing science, but consumers of second and thirdhand science media and science culture...
I don't think that completely true. I think you have different levels of adherents of scientism, and what you say is definitely true of most of the lower levels ("consumers of second and thirdhand science media and science culture").
However the top tier consists of the creators of a decent chunk of that "science media and science culture." Many of those people are actual scientists, but ones who have sought out the public eye as "science popularizers" and are best known for their works for general audiences.
That’s too many hyphens.
But I don't think as academia as the only, or even necessarily the most important place that science is happening in the world today.
The scientific method works best in fields such as physics and chemistry, where you have an established model of reality. The model has been extensively tested and validated, and you can use it to design experiments that will likely test what they are supposed to, taking all relevant factors into account.
Other fields, particularly those that are most affected by the replication crisis, study phenomena that are too complex for such comprehensive models. Instead of testing established mechanisms, such fields often use the scientific method to investigate black boxes. Designing experiments is harder, because it's not clear if you are measuring the right things in the right way, or which factors could plausibly affect the results. You may not even be sure if the mechanisms the experiments rely on actually exist and if they are properly understood.
I like to think that the replication crisis is the social process trying to deal with the issues resulting from overreliance on the scientific method. When you can't rely on an established body of knowledge, a focus on the method takes your attention away from questioning your assumptions and understanding them.
Which particular research are you thinking of?
My adjacent refrain is "Science is not the same as people trying to do science".