I especially like that you included #6 because one big "value" I would say amongst the scientism "community" would be the overt trashing of art and poetry as meaningless. It's very sad.

"If It'S nOt ScIeNcE iT's A lIE" is an exceptionally common trope, especially among the people in my social strata. I'm not entirely sure that people espousing that belief set are even doing so explicitly, i think it's so implicit as to have become an unconsidered axiom.

I (see upthread), a scientist myself, think it's absolute hogwash, and i'm certainly not abnormal among my peers in that.

There's something about being the person who not only watches how the sausage is made but has spent (ack) 14 years at this point making sausages of several kinds that kind of strips away overly idealistic expectations about How Pure And Right This Thing Must Be. If you're lucky, and i think i am, you learn enough humility to acknowledge the value of other people's sausage-makings. And, often, have the right state of mind to see and acknowledge the intellectual power and meaningful contributions of people well outside my field.

What's really odd about this is that I see more of the armchair types doing this than the actual scientists. Of the scientists I know (I've worked at several national labs, so I imagine it is quite a lot more than the average person), I can't think of a single one that didn't value art. Their homes are filled with it and there is a passion. It is also pretty common for scientists to be amateur artists as well. Most that I know are even strong advocates of the arts. Conversely, if you go on sites like Reddit and the like, there is this tribal reinforcement and deviating from the chants is heresy.

It is strange being in a group and seeing my group believe one thing but hearing people claim to be part of my group and telling me that I'm not doing it right. Even when I have the credentials and they don't...

I am not sure the author is being entirely consistent here. For example, in #3, identifying and rooting out pseudo-science is listed as a sign of scientism, yet in #2, we are told that the signs of scientisim incude "inappropriately borrowed scientific trappings." This looks to me to be a pretty good definition of pseudo-science, in which case the author is performing, in section 2, an analysis that she deprecates in section 3.

On second reading, I think the author is objecting to the practice of denigrating respectable modes of inquiry as "pseudo-science" merely because they cannot match some idealistic standard of rigor.

I read "inappropriately borrowed scientific trappings" as being similar to what the Austrian School economists discuss when they explain how hard science techniques are being adopted in the social sciences when they really cannot serve the same purpose.

Whereas under pseudo-science I considered Eugenics, a belief system finding that mankind would go extinct due to inferior breeding.

Yes, I think you are right about that.

Something I've noticed is that scientists are the least likely to fall into these habits. And they (we) are often the first to champion the arts.

I’m glad that has been your experience. It has not strictly been mine.

Its a common experience, but prior to earned recognition, signaling priority of science over art is trope on the culture.

One of the things that really grinds my gears is when Marxists claim that Marxism is "scientific". I see them doing numbers 1, 2, and 5, and maybe 4 and 6.