I don't really buy it, it seems to suggest that scientific discoveries are not questioned and changed constantly, when they absolutely are. It's not accurate to always refer to them as "beliefs."
scientism isn't typically practiced by scientists themselves, but atheist types who love pop-science and "science communicators" and the like. There's a ton of tropes associated with this belief system that have nothing to do with the actual process of scientific discovery. The Big Bang Theory as a show panders to this type, with physics techno-babble and guest appearances by Stephen Hawking (RIP) and Neil deGrasse Tyson.
You seem to be describing a stereotype and not an actual person, and also that seems to be conflating it with an actual view on religious beliefs (atheism). So I can't say I know what you mean.
There's no conflating. Scientism-types being atheist (or anti-theist) seems to be a pretty universal pattern in my experience. If I called someone a bible-basher, it wouldn't be conflating to say they're a Christian - it's a prerequisite. It's also a stereotype, but if I were to call somebody a bible-basher you'd (presumably) know the kinds of character traits I was implying (sanctimonious, primarily).
But this feels like describing the colour blue - if you don't already know what it is, being on Hacker News, I don't think I can help you. Familiarising yourself with the philosophy of science (like Karl Popper's ideas for a start) and then looking at the way that many redditors and HNers talk about science (especially pop-science in astronomy and physics) or treat whitepapers, "new study finds" journalism etc would make you notice the difference.
I'm still not really sure what that's supposed to mean or why it's not conflation, many Christians that I've met have wildly varying views on the bible. I also don't see what the difference here is supposed to be -- in general, there is not a lot of fact checking happening on public social media, and if there is, it also has a lot of its own bias. I don't see that as being specific to comments on scientific articles or evidence of any kind of "scientism," it's just the usual confirmation bias.
I mean, I agree with you, it's not accurate to refer to "science" as "[a set of] beliefs" but that's sort of besides the point. The point others are making is that "believe the science" is not the mantra of a society that actually "does science" but one that "Practices The Science^(tm)".
I think it expresses doubt in ability of a layperson to make a rational judgement on merits of a particular scientific research or process rather than on science itself.
I don't understand what this is supposed to mean. There is nothing in the context of "science itself" besides that particular scientific research or process. That's what it's defined as. Did you mean something like: a layperson might be inclined to place higher value on scientific research performed by a personal friend or colleague? That's probably true in some cases, but it's not "scientism."
You sure are doing a lot of not understanding in here. Let me break it down for you: the vast majority of people who say things like "trust the science" don't have the first clue about what the science actually says. It's a dogmatically held belief to them.
That isn't to say that the problem does not occur in other types, or that they're wrong about what they believe just because they don't understand it.
>You sure are doing a lot of not understanding in here.
I mean, yes? I don't pretend to know everything about everyone.
>the vast majority of people who say things like "trust the science" don't have the first clue about what the science actually says. It's a dogmatically held belief to them.
I can't agree with this, if they would change their mind about it, it's not a dogmatic belief. You seem to be generalizing about a large number of people, have you asked all of them if they would be open to changing their mind, given new evidence?
Every christian that turned atheist held a dogmatic belief, changing your mind later doesn't change that it is dogmatic. And in my experience, most people need more than rational opposing viewpoint to change their minds about most things.
