Let's not be bogged down with the luggage that the word science implies - the empirical study of the world out there in an effort to discern general rules about the workings of physical reality and successfully apply them in the prediction of outcomes in the physical world.
I want to generalize this to include subjective truth such as Brussels sprouts tasting bad to me. If I can call it an objective fact that there is a difference of opinion about the taste of Brussels sprouts, then is it not also an objective fact to me which of those groups I fall in? I say it is, because it's not a matter of choice or a decision; it's an empiric discovery. I can't know how they taste without trying them. And if it's a repeatable experience, does it really matter to me that the sensory apparatus I'm using isn't my eyes to tell if it's daytime, or my ears to tell if it's thundering, or my skin to tell if it's hot out, but my taste (or smell) sensory apparatus.
I Have chosen the phrase informal science to refer to the data collection, induction of general rules, and testing of them that comprises daily life. When I go out and discover the my home is five blocks north and three blocks east of the pier (the induction derived from walking the streets and collecting information), and then leave my front door, walk five blocks south and three blocks west, and wind up at the pier (confirmation of the rule), I'm calling that informal science. It's exactly what occurs in an observatory, for example, when a scientist looks at the celestial neighborhood, generalizes about the motions of the celestial bodies he sees there, and then successfully predicts an eclipse, he's is doing the same thing, albeit formally. I call that formal science.
And I call them both empirical, recognizing that some empirically gained knowledge applies to everybody (anybody who looks up at the night sky to see an eclipse, or who wants to walk from my home to the pier), but some only applies to some people, such as empirically testing the taste of Brussels sprouts, observing that they reliably create a bad taste every time tested, I'm going to call that just as true for me and any of the other truths I mentioned that are true for us all.
Perhaps the above will help to explain what I mean. Each of us can only know what he finds beautiful or tasty by testing. How do we decide what music we like? Empirically. We listen to it and observe the evoked reaction. If it's pleasant for us, and then is so again and again, we have discovered an empiric truth about ourselves, albeit a private or subjective truth.
I recognize the value of making the distinction between private and public truth if for no other reason, to anticipate outcomes. I can expect you to see that eclipse and hear that thunder, but I cannot predict if you will like the Brussels sprouts. So, if I know these things, and we agree to go out and camp under the stars to witness a predicted eclipse, I expect you to be able to see it, but I won't bring Brussels sprouts along, because I can't expect you to like them if I haven't asked.
Your objective truths are likely to be mine as well if we are both adept at determining what is true about the world. What you call your subjective truths (maybe you like Brussels sprouts) are not truth to me, but your report, which I take at face value, but cannot test empirically more than seeing how you react to them
I can't help but include this clip from a comedy I like. In this scene, the heavy set guy is buying take-out chicken for two, a fact he wants to conceal when an acquaintance comes up to him, suspicious that his purchase isn't just for him, because it contains broccoli, which he is thought to despise. Can we call this empiric testing? I'll bet it's repeatable:
I already use the term (scientism) in a descriptive, non-judgmental way. As has already been discussed, the word is used in more than one way. Returning to Wiki:
"Scientism is the view that science is the best or only objective means by which society should determine normative and epistemological values. While the term was originally defined to mean "methods and attitudes typical of or attributed to the natural scientist", some religious scholars (and subsequently many others) adopted it as a pejorative with the meaning "an exaggerated trust in the efficacy of the methods of natural science applied to all areas of investigation (as in philosophy, the social sciences, and the humanities)." The term scientism is often used critically, implying an unwarranted application of science in situations considered not amenable to application of the scientific method or similar scientific standards."
Here are three different usages of the word, the last two disparaging, but applying to different groups of people (anybody that elevates science, and those that misapply it). The first definition certainly applies to any skeptical empiricist. They'll tell you that science is the only method that generates truths about the world, although as you might have just read, I extend that to include the empirical determination of personal or subjective truths. What else is there but guessing? Intuition can be a guide, but ideas arrived at intuitively need to be verified empirically, or they're just guesses as well.
I would challenge the use of the phrases "exaggerated trust in the efficacy of the methods of natural science applied to all areas of investigation (as in philosophy, the social sciences, and the humanities)." It reminds me of when I was in clinical practice, and I would be asked what's excessive alcohol? Two drinks a day? Four? My answer was always pragmatic. Does if cause you to slur speech, fall, lose things, or blackout? Are you driving intoxicated, or having problems with your spouse, friends, or work? How do your liver function tests look? Are you gaining or losing weight? If the answers are all no, I can't call that excessive drinking, even if it is more than some would approve of. I see this as the same. I feel the criticism that trust in science as the only arbiter of truth about the world needs to be backed up with some examples of how this attitude is deficient to not just ignore the claim that there is excessive reliance on science.
Since this subject comes up almost exclusively when theists are criticizing skeptics refusal to believe without empiric support, I generally translate the complaint to, "Why do you think we don't also have truth with our holy books. Your method of determining truth is too strict if it doesn't respect our religious beliefs enough to call them truth, and we claim that right, so your method must be excessive and too limiting."
Well, that's not how I define truth. Just because someone else believes it does not make it truth.
As far as others using the term pejoratively, I'd say that most terms theists use to describe skeptical thinkers are pejorative. What did you mean by atheist-materialist? When coming from a theist, I always read that as "person whose vision is too small, too unimaginative, too colorless, too sanitized." I hear Kirk teasing Spock - "What happened to the rest of you? Where's your soul?"
Nope. I've told you the opposite, in fact. I've told you that I don't care what's "really" out there, and that if I discovered that I was a brain in a vat, nothing changes for me as long as the rules of experience that have worked before I knew that still work.
That never happens, does it? The theists are happy to create strawmen, and feel no obligation to support their allegations.
