Well, that seems like a very silly belief system to have.

That said I can’t imagine having a good faith discussion about it; there’s nobody to defend the idea, because obviously nobody believes that they have a blinkered, over-confident belief in anything. They just think the domain of problems that their method can address is larger than the domain you think it has, I guess.

I guess I can’t imagine the mindset that would “see how the sausage is made” in science, and think that method was going to solve the universe. Everyone is aware that we’re becoming increasingly over-focused on tiny little niches.

Can you give any examples?

Sure, just look at the dismissive, anti-philosophy tone of some of the comments in the discussion here.

I think it's pretty clear. If I start pointing fingers it starts an argument.

Tbh I'm suspicious of your inability to find them yourself or your quest for examples.

It's a bit sealiony.

Suit yourself. I'm not going to make your case for you.

Thankfully, "making my case" for a standard definition is not something I need to do.

It's very basic stuff.

If you are unable to work it out from the original link and description I gave or the previous reply, I think any more effort on my part will be a pointless time sink.

No, you do need to make your case--i.e. mount an argument based on evidence and reason--if you want me to believe "scientism" is real. That it has a "standard definition" is not enough. After all, you can look up in any dictionary the standard definitions for other things that are also not real, like clairvoyance, telekinesis, and palmistry. Until you or someone else does make a case, I'm going to continue believing scientism is little more than a cry from charlatans who lost the attention of their audience.