I don’t know any, what could one call them, scientistists? “Scientism” seems to be just a boo word for scientists who point out the vanity of religion and woo.
Science is not a collection of dogma but there are some people that really try to approach it that way.
There are some people that name drop big scientist with reverence while demonstarting misunderstandings of their theories (personality of scientist as idol)
For some “belief in science” takes the form of appeal to authority of big scientific organizations such as universities (trying to mimic the role of bible or pope). One of the semi-big points about empirical methods is that looking at the world is given big weight and who says what is of lesser importance. (There is trickyness as someone might give authority to universities because of their epistemelogical competence). In that way there is a big difference in “believing in evolution” and “understanding evolution”. Evolution requires 0 faith so believing it in like you would believe in a god is improper. Likewise somebody might be “raised catholic” but you can’t be “raised as scientific”. A person might or might not have access to tetriary education but science is not a world view so its not a denomination. Science is about facts so it can’t substitute for an opinion.
One can hold any belief religiously but not all clusters of beliefs or believers are religion-like.
There is a subset of Buffy fandom that is religious and a subset that isn’t and drawing that line isn’t especially challenging.
Science doesn’t need to be or contain scientism. Religion of science might be a real thing but that doesn’t make science a religion.
I don’t know any, what could one call them, scientistists? “Scientism” seems to be just a boo word for scientists who point out the vanity of religion and woo.
Science is not a collection of dogma but there are some people that really try to approach it that way.
There are some people that name drop big scientist with reverence while demonstarting misunderstandings of their theories (personality of scientist as idol)
For some “belief in science” takes the form of appeal to authority of big scientific organizations such as universities (trying to mimic the role of bible or pope). One of the semi-big points about empirical methods is that looking at the world is given big weight and who says what is of lesser importance. (There is trickyness as someone might give authority to universities because of their epistemelogical competence). In that way there is a big difference in “believing in evolution” and “understanding evolution”. Evolution requires 0 faith so believing it in like you would believe in a god is improper. Likewise somebody might be “raised catholic” but you can’t be “raised as scientific”. A person might or might not have access to tetriary education but science is not a world view so its not a denomination. Science is about facts so it can’t substitute for an opinion.