And yet, if an accomplished researcher says something and has ample sourcing to back it up, it's worth paying attention to, even if only to be able to effectively refute it.

Calling it "scientism" to care about these things as a way of dismissing the argument out of hand is anti-intellectualism at its worst.

Although I refer to this above, I do like your comment, and I would like to add the historical context for scientism. It was originally proposed by Hayek, who is one of the fundamental pillars of Austrian economics economics. A school which I am a massive fan, and has heavily influenced my thoughts.

He was basically concerned that a group of rulers were trying to use science to dominate everybody else. I agree with Hayek and his concerns.

The problem is that it has now morphed into a term that can basically mean many things. While a bit of a rat hole, wikipedia does have a great treatment of the term and its journey.

When you use a term like this, which by it's very nature is pejorative, and you use it without regard for its definition, it is not only anti-intellectualism, but also poor communication. It turns into communication that is set up to foster divisions rather than learning.

>Hinton's citations is 5x what Russell has. There's a good reason why he's won both the Turing and the Nobel Prize.

Those are not arguments, that's scientism.

I upvoted you anyway, as you're somehow trying.