I really don't think this is what scientism is actually arguing--what makes you think that?
Because that is the actual implied meaning of the argument. (Substitute "accepted by all relevant parties to be" for "inherently" if you prefer.) Of course he didn't make it explicit and instead kept it in the realm of connotation. That's what you are supposed to do when moralizing---especially when your moralizing makes no sense.
If you reject the above as the intended argument then all you achieve is changing the interpretation from "coherent argument based on ridiculous premises" to "no argument whatsoever". Hardly an improvement.
Also, see my reply to pjeby--I see this as being about tone rather than moral arguments.
Pjeby similarly described scientism's comment as being devoid of anything but negative tone.
If you reject the above as the intended argument then all you achieve is changing the interpretation from "coherent argument based on ridiculous premises" to "no argument whatsoever". Hardly an improvement.
I had intended to shift the discussion to the emotional reaction that created the argument. If a subset of the population responds to certain things with such a strong emotional reaction, then this may be worth talking about, even if the arguments scientism used when expressing this emotion aren't.
I agree with everything else you said.
Faith, Hope, and Singularity: Entering the Matrix with New York’s Futurist Set
To my knowledge LessWrong hasn't received a great deal of media coverage. So, I was surprised when I came across an article via a Facebook friend which also appeared on the cover of the New York Observer today. However, I was disappointed upon reading it, as I don't think it is an accurate reflection of the community. It certainly doesn't reflect my experience with the LW communities in Toronto and Waterloo.
I thought it would be interesting to see what the broader LessWrong community thought about this article. I think it would make for a good discussion.
Possible conversation topics:
Edit 1: Added some clarification about my view on the article.
Edit 2: Re-added link using “nofollow” attribute.