I'll pass on your invitation to scientism.
Recent philosophy manifests two tendencies, on the face of it radically opposed to each other, which both result in part from our adaptation to a "research ethic" more appropriate to the sciences than to the humanities: scientism, i.e., linking philosophy too closely, or inappropriately, to the sciences; and radical critique of the sciences as no more than ideology masked by rhetorical bullying in the form of appeals to "rationality," "objectivity," and so forth. The former is the effect of envy, the latter of resentment, of the success of the sciences. -Susan Haack
We get legislation drafted by politicians with ties to special interests, often influenced by ideology, who do not use the kind of logic and analysis required to do science or engineering when they formulate public policy.
LOL...I'll defer to Susan again.
One manifestation of science-envy is the mathematical or logical pseudo-rigor with which much recent philosophical writing is afflicted. This, to speak bluntly, is a kind of affected obscurity. Not that recourse to the languages of mathematics or logic never helps to make a philosophical argument or thesis clearer; of course, it does. But it can also stand in the way of real clarity by disguising failure to think deeply or critically enough about the concepts being manipulated with impressive logical sophistication. And it has come to be, too often, what Charles Sykes calls "Profspeak" -- using unnecessary symbols to convey a false impression of depth and rigor.
You are missing my point...again.
Ive suggested that philosophy be logically consistent within itself. If you disagree with that position...find me a reputable and influencial philosopher who disagrees with that. At no point have I advocated pseudo-scientific 'philosophy', or as you refer to...as scientism.
I think logic and analysis is good. I like logic and reason. We want to use logic when we formulate public policy. I like to think rationally. If you disagree...then you are quite different than most of the physicists I have known.
But the basis of this discussion is not philosophy. That is YOUR schtick. Im trying to formulate a rational public policy.