What’s so bad about Scientism?

You also have to remember that science operates within it's own framework, and assumes concepts of truth that are accepted within this community, such as the scientific method to gain knowledge. But these are presumed to be true, without anyone having had proven them.

Philosophy on the other hand, as a more general subject, even questions these frameworks and has to operate without any pre-given framework. A Platonist won't be shunned by a scientific discovery, since it isn't a threat to it's epistemological framework.

Therefore I say that science is part of philosophy, but this doesn't mean it's wrong or bad. Everyday life proves it's helpfulness. One just has to keep in mind, that there is no proof it's ultimately true, and that all objections are "appeals to emotion". Followers of Scientism, even though they wouldn't say it themselves, do this, dogmatically believing that they are the true way and that's the problem everyone has with them. (I'm not saying it's better when Platonists or anyone else does it, but the others are more common nowadays)

If Philosophy is going to argue that the scientific method doesn't work, or that the world doesn't exist, we can't trust our senses or stuff like that, go ahead. Has there been any practical advancement on this line of thinking in the last 50 years? do you envision that the scientific method will be revised by anything discovered in philosophy?

A mathematic, a biologist and a physicist are flying in a hot air balloon, but got lost. Then they see a men jogging under them, so they get lower and the biologist shouts to him: "Hey you, where are we?"

The man looks up, but does not answer.

Then the physicist shouts: "Hey you, can you please tell us, where we are?"

Still nothing, but then finally he shouts back: "you are in a hot air balloon!"

"Ah, a philosopher" says the mathematician. "How do you know?" ask the others. "Well, a) he took very long for his answer, b) it fits with objective reality and c) it is totally worthless for us."

(the main job of the philosophers back then and there was to defend the Marx-Lenin Philosophy to the people, where they tried to prove them, that the people are on the way to the best of every possible society, but people still complained about not having toilet papers)

Then a line I remember from Thureau: "We have Professors of Philosophy, but no Philosophers."

So, to get more serious and a wildly speculative hypothesis: maybe Philosophers got so bad overall, because they tried too hard beeing regarded as scientist, when maybe their field is not really approachable with scientific methods. At least not main parts of it.

Because there is a big, maybe infinite world, which we can't (yet) explain properbly with math. And maybe there are some areas, which you can never describe with math. To get a bit esoteric:

The Tao that can be told, is not the eternal Tao ...

This is in my opinion the purpose of Philosophy. Think freely and create modells about those areas. Philosphy as the art of wisdom. Trying to understand complex worlds, which you cannot put in (finite) numbers.

Humans for example.

Because we are more than just some numbers and can't be reduced to them, which is, what is sadly more and more happening. And philosophers trying to be, what they are not, might be a cause to it.

You can investigate whether it is consistent with other definitions. I believe that doing so is empirical work, which I think is consistent with a broad notion of science