Talk:Scientocracy

The word 'scientocracy' is clearly a neologism, as even this article recognises. That doesn't mean it can't have an article, but it means the article needs to justify that it is a sufficiently notable concept to be worthy of one.

As it is, I'm not sure - this article lists many uses of the term 'scientocracy', but are they all referring to the same concept? Or is it that different authors are using the same term to refer to different things? I have a feeling it's the latter, and that this is really a synthesis of multiple sources to advance a claim they wouldn't all support. But I'm not going to take it straight to WP:AFD - I'd like to see some thoughts from other users first. Robofish (talk) 00:08, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

=Neologism=

The "Scientocracy as a neologism" section reeks of original research. Not saying it's not a neologism, but it needs some reputable sources, couldn't find any with some quick google-fu. --Tycho (talk) 17:33, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

=Unrelated source for opposition= "Bernard Boudreau, a Canadian lawyer and politician, is a critic of scientocracy. He writes, "At the dawn of the 21st century, scientific dogmatism is more firmly entrenched than ever. The scientist has become the high priest of the industrial world, certifying both the academic training of new users and the relevance of types and means of production. In all areas of human discourse, scientific reasoning has the force of law. What was once a theocracy is now a 'scientocracy'"."

This line is not about scientocracy, it is about the nature of the scientific community. He puts scientocracy in quotes because he is grasping at a term to describe this pretty common criticism of science at large. But it is not a criticism of the political idea of scientocracy. This is described very clearly in the conclusion of that article. Did someone just grab whatever off Google that sounded like it fit? I'm removing it. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 00:01, 18 July 2022 (UTC)