I don't want to get too far afield from the topic - but I think I can tie it in this way. The problem is more scientism and technicity than science and technology - we are all familiar with the common examples: antibiotics and drug resistant strains or extended lives and more time spent with the infirmities of age if not outright disability and misery (plus the problem of caring for an aging population) - and many others. But these aren't the fault of science, I don't think you can talk about science being at fault for anything. It's a collection of methods for gaining certain kinds of facts about the world, that's all. What we use these methods for - decisions made about science, who does science, what science they do - what problems they pursure, those decisions aren't made scientifically. But we forget that.
I agree - I was a bit sloppy in my writing. You have made the distinction elegantly.
The character of Sheldon on The Big Bang Theory is a wonderful portrait of scientism, of someone who tries to live literally by the dictates of science. It's no coincidence he comes from a fundamentalist Christian house-hold. The idea of Sheldon in power (something he often refers to) is actually terrifying, but Sheldon is in power in our world.
I have known a few - and they tend not to be scientists, or not the kind of scientists I respect. There are for sure scientists out there who function in that way. They are the ones taking the research jobs at pharmaceutical companies for the money - doing the research on GMO's for the money.
I think that too is a real portrait of the narcissism of the middle class in this country. In the real world, what is missing, what is always missing, is the discernment you talked about Tyger. I think this is something Zajonc talks about too - and that connects us back to Steiner . . . where we began!
It's an issue of thinking. Calibre of thinking. It's a complex web of intellectual capacities that are not always fully engaged by the time an individual reaches the age of 21.