"two kinds of people who lived in America in 2016: people who believed Donald Trump, and people who believed data."
This is scientism.
The question around the effects of economic globalisation, trade relations, the size of china's manufacturing industries, automation and other advances in manufacturing methods... it's not a decided issue. You can't just put quote an economist on "The Long-Term Jobs Killer is Not China. It’s Automation." and present this as a "case closed, science has spoken" decree.
I think this line is about repeating the narrative about the trade debate during the last US election. The author follows by explaining why it was wrong, showing why data is not always reliable and in a sense rehabilitating the value of gut feeling.
That is fine. It is a perfectly reasonable argument. She should make it, and make a case. But, she started with "the data/science is in" as if she's reporting on an indisputable truth, rather than a plausible narrative. This puts anyone who disagrees with her in an irrational truth denier category, as if her position was an authority on par with newton's laws. This is scientism, and it's harmful when public debate (especially around politically charged questions) picks up this style of writing/speaking.
This is scientism.
The question around the effects of economic globalisation, trade relations, the size of china's manufacturing industries, automation and other advances in manufacturing methods... it's not a decided issue. You can't just put quote an economist on "The Long-Term Jobs Killer is Not China. It’s Automation." and present this as a "case closed, science has spoken" decree.