--------
We don't disagree at all. Your version is just more systematic and articulate in its outline.
In a way, that is why I was not too crazy about using the term scientism as a catch all category (see other posts). It tends to blurr the divisions you outlined. And at the same time using newish terms like scientism does indeed lend itself in the public mind to the conclusion, ``there is something suspicious in science itself rather than in its improper or fraudulent uses...''
On the other hand, I think it is up to the scientic communities to clean themselves up here and start becoming more critically active in defending themselves. Unfortunately, most of the scientists I've met or known didn't quite have the level of political awareness needed to see what was happening. They were just not used to thinking in these more political and concrete terms. And like everybody else they were afraid for their jobs. Working for a big pharma company in QC labs by day, and writing long tracks on the political consequences of their work by night is a hero's job---and most of these guys are not heros.
BTW, the way I've met a lot of science types was through rock climbing, which is an interesting weirdness all its own... They needed adventure, challenge, something real to do after working all day in corporate wonderland.
CG