The question of « scientism » should be a dead duck by now, and I wish it were. Louis Althusser went through a scientistic phase, but was able to overcome it in his ongoing self-criticism. His later aleatory materialism is already a form of « quantum » thinking, very much indebted to Deleuze.
Laruelle is indebted to both Althusser and Deleuze, without having given proper acknowledgement. Laruelle’s scientism is a throwback to the earlier Althusser, and his own self-criticism is only partially accomplished. This problem of scientism highlights the dogmatic, nostalgic, monistic side of Laruelle that I have always rejected.
You will get no satisfying answers to these questions from the official Laruelleans. Raising the question of Laruelle’s scientism with insistence will only get you condescending denialism, or get you ignored, banned, or insulted. OOO bis!
AGENT SWARM 
The appearance of scientism only occurs after, posterior, what I have called, the Philosophical revolution. Once this occurs. Then Lauelles appears as a solute explication of the (revolutionary) situation. The problem though is in the presumption that it can be taught, (science) and it is this that shows Ls fault, and exposes that there is at least two types of existential mode (pluralism). But it is not that there is any ability to have a science of pluralism for what is ‘of the second’ is, as Badiou, of the pure multiple.
Latour is also just as incorrect from the second standpoint as Badiou and his truth procedures.
The issue as I see it is how to ‘get back to’ that which is informing these efforts. Since they are all first describing the same thing, but then make the categorical mistake if thinking they can classify it’s real emanations.
J’aimeJ’aime
Why is scientism bad? I’ve not yet heard a sustained critique of scientism.
J’aimeJ’aime
Ping : Live-blogging Laruelle’s TETRALOGOS (1): a democratic proposal | AGENT SWARM