I'm aware of that criticism, that "scientism" is overused, and that it's been defined in different, incompatible ways. I think Jerry Coyne made that point some years ago. The thing is that you can always emphasize different aspects of a complex social phenomenon. So that's where you get the different interpretations. It's a matter of emphasis. My definition gets at what I think is the cause. Once you have the scientistic prejudice (the overbearing love of science), you have a number of effects, such as the denigration of unscientific fields (especially those that challenge science), and the exaggeration of science's abilities.

Who says philosophy of science needs to be useful especially to scientists? Maybe that philosophy should be useful to nonscientists, in helping them understand the philosophical implications of the scientific picture?