How do you deal with the 'science is a religion' crap?

[Ocelot]

Scientists do not operate in a vacuum, isolated from the rest of society.

That's right, without oxygen they don't operate.

http://xkcd.com/669/

 

[Michael Mozina]

And now for the key difference between religion and science. It isn't that religion and science are so philosophically distant at their minimalist level. The real difference exists in the attitudes that practitioners take towards these institutions. Scientific thinkers tend to treat their evidence as being circumstantial.

Not in my experience. Astronomers point at the sky, add a little math, and viola, mythical dead inflation deities are created out of nothing. Faster than light expansion? No problem, but only in "creationist" mythology. Give the "scientists" a skeptical review of their belief system and they get just as upset as any religion zealot too. I think you underestimate the impact of both of these things being related to "human belief systems" and "human ego". Everyone likes to be "right" and nobody likes to be "wrong". Circumstantial or not, they treat their beliefs and "evidence" quite differently than a skeptic might treat those same beliefs and pieces of evidence.

That's how they should do it. Religious observers often point out, I think rightly, that some scientists state the evidence in a dogmatic way. However, the truly religious people always treat their evidence as if it were direct and incontrovertible. It certainly is not.

Again, I think you're a bit naive. The mainstream astronomers certainly treat their pet theories very differently than anything that works against those theories. That's why EU theory is so "villianized" in fact. They *assume* that their theories are correct and make anyone who disagrees with theses ideas "disprove" them in some way. I have to "accept on faith" that "inflation did it" because they whipped up a mythical math formula.

The way that religious people get so defensive about their belief forces us to speculate that they have some ulterior motive for their blinding faith.

Ditto with how I percieve astronomers. Whereas I have almost never been banned from a religious website, I've got quite a trail of dead internet handles at astronomy oriented websites. They don't take criticism any better than any religious group in my experience. In fact they're nastier and more apt to virtually execute their critics IMO.

It can't be for some quest for knowledge. Maybe it's not fair for me to psychoanalyze them but I always thought that their faith is a defense mechanism against the fear of doubt they were taught as children. It may be interesting to compare them but religion, in the way it's truly practiced, doesn't deserve to be considered on the same grounds as science.

Since human beings and their frailties are at the heart of both science and religion, there are far more parallels than you realize IMO.

The primary difference in my experience is that "science" is typically not questioned by "skeptics" of the world with the same level of scrutiny as "religion". Dead inflation deities are absolutely no more believable than any other deistic religion, unless of course you add a wee bit of math to the dead inflation deity and then, viola a math cult/religion is born.

 

[geni]

So, in other words, general relativity worked well to explain many phenomena. One particular problem it had was it incorrectly calculated the age of the universe. Because it still worked to explain many phenomena, scientists acknowledged that there were problems with the theory, but, since it appeared to explain so much, they concluded that, rather than tossing the whole thing out, they needed to review and develop it further.

That would be Imre Lakatos' "research programmes". With general relativity being the progressive research programme and the auxiliary hypotheses being that the data was wrong.

The problem with that aproach is that it is somewhat questionable if it functionaly different from scientific anarchy scince with the right auxiliary hypotheses it is posible to argue that almost any research programme is progressive.

Going back to the "science is a religion argument" it is doubtful if anyone makeing that argument will like having the ideas of scientific anarchy turned on their argument.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Well this post demonstrates a lack of understanding that the reason scientist hypothesize dark matter exists is because of EVIDENCE it does. Just as we can see Xrays with instruments but not with our eyes, we can see dark matter with tools that visualize gravity.

You need a bit more education about the things you seem to think equate to faith based scientific conclusions. They do not equate.

I think it is you that "lack understanding". All you can tell from lensing studies and galaxy rotation patterns is that there is "missing mass". You have no evidence at all that any of that missing mass is contained in exotic forms of matter that have not been seen here on Earth. Likewise acceleration is not "dark energy", and "inflation did it" is no more believable than any religious creation event.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Sorry for the derail but...
Precisely none of these are taken on faith.

Boloney. Where can I get some "dark matter"? Where do I go to get some "Dark energy"? Where might I pick up a pound of "inflation"? Compared to any ordinary empirical thing (say sugar), your mythical trio of bizarre entities sure seem more like a religious set of deities with no powers here on Earth rather than a real thing that can have some effect on me personally.

For example, the need for dark matter can be gleaned from reasonably basic observing equipment.

All that shows you is that you have "missing mass" that your useless galaxy mass estimates cannot account for. In no way does that demonstrate a need for exotic forms of matter!

Actually the above, I think, is relevant to the thread. It illustrates how "scientific belief" is based on trying to test its foundations to destruction. Religious belief, on the other hand, is largely based on confirmation bias.

Oh the irony. You look at the sky, add a few lines of math to a completely mythical entity that you (actually Guth) made up in your(his) head, and you "confirm" your beliefs in this mythical entity with those exact same measurements and math formulas. It's a "God (aka inflation) did it" exercise with nifty two bit math formulas that have no practical application in real life in terms of predicting anything there on Earth. It's exactly like numerology.

 

[Dancing David]

MM please stick to the topic and go back to an appropriate threads, others do not respond to MM.

As much as you talk about science and the methods fine, but stop with the rest.

 

[PingOfPong]

mythical dead inflation deities are created out of nothing

Wrong, there are observations and logical inductive reasoning behind the idea of inflation. You could have complained that the evidence is circumstantial and that it's not enough to satisfy you. I would argue that all evidence is ultimately circumstantial and you're asking for too high of a standard. I would also bet that your standards are not applied evenly.

That's not what happened though. You claimed that the issue of inflation was made up in a vacuum. I would trust an astronomer more than you because you clearly tried to misrepresent the issue. It brings us back to my point that while religion and science can be compared in some ways, religious believers and science practitioners/enthusiasts usually cannot be compared.

The primary difference in my experience is that "science" is typically not questioned by "skeptics" of the world with the same level of scrutiny as "religion".

I don't agree with that at all. I come from a religious background. I've seen firsthand how believers criticize everything and everyone else but they turn that criticism off when dealing with their own deeply held beliefs.

 

[Michael Mozina]

MM please stick to the topic and go back to an appropriate threads, others do not respond to MM.

As much as you talk about science and the methods fine, but stop with the rest.

How exactly are my commments "off topic"? If I simply pilfer your numberology-like math, use the terms "Godflation", "God energy" and "God matter", how is your brand of "science" any different from my religion?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Wrong, there are observations and logical inductive reasoning behind the idea of inflation.

What reasoning? Expansion doesn't necessitate inflation. Inflation doesn't do anything to anything in any empirical experiment. How then did you LEAP to the conclusion that "inflation did it"?

You could have complained that the evidence is circumstantial and that it's not enough to satisfy you.

It's not "empirical enough" to satisfy me. It's exactly like my objection to numerology.

I would argue that all evidence is ultimately circumstantial and you're asking for too high of a standard.

I would argue that point with you. What exactly is the "standard" for teaching "science" in the classroom if not empirical physics?

I would also bet that your standards are not applied evenly.

How so? In my new godflation religion, what "standards' can you apply to standard theory that I cannot apply to my newly created religion?

That's not what happened though. You claimed that the issue of inflation was made up in a vacuum.

No, I claim it was made up in human imagination and has no empirical value whatsoever.

I would trust an astronomer more than you because you clearly tried to misrepresent the issue.

How so? I simply presented you with a "critical/skeptical" view toward what passes for "science" in today's classroom.

It brings us back to my point that while religion and science can be compared in some ways, religious believers and science practitioners/enthusiasts usually cannot be compared.

Ok, so let's compare my newly created religion based on Godflation, God energy and God matter, and you tell me how it is any different than "modern science"? (Keep in mind I'm going to blatantly pilfer all the math used by astronomers)

I don't agree with that at all. I come from a religious background. I've seen firsthand how believers criticize everything and everyone else but they turn that criticism off when dealing with their own deeply held beliefs.

It's a human flaw, unrelated to the belief system in question. Everyone likes to believe they are "right", and nobody likes to admit being wrong. It really doesn't matter what the topic might be, it applies to virtually all human belief systems and it is rooted in human ego, not any particular topic in my experience.

 

[PingOfPong]

No, I claim it was made up in human imagination and has no empirical value whatsoever.

Wiggle, wiggle, wiggle. Here's what you originally said.

mythical dead inflation deities are created out of nothing

Expansion doesn't necessitate inflation.

Uh oh. I smell an endless line of pedantry. It doesn't smell very good. I have to agree with DD. If you want to discuss inflation maybe it should go to another thread. I won't participate though. I'm no expert in cosmology.

 

[AvalonXQ]

Okay, so I take it we're past general "science is a religion" arguments, and on to "the big bang is faith-based" instead? You guys have fun with that.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Wiggle, wiggle, wiggle. Here's what you originally said.

I stand corrected. It should read "nothing but human imagination and wishful thinking". Would that be more to your liking?

Uh oh. I smell an endless line of pedantry. It doesn't smell very good. I have to agree with DD. If you want to discuss inflation maybe it should go to another thread. I won't participate though. I'm no expert in cosmology.

The only reason it could deteriorate into 'endless pedantry" is due to the fact that 96% of modern astronomy theory is metaphysical mumbo-jumbo that defies any kind of empirical physical support. That's hardly my personal fault. I simply notice that the emperor has no empirical physical clothes on.

That is not true of *every* branch of science by the way, but when it comes to creation mythologies, there is certainly no difference IMO between religion and what passes for "science' in today's college classroom. Inflation did it isn't any better empirically supported than God did it, and mathematical presentations alone do not define what physically exists in "reality".

While some branches of science have produced real tangible physical benefits, like the electrical and software engineering sciences that created my computer for instance, Lambda-CDM theory is utterly indistinguishable from religion and I can easily demonstrate that point.

I guess it all depends on what type of "science" we're going to compare 'religion' to, and the only "big picture creation event" I can think of is Lambda-CDM theory. In that particular case I would say that the comparison of religion to "science" is applicable, whereas that is not true of all branches of science.

 

[technoextreme]

Engineering is separate from science. Engineers apply what scientists learn. For example, the engineers at Boeing build what the scientists at Boeing think up. Seriously, Boeing employs a whole lot of scientists. It's how they learn new stuff. Check it out for yourself! (here, or just google "Boeing Scientists." You get a lot of relevant hits.)

Betcha a large sum of money that a lot of those scientists are in fact engineers.
EDIT:
Grrrrr..... The person in charge of that probject is a MECHANICAL ENGINEER.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Sorry, but actually people do claim to believe in and follow more than one religion. There are individuals who claim each of the combinations you mentioned.

Really? Can you show me some examples, please? Start with the Evangelical Christian who's a Muslim, and manages to square the belief that Jesus is God incarnate with the belief that this proposition is wickedly blasphemous; and to maintain a fervent belief that salvation comes only through faith in Jesus in combination with an equally fervent belief that salvation comes only through obedience to Allah.

We can at least agree, I hope, that this requires a level of doublethink which is not required at all in believing in, for example, God and gravity.

 

[AvalonXQ]

Really? Can you show me some examples, please? Start with the Evangelical Christian who's a Muslim, and manages to square the belief that Jesus is God incarnate with the belief that this proposition is wickedly blasphemous.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003751274_redding17m.html

Like I said, I think your first argument is good. But your second doesn't work simply because the variety of religious beliefs held is amazingly broad.

 

[skeptsci]

The real world is not so clear cut

Engineering is separate from science. Engineers apply what scientists learn. For example, the engineers at Boeing build what the scientists at Boeing think up. Seriously, Boeing employs a whole lot of scientists. It's how they learn new stuff. Check it out for yourself! (here, or just google "Boeing Scientists." You get a lot of relevant hits.)

"Theoretically" or shall I say philosophically, you're right. However, in a real world the borders are often blurred. E.g. medicine, it's the technology of biology but quite a number of doctors conduct real scientific research (not just the statistical surveys that often pass for "research") . So do some electronics engineers and so on.

 

[Dr Adequate]

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003751274_redding17m.html

I could call myself a giraffe and a penguin. I couldn't be both. She acknowledges herself that the two religions have incompatible beliefs and that she can't reconcile them.

 

[Tubbythin]

Boloney. Where can I get some "dark matter"? Where do I go to get some "Dark energy"? Where might I pick up a pound of "inflation"? Compared to any ordinary empirical thing (say sugar), your mythical trio of bizarre entities sure seem more like a religious set of deities with no powers here on Earth rather than a real thing that can have some effect on me personally.

Huh? Seriously? Where, exactly do I pick up a pound of antiprotons or a kilogram of Sun? But I don't see you denying the existence of antimatter or the Sun.

All that shows you is that you have "missing mass" that your useless galaxy mass estimates cannot account for. In no way does that demonstrate a need for exotic forms of matter!

So useless that multiple measurements by completely different methods of give the same answer. So please Michael put up or shut up: how do you explain this?

Oh the irony. You look at the sky, add a few lines of math to a completely mythical entity that you (actually Guth) made up in your(his) head, and you "confirm" your beliefs in this mythical entity with those exact same measurements and math formulas.

Actually I measured the rotation curves of a local galaxy using the hydrogen 21 cm line and then compared it to the visible mass distribution. You see I've actually done a bit of astronomy and actually have a vague idea what I'm talking about. I also seem to have a reasonable grasp on what my limitations are. You on the other hand make wild assertions, slurs and accusations and fail to back it up with anything other than crap about religion and the like. No science whatsoever. You are unwittingly an excellent example of how science isn't done. Thank you for that wonderful illustration. Now, care to do some real science in the other thread and tell us how multiple, independent observations using different methodologies just so happen to give the same results when they are all completely wrong?

It's a "God (aka inflation) did it" exercise with nifty two bit math formulas that have no practical application in real life in terms of predicting anything there on Earth.

Cosmology isn't really meant to predict anything on Earth. Just like molecular biology isnt meant to predict anything in the realm of quantum chromodynamics. What is your point?

It's exactly like numerology.

Nope. Its nothing whatsoever like numerology.

 

[Tubbythin]

While some branches of science have produced real tangible physical benefits, like the electrical and software engineering sciences that created my computer for instance, Lambda-CDM theory is utterly indistinguishable from religion and I can easily demonstrate that point.

Excellent. You can demonstrate to us, therefore, how religion explains the cosmic microwave background. Thanks.

 

[Tubbythin]

How exactly are my commments "off topic"? If I simply pilfer your numberology-like math, use the terms "Godflation", "God energy" and "God matter", how is your brand of "science" any different from my religion?

Nope. You've consistently failed to produce any quantitative solutions to pretty much anything and everything you've ranted about. This an absolutely huge difference between your trolling and cosmology.