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

[Michael Mozina]

I think it's a similarity. A religion will incorporate ideas and rituals from other religions or belief systems, just as one scientific theory will be re-invented in a modified form years after it was originally proposed.

In fact, it could be argued religion is more open than science because there is no requirement to be consistent in religion but there is in science.

That is an interesting idea. In my experience, religious advocates in cyberspace, and religious oriented websites tend to be less apt to burn their heretics at the virtual stake. I would say that there is actually some truth to that statement, at least in my own personal experience.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

One could say the same thing for BB formulas. Do you have any idea how many of them I've seen come and go in the last 30+ years?

You know why they come and go? Because scientists are free to speculate, learn and grow. Giordano Bruno comes to mind.

 

[geni]

You've created your own straw man. I never said old theories were rejected immediately or in a straightforward manner. Yes, it often took a generation and many twists and turns, but in the final analysis the old theories were demonstrated to be false -- otherwise they would still be with us.

That would be Thomas Kuhn's Paradigm shift approach. Problem is that it kinda destorys the falsificationism aproach.

Lakatos may very well made good reading and offer some interesting insights. I will look into his ideas further. However, I have been studying the history of science for many years now. I believe my own insights also have value. Perhaps you should read someone other than Lakatos (Great Physicists by William Cropper may be a good start).

Most histories of science have a tendancy to gloss over the more questionable aspects. One of the reasons that Paul Feyerabend's work can be fairly interesting. The result of this is that histories of science are of only limited use in dealing with the philophy of science. I recomend Dr. Alan Chalmers' "What Is This Thing Called Science?" as a starting point.

Name one discarded scientific theory that has not been demonstrated to be false.

Define your terms.

 

[AvalonXQ]

That is an interesting idea. In my experience, religious advocates in cyberspace, and religious oriented websites tend to be less apt to burn their heretics at the virtual stake.

There's a difference between herasy and heterodoxy. I think both religious adherents and acolytes of scientism are more tolerant of the latter than the former.

 

[geni]

You misinterpreted. By "all available temperatures" I mean "all temperatures we have available to us for conducting tests".
The claim passes the tests we can put it to, as of today. As new tests become available, the continued veracity of claim will continue to come under test. The claim is falsifiable and scientific.

No. There are temperates that exist in theory but cannot in fact exist within a universe with a finite amount of energy in it.

 

[AvalonXQ]

No. There are temperates that exist in theory but cannot in fact exist within a universe with a finite amount of energy in it.

Even if true, this fact does not negate that the claim is falsifiable and scientific.

 

[Michael Mozina]

You know why they come and go? Because scientists are free to speculate, learn and grow. Giordano Bruno comes to mind.

But if you ever have any discussions with say 'Christians', you soon discover they don't share a "singular" belief set. Some believe in "hell", others don't (universalist Christians). Some have very different beliefs than "standard Christians". Likewise BB proponents can have varying beliefs. Some believe in "inflation". Others like DRD do not. How exactly then does one define "Christianty" or "mainstream theory"?

One could argue that new religions evolve from older ones just as new BB theories have evolved from older theories, and old theories are falsified just as old religions die out. Jesus marks a turning point in Judaism, just as Hubble marks a turning point in cosmology.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

But if you ever have any discussions with say 'Christians', you soon discover they don't share a "singular" belief set. Some believe in "hell", others don't (universalist Christians). Some have very different beliefs than "standard Christians". Likewise BB proponents can have varying beliefs. Some believe in "inflation". Others like DRD do not. How exactly then does one define "Christianty" or "mainstream theory"?

One could argue that new religions evolve from older ones just as new BB theories have evolved from older theories, and old theories are falsified just as old religions die out. Jesus marks a turning point in Judaism, just as Hubble marks a turning point in cosmology.

The new ones feed off the old ones, no doubt. I don't see any "divine inspiration" there, however. Just people working it for their own benefit.

 

[Michael Mozina]

There's a difference between herasy and heterodoxy. I think both religious adherents and acolytes of scientism are more tolerant of the latter than the former.

I guess EU theory is considered a "heresy".

 

[Michael Mozina]

The new ones feed off the old ones, no doubt. I don't see any "divine inspiration" there, however. Just people working it for their own benefit.

The same could be said of BB adherents too actually.

 

[Michael Mozina]

You know why they come and go? Because scientists are free to speculate, learn and grow. Giordano Bruno comes to mind.

One point I'd make here:

They may be free to "speculate", but they aren't as free to say "publish" something on a topic like EU theory for instance. When they do speculate, there can also be a professional and financial cost for that speculation. The herd mentality can have an effect on both types of groups and the financial and professional fallout can be much more severe in "science".

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

The same could be said of BB adherents too actually.

If one is ignorant of the scientific review process, perhaps. It would also require one to be willfully misconstruing the facts. Good thing nobody does that around here, isn't it?

 

[Michael Mozina]

If one is ignorant of the scientific review process, perhaps.

Are you trying to tell me that "supernatural" entities do not get by the "review process"? Inflation? Dark energies? Come on.

 

[Michael Mozina]

In any case, the point of this thread is to compare and contrast science with religion. It is true that religions do die out, but I know of no case where that occurred because a religion was falsified.

One might argue that the reason religions 'died out' is that it appears to most individuals to have been falsified. It is then replaced by some other religion.

"Science" also has it's share of "unpopular" offshoots, like MOND theory, EU theory, etc.

It seems likely to me that European Earth-centric views of cosmology gave way instantly to heliocentric ones. Perhaps in the mind of a core few individuals, but certainly not in the bulk of the European population. The Aztecs on the other hand never believed in an Earth-centric cosmology in the first place. A lot of one's personal belief systems will be culturally biased in one way shape or form.

 

[Bill Thompson]

I have often heard this "argument" that science is something that we just chose to believe; and it's just as much of a faith as religion...

From whom or from where do you hear this?

I have heard this about socialism and liberalism. But, isn't that actually true?

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Are you trying to tell me that "supernatural" entities do not get by the "review process"? Inflation? Dark energies? Come on.

You have a nice day, you hear?

 

[GeeMack]

One point I'd make here:

They may be free to "speculate", but they aren't as free to say "publish" something on a topic like EU theory for instance. When they do speculate, there can also be a professional and financial cost for that speculation. The herd mentality can have an effect on both types of groups and the financial and professional fallout can be much more severe in "science".

All someone has to do is write up a proper paper if they have a notion that seems to run contrary to the currently accepted position on a particular scientific issue. Like, let's say maybe a fellow believes the Sun has a solid iron surface, for example. All he has to do is prepare a legitimate presentation and submit it through the accepted channels for peer review. If there's anything to it (of course that iron surfaced Sun thing is a totally made up example of a ridiculous idea) then it moves through the process of scientific review. When it comes out the other end, if it's right, it's ready to be blended into the consensus position. But if it's wrong, it's wrong, paranoid conspiracy theories notwithstanding.

Of course it helps if you start by proposing something sane and rational, and you must be able to support it with evidence, not just talk. In astrophysics that means assembling a lot of data, understanding physics, and having the skills, or at least the resources, to rigorously explain the proposition using math, which is the language of physics. If you have no evidence, if you don't understand physics, if you can't do math, then you're just crap out of luck, aren't you?

Many crackpots whine about the persecution conspiracy, that "financial cost for that speculation", but of course no evidence for that exists in modern times. If someone is proposing a change in the way we look at some area of science, if what they offer is really valid and supportable, if they have the skills to assemble it into an objective, understandable presentation, and if they have the balls to present it through the proper channels instead of just bitching and moaning on Internet forums, the world of science would welcome the opportunity to apply the new material.

Rejection of a crackpot idea has nothing to do with being stifled by possible "financial and professional fallout". That's just a silly paranoid excuse the crackpots use for failing, when it really comes down to the fact that they really don't have the science, much less the skills or the balls to make their case.

 

[pnerd]

From whom or from where do you hear this?

From creationists; from fundamentalist christians.

 

[Beth]

All someone has to do is write up a proper paper if they have a notion that seems to run contrary to the currently accepted position on a particular scientific issue.

Just like those scientists with data that didn't support the Global Warming hypothesis?

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Just like those scientists with data that didn't support the Global Warming hypothesis?

Yeah, those guys. The ones that strap explosives on themselves and go to seminars given by the guy with the opposing view and blow up everybody there because they are guilty by association for listening to him.

If science was like religion that would be happening over global warming.