• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

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

Gawdzilla said:
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 Islam that would be happening over global warming.
Click to expand...

Fixed that for you.
 
athon said:
... Yet when we talk about science as a human endeavour, we need to look back over the history of how humans have sought to escape their biases and limitations on their senses. In that way, science is a set of values that gives rise to a discussion. Indeed, it is a methodology used to evaluate the probability that a given method resulted in something useful. It is the argument that takes place over ideas and the debate over the merits of how observations are related. It is not the conclusion, but the set of shared values that we apply to arrive at a personal, tentative answer.

As such, it deviates from religion in those values. Objectivity is strived for, even if it is never reached. Biases are shunned, even as we all struggle to promote our own. From those competing pet-opinions, some survive in a Darwinian selection of the fittest beliefs, offering us pragmatic answers that can be used to predict the future with some degree of accuracy that is far better than any other system. --
Click to expand...

Herzblut said:
Science tells you what is, not what should be. Or what you should do.
Click to expand...


Haven't plowed thru the whole thread yet, but I like these two answers so far.

I agree that values and purpose are the clearer distinction (than method, for example).

Religion asks: "how do I relate to the world?" Science asks: "how do I best describe the world?"

To relate to the world, religion assumes it has a nature like ours that we can relate to. Anything that communicates this nature is valued, as "sacred", above all else. The ontology behind relgious discourse is a humane universe: one that understands human desires; when those desires are frustrated by the universe, one that can be negotiated with, as long as we correctly interpret and respect its desires. Different religions arise to reinforce the correctness of their own interpretations of the universe's desires. Faith combats doubt.

Science does not assume a humane universe; and strives not impose any sort of humane interpretation on it, or expect an humane response from it. The scientific method -- measurement, classification, hypothesis, deduction, prediction, experiment, review, induction, etal. -- operates within that context: our individual expectations for how the universe should be completely notwithstanding, how is the universe most usefully described? Not surprisingly, math, as the study of all possible order, works to describe the order we observe in the universe very well, and often even to anticipate it. Competing interpretations are disseminated and the best scientists interrogate all, especially their own (science that fails to do this risks confusion with religion). Doubt combats faith.

Now in a sense, just like religion, science 'negotiates' with the universe, too; but on its terms, not ours: if one wants to alter some event, one seeks to understand what and how other events might alter it, not to appease the mind within or behind the event. Science respects nature, too; but as we observe it to be, not as we would like it to be.

For me, the most basic [philosophical] difference between religion and science is the relation between human being and the universe: religion embeds the universe within humane laws [subjectivity]; science embeds humanity within universal laws [objectivity]. Whereas religion ritualizes our uncertainty about the world, science depends on it.

Anyway, not to derail -- good discussion. :)
 
Last edited:
blobru said:
Science does not assume a humane universe; and strives not impose any sort of humane interpretation on it, or expect an humane response from it.
Click to expand...

On this point I disagree. I do think that science assumes a humane universe, and imposes a humane interpretation on it -- just in a different way than religion. Science assumes a universe that is comprehensible, orderly, and consistent. There's no reason a priori that the universe has to be this way. But just as religion is useless if the universe does not respond to human demands, so science is useless if the universe does not conform to human logic. Both institutions make their assumptions out of necessity, but both assumptions are present.
 
Last edited:
Gawdzilla said:
Beside the obvious fact of scale, do we have the Dean of Harvard telling us to blow up Yale?
Click to expand...

No. Do we have the Archdiocese of Philadelphia telling us to blow up Chicago?
Have we considered the fact that these violent behaviors are a matter of culture rather than religion?
 
Beth said:
Just like those scientists with data that didn't support the Global Warming hypothesis?
Click to expand...
Yes - just like them.
If they have proper data that does not support the global warming hypothesis then there is no reason that they cannot publish that data. All they have to do is pass exactly the same hurdle as any scientific paper - the peer review process.
Even that hurdle can be circumvented. There are publications (such as the trade journal Energy and Environment) where the editorial policy is biased toward peer review that favors their own agendas.
 
Originally Posted by Bill Thompson
From whom or from where do you hear this?




pnerd said:
From creationists; from fundamentalist christians.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

AKA harmless uneduated idiots.

BTW, is politics behind this? I find that the left likes to make themselves feel superior by pointing to the weekest membes of the right.

I am not convinced since the whole left is shown to be wrong. A centralized market always translates to shortages while a free market always translates to abundance. So the response to the left loosing face is for the left to paint the right to be a bunch of wackos while they are only pointing to the lunatic fringe.
 
AvalonXQ said:
No. Do we have the Archdiocese of Philadelphia telling us to blow up Chicago?
Have we considered the fact that these violent behaviors are a matter of culture rather than religion?
Click to expand...

Yes, we have, and history shows us many cultures have done this and more probably will in the future. And the vast majority of it is religiously driven.
 
Gawdzilla said:
Yes, we have, and history shows us many cultures have done this and more probably will in the future. And the vast majority of it is religiously driven.
Click to expand...

Please provide your evidence for the belief that the violence is "religiously", not culturally, driven.
 
I liken the distinction to delivering bad news. Suppose you had to tell someone their spouse had died. You could beat around the bush, stretch things out, and try to soften to blow so to speak; or you could be direct and just tell them. The former approach tries to put on a bit of a happy face whereas the latter does not. It just delivers the message and nothing else. It's crucial to note that the latter is not the opposite of the former. The opposite would be putting on a mean face, telling the person they're a jerk and because of that their spouse killed themselves. The direct approach puts on no face at all. It's neutral. It may seem cold and harsh, but it's not trying to be.

I see the same with religion vs. science. Both attempt to explain the universe around us. But whereas religion seems to put on a happy face and tell us everything will be alright, science does not. Science is (ideally) brutally honest. It does not try to comfort us nor does it try to hurt us. It is neutral.
 
Perpetual Student said:
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.
Click to expand...

I apologise for the straw man. I mistook your tone. Nonetheless, I believe you're still making the mistake of thinking the reason all scientists embrace a certain theory is because all other theories are demonstrated to be impossible. This is not the case.

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.
Click to expand...

I'm sure they do. I'm not sure why you feel compelled to say 'however'. They are not exclusive - I'd hope as a student of the history of science (I find it odd you're not familiar with Lakatos's work as one...but, meh.) you would be open to suggested readings.

Perhaps you should read someone other than Lakatos (Great Physicists by William Cropper may be a good start).
Click to expand...

Another note of arrogance. :rolleyes:

Strange how I suggest you might want to read something discussing the philosophy of science, and you suggest a book of biographies on physicists. Note, I'm sure it's a great read (and I will certainly add it to my list of recommendations), but we're discussing the philosophy of the scientific methodology. I'd receommend reading on people who study that.

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

Let's look at what that means - 'demonstrated to be false'. There are two ways of doing that. One is to observe a phenomenon that is mutually exclusive with the theory. That is Popper's falsification. The other way is to look for observations and find none. That isn't.

A good many theories, such as Darwin's evolution, are accepted because there is a wealth of evidence supporting it, but the observations we'd expect to see with other theories (such as Lamarckianism) aren't present. There is no single observation that we see that contradicts Lamarckianism - there is an absence of supporting evidence.

That is a significant difference. A good number of theories are put to rest under the premise 'if A is right, we should see B. We don't see B, therefore we cannot have confidence in A being right'.

That is not falsification. Falsification is 'If we see B, A cannot logically be right'. It was an attempt to get past the fact that inductively speaking, the absence of an observation is not an absolute.

Athon
 
Michael Mozina said:
Of course it's falsifiable, exactly the same way LCDM is "falsifiable".
Click to expand...
Go on then. How does one falsify "Godidit"?

What are you talking about? My religion "predicts" exactly the same things your "science" predicts and it's "falsifiable" in exactly the same way as your "math cult".
Click to expand...

My "math cult"? What are you talking about? Are you objecting to the fact 1+1 = 2?
 
athon said:
The other way is to look for observations and find none.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't say this demonstrates something to be false, rather it just doesn't support its truth. I see a difference between an idea being wrong and there being no reason to think it's right.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom