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

[Perpetual Student]

Wegener certainly proves that the scientific process works. As do all the failed theories, like the "hollow Earth", or phlogiston.

Well said.

 

[mike3]

Tell them "If it were a religion, scientists would all be trying to bugger young boys like ministers do."

Not all religious people are pedophiles.

 

[AvalonXQ]

Not all religious people are pedophiles.

Evidence?

 

[Perpetual Student]

Regarding the OP, the distinguishing characteristic of any science is that it is evidence based. As such, new and/or better evidence is a constant factor and leads to change. Religion has little regard for evidence and is based on blind acceptance in the absence of evidence and consequently resists change.

 

[athon]

Regarding the OP, the distinguishing characteristic of any science is that it is evidence based. As such, new and/or better evidence is a constant factor and leads to change. Religion has little regard for evidence and is based on blind acceptance in the absence of evidence and consequently resists change.

While I get your point, I disagree with your use of 'evidence based'. Religion relies on evidence as well (when evidence is defined as an observation that increases or decreases your confidence in a belief). The core difference between the two is the set of values by which evidence is evaluated.

Let me put it it to you this way - if you ask a religious person what evidence there is for God, they'll point out the beauty of the world (for example). Indeed, that observation increased their confidence in their belief. The difference is the way they evaluated that observation relied on religious values (faith, defending a priori beliefs, lack of critical thinking, appeal to popularity etc.) rather than scientific ones (logic, internal consistency, reason, critical thinking).

It might seem pedantic, but it makes a big difference in studying the culture of science and religion and understanding and communicating their key differences.

Athon

 

[Perpetual Student]

While I get your point, I disagree with your use of 'evidence based'. Religion relies on evidence as well (when evidence is defined as an observation that increases or decreases your confidence in a belief). The core difference between the two is the set of values by which evidence is evaluated.

Let me put it it to you this way - if you ask a religious person what evidence there is for God, they'll point out the beauty of the world (for example). Indeed, that observation increased their confidence in their belief. The difference is the way they evaluated that observation relied on religious values (faith, defending a priori beliefs, lack of critical thinking, appeal to popularity etc.) rather than scientific ones (logic, internal consistency, reason, critical thinking).

It might seem pedantic, but it makes a big difference in studying the culture of science and religion and understanding and communicating their key differences.

Athon

Good points! I'll need to think about this some more.

 

[Perpetual Student]

While I get your point, I disagree with your use of 'evidence based'. Religion relies on evidence as well (when evidence is defined as an observation that increases or decreases your confidence in a belief). The core difference between the two is the set of values by which evidence is evaluated.

Let me put it it to you this way - if you ask a religious person what evidence there is for God, they'll point out the beauty of the world (for example). Indeed, that observation increased their confidence in their belief. The difference is the way they evaluated that observation relied on religious values (faith, defending a priori beliefs, lack of critical thinking, appeal to popularity etc.) rather than scientific ones (logic, internal consistency, reason, critical thinking).

It might seem pedantic, but it makes a big difference in studying the culture of science and religion and understanding and communicating their key differences.

Athon

I have reflected on the above further. While you appear to make an interesting argument, I can't agree that religion relies on evidence in any meaningful way. "The beauty if the world" is not evidence; it is merely a subjective and emotional characterization. Playing semantic games with the word "evidence" obscures the logic of my point that science is evidence based and religion is not. Your statement is not only pedantic -- it is plainly wrong. You say that that the difference is in the way they evaluate an observation (using faith or appeal to popularity, for example). That has absolutely nothing to do with evidence; claiming so is simply a misuse of the word "evidence." How is faith evidence? How is popularity evidence? I am using the word "evidence" in the way it is used by scientists, not by mystics.
It is an old and tired debating trick to alter and twist the accepted meaning of a word to obscure an argument -- but such tactics do not hold up to logical scrutiny. Science is clearly evidence based -- evidence has been the essence of science from a time before Archimedes. Religion and superstition have always been based on non-critical acceptance of whatever claim or system is the accepted dogma.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I have reflected on the above further. While you appear to make an interesting argument, I can't agree that religion relies on evidence in any meaningful way. "The beauty if the world" is not evidence; it is merely a subjective and emotional characterization. Playing semantic games with the word "evidence" obscures the logic of my point that science is evidence based and religion is not. Your statement is not only pedantic -- it is plainly wrong. You say that that the difference is in the way they evaluate an observation (using faith or appeal to popularity, for example). That has absolutely nothing to do with evidence; claiming so is simply a misuse of the word "evidence." How is faith evidence? How is popularity evidence? I am using the word "evidence" in the way it is used by scientists, not by mystics.
It is an old and tired debating trick to alter and twist the accepted meaning of a word to obscure an argument -- but such tactics do not hold up to logical scrutiny. Science is clearly evidence based -- evidence has been the essence of science from a time before Archimedes. Religion and superstition have always been based on non-critical acceptance of whatever claim or system is the accepted dogma.

But Athon simply redefined "evidence" for convenience, making it basically mean what ever was good for the argument, not worrying about whether it had an relationship to the premise under discussion. As Humpty Dumpty said, "When I use a word it has the meaning I intend it to have, no more, no less."

 

[Perpetual Student]

But Athon simply redefined "evidence" for convenience, making it basically mean what ever was good for the argument, not worrying about whether it had an relationship to the premise under discussion. As Humpty Dumpty said, "When I use a word it has the meaning I intend it to have, no more, no less."

Obviously, but that renders his comment devoid of meaning. We can only communicate in a meaningful way if we agree on the meaning of our words. When I say science is evidence based, I am using the word evidence in its conventional sense, as used by scientists. Any other use of the word "evidence" (as in appealing to popularity), is meaningless.

I can say the sky is green by redefining the word "green." But what does that mean? -- absolutely nothing! It's an empty argument.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Obviously, but that renders his comment devoid of meaning.

My point exactly.

 

[tsig]

Obviously, but that renders his comment devoid of meaning. We can only communicate in a meaningful way if we agree on the meaning of our words. When I say science is evidence based, I am using the word evidence in its conventional sense, as used by scientists. Any other use of the word "evidence" (as in appealing to popularity), is meaningless.

I can say the sky is green by redefining the word "green." But what does that mean? -- absolutely nothing! It's an empty argument.

As is the whole "science is religion" argument.

It usually involves finessing the word "belief" which can mean "I know or I think" or "to have faith in". As in:

"You believe in your science like I believe in my god".

By using the same word with two different meanings a false equality is established that is then exploited to the fullest.

 

[pnerd]

"You believe in your science like I believe in my god".

By using the same word with two different meanings a false equality is established that is then exploited to the fullest.

.
Exactly. I mean that's exactly what they do.

 

[athon]

While I thank you for taking the time to think about it, I must admit I was hoping for something a little better reasoned than this. You know I'm not beyond changing my mind on being shown wrong, and would do if this made sense.

You say that that the difference is in the way they evaluate an observation (using faith or appeal to popularity, for example). That has absolutely nothing to do with evidence; claiming so is simply a misuse of the word "evidence." How is faith evidence? How is popularity evidence? I am using the word "evidence" in the way it is used by scientists, not by mystics.

I'm trying to determine precisely what sort of fallacy best suits this explanation. The closest I figure is a 'no true Scotsman'. You've argued that evidence cannot be used in such a context as you're meaning it in a specific way that only scientists use it, and not 'mystics', hence defining science by the use of evidence. And around we go.

Evidence deals with observations. It cannot and does not state which observations are valid, only that it need be a quality or quantity of the world you sense. What makes it evidence and not just an observation is that it is associated with a cause. Again, there cannot logically be anything in the meaning of the word to determine what that cause is.

You're correct in that scientists load the word with values, based on the fact that science is a methodology for evaluating evidence. But you can't escape logical (or communication) problems when you start to define evidence only as scientific.

It is an old and tired debating trick to alter and twist the accepted meaning of a word to obscure an argument -- but such tactics do not hold up to logical scrutiny.

Ironically, you've just shown the opposite - that it is illogical to define science by evidence, as evidence can only mean that which is used by scientists. It becomes a circular argument, no different to 'the bible is right because the bible tells me so'.

Secondly, why would I want to 'obscure the argument'? I agree that there is a difference between religion and science - it is just in the determination of what constitutes evidence rather than the meaning of the word itself.

Athon

 

[athon]

As is the whole "science is religion" argument.

It usually involves finessing the word "belief" which can mean "I know or I think" or "to have faith in". As in:

"You believe in your science like I believe in my god".

By using the same word with two different meanings a false equality is established that is then exploited to the fullest.

Unfortunately you're getting upset over the wrong abuse.

There's nothing wrong with using belief in both contexts. The problem in that sentence is that while both are beliefs, they weren't formed in the same way. Two different forms of methodology were used - one demonstrably useful and the other not.

Athon

 

[athon]

Obviously, but that renders his comment devoid of meaning. We can only communicate in a meaningful way if we agree on the meaning of our words. When I say science is evidence based, I am using the word evidence in its conventional sense, as used by scientists. Any other use of the word "evidence" (as in appealing to popularity), is meaningless.

What rubbish. The bolded part is trying to have it both ways - as if the conventional sense is the only sense. Yet you can only then define it as science.

As for defining it so it is meaningless, out of the two of us I was the only one to provide a rather clear and definite meaning. Yes, it is subjective, but there is nothing objective about the word. THAT is the demarcation problem, and why scientific debate occurs. Because evidence is personal. Science formed over the centuries to provide a set of values in an attempt to sort which opinions on evidence were useful and which weren't.

If you could point out how evidence can be defined without resorting to circular reasoning, we might have something solid to discuss and I might have reason to change my view.

Athon

 

[Perpetual Student]

If you could point out how evidence can be defined without resorting to circular reasoning, we might have something solid to discuss and I might have reason to change my view.

Athon

When a Cirbesterian belches he thinks it is evidence of the almighty Cirbest.
Note that he simply asserts it is evidence.
When Boyle said pV = k, he did not merely assert it -- he demonstrated it.
Both used the word "evidence" about gas. The distinction between these two usages should be quite clear. The way in which the Cirbesterian uses the word evidence is not precise since belching could be evidence for muffin fairies or any other imagined agent.
Boyle's evidence is designed to persuade; is uses demonstrable facts and logic, not imagined associations or meaningless muttering.
I say that the Cerbsterians use of the word "evidence" is erroneous.
Not unlike the error in using the word "green" in saying the sky is green by redefining the word green to mean blue.
This problem you have with the meaning of the word "evidence" is evidence of your fuzzy thinking!

 

[tsig]

Unfortunately you're getting upset over the wrong abuse.

There's nothing wrong with using belief in both contexts. The problem in that sentence is that while both are beliefs, they weren't formed in the same way. Two different forms of methodology were used - one demonstrably useful and the other not.

Athon

It's not two contexts but two meanings and you just did it in your third sentence.

 

[tsig]

What rubbish. The bolded part is trying to have it both ways - as if the conventional sense is the only sense.
Athon

Both ways/only way. You don't notice a contradiction here?

 

[athon]

It's not two contexts but two meanings and you just did it in your third sentence.

Sorry, I really don't understand what you're meaning here.

Both ways/only way. You don't notice a contradiction here?

No.

Look, honestly, if you have something critical to say, I'm all ears. I might not agree with PS, but I really am grateful for his effort (even if it is slightly smug and condescending) to outline in detail his problems with my reasoning. I'm finding your input to be chips in from the peanut gallery frustrating because they're little more than one sentence murmurs of dissent.

By all means, dig in. But make an effort of it or keep it to yourself, because it's not serving to really show anybody where my reasoning is falty.

Athon

 

[athon]

When a Cirbesterian belches he thinks it is evidence of the almighty Cirbest.
Note that he simply asserts it is evidence.

I'm not sure how anybody could define an observation as evidence if not by assertion. It can be evaluated by others according to values or criteria, sure. And those values can be shared by a group. But evidence is an assertion.

Let me put it another way - a scientist feels the results of experiment X is evidence for hypothesis Y. A colleague believes it isn't because the first scientist didn't account for a variable. The first scientist disagrees. They cannot come to an agreement. We come across this sort of thing all the time in science - one person asserts an observation is evidence. They state this because the observation gives them confidence in a belief. The second won't call it evidence because it doesn't give them confidence in said belief - the experiment lacked enough rigour in his mind.

There is no objective standard to determine whether it is or is not evidence. It is up to their agreed values on how to evaluate the observation and determine it to be 'evidence'.

When Boyle said pV = k, he did not merely assert it -- he demonstrated it.

Hence for you, an observation is only evidence if it can be demonstrated in a laboratory, right? I can't say youre wrong, but you know as well as I that there have been plenty of situations throughout history where evidence came about distinct from a laboratory demonstration. There is no distinct, dark line that objectively determines science from non-science, nor evidence from non-evidence. Many try to claim using anything from falsification to laboratory replication solves the demarcation problem, and yet there is always something that is commonly accepted as scientific that doesn't subscribe to it.

Both used the word "evidence" about gas. The distinction between these two usages should be quite clear. The way in which the Cirbesterian uses the word evidence is not precise since belching could be evidence for muffin fairies or any other imagined agent.

You use 'precise' as if it should be a dichotomy. It isn't.

Boyle's evidence is designed to persuade; is uses demonstrable facts and logic, not imagined associations or meaningless muttering.
I say that the Cerbsterians use of the word "evidence" is erroneous.

You'll get no argument from me which is more useful as evidence. However, your entire argument itself amounts to mere assertions and arm flapping. It's still not logical, nor helpful in communicating the differences between religion and science.

This problem you have with the meaning of the word "evidence" is evidence of your fuzzy thinking!

Aaah...I see what you did there...

Actually, I came to this conclusion after having too many discussions where I merely repeated the same old 'skeptics use evidence' canard and getting caught up in fallacious reasoning in the face of creationist nonsense. In other words, using the same reasoning you did, only realising it was indeed illogical and unable to be supported reasonably without resorting to the same blind assertions and circular reasoning.

To be honest, I was desperately hoping you might have something that would allow me to again adopt the 'science uses evidence' line while avoiding illogical reasoning. It would be much simpler, I agree. But unless I've missed something crucial in your argument, it still sounds a flawed as it did when I used it.

Athon