Science is not a religion, but some scientists ARE religous about their science

[quarky]

Good scientists, like good theologians, comedians and musicians, seem to lack, or avoid arrogance.

Rather arrogant of me to say, though.
I'm still adjusting to the interwebs.

Being anonymous does afford one a greater degree of rudeness than normally found at a check-out counter in a grocery store.

Crap, I'm off-topic, too.
I better write something good soon.

 

[Zeuzzz]

Theres a good reason why half the people who've posted in this thread are on my ignore list I guess, I was stupid to read them anyway, they were all nearly pointless (contain ad homs or demeaning implications) and exactly what I expected.

 

[Zeuzzz]

No worries quarky, your spot on topic, and spot on the money, as usual.

Im arrogant on certain subjects for sure. But I know what I dont know, and will admit it very openly and freely.

oh yea, my fav proverb applies here i guess!

"The fool doth think he is wise, but the wise man knows himself to be a fool." Shakespeare

 

[paximperium]

Wow. I must read these forums.
You shouldn't have any issue with linking to these threads...do you?

Why no linky?

 

[Zeuzzz]

paximperium
This message is hidden because paximperium is on your ignore list.

This one might work for you which I posted at on the blog space there for the neuroscientists thoughts: http://www.drugs-forum.com/forum/blog.php?b=761

This one too but its $10 to sign up and read some sections http://forums.somethingawful.com/forumdisplay.php?forumid=162

Others are on forums that I dare not post here for fear of another page full of zeuzz is a nutter comments. ok?

If you want to see them so bad then pm me and i'll reply.

 

[paximperium]

paximperium
This message is hidden because paximperium is on your ignore list.

This one might work for you which I posted at on the blog space there for the neuroscientists thoughts: http://www.drugs-forum.com/forum/blog.php?b=761

This one too but its $10 to sign up and read some sections http://forums.somethingawful.com/forumdisplay.php?forumid=162

Others are on forums that I dare not post here for fear of another page full of zeuzz is a nutter comments. ok?

If you want to see them so bad then pm me and i'll reply.

The only other 2 forums I found anything even close is legalhigh and abovetopsecret forums...are those the others?

 

[Zeuzzz]

Nope. Ones an off google vbulletin forum the other is my own forum. Can i link to them? No.

Will I keep ignoring you from now on like i should have from the beggining as you were on my ignore list? yes.

 

[uke2se]

The only other 2 forums I found anything even close is legalhigh and abovetopsecret forums...are those the others?

"Similar science forums"? Two forums dedicated to various recreational drugs, one conspiracy forum and one joke forum? I'm not sure I agree that any of those are "similar science forums".

ETA: Google vbulletin and your own forum? So, still no "similar science forums" then? Why did you lie, Zeuzzz?

 

[Zeuzzz]

"Similar science forums"? Two forums dedicated to various recreational drugs, one conspiracy forum and one joke forum? I'm not sure I agree that any of those are "similar science forums".

ETA: Google vbulletin and your own forum? So, still no "similar science forums" then? Why did you lie, Zeuzzz?

Can you not access the blog section at drugs-forum? That has some of the cleverest academics I have met in cyberspace on it, don't be stereo-typical about the name now. Maybe you need to upgraded to view that section.

Why did I lie? I bent the truth by one number, I had barely given thought to it when I wrote it, exaggerating my case to be taken seriously around here is something I've gotten used to. Which is what self important wind-you-up people like pax do to me. And I hate it. I dont on any other forums where the average users are less arrogantly myopic.

 

[paximperium]

Can you not access the blog section at drugs-forum? That has some of the cleverest academics I have met in cyberspace on it, don't be stereo-typical about the name now. Maybe you need to upgraded to view that section.

Why did I lie? I bent the truth by one number, I had barely given thought to it when I wrote it, exaggerating my case to be taken seriously around here is something I've gotten used to. Which is what self important wind-you-up people like pax do to me. And I hate it. I dont on any other forums where the average users are less arrogantly myopic.

Blaming others for lying?
Yeah, this really belong in the joke and conspiracy theory forums.

 

[GeeMack]

Can you not access the blog section at drugs-forum? That has some of the cleverest academics I have met in cyberspace on it, don't be stereo-typical about the name now. Maybe you need to upgraded to view that section.

Why did I lie? I bent the truth by one number, I had barely given thought to it when I wrote it, exaggerating my case to be taken seriously around here is something I've gotten used to. Which is what self important wind-you-up people like pax do to me. And I hate it. I dont on any other forums where the average users are less arrogantly myopic.

You exaggerate your case to be taken seriously? Does something lead you to believe you're being taken seriously?

 

[uke2se]

Can you not access the blog section at drugs-forum? That has some of the cleverest academics I have met in cyberspace on it, don't be stereo-typical about the name now. Maybe you need to upgraded to view that section.

I don't know. I just gave the forum a passing glance, and it was obviously a forum where you discuss various recreational drugs and use or abuse thereof. If you say there is clever academic discourse in the blog section, I'll take your word for it. Still doesn't make it a science forum though.

Why did I lie? I bent the truth by one number, I had barely given thought to it when I wrote it, exaggerating my case to be taken seriously around here is something I've gotten used to. Which is what self important wind-you-up people like pax do to me. And I hate it. I dont on any other forums where the average users are less arrogantly myopic.

My guess is that these little exaggerations aren't doing you any favors when it comes to being taken seriously around here. This is especially true as you try to propose woo as science. Woo peddlers are prone to lying, but as I have little experience with you, I won't go as far as accusing you of lying all the time. I'm just advising you to take effort not to let small insignificant lies slip through, as those only serve to cast doubt on your entire character. If you're going to lie, lie big and make sure nobody can call you on it.

 

[Reality Check]

And people mentioning straw mans or a stereotyped "scientist" need to pay special attention to the word "hypothetical".

if this is reference to

• the opening post includes a straw man type argument where he creates a hypothetical stereotyped "scientist" from what looks like his own (mis)conceptions about them.

then being "hypothetical" does not prevent your scientist from being sterotyped - the two are not mutually exclusive.

The "straw man type argument" came about because you then started to talk about real scientists rather than your hypothetical stereotyped scientist. But in hindsight that is not the definition of any type of straw man. You are just ignoring your OP when you quote from real scientists rather than talking about your hypothetical religious scientist.

You are correct: The hypothetical religious scientist in the OP is hardly a scientist at all. That person has lost the ability to follow the scientific method and throw away theories if the evidence is against it.
The only point I would raise is the misleading use of the word "religious". The scientist is better described as invested in his theory rather than clinging to it for on religious grounds. For example, Fred Hoyle did not keep believing in the Steady State Theory after it was shown to be incorrect for any religious reasons but because he had a large investment in it.

I do not know why you derailed into real scientists talking about science using religious similes and metaphors when that has nothing to do with the OP. But we can ignore that as a temporary aberration .

 

[Zeuzzz]

If you're going to lie, lie big and make sure nobody can call you on it.

k points well taken. Guess that I'll just finish this post, dust off my nobel prize, and call it a night.

 

[Zeuzzz]

Doh! Forgot about the "make sure no body can call you on it" bit I'm still **** at lying I guess. Why I avoid it.

I don't know. I just gave the forum a passing glance, and it was obviously a forum where you discuss various recreational drugs and use or abuse thereof. If you say there is clever academic discourse in the blog section, I'll take your word for it. Still doesn't make it a science forum though.

Appreciated, but in the circles I associate with, it may as well be a science forum with a focus on pharmacology, biology, neuroscience and consciousness.

Without spamming with a huge wall of text heres the first comment:

http://www.drugs-forum.com/forum/blog.php?bt=2736

your comments remind me of an argument Alexander Shulgin makes in TiHKAL (it may have been PiHKAL) concerning the zealotry with which some scientists defend their beliefs. He discusses the big bang in particular as an example of this scientific 'faith'.

Our understanding of the world is based on flawed perception which we use to create flawed models of thinking. It's unavoidable and we must all be skeptics of ourselves to be devote followers of the scientific method. When someone shows me credible evidence that I'm incorrect, I try to use it as a learning experience rather than allow any emotional attachment to my beliefs to hinder my own intellectual development.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

k points well taken. Guess that I'll just finish this post, dust off my nobel prize, and call it a night.

Wait to get your degree first.

 

[Complexity]

I give up on this forum.

I hope by 'this forum' you mean all of the JREF forums.

You hope too much complexity.

<snipped for irrelevance>

Im done.

Well, then, at least you've decided not to post any more in the Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology forum.

It has been obvious to me for some time that your posts don't belong in this forum, since they have nothing to do with science, mathematics, medicine, or technology.

I had thought that you might try out your posts in some other forum - perhaps one involving religion or humor.

It may be best, however, that you've decided that you're done.

 

[Zeuzzz]

That post has completely thrown me as I cant find the usual comment you always seem to have to add to invoke an emotive knee-jerk reply from someone. Maybe a while off ignore is in order, just while I recover from the shock and get some shut-eye.

 

[Tubbythin]

And also detrimental to the science itself no doubt, as for example the person who said "It really is like finding the driving mechanism for the universe, and isn't that what God is?" has created a religous/spiritual attatchment to his findings. So when they are proved wrong in a few years, either from analysis or new data, hes going to want to keep his special findings in the limelight for as long as possible. Even though its now wrong. Thus he is pushing bad science for religous reasons.

You see, this is the problem with quote mining. From reading that tiny little passage I seem to have the opposite opinion of what the quotee is trying to say. To me, he's saying something more along the lines of "who needs God and religion when science can tell you all this incredible stuff?"

 

[macdoc]

The OP strays in the concept.

Had the topic indicated "dogmatic adherence" which some scientists share with most theists then it's a reasonably defendable observation.

As the OP stands....dog's breakfast. :garfield"